Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReport 02T All3/\V·09·008·l WO)"il.laAe"MMM I I I Rebecca Evers 706 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055 Henrv Cooks 712 S 50th St Renton. WA 98055 Nancv Osborn 4635 Morris Ave S, #F Renton, WA 98055 Steve Yantorni 718 S 47th St Renton. WA 98055 John Sperber 735 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055-6272 LUE PESTL 4726 BURNED Ct S RENTON, WA 98055-7328 Carl Anderson 4 706 Snowgrass Dr Olympia, WA 98516 Darshan Malhi 4712 Burnett Ct S Renton, WA 98055-7328 John Basinger 1441 N 34th St Seattle. WA 98103 Thu Bui 4709 Burnett Ct S Renton, WA 98055-7328 ! @09lS @All:11\V @ f )wdn-dod pJoqa.1 a1 Jali}A<,1.1 I ap UJJe aampeq e1 ~ za,1da1::1 Tasnim Khalil 1003 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055-7325 Philip Davis 4767 Whitworth Pl S, LlOl Renton, WA 98055 Annie Lee 867 S 48th St Renton, WA 98055-7337 Chinh Pham 4703 Burnett Ct S Renton, WA 98055-7328 Kolin Tavlor KBS 111, LLC 12320 NE 8th St, #100 Bellevue, WA 98005 Ellen Breiten 4612 MORRIS Ave S RENTON, WA 98056-6373 William & Stephanie Struyk 4707 Smithers Ave S Renton, WA 98055-6399 Michael & Brittnee Martinez 901 S 48th St Renton, WA 98055-7338 Janet Alabado 911 S 47th St Renton, WA 9805S-7319 Pak Ming Chiu 902 S 48th St Renton, WA 98055-7338 :a.uawa6.1e4J ap suas T f' w.1a6p3 dn-dod asodxa : o:a. aun 6uo1e puaa -.1adedpaa:1 I -... r I I I @091S @All3/\II weqe6 a1 zas,11m ,a1ad ~ sa1pe; sa~anb1+~ Gloria Hunter 4727 Burnett Ct S Renton, WA 98055-7328 Brent Carson Van Ness Feldmen 719 Second Ave, Suite 1150 Seattle. WA 98092 Jamie Waltier Harbour Homes, LLC 1441 N 34th St, 200 Seattle, WA 98103 Ron Hansen 4717 Smithers Aves Renton. WA 98055 David Rasmussen Sundance at Talbot Ridge -HOA 723 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055-6272 Jason Murray Mosaic Homes 2505 3rd Ave, Ste. 300 Seattle, WA 98121 Henry Cooks 712 S 50th St Renton, WA 98055-6342 Borgata Apartments & Town homes 2505 3rd Ave S, #300 Seattle, WA 98121 Phong Tran 1011 S 48th St Renton, WA 98055-7352 Eric & Cheryl Hanson 4711 Smithers Ave S Renton, WA 98055-6399 T All31\1f·0!>·008·l WO)'AlaAe'MMM ' ' ' Sandeep Mangla 724 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055 Roger Jaques 4762 Whitworth Pl S Renton. WA 98055-8359 Johnnv Cheng 4739 Burnett Ct S Renton, WA 98055-7328 Ginnv Knox 4901 Morris Ave S, #SS202 Renton. WA 98055-8398 Owen Reese 342162nd Ave SW Seattle. WA 98116 Jim Condelles 855 S 48th St Renton. WA 98055 ! @0915 @AU:IAV @ r )wdn-dOd pJOqaJ a1 Jal~J\~J I ap U!Je a.mtpe4 e1 ~ za11da11 Ellen Breiten 4612 MORRIS Ave S RENTON, WA 98056-6373 Phillip Davis 4767 Whitworth Pl S Renton, WA 98055-8355 Ltanva Terrell Jones 5527 Charlotte Ave SE Auburn. WA 98092 Maher Joudi D.R. Strong Consulting Eng. 620 7th Ave Kirkland, WA 98033 Joseph & Martha Mackenzie 4835 Main Ave S Renton, WA 98055-6309 Pawandeep & Kuldeep Natt 866 S 48th St Renton. WA 98055-7337 f w.1a6p3 dn-dOd asodxa ! 01 8U!I 6uo1e puae ' :i,uawa6Je4:> ap suas .., ( ' ' ' @09l5 @All3111t l!Jeqefi •I zaso1•1n ,a1ad ~ sa1peJ. sananb11~ Sanh & Chi Le 903 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055-7319 Tammv & Travis Martinez 4619 Morris Ave S Renton. WA 98055 Schneider Homes I LLC 6510 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 1 Tukwila, WA 98188 Hanh Tran 861 S 48th St Renton, WA 98055-7337 Roger Banks 4763 Morris Ave S Renton. WA 98055-6374 William & Lvnn Sebring 4706 Burnett Ct 5 Renton, WA 98055-7328 r ' ' ' @09~5 a1e1dwa1 @!..JaA"f asn { 'x s1aqe, @l••d Ase3 Denis Law Mayor September 19, 2016 Jamie Waltier Harbour Homes Community & Economic Development C. E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator 1441 N 34th Street #200 Seattle, WA 98103 SUBJECT: Surety Device Amount Vuecrest Estates Plat and Vuecrest II Short Plat City of Renton File Nos. lUAB-000642 and LUA15-000026 Dear Mr. Waltier: Based on the two (2) contracts (attached) that I received for the Final Mitigation Plan for Vuecrest Estates Plat and Vuecrest II Short Plat, the total amount of your surety device is $24,814.81. The specific breakdown is as follows: Maintenance/ Monitoring Planting/ Replacement/ Restoration TOTAL @125% $7,500.00 $12,351.85 $19,851.85 $24,814.81 This amount is deemed sufficient to guarantee that structures, improvements, and mitigation required by permit condition will penform satisfactorily for a minimum of five (5) years after they have been completed. Please come to the 6th Floor of Renton City Hall to pay the surety device, and as a reminder, the City of Renton does not accept bonds. Thank you for your diligent work in providing a final mitigation plan for these two projects. Once I have received a receipt for the surety device, I will issue a letter signaling the start of your five- year monitoring program. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at (425) 430- 7289 or cclose@rentonwa.gov. Sincerely, Clark H. Close Senior Planner Enclosures cc: Chris Burrus/ Harbour Homes City of Renton File Nos. LUAB-000642 and LUAlS-000026 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • rentonwa.gov ! Wetlt111d Resources, /;/c. I -··-· --. ·---· ··-·· ·····-·--------. . f I. DofnealJon / MiU;ailon I Rea;orallon I Hab/lat Croatton / Pam-it Assistance August 31, 2016 Harbour Homes by Geonerco Attn. Jamie WaltJer 4-00 N 34'1 Street, #300 Seattle, WA 98103 Re: Proposal for Critical Area Services -Vuecrest I and II 9505 191h Avenue S.E. Suite 106 Everett, Washington 98208 (425) 337-3174 Fax (425) 337-3045 Wetland Resources, Inc. agrees to the following scope of work for the 11.76-acre site located at and adjacent to 4909 Main Avenue S (aka 102"' Avenue SE) in the city of Renton, WA. The site is located as a portion of Sections 31 and 32, Township 23N, Range SE, W.M. Scope of Work Task l $ 1,500.00 a. Conduct an As-Built site inspection b. Prepare an As-Built Report Task 2 $ 7,500.00 a. Perform quarterly monitoring site visits for Year I, and prepare a Monitoring Report for each visit. b. Perform annual monitoring site visits for Y cars 2-5, and prepare a Monitoring Report for each visit. Fees Wetland Resources, lnc. charges $140.00 per hour for a Principal Ecologist, $120.00 per hour for a Senior Ecologist and$] 10.00 per hour for an Associate Ecologist. We estimate the total cost related to ilie aforementioned scope of services to be $9,000.00. We will not exceed this estimate without prior npproval. The Monitoring Report will describe the monitoring results related to plant vigor, survival, areal coverage, invasive species, hydrology, and wildlife usage. The above scope of work does not include contingency meetings. ff additional services are deemed necessary, another proposal will be drafted. If additional services arc deemed necessary, another proposal will be drafted. Payment Terms Progress invoices are mailed monthly with net payment due within 3() days of receipt. We will supply you with a draft copy of the report for your review and comments along with a final invoice. Reports will not be finalized or signed until full payment of any balance due has been collected. [nterest will be charged on accounts thirty days past due at the rate of 1.5% per month for the unpaid balance. In the event this account is sent to collections, the client will pay reasonable attorney fees and cost of collection, whether or not a lawsuit is commenced. The work considered for this proposal will conform to rhc prevailing :;tanclard of care employed hy wctl;1r1<l ecologists in \Vashington. No other t ' },A. Estimate P n 8m 207 Ac1burr. 'HA 'J.S,~:'1 ;, c,1 3 ~3. ;;4; ;· ,·,!/,r;; )S3 _\ 1:. 8:-w ~_.,~ .,,,·,.,,~(<·.1p!if'r.~sw, li};~.~;;_;-;·;:~i-;~;1~;,-il kd ·1 oi-----~~--·11;IOJt'~I: 1 1\Jue~rest I & JI M~ .. ~_igatioH ___ _ -----+r-,.-,t-,,-, 'Tt•rm,: ---- -----=9.16,2016 \ Net lf.:_lt:::hc_ __ 'E-;!(m;\lor: l l!.~~. r h O l~' ~Homes l<;tn•(>\ IL':;_"_'_'' _____ _ tn·vor Dance -----'-- l)e,;n !pllOIL !i i'ric,• to.mstall mitig,1tion plaHtmgs illHI rcpla~ement trees' pet plan by \Vetland Resources,datedOB/2016._ wni ,\ND PLANTINGS .. ,. ' Mati:-rials (lnstaHed) Cost (!nrtal!edJ Qu;;intity Unit Total HydrcseF!d (b;ir-e areas o! riufler cv::kliticn) so 22 .1B7J SF .5866 68 hne-Bark Mu!ch (6" dc;:::tnl $67.26 27 CY Si.815.07 Shrubs flnstalkd) Slzi: Cost (lnstalle.d) Quantity Unit rota! VVestern Rec Ceuar 2 921 $25.14 17 EA 3421.41 Red Alder 2 gal $25.14 17 EA $427.41 Snowborry Z gal $25.14 20 EA $502.83 lndiar, Plum z ga,! $25.14 20 EA $502.83 Blad; Twinberry 2 gal $25.14 20 EA $502.83 :J0:q1cr:berry 2 gal $25,14 22 EA $553.12 !:k1ldh1p ruse 2 gal :$?5.14 ?l EA $527.98 Sub Total: $6,127.36 REPLACEMENT TREES Materinls (Instalkd} Coit (Jnstalrvd) Qi.l.:mtity llnft Tota! Fine Batk Mlilch t6" depth) S67.26 2 CY S~OD 89 Tree St2k.es (2 [ct-Jr Tmc} $5.95 48 EA $265.60 Trees (Installed) I Sl:w Cc.Jst {Installed) Quantity Urut Total \Nestem Red Cedar I ]' cal ::i:243 25 24 CA :55.838.00 Sub Total: $6,224.49 !Grand Total: $12,351,85 *"""Price does not Jndude Woshfngton State Sates Tax*·0 t.l ~1or'.\11,1mhip I~ l'.l.l«ran'.\:ed agaln~t drf<'rl1 rn w0:k1•1,m~i;ip k,: :l pc-r1(;d ,_,1 :•O d;.ys from !"f' d;itr. of w t.1 llcti,:,n_ S.;11,::,r ·,•;i·· flQt be r~;1-1or,,,!,k' 1:1r ;:i~c,.,1, ,nc 1oen1,1· ot coT-.sequem!,I daom.iges. St>fler !l1J1; not be rrjiJ(lfl'itb!I:' /or {i-1rnagP to Its work by oL'H.•r parties or for lmJ)fo~r c.m~ of mater!.al, nwrn ~hall be no tm:i of this i>st!rnate, reHance upon ll, or !J~ i11 I! rillMr,e._,t r..an.ner; 1.1d1 <H dl~clc11Jr" ol \hli rnr./fdentl~l document<lllon to a comptlfng th!rdp.i1ty, •Jvy,:1 ~/!.;ill lurnish ~l!'!lt-r wit!", Job re-.:idy wo,t i!t~1 ~11ch ,.15 !IM! iradlr,i(. proper dralrl.el{l!', (Qr!(fl!\P, ijl:11t"t-S, dOWl'l\pouU, µ.ilntlng (Otnpieled, and debrts _5ignature G=.EL:cc.R:::EP:_::_ __ _ Date: f'-lotes: tlo !rrl.gnt!on 11. pro~ for thk PQr?lon of WOf1( Ohrob ~ire, IH'l! 11n1J~ at 1i!l'll!on ilrr-::e rio !-Ue1 are ~cifi-ttl on pi"n., Prit.e d0(!1 not indud!!: de11rint, /~rx:Jng, or ~:{TI-l!ll'.! i'Ht~ t!o,n n<JI :n<h,da ~m~I of no1tt1-,a ~lu o-rlut to u:imm>!-naMnt or \11/"00'., Jamie Waltier Page 2 of2 January 25, 2016 • sufficient evidence to amend the original decision, there will be no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action must file a formal appeal within the 14-day appeal timeframe. If you have any further questions, please call me at (425) 430-7289. f:r1~~{)~ ~Clark H. Close Senior Planner Enclosure cc: Schnelder Homes/ Owner{s) Maher Joudi / Applicant/Contact Rebecca Evers, Tasnlm Khalil, Gloria Hunter, Henry Cooks 1 Philip Davis, Brent Carson, Nancy Osbcrn 1 Annie Lee, Steve Yantornl, Chinh Pham, Ron Hansen, John Sperber, Kolin Taylor, David Rasmussen, Lue Pestl, Ellen Breiten, Jason Murray, Carl Anderson, William & Stephanie Struyk, Henry Cooks, Darshan Malhi, Michael & Brittnee Martinez, Borgata Apartment & Townhomes, John Basinger, Janet Alabado, Phong Tran, Thu Bui, Pak Ming Chiu, Eric & Cheryl Hanson, Dandeep Mangla, Ellen Breiten, Sanh & Bhl Le, Roger Jaques, Phillip Davis, Tammy & Travis Martinez, Johnny Chen 1 Ltanya Terrell Jones, Ginny Knox Hanh Tran, Owen Reese, Joseph & Martha Mackenzie, Roger Banks, Jim Condelles, Pawandeep & Kuldeep Natt, Willlam & Lynn Sebring/ Partylles) of Record Minor Amendment Report.Decision_Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat_ 13-000642 • Denis Law C' f _ _:Mayo:...r ------1 {t:1.1-t LJJ.l January 25, 2016 Jamie Waltier Harbour Hornes 1441 N 34th St, Ste 200 Seattle, WA 98103 Community & Economic Development Department C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: NOTICE OF MINOR AMENDEMENT REPORT AND DECISION Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat Amendment, LUAU-000642, Minor Amendment Dear Mr Waltier; This letter is written on behalf of the City of Renton's Planning Department to advise you that they have completed their review of the subject project and have issued a Minor Amendent Report and Decision. A copy of the Minor Amendment Report and Decision is immediately available: • Electronically on line at the City of Renton website (www.rentonwa.gov/business), under Current Land Use Applications. or, • Can be viewed at the Planning Department on the 6th floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, between 8:30 am and 4:00 pm. Ask for the project file by the project number LUA13-000642, M-A or, • For purchase at a copying charge of $0.15 per page. The estimated cost for the Administrative Report and Decision is $5.25, plus a handling and postage cost of $2.00 (this cost is subject to change if documents are added) Appeals of the administrative decision must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on February 8, 2016, together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. Reconsideration: within 14 days of the decision date, any party may request that a decision be reopened by the Administrator (Decision-maker). The Administrator (Decision-maker) may modify his decision if material evidence not readily discoverable prior to the original decision is found or if he finds there was misrepresentation of fact. After review of the reconsideration request, if the Administrator (Decision-maker) finds Renton City Hall , 1055 South Grady Way , Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT --------Kenton 0 MINOR AMENDMENT OF AN APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAT EVALUATION FORM & DECISION A. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT & DECISION DECISION: REPORT DATE: Project Name: Owner: Applicant: Contact: File Number: Project Manager: Project Summary: Project Location: Site Area: 0APPROVAL ~ APPROVAL SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS D DENIAL January 25, 2016 Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat Amendment Schneider Homes I LLC, 6510 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 1, Tukwila WA 98188 Jamie Waltier, Harbour Homes, 1441 N 34th St, Suite 200, Seattle WA 98103 Maher Joudi, DR Strong Consulting Engineers Inc., 620 7th Ave, Kirkland WA 98033 LUAB-000642, Minor Amendment Clark H. Close, Senior Planner The project proponent is requesting a minor amendment to the layout of the approved Vuecrest Estates 20-lot subdivision. The 9.31-acre site is located at the 4800 Block of Smithers Ave 5 (APN 3123059048) and contains three land use zones, Residential-1 dwelling unit per net acre (du/ac}, Residential-8 (8 du/ac) and Residential-14 (14 du/oc). Development of the site falls solely within the R-8 zone. The net density would result in 4.08 du/oc and the lots would range in size from 4,500 SF to 6,653 SF. In addition to the 20 Jots, six {6} tracts have been proposed for storm drainage, sensitive areas and tree retention (Tracts A-F). A secondary access is proposed to be constructed from Smithers Ave 5 directly to the east to connect with Main Ave S (102nd Ave SE}, via the approved Vuecrest II Short Plat (LUA15-000026}, to provide for safe and effective secondary access for fire trucks and emergency vehicles as determined by the City of Renton Fire Department. In addition, the applicant is proposing two 201oot wide east/west public roads to provide access to four Jots each. Approximately 40,453 SF of site would be dedicated for public streets to serve the new lots. The applicant is also requesting critical areas buffer averaging. The stormwater facility would be sized to accommodate runoff from both Vuecrest Estates (LUA13-000642) and Vuecrest II Short Plat (LUA15-000026). The applicant indicates that approximately 16,105 cubic yards of material would be cut onsite and approximately 5,719 cubic yards offi/1 would be required for the construction of required plat improvements and new single family residences. There are about 395 significant trees on the site and the applicant is proposing to retain 44 trees original trees within the developable portion of the site. 4800 Block Smithers Ave S; Renton WA 98055 405,398 sf (9.31 acres) Minor Amendment Report LUA13-000642 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development VUECREST ESTATES PRELIMINARY PLAT MINOR AMENDMENT Report Date: January 25, 2016 Project Location Mop: II B. EXHIBITS: Exhibit 1: Minor Amendment Staff Report Exhibit 2: Revised Plat Plan Exhibit 3: Tree Cutting/ Land Clearing Plan Exhibit 4: Landscape Plan Exhibit 5: Road and Grading Plan Exhibit 6: Final Mitigation Plan minor Amendment Report & Decision WA13-000642 Page 2 of 16 Exhibit 7: Environmental Committee Review Report, Revised (dated August 18, 2014) Exhibit 8: Settlement Agreement (dated March 19, 2015) Exhibit 9: Hearing Examiner Final Decision (dated October 3, 2014) Exhibit 10: Advisory Notes to Applicant C. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: 1. The applicant is requesting a minor amendment to the layout of the approved Vuecrest Estates 20-lot subdivision (LUAB-000642, ECF, PP, MOD). The modifications to the approved preliminary plat include the following: a. The net density would decrease from 4.23 to 4.08 dwelling units per net acre. b. Change in the range of lot sizes from "4,500 square feet (SF) to 8,134 SF" to "4,500 SF to 6,653 SF." c. Revised plat access would extend Smithers Ave S southerly through the parcel, crossing a Category II wetland before stubbing to the eastern property line near the southeast corner of the site. The adjacent approved Vuecrest II Short Plat (LUA15-000026) proposes to continue the roadway from Vuecrest Estates to Main Ave S (102 Ave SE)1 . 1 A result of a settlement agreement between the applicant and the City of Renton on March 19, 2015 which included revisions to Condition 13 of the Hearing Examiner Decision. LUA 13-000642 City of Renton Deportment of Comm y & Economic Development VUECREST ESTATES PRELIMINARY PLAT MINOR AMENDMENT Report Date: January 25, 2016 or Amendment Report & Decision LUA13-000642 Page 3 of 16 d. A bridge/culvert is proposed for the crossing over the wetland. The paved width for this portion of Smithers Ave South is 22 feet, with 0.5-feet wide curb on both sides and a 5-foot wide sidewalk on the south side 2• The right-of-way width is approximately 32 feet (subject to final survey). e. Two (2) east/west private shared access roads (Road A and Road B) are proposed to provide access to four (4) residential lots each. These roads would be limited to 20 feet of pavement with 20 feet of right-of-way. f. Approximately 40,453 SF would be dedicated for public streets through the property to serve the new lots. g. The overall sizes of the tree retention tract, storm drainage tract and sensitive area tracts have also been modified to account for the changes to lot layout and road changes. The size of these tracts are as follows: Tract A-15,748 SF; Tract B -21,389 SF; Tract C -19,424 SF; Tract D -28,337 SF; Tract E -21,878 SF; and Tract F -142,070 SF. h. Critical areas buffer averaging is proposed south of the detention vault to maximize the distance between the proposed vault and the top of the steep slope area. A Final Mitigation Plan for all construction impacts to the critical areas and their buffers has been provided (Exhibit 6). The total buffer impact area would be 10,006 SF and the total compensatory mitigation area would be 11,457 SF for an overall buffer addition of 1,451 SF. i. The stormwater facility would be sized to accommodate runoff from both Vuecrest Estates and Vuecrest II Short Plat. j. Changes to the estimated cut and fill from "3,396 cubic yards (cy) of material would be cut and 10,035 cy of fill" to approximately "16,105 cy of cut onsite and 5,719 cy of fill" would be required for the construction of required plat improvements and new single family residences. The net export volume is approximately 10,200 cy. D. FINDINGS OF FACT {FOF}, all findings noted below reflect the submitted minor plat amendment request: 1. The Hearing Examiner approved the preliminary plat and street improvement waiver for Vuecrest Estates, LUAB-000642, on October 3, 2014 with 19 conditions of approval. A reconsideration of this request was received on October 16, 2014. Subsequently on October 21, 2014, the Hearing Examiner's Order Authorized a Reconsideration for Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat. 2. The Final Decision upon Reconsideration for Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat LUAB-000642, dated November 15, 2014, was issued on November 17, 2014. The final decision included additional findings of fact and conclusions of law. Condition No. 13, from the October 3, 2014 decision, was also revised. 3. An appeal by the applicant's counsel of record, Brent Carson and Van Ness Feldman LLP, of the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision upon Reconsideration was submitted on November 26, 2014 (the "Decision") to the City Clerk's Office, which asked the City Council to eliminate or modify Condition 13 of the Decision in order to provide the Applicant with some flexibility to seek a secondary fire access route. 4. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended), on August 26, 2014, the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M) for the Vuecrest Estate Preliminary Plat. The DNS-M included 9 mitigation measures. A 14-day appeal period commenced on August 29, 2014, and ended on September 12, 2014, no appeals of the threshold determination were filed. The Proposed 2 The road improvements, across the wetland, would be reduced to 22 feet of pavement width with curb and gutter on both sides and a sidewalk on the south side only to limit the disturbance to the sensitive area within Vuecrest Estates. LUA13-000642 City of Renton Deportment of Comn y & Economic Development VUECREST ESTATES PRELIMINARY PLAT MINOR AMENDMENT Report Date: January 25, 2016 'Or Amendment Report & Decision LUA13-000642 Page 4 of 16 Minor Amendment does not require additional SEPA Review because there are no new impacts associated with the proposed amendment that were not evaluated under the original SEPA Determination. 5. The Planning Division of the City of Renton accepted the minor amendment application for review on September 28, 2015, which included amendments as noted under Section C. Summary of Request. 6. Primary access to the site would be provided via Smithers Ave S via Main Ave S. Secondary access would be provided via SE 186th St via 102nd Ave SE. 7. The proposed residential lots would range in size from 4,500 SF to 6,653 SF. 8. Tract A would be the site of a stormwater control vault. Tracts B, D, E, and F would be sensitive areas (wetland) and Can area for tree retention. 9. Proposed Lots 1-9 and Lots 14-16 would be directly accessed from Smithers Ave S; Lots 10-13 and Lots 17-20 would be accessed from a new shared private driveways/roads (Roads A and B). respectively. 10. There are about 395 significant trees on the site and the applicant is proposing to retain 44 original trees within the developable portion of the site. Renton Municipal Code requires that 30 percent (30%) of the net trees be retained or replaced. The Tree Cutting/ Land Clearing Plan (Exhibit 3) indicates that 59.1 trees would be required to be retained; therefore, 181.2 caliper trees would need to be planted. The conceptual landscaping plan proposes to plant 91 trees, at two-inch caliper each, for a total of 182 replacement tree inches on the site (Exhibit 4). 11. A combined detention and water quality vault located in Vuecrest Estates is proposed to meet the storm water needs of both Vuecrest Estates and Vuecrest II. A "Technical Information Report for Vuecrest Estates & Vuecrest II Short Plat" was issued on September 28, 2014, by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers, Inc. The report demonstrates compliance with 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual and additional requirements, based on specific site conditions, as required by the Department Community and Economic Development. A combined detention and water quality vault located in Vuecrest Estates is proposed to meet the storm water needs of both Vuecrest Estates and Vuecrest II. 12. Water service will be provided by Soos Creek Water and Sewer District. 13. Sewer service will be provided by the City of Renton. 14. The site is mapped with critical areas along the western half (approximately) of the site, based on the presence of "sensitive" and "protected" slopes and "high landslide hazard" area. The site has two (2) Category 2 wetlands (one located on the eastern edge of the property line and a second enveloping the southern area). In addition, the site contains a Class 4 stream that begins at the top of the protected slope and exits the site near the southwest corner. 15. Approximately 16,105 cubic yards of material would be cut onsite and approximately 5,719 cubic yards of fill is proposed to be brought into the site. The net export volume is approximately 10,386 cubic yards. 16. Representatives from various city departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address issues raised by the proposed development. These comments are contained in the official file, and the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report and the Departmental Recommendation at the end of this report (Exhibit 10). 17. Comprehensive Plan Compliance: The project meets compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan, development regulations and the terms of the settlement agreement, if the required conditions of approval are met. LUA13-000642 City of Renton Department af Camm • & Economic Development or Amendment Report & Decision WA13-00064Z VUECREST ESTATES PRELIMINARY PLAT MINOR AMENDMENT Report Date: January 25, 2016 Page 5 of 16 18. Zoning Development Standard Compliance: The portion of the site proposed for development is classified Residential-8 (R-8) on the City's Zoning Map. The Residential-8 Zone (R-8) is established for single family residential dwellings and is intended to implement the Residential Medium Density (RMD) Comprehensive Plan designation. Development in the R-8 Zone is intended to create opportunities for new single family residential neighborhoods and to facilitate high-quality infill development that promotes reinvestment in existing single family neighborhoods. It is also intended to accommodate uses that are compatible with and support a high-quality residential environment and add to a sense of community. The proposal is compliant with the following development standards if all conditions of approval are met: Compliance ,/ LUA13-000642 R-8 Zone Develop Standards and Analysis Density: The allowed density range in the R-8 zone is a minimum of 4.0 to a maximum of 8.0 dwelling units per net acre. Net density is calculated after the deduction of sensitive areas, areas intended for public right-of-way, and private access easements. Staff Comment: Based on grass site area of 9.3 acres (405,398 sf) there would be 191,763 sf of deductions (public streets 40,454 sf and critical areas 151,309 sf), therefore, the net area to be developed would be 213,635 sf /4.904 ac). The 20-lot plat would have a net density of 4.08 dwelling units per net acre, which is within the allowed range for the R-8 zone. Lot Dimensions: The minimum lot size permitted in the R-8, for parcels larger than 1 acre before subdivision, is 4,500 sf. A minimum lot width of 50 feet for interior lots and 60 feet for corner lots, as well as a minimum lot depth of 65 feet, is also required. Insofar as practical, side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial to curved street lines. The following table identifies the proposed approximate dimensions for Lots 1-20: Proposed Lot Size (sf) Width (feet) Depth (feet) Lot (Min. 4,500 sf) (Min. 50 ft, except 60 ft (Min. 65 ft) for corner lots) Lot 1 6,119 sf 50.76 feet 122.90 feet (average) Lot 2 6,059 sf 51 feet 125.50 feet (average) Lot 3 6,315 sf 50.77 feet 125.08 feet (average) Lot 4 6,255 sf 50 feet 125.25 feet (average) Lot 5 6,067 sf 50 feet 120.21 feet (average) Lot 6 5,986 sf 53 feet 113.90 feet (average) Lot 7 6,486 sf 50 feet 121.53 feet (average) Lot 8 6,370 sf 50 feet 129.92 feet (average) Lot 9 5,955 sf 65.79 feet 82.98 feet (average) Lot 10 6,653 sf 50 feet 83.78 feet (average) Lot 11 4,500 sf 50 feet 90 feet Lot 12 4,500 sf 50 feet 90 feet Lot 13 5,266 sf 60 feet (corner lot) 90 feet Lot 14 6,286 sf 60 feet (corner )ot) 107 feet Lot 15 5,350 sf 50 feet 107 feet Lot 16 6,343 sf 60 feet (corner lot) 107 feet Lot 17 5,396 sf 68.32 feet (corner lot) 86 feet Lot 18 4,844 sf 56.25 feet 86.13 feet (average) Lot 19 5,711 sf 60.69 feet 91.96 feet (average) City of Renton Department of Cornn y & Economic Development ,or Amendment Report & Decision WA13-000642 VUECREST ESTATES PRELIMINARY PLAT MINOR AMENDMENT Report Date: January 25, 2016 Page 6 of 16 Lot 20 5,622 sf 63.28 feet 88.84 (average) Tract A 15,748 sf -- Tract B 21,389 sf -- Tract C 19,424 sf -- Tract D 28,337 sf -- Tract E 21,878 sf -- Tract F 142,070 sf -- Staff Comment: As demonstrated in the lot dimensions table, all lots meet the requirements for minimum lot size, width and depth. Setbacks: The required setbacks in the R-8 zone are as follows: The minimum front yard setback is 15 feet; minimum side yard is 5 feet and, if along a public street, 15 feet for the primary structure; minimum rear yard is 20 feet. Compliance Staff Comment: Setbacks are dimensioned on the Preliminary Plat plan. The proposed not yet demonstrated lats appear to contain adequate area and dimensions to accommodate a single family home and meet all the setback requirements. Building plans, which would be used to determine setbacks, have not been submitted. They would be submitted for building permit review (compliance not demonstrated). Building Standards: Building height is restricted to 30 feet. Detached accessory structures must remain below a height of 15 feet. The allowed building lot coverage for lots over 5,000 sf in size in the R-8 zone is 35 Compliance percent (35%) or 2,500 sf, whichever is greater. For lots 5,000 sf or less, the not yet maximum coverage allowed is 50 percent (50%). demonstrated The allowed impervious surface coverage is 75 percent (75%). Staff Comment: Building height, building coverage, and impervious surface coverage for the new single family residences would be verified at the time of building permit review (compliance not demonstrated/. Landscaping: The City's landscape regulations (RMC 4-4-070) require a 10-foot landscape strip along all public street frontages, including side yards that abut public streets, with the exception of areas for required walkways and driveways per RMC 4- 4-070. Compliant if Landscaping Requirements within the Public Right-of-Way: A landscaped area with condition of the minimum dimension of 8 feet in width is required abutting Smithers Ave S (as per approval is RMC 4-6-060F). met Staff Comment: Street trees are shown on the conceptual landscape plan. The conceptual landscape plan appears to comply with the landscape requirements for the subdivision. A final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the City of Renton Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance a construction permit. Tree Retention: The City's adopted Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations require the retention of 30 percent {30%) of trees in a residential development. -/ Staff Comment: There are approximately 395 trees deemed ta be "significant" (aver 6 inches in diameter) an the site. Of these, 30 have been determined to be dead, diseased, or dangerous, 50 trees would fall within proposed public streets and 118 trees would remain within critical areas and critical area buffers. The tree retention formula, as per RMC 4-4-130H, for the R-8 zone, requires that 59.1 trees must be LUA13-00064Z City of Renton Department of Comm , & Economic Development or Amendment Report & Decision LUA13-000642 VUECREST ESTATES PRELIMINARY PLAT MINOR AMENDMENT Report Date: January 25, 2016 Page 7 of 16 retained. The project proposal indicates that 44 trees would be retained (Exhibit 3/. Therefore, 15.1 two-inch diameter trees, or 181.2 "replacement inches" are required. Based on the submitted landscape plan, the applicant is proposing roughly 91 two- inch diameter trees ar 182 caliper tree replacement inches which would satisfy the 30% tree retention requirement. Staff would favor the preservation of existing trees over replacement trees as part of compliance with this development standard. During construction, trees required to be retained (i.e., protected trees) would be required to erect and maintain a six-foot-high chain link temporary construction fence around the drip line of any tree to be retained. Parking: Parking regulations require that a minimum of two parking spaces be provided for each detached dwelling. Driveway cuts are required to be a minimum of five (5) feet from property lines and new driveways may be a maximum of 16 feet in width at the property line. Maximum driveway slopes shall not exceed fifteen percent (15%), provided that driveways exceeding eight percent (8%) shall provide slotted drains at the lower end with positive drainage discharge to restrict runoff from entering the garage/residence or crossing any public sidewalk. Staff Comment: Sufficient area exists, an each lot, to accommodate off-street parking far a minimum of two (2) vehicles. This is typically achieved by providing a two (2/ car garage far each single family home. Compliance with individual driveway requirements would be reviewed at the time of building permit review. 19. Design Standards: Residential Design and Open Space Standards (RMC 4-2-115) are applicable in the R-8 zone. The Standards implement policies established in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Compliance with Site Design Standards must be demonstrated prior to approval of the subdivision. Compliance with Residential Design Standards would be verified prior to issuance of the building permit for the new single family homes. The proposal is consistent with the following design standards, unless noted otherwise: Lot Configuration: One of the following is required: 1. Lot width variation of 10 feet (10') minimum of one per four (4) abutting street-fronting lots, or 2. Minimum of four (4) lot sizes (minimum of four hundred (400) gross square ,/ feet size difference), or 3. A front yard setback variation of at least five feet (5') minimum for at least every four (4) abutting street fronting lots. Staff Comment: The proposed revised plot plan would meet the lot configuration requirement of the R-8 zone by complying with option #2 above. Garages: One of the following is required; the garage is: 1. Recessed from the front of the house and/or front porch at least eight feet Compliance (8'). or not yet 2. Located so that the roof extends at least five feet (5') (not including eaves) demonstrated beyond the front of the garage for at leastthe width of the garage plus the porch/stoop area, or 3. Alley accessed, or LUA13-000642 City of Renton Deportment of Comr y & Economic Development ,or Amendment Report & Decision LUAlJ-000642 VUECREST ESTATES PRELIMINARY PLAT MINOR AMENDMENT Report Date: January 25, 2016 Page 8 of 16 Compliance not yet demonstrated Compliance not yet demonstrated Compliance not yet demonstrated Compliance not yet demonstrated LUA13-000642 4. Located so that the entry does not face a public and/or private street or an access easement, or 5. Sized so that it represents no greater than fifty percent (50%) of the width of the front facade at ground level, or 6. Detached. The portion of the garage wider than twenty six-feet (26') across the front shall be set back at least two feet (2'). Staff Comment: Building plans, which would be used to determine visual impact of garages, have not been submitted. They would be submitted for building permit review (compliance not demonstrated). Primary Entry: One of the following is required: 1. Stoop: minimum size four feet by six feet (4' x 6') and minimum height twelve inches (12") above grade, or 2. Porch: minimum size five feet (5') deep and minimum height twelve inches (12") above grade. Exception: in cases where accessibility (ADA) is a priority, an accessible route may be taken from a front driveway. Staff Comment: Building designs, which would be used to evaluate design of entrances, have not been submitted. They would be submitted for building permit review (compliance not demonstrated). Fa~ade Modulation: One of the following is required: 1. An offset of at least one story that is at least ten feet (10') wide and two feet {2') in depth on fai;ades visible from the street, or 2. At least two feet (2') offset of second story from first story on one street facing fa,ade. Staff Comment: Building designs, which would be used to evaluate design of entrances, have not been submitted. They would be submitted for building permit review (compliance not demonstrated). Windows and Doors: Windows and doors shall constitute twenty-five percent (25%) of all fai;ades facing street frontage or public spaces. Staff Comment: Building designs, which would be used to evaluate design of entrances, have not been submitted. They would be submitted for building permit review (compliance not demonstrated). Scale, Bulk, and Character: Neighborhoods shall have a variety of home sizes and character. Abutting houses shall have differing architectural elevations. Both of the following are required: 1. A minimum of three differing home models for each ten contiguous abutting homes, and 2. Abutting houses must have differing architectural elevations. Staff Comment: Building designs, which would be used to evaluate scale, bulk and character, have not been submitted. Compliance for this standard would be verified at the time of building permit review (compliance not yet demonstrated). City of Renton Department of Comm , & Economic Development or Amendment Report & Decision LUA13-000642 VUECREST ESTATES PRELIMINARY PLAT MINOR AMENDMENT Report Date: January 25, 2016 Page 9 of 16 Roofs: One of the following is required for all development: 1. Hip or gabled with at least a six to twelve (6:12) pitch for the prominent form of the roof (dormers, etc., may have lesser pitch), or Compliance 2. Shed roof. not yet Additionally, for subdivisions greater than nine (9) lots: A variety of roof forms demonstrated appropriate to the style of the home shall be used. Staff Comment: Building designs, which would be used to evaluate design of roofs, have not been submitted. Compliance for this standard would be verified at the time of building permit review (compliance not yet demonstrated). Eaves: Both of the following are required: 1. Eaves projecting from the roof of the entire building at least twelve inches (12") with horizontal fascia or fascia gutter at least five inches (5") deep on Compliance the face of all eaves, and not yet 2. Rakes on gable ends must extend a minimum of two inches (2") from the demonstrated surface of exterior siding materials. Staff Comment: Building designs, which would be used to evaluate design of eaves, have not been submitted. Compliance for this standard would be verified at the time of building permit review (compliance not yet demonstrated). Architectural Detailing: If one siding material is used on any side of the dwelling that is two stories or greater in height, a horizontal band that measures at least eight inches (8") is required between the first and second story. Additionally, one of the following is required: Compliance 1. Three and one half inch (3 1/2") minimum trim surrounds all windows and not yet details all doors, or demonstrated 2. A combination of shutters and three and one half inches (3 1/2") minimum trim details all windows, and three and one half inches (3 1/2") minimum trim details all doors. Staff Comment: Building designs, which would be used to evaluate architectural detailing, have not been submitted. Compliance for this standard would be verified at the time af building permit review (compliance not yet demonstrated). Materials and Color: For subdivisions and short plats, abutting homes shall be of differing color. Color palettes for all new dwellings, coded to the home elevations, shall be submitted for approval. Additionally, one of the following is required: 1. A minimum of two (2) colors is used on the home (body with different color Compliance trim is acceptable), or not yet 2. A minimum of two (2) differing siding materials (horizontal siding and demonstrated shingles, siding and masonry or masonry-like material, etc.) is used on the home. One alternative siding material must comprise a minimum of thirty percent (30%) of the street facing fa~ade. If masonry siding is used, it shall wrap the corners no less than twenty four inches (24"). Staff Comment: Building designs, which would be used to evaluate materials and color, have not been submitted. Compliance for this standard would be verified at the time of building permit review (compliance not yet demonstrated). LUA13-000642 City of Renton Department of Comm 1 & Economic Development or Amendment Report & Decision LUA13-00064Z VUECREST ESTATES PRELIMINARY PLAT MINOR AMENDMENT Report Date: January 25, 2016 Page 10 of 16 20. Critical Areas: Project sites which contain critical areas are required to comply with the Critical Areas Regulations (RMC 4-3-050). The proposal is consistent with the Critical Areas Regulations, if all conditions of approval are complied with: Compliant if condition of appravol is met Compliant if condition of approval is met N/A Compliant if condition of approval is met Geologically Hazardous Areas: Staff Comment: Based on the geotechnical consulting firm research by Earth Solutions NW, LLC {ESNW} the project was determined to be "feasible from a geotechnical standpoint." The property includes the presence of "sensitive" and "protected" slopes and "high landslide hazard" orea. The anticipated impacts of these areas have been addressed in technical reports and studies, more information can be found within the Environmental Review Committee Report /Exhibit 7/. The project complies with all critical area regulations provided all mitigation measures are met as identified in the Environmental Review Committee Report. Streams: Staff Comment: According to a review of the Critical Area Study, a Class 4 stream begins at the top of the protected slope and flows downhill to the west. The anticipated impacts of this stream hove been addressed in technical reports and studies, more information con be found within the Environmental Review Committee Report /Exhibit 7). The project complies with oil critical area regulations provided all mitigation measures are met as identified in the Environmental Review Committee Report. Wellhead Protection Areas: Staff Comment: No wellhead protection areas have been identified onsite. Wetlands: Staff Comment: According ta the Critical Area Study, a jurisdictional wetland is located in a depression an the east and south areas of the site. The anticipated impacts af the wetlands have been addressed in technical reports and studies, more information can be found within the Environmental Review Committee Report /Exhibit 7 /. The project complies with all critical area regulations provided all mitigation measures are met as identified in the Environmental Review Committee Report. In addition, the applicant is requesting critical areas buffer averaging south of the detention vault to maximize the distance between the proposed vault and the top of the steep slope area. Staff recommends, as a condition of approval, that the Final Mitigation Plan shall be approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to utility construction permit approval. All wetland mitigation, including required fencing and signage, shall be installed prior to final approval of the construction permit. 21. Compliance with Subdivision Regulations: Chapter 4-7 RMC provides review criteria for the subdivisions. The proposal is consistent with the following subdivision regulations if all conditions of approval are complied with: Compliance Subdivision Regulations and Analysis -,r Access: Each lot must have access to a public street or road. Access may be by a shared driveway per the requirements of the street standards. LUA13-000642 City of Renton Department of Comm 1 & Economic Development or Amendment Report & Decision LUA13-00064Z VUECREST ESTATES PRELIMINARY PLAT MINOR AMENDMENT Report Date: January 25, 2016 Page 11 of 16 N/A Compliant if conditions of approval are met LUA13-000642 The maximum width of single loaded garage driveways shall not exceed nine feet (9') and double loaded garage driveways shall not exceed sixteen feet (16'). Staff Comment: Each lot would have access to a public street or road if all conditions of approval are met. Blocks: Blocks shall be deep enough to allow two tiers of lots. Staff Comment: The critical areas found throughout the property limits this requirement. Streets: The proposed street system shall extend and create connections between existing streets per the Street Standards outlined in RMC 4-6-060 Street Standards. Street lighting is required. Improvements that meet the street standards are required. Staff Comment: The applicant is proposing an extension of Smithers Ave S (from the north property line of Vuecrest Estates to approximately Station 15+50} that meets the residential access minimum design standards identified in RMC 4-6-060F.2 (Exhibit 5). This extension consists of a ROW width of 53 feet (subject to final survey}, with 26-foot paved width with 0.5-foot wide curbs, 8-foot wide landscaped planter, and 5-foot wide sidewalks which meets the residential access minimum design standards (RMC 4-6-060F.2). Smithers Ave S from approximately STA 15+50 ti// STA 17+00 would consist of a bridge/culvert in order to cross over the wetland. The paved width for this portion of Smithers Ave S is 22 feet, with a 0.5-foot wide curb on both sides with a 5-foot wide sidewalk on the south side. The ROW width is approximately 32 feet (subject to final survey). There should be one foot of flat area at the back of the sidewalk or curb, before the rounding of the slope. The maximum slope allowed back of the sidewalk (and back of curb where there 1s no sidewalk} 1s 4H: 1 V. Transitions to and from the regular street sections would be required on either side of the bridge. Beyond Vuecrest Estates Plat, Smithers Ave S, transitions into Vuecrest II Short Plat (LUA15-000026) at SE 186th Street (from approximately STA 17+00 of Smithers Ave South to approximately STA 20+50 on SE 186th St). The paved width of this portion of this street is a 22-foot wide paved road surface with a 0.5-foot wide curb on both sides, 5-foot wide sidewalk on the south side immediately adjacent to the curb, and on 8-foot landscape easement behind the sidewalk. The ROW width is 34.5 feet (subject to final survey). A guard rail as per WSDOT Standard Plan C-20.10-02 would be provided near the north curb. A 4-foot tall black vinyl coated chain link fence is required and a proposed cast-in-place concrete wall with a maximum height of 8 feet separates the road improvements from the critical areas. (Where the exposed wall height is 6 feet or less or if the clear zone behind the curb is 8 feet or greater (maximum slope of 4H:1 V), a guardrail would not be required.) The pedestrian barrier/fence should be located a minimum of 2 feet away from the curb, between the curb and the vertical drop-off. "No Parking" signs are required to be provided by the developer along this portion of the street. The street section includes a 2% down slope towards the south with curb and gutter at the south side. Finally, SE 186th Street, from approximately STA 20+50 on SE 186th St to Main Ave S (102nd Ave SE}, includes a 26-foot wide paved surface, a 0.5-foot wide curb, an 8- foot wide landscaped planter, and 5-foot wide sidewalk, all within a 41.5-foot ROW width with on-street parking on the south side of the street. The ROW for this half street is 41.5 feet. A 2-foot offset of the paved edge from the property line is also City of Renton Department of Camm & Economic Development or Amendment Report & Decision LUA13-000642 VUECREST ESTATES PRELIMINARY PLAT MINOR AMENDMENT Report Date: January 25, 2016 Page 12 of 16 ,/ LUA13-000642 proposed within the ROW with o chain link fence at the property line. The maximum slope at the bock of sidewalk or bock of the traveled edge is shown in the road cross- section at 4H:1 V. The street section hos o 2% down slope towards the south, with curb and gutter at the south side for the straight portion of the rood. The design includes o 5-foot centerline offset of the roadway centerline of proposed Rood A with the existing street SE 186th St. Therefore, the proposed public street network satisfies revised Condition 13 of the final approved Vuecrest preliminary plot by providing o second means of access from Main Ave S /102"d Ave SE) to the plot by fire trucks and emergency vehicles, os determined through the settlement agreement that was reached between the applicant and the City of Renton on Morch 19, 2015 /Exhibit 8, the Planning and Development Committee recommendation to the City Council and the City Council's Decision at the regular Council meeting of Morch 23, 2015 upon appeal. The two (2) other proposed roods throughout the plat include Road A and Rood 8. Proposed Roads A & B would be o 20-foot wide paved private shored driveway access within o 20-foot wide tract. The roads would be required to be extended from Smithers Ave S to the west property lines of Lots 10 & 20. This would lead to o dead end access longer than 150 feet (approximately 160 to 167 feet, respectively) without providing a turnaround. The extension of the wider road is acceptable to the Fire Department without creating the need to provide fire sprinkler systems or hammerhead turnarounds. The rood extensions would provide o 20-foot wide paved roadway to the property lines of Lots 10 & 20 (eliminating the need for pipestem lots and unnecessary encumbrances within the plat). Staff recommends, as a condition of approval, that the applicant extend the private shared driveways (Roads A & BJ from Smithers Ave S to the west property lines of Lots 10 & 20. Each road shall be within o tract. An updated plat pion shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Renton Project Manager prior to issuance o construction permit. Street lighting would be required on the frontage and on the internal access roads. LED lighting plans would be required with the civil pion submittal. In order to meet ADA requirements, an ADA compliant sidewalk ramp would be required to be provided on the east side of Main Ave S /102"d Ave SE), opposite the proposed ADA romp located at the southwest corner of Main Ave S {102"d Ave SE) and SE 186th St intersection (near Lot 1 of Vuecrest II Short Plot). Staff recommends, as o condition of approval, that the applicant install on ADA cam pliant sidewalk romp on the opposite side of Main Ave S {102nd Ave SE). An updated civil plan set shall be submitted and approved by the Pion Review Project Manager prior to issuance o construction permit. Relationship to Existing Uses: The proposed project is compatible with existing surrounding uses. Stoff Comment: The developed properties surrounding the subject site ore single- family residences to the north, south and east of the site and are designated R-8 on the City's zoning map. To the west is Campen Springs condominium and is designated R-14 on the City's zoning map. The proposal is similar to existing development patterns in the area and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code, which encourage residential infill development. City of Renton Deportment of Comm ' & Economic Development or Amendment Report & Decision LUA13-00064Z VUECREST ESTATES PRELIMINARY PLAT MINOR AMENDMENT Report Date: January 25, 2016 Page 13 of 16 22. Availability and Impact on Public Services: The project, as conditioned by the Renton Hearing Examiner (Hearing Examiner Final Decision, dated October 3, 2014 (Exhibit 9)), would be served by adequate/appropriate infrastructure and public services. 23. Minor Plat Amendments: Minor plat amendments may be reviewed and permitted as part of final plat approval. To be considered a minor amendment, the amendment must not: Decrease the aggregate area of open space in the subdivision by ten percent (10%) or more: ,/ Staff Comment: The aggregate area of open space within the amended plat would not be decrease by ten percent (10%} or more. Increase the number of lots in the subdivision beyond the number previously ,/ approved: Stott Comment: The amended plat would remain at 20 lots. See also FOF 18. Result in a violation of development standards: ,/ Stott Comment: See FOF 18. Relocate any roadway access point to an exterior street from the plat: Stoff Comment: All access points would remain within the proposed plat. A secondary ,/ access roadway access will connect the subdivision to Main Ave S (102nd Ave SE}, via the approved Vuecrest II Short Plot (LUAlS-000026}, to provide for safe and effective secondary access for fire trucks and emergency vehicles as determined by the City of Renton Fire Department. See also FOF 21. ,/ Propose phasing of plat development: Stoff Comment: The applicant is not proposing phasing of Vuecrest Estates. Increase significantly any adverse impacts or undesirable effects of the plat on the community or surrounding area. ,/ Stoff Comment: No significant adverse impacts or undesirable effects of the minor plat amendment would be realized on the community or surrounding area. See also Summary of Request for a list of proposed modifications requested. E. CONCLUSIONS: 1. All conclusions included in the original decisions, noted under FOF's 1 and 2, remain valid unless noted and addressed in this report. 2. The subject site is located in the Residential High Density (RHD), Residential Medium Density (RMD) and Residential Low Density (RLD) Comprehensive Plan designation and complies with the goals and policies established with these designations, see FOF 15. 3. The developable portion of the site is located in the Residential -8 (R-8) zoning designation and complies with the zoning and development standards established with this designation provided the applicant complies with City Code and conditions of approval, see FOF 16. 4. The proposed amended plat complies with the Residential Design and Open Space Standards provided the applicant complies with City Code and conditions of approval, see FOF 17. LUA13-000642 City of Renton Department of Comm ' & Economic Development VUECREST ESTATES PRELIMINARY PLAT MINOR AMENDMENT Report Date: January 25, 2016 or Amendment Report & Decision LUAl3-000642 Page 14 of 16 5. The proposed amended plat complies with the Critical Areas Regulations provided the applicant complies with the Settlement Agreement (Exhibit 8) and conditions of approval, see FOF 18. 6. The proposed amended plat complies with the subdivision regulations as established by City Code and state law provided all advisory notes and conditions are complied with, see FOF 19. 7. The minor plat amendment would not decrease the aggregate area of open space in the subdivision by ten percent (10%) or more; increase the number of lots in the subdivision beyond the previously approved; result in a violation of development standards; relocate any roadway access point beyond what was included in the Settlement Agreement; propose phasing of plat development of Vuecrest Estates; or increase significantly any adverse impacts or undesirable effects of the plat on the community or surrounding area, see FOF 21. 8. A key feature that is integral to this project includes providing a bridge/culvert as part of the construction of the Smithers Ave S roadway crossing over the wetland, which satisfies the original condition of approval 13. II F. DECISION: The Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat Minor Amendment, File No. LUAB-000642, as depicted in Exhibit 2, is approved and is subject to the following summary of conditions: CONDITIONS: 1. The applicant shall comply with mitigation measures issued as part of the Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance for the proposal, the un-amended conditions of approval of the Hearing Examiner Decision (Conditions 1-12 and 14-19) and the revised condition (Conditions No. 13) as part of the Settlement Agreement. 2. The applicant shall meet the minimum tree retention requirement by retaining thirty percent (30%) of the healthy trees or as an alternative to retaining trees, plant the equivalent of 181 replacement trees inches on the site. A final tree retention plan and landscaping plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Renton Project Manager prior to issuance of a construction permit. 3. The applicant shall receive approval ofthe Final Wetland Mitigation Plan by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to utility construction permit approval. All wetland mitigation, including required fencing and signage shall be installed prior to final approval of the construction permit. 4. The applicant shall extend the private shared driveways (Roads A & B) from Smithers Ave S to the west property lines of Lots 10 & 20. Each road shall be within a tract. An updated plat plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Renton Project Manager prior to issuance a construction permit. 5. The applicant shall install an ADA compliant sidewalk ramp on the east side of Main Ave S (102nd Ave SE), opposite the proposed ADA ramp located at the southwest corner of Main Ave S (102nd Ave SE) and SE 186th St intersection. An updated civil plan set shall be submitted and approved by the Plan Review Project Manager prior to issuance a construction permit. DATE OF DECISION ON LAND USE ACTION: SIGNATURE: t-i.:; -1..,0i& Jennifer Henning, Planning Direc~ Date Department a/ Community & Economic Development LUA13-000642 City of Renton Deportment of Comr y & Economic Development VUECREST ESTATES PRELIMINARY PLAT MINOR AMENDMENT Report Date: January 25, 2016 ,or Amendment Report & Decision WA13-000642 Page 15 of 16 TRANSMITTED this 25th day of January, 2016 to the Owner/Applicant/Contact: Owner: Schneider Homes I LLC 6510 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 1 Tukwila, WA 98188 Applicant: Jamie Woltier Harbour Homes 1441 N 34th St, Suite 200 Seattle WA 98103 TRANSMITTED this 25th day of January, 2016 to the Parties of Record: Rebecca Evers Tosnim Khalil 706 5 47th St 1003 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055-7325 Henry Cooks Philip Davis 712 S 50th St 4767 Whitworth Pl 5, LlOl Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 Nancy Osborn Annie Lee 4635 Morris Ave 5, #F 867 S 48th St Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055-7337 Chinh Pham Ron Hansen 4703 Burnett Ct 5 4717 Smithers Ave S Renton, WA 98055-7328 Renton, WA 98055 Kolin Taylor David Rasmussen 12320 NE 8th St, #100 Sundance at Talbot Ridge -HOA Bellevue, WA 98005 723 S 47th St Ellen Breiten Jason Murray 4612 Morris Ave S 2505 3rd Ave, Ste. 300 Renton, WA 98056-6373 Seattle, WA 98121 William & Stephanie Struyk Henry Cooks 4707 Smithers Ave S 712 S 50th St Renton, WA 98055-6399 Renton, WA 98055-6342 Michael & Brittnee Mortinez Borgata Apartments & Townhomes 901 S 48th St 2505 3rd Ave 5, #300 Renton, WA 98055-7338 Seattle, WA 98121 Janet Alobado Phong Tron 911 S 47th St 1011 5 48th St Renton, WA 98055-7319 Renton, WA 98055-7352 Pok Ming Chiu Eric & Cheryl Hanson 902 S 48th St 4711 Smithers Ave S Renton, WA 98055-7338 Renton, WA 98055-6399 Ellen Breiten Sanh & Chi Le 4612 Morris Ave S 903 S 47th St Renton, WA 98056-6373 Renton, WA 98055-7319 LUA13-000642 Contact: Moher Joudi D.R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. 620 7th Avenue Kirkland, WA 98033 Gloria Hunter 4727 Burnett Ct S Renton, WA 98055-7328 Brent Corson 719 Second Ave, Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98092 Steve Yantorni 718 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055 John Sperber 735 5 47th St Renton, WA 98055-6272 Lue Pest/ 4726 Burnett Ct 5 Renton, WA 98055-7328 Carl Anderson 4706 Snowgross Dr Olympia, WA 98516 Dorshan Malhi 4712 Burnett Ct S Renton, WA 98055-7328 John Basinger 1441 N 34th St Seattle, WA 98103 Thu Bui 4709 Burnett Ct 5 Renton, WA 98055-7328 Sandeep Mang/a 724 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055 Roger Jaques 4762 Whitworth Pl S Renton, WA 98055-8359 City of Renton Deportment of Com, y & Economic Development VUECREST ESTATES PRELIMINARY PLAT MINOR AMENDMENT Report Date: January 25, 2016 Phillip Davis 4767 Whitworth Pl S Renton, WA 98055-8355 Ltanya Terrell Jones 5527 Charlotte Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092 Owen Reese 3421 62nd Ave SW Seattle, WA 98116 Jim Conde/les 855 S 48th St Renton, WA 98055 Tommy & Travis Martinez 4619 Morris Ave S Renton, WA 98055 Ginny Knox 4901 Morris Ave S, #55202 Renton, WA 98055-8398 Joseph & Martha Mackenzie 4835 Main Ave S Renton, WA 98055-6309 Pawandeep & Ku/deep Natt 866 S 48th St Renton, WA 98055-7337 TRANSMITTED this 25th day of January, 2016 to the Jo/lawing: Chip Vincent, CED Administrator Brianne Bannwarth, Development Engineering Manager Jon Conklin, Development Services Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Rohini Nair, Plan Review Fire Marshal 1or Amendment Report & Decision WA13-00064Z Johnny Cheng 4739 Burnett Ct S Renton, WA 98055-7328 Hanh Tran 861 S 48th St Renton, WA 98055-7337 Roger Banks 4763 Morris Ave S Renton, WA 98055-6374 William & Lynn Sebring 4706 Burnett Ct S Renton, WA 98055-7328 Page 16 of 16 K. LAND USE ACTION APPEALS, REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION, & EXPIRATION: The administrative land use decision will become final if the decision is not appealed within 14 days of the decision date. APPEAL: This administrative land use decision will become final if not appealed in writing to the Hearing Examiner on or before 5:00 PM on February 8, 2016. An appeal of the decision must be filed within the 14- day appeal period (RCW 43.21.C.075(3}; WAC 197-11-680), together with the required fee to the Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. RMC 4-8-110.B governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner and additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. RECONSIDERATION: Within 14 days of the decision date, any party may request that the decision be reopened by the approval body. The approval body may modify his decision if material evidence not readily discoverable prior to the original decision is found or if he finds there was misrepresentation of fact. After review of the reconsideration request, if the approval body finds sufficient evidence to amend the original decision, there will be no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action must file a formal appeal within the 14-day appeal time frame. THE APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS DOCTRINE: provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning the land use decision. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial decision, but to Appeals to the Hearing Examiner as well. All communications after the decision/approval date must be made in writing through the Hearing Examiner. All communications are public record and this permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence in writing. Any violation of this doctrine could result in the invalidation of the appeal by the Court. LUA13-000642 >- "' w er 0 w 5' '- "' w >-.: >-"' w >- "' w er 0 w 5' TRACT •p• "i':f~1 V' SE 1/4 secnON 31, TOWNSHIP 23 N, RANGE 5 E, W.M. VUECREST ESTATES & VUECREST II SHORT PLAT . _, ----: • 1·." ·1 .. . .,, --., "" I \\;..::~J.~.:i-L ~ J,, ;,11 -r... ).r;-;:::---'1 ;"' .. ~""""'"'* r---I r-·----\I ,,.------,-- 1' ,t,; I -~~~-\~t .,..--11 ' : 18 r 1 19 ' ,\. %,"====-~ \ ' ~'G.. \ 't. ,•''?"' <F ~ I , .... u : V1' £F b • ,JP,.,_ -----i -- f-~ •11 "I" \ '. , I I , , ~ ~: : u/1£, \ \\;,.a\ , \\'°\ .. \~t·i:;;-j ~----.--: ~t-~(-~_J i r-'{~'G'; I ie---1:, "'"' ,..,., --_J 1'>11«"'""'! "'"''""'""''" (..,o,,,--.a:<K,J ,_,, ... , /N'f ,; " 00·:,'*''J:'b.Ti \1 ' \ 1;\l7 ,-;,-;,,\f,..-~--"" _,.,,, _J r;--L. ---,,-,.,.--,' \gJ't::~°',:-'.----'':"'Rei4p.._a"_?'l ; I --------• '.'°\---, ?" It\: : 3 -....,_; ~--:· / \~11,.:---.:r,..,. --0,~ "'1~ I <J>,<F \!;\ '1. j~ ! /,,-------/ l 11~ 1 '\~ :;j,&.B.,, l '· 16 , ,1 8 -t-r ---~ ..... -__ j It 1-~: ._,.,., :i.~ ""'1 It 1 4 ~ . -L ___ -,.n:.,---_J I~\ 1 ,.msc ~~ I :---;5 ---~ \ 8 1 ~'RAcT·J ~IL --,,..,,..----_J IC, I I ~=» I ~~ 'T.:,"Jlf!!C' : I i-------: Ii ~ --,,,,.,,... ~ \ I ,~\ \ '·°'?~, : ~ I ~,i..,; ~:---;;-=-: ~\~~­ ,, ~==:":::::_ , I ~. j , : ., .. , : i \ ', 6 I I' ~~ ~4' -------' Ii II : ... s, I 8 ~ <::: '-'"' """ \ b --m,r r ~ 1::,1~ I/ :~::~,~~=n+=--::': ,,'~' . ·:c-' : ---~---i ~' Ir;< -----:J---~----"°" ';,,~ 1 ~.1~, : s I ~' I ~ / I : I "" ~ I I ~ It/ I 13 I 12 ~ 1f ~ I 10 I•'-'.-, -_:-·---~ ~ ; "'" : ,_,, • ,_,,I: """ 11 ,~ 1 ' --, I !:.:: 1• I I I I I ~ \I:.\ l 8 I :~, II ---J L --L__ L _____ J >, ', """ ,, 'J ... .. .. i -I I , . I . "-'-=. ,~ I -,,.,.,,,------' • ~ I ~ -~ -E ~ 9 ''1 .' ,_--,~~.-... --',II-,. I •-f: rn.: >I 1 ,1 , ~.J;_. f':j. . ,W_:-~·-1 "" '~ECREST ESrATE"S - ,'W;;.;,,,.1--, "'''"''f"", I """' "'""~""' ..,., """"'"'""'"" DPfCAl R'ifll \IIJE:CREST II SHORT PU, T u,sxxxxxx L- ,: I; 'ct·f·t}' \\. \ j .,,t---:;c-f-:1 ,, . ..,,.,c t~ 1 / ! j i ~ \ \ -:,:\ I / Uf5XXX~X ----------1 [ ·-,,,_, '' -lo{ " ' ,\ · '!:_' :,,, --------=: ---- -• ----,_, ,,,,\'.£_ -~-"-\ ~ ,. ,.·'.--. TRACT 'O" -------~ 1\/ --~LL! \-.~--,~·\ --<~--:.::------=---/-~ ';T ~~i </·. : / "1]!J',1t? _ '·()"~--~--- '"'"'''"''""'"' 1 oe'?-"/~~~~ .m_ __ ""'"-"'""'--~ .. t,rg an ._.-.,.....,.L..-ConOor !D.l,IT.IQOO:••') ---~---\ ·~:::--::.::::.::_--- " " .::z, ~,?q ~· ~::~~~~~ ~ ~--F-,r,,m "' '/ \'. 1·-' ':{ .fl,>;._ .... J~ ' ,.,;/1, ac,·s10, . . ~ -~':.'[:----~~ ,, ~ --''"""~..o',;j!DL ~ !'T .• -. "-'~,-----~, TRACT"C ~.'!.~/""' r ... -, -.. ..... ~ -~ EXHIBIT 2 ~ .... !:t1 ~ !±I "' ~-"i" ~ :_.:-:::.. I *' CTY OF REN-ON P10,us/Bu;1a ni/P-o ,, '""' D"1 11rnncAL_ DATUM: HORIZONTAL DATU/J: ""' •NJ/'1 NI'-"' c,-""°"' .--,,c 8ENCH/JARK: , oil' Cf iliiiiiiii "''"''" /iiwi ..__. ,,,, =~~..::::"'.:..:"l~=~!J..:::~'=<·"'"''''"""'(f~ ,,,,,,,,..,,,,,,.ca,...,.,,,,.,.....,...,,,, ~~,.,__,, ............ "'-""00...''""°""""'''"',.'""'""'""'" RA 'iii Of RFABWGS-=';;'1.t~""'f:,,"-'-...:•rsr«-~,._..,,.,,,,r.-e,.,.rc;,-r.<tco,,""" OR/',ffWAY !AfJLE LC•r NO l>'il\£WAY { 5'~ t---1 ---- ~-- f-- t).;_J_ .·:::· 1/0MII.IENT 'i:f.'1 TJQWIG SCHfDl/1 f [!]i,,o.:><("""""'"''J 0 , .. ,,._,.,r,-,..o,o"'""" QJ """" (,..o«, ·~ <! 0,,, ... ,,(,.."""''""'' ~,,,.,,,(,.. .... ,, ... ,) II "'-""" ,,.,._,,, ,.,. 5J }] """"' (""Hl1'A\O"', II'"'""'"'("',,.,,,,.,, @ NORTH - m,CO,,.,M~NOED FDR ,,,_,O\IN -BY Dalo __ BY llalo __ " --- VUECREST ESTATES &: VUECREST II i H:lHIZCWTAI.& VEATC',L OONTHCl. Pl.AA U15:ocnu / U15,cuio:~ C- V, w "' u w 5 " '" le ;c '" w C- V, w "' u w 5 1---~=-1 .il<RMlT-"' .........,,,.,.,_, lit ___ _ o.o,_,,.,. .......... ,,., an _ _,,...,.,,__c.n,,- (.,,...,./Cl.a\Ol>J SE 1/4 SECnON 31, TOWNSHIP 23 N, RANGE 5 £, W.M. VUECREST ESTATES & VUECREST II SHORT PLAT 11 1 ---_ _j_J l_J I' I ' T ,- -- 11 [Q) @II :::~~~~:s I ,, RE\,s,o, -- _J \ / "'' ' WECRESr I! SHORT PlA7 U/5XXXXXX -~ ""' ~ --E<Y I o,rc IJJ>Paj ~ EXHIBIT 3 ~-i" f..7:-~.I L_ ·® s"® §) ·1 ®· ' ~ C1-Y CF ~C'HOr-.. P1a,";"S/Sclo,"Ofa,o,,c ~on,, Uopt 7RE:E R£TFNTION CALCULA news "'"'-""""" '"'- "'"' ~''""""" """""''" ..... , ,., """""""'"'l'-""" .. ;::g: :;:;~ "ffl}f J:.{:')',!j,f;'"c,,, "~ ,...,., "' ..,. .,,_,,_ Ii€"""" ""5,0<lt:Or,-,,_~ KO<Jll!C0-.0,""""'"'CHr""""-' 1:1""-J/ -,,, '"""'"""''111C£5""-"""9>'"'-'"'·'""'''""-' "".......,"°""',.,_,,,,,,_,,"""'""'"'' ~~1rili~;;:~,~ ~ ... .,..,,. .. ,_"""""" ....,.., ... ,--= L~~.,-·m-,,•~ o, ~,"'; • ,a, _____ en,~££ LEGE._~'~"----- r-C'\ •• ,.,_, ' ~ ~-_,,_.,,-,-, L' ~ --"--" r *" ~ ~ """' "-"""-__ ,, -~ """"""'""'''" I I 11 I \ l__ @ NOR.TH - ~l,Cl;lfORAl'f'O\/AL __ Data: __ jBv """'---eY o __ _ o,roc __ WECREST ESTATES & 1/UECREST II i TREE AfTENHJN PLAN U15uxim / U15xnux SNCISIAJ~ iill ~! "' \-,, tll ~ '--' rl ~ ":l l > ~ '' ~ ~ ,, : ~ 7, C); ~ ~ i;: ~ 5 -2 vi c.~ oii"~s D " '-.._l '2 G "'-6 = ~~~ ~ B:i 6 !) ~ "' \-/.i \-d"" = z >,i\ &'.--< 'z ~ ~~~ " = -" ~ "" ~ '; i "' ~ =al ' " "-z~ \:.... ') "' (2,L ,,, --:,:: tK 0 -- i ~ _J ~ ' ,J 'l \. _ .}•~ .::'.'.•f.i-~'\J.'V ~?I ~ ,,, J ' }: -.. ~ ,, . -:· __ , ___ _ ( " i-i 111!,------ftl ;• : I ' ; t,: '' /"·' "' I I {" ~t- i ;,1 . ''-.'- \, ') ---- i "-' = \'2 \-:z '" "' '" "" ~ "'-~ " = \.U ~ \- '" (\) \-'"" I ' 9 ' - ~ ,i:t' I- """ co 1-1 :c >< w "'1ollJSOlSII.~--ll'f\'~ Wld '1JS OJllMll ,•.s./0 ""'TIM.L1J"im IL''119'J ' _"l'·""'""' mo Cl< SNO'SI/\JiJ ------ ~· E9 I .T I C '99 § t-~-~~~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .~ ·~: \cl ~ " \: ' ~ ' • Q 'll':lrnl.1.ooJI' --S~QIS:11:',J I I I I I I 0) -~·- o;.,,;,-w...fl,""1' -~-""" l,G!t,~. ---.,00,111 ~,i:z:1 'P~f'R~M )JWA,:HT AJ12NA • AJllVA• Allc!e'A HlflOS -ciV1d ,aVJ;QN'/1 JV1cl J~OHS II JS::J~J~ni\ '~--- I \ ~ ' ' (2 ~ ;,: "' ~ ii'; ±) 0 "cl > § :x ~ ~ -~ "-' b z '-: !K G :::: ~ ~ " """''""',..<OM " I =~-- ~ ~ '"' ,~ .• ,,;,_.,,-,, -->"'-,. ·----;------< , • f'\, ~*u ~ I {IC96·~ -R, >'.a1f()/., J'I ~V!..j:I .w tKd ).LIS OJSIIJI< mi (l:,,r I 1 ·· ""Y'-" """l""I A111/A JdJr -... -..~s=-.. \ ~~u ~ _, Yl"l Ill<I Um< "" '" ' AYl'lV/\•AHlV/\•AllaV/\ . ' -SNCISIAJ~ ' e ii )2 " ~ 2 h ~i's ~~ 2' '~ ~1 2_ ~~ :" ~ ~' •' H ,:;;,~ \ ~ MO'J0 JJ; , J~ 'HJNI, --~-.l ----------------.-· -' -<r I ~I -~, !;<! "t-2: I ~ .. " ,:, I ., fl' ' 0 ,: J., . ; ;:_ ~;: .. --------- I // '• ••.. :17 ' ' /1 i~ '11'' ~ ~ i_~ rf/1d Jo, hJ:t/1 ~ ... JV1d J210HS II JSJ21J:JnA ! ll: ' ii' '2 c;aJ,VJSa JS:Jc1J1ni\ ~" ~ !iii! a, ' e ~ • 0 ' 9 ,,, :::S!5 f~ ~"' •• ,r _,_,,,; I· ~,:,,F~~~~;;;,;-·-~· :r ''';;];-ii,') \ I I: ' '' ' ,, I' •C T~ ' ,-----' ~ ~ ' "l 0 ~ "" ';!' N N ;;]() ~ ~ 0 • ~ EB ~ 9 JO f JJ}I; 0-1 ~""""' < Cl< \\\,c:: "'"' 7'ln ---i:.:'i \\\ 7CS '\j\"' ?: ----\ \J\ C.: =I-\ ~'±'~ ~Cle;; "'~~ -cs \j\ ~QO ~ < l~\i;~ }~~"" I.. ilS-< qf ~i flt [P lit~~ I <f • < ···H~! .;,~ S" ~;\ ~ "'"< ll ~ ~ ~1~T -I~ 11~1!1, ;:-; ; cl !1!1!111 -'-71='·"' ,::_::.;: 'f.<'lJ ""lfbl o,':m9i . o; 'lWIJ l"°"f'l"W r-<' 1r .1 ""lf'°'I Fi"' CV ,,o;;'.IU?IJ/"''Lf'l"'NF"'lrd "'lf'!"I f,l>.J9lf ,,c{ ""'Id ;eo.cr-r,~ r"' rN L<>!'1<' r,ml','1 ,,()~ l""d ;w,v,,w ~ rra ~-p,b"<.l( "-''f'W,',i I"" J'.J l"Jpl' l (, CYLfT",'i "'2 1r.J ~,., ~' "''"°"'1,=1r• ~,., ' ""'-"11',',i =ira -"Ii"" l ''""1i'i'l FW1r·J Sf"l 0( "'"'1"i'l'f'""!N ""l~l 0 "<,:,1ew f"' 1r• "Fl ' °'"'•T'/\'l"-<'lr~ .vi¢' l " C-~ ""'l_l'' •;;pc "J AWf {·'"" J.d.'j. ~.''IW :J1<fJ rw,,.,)',1X<j£ .r..,Jop ,,,. ~ ,.,,..,,(.........;:::::--....,~ ~.J pc,; "'lf'-f "'~"·f'"'"I L.~~!~-=-___) '''FIP' ~ "''"'fl-"', '! .. I"-'" d-, ".L<'-'"'Fl l'f"'Jf' """""'"''')-., <,i""1'. ~ct'O 00 7....t'f1 (,I U,,JJ,~W J" ,;.,mt, U l"'lJ lwc'f""'•'·'"-"",1 --<']~""11"1; ;:.,.r..,-"'I· ~IW~L-1-rJ "'~ =, ,r,J-,u1 9WJ>;'•1)-'<'M,~, """-')"''I"'¥/ s~p!1/-W.bJ-'~ "~PIPN =MP"""a ~s,s:u.,cicre-.-l'W,J ... ~'?,'~""'J.QJ..E'1Lrt>J./] ao,~•'d"'""=l'W\'/. Jse .. 1J~ ~-~ ·"~-"·"""-"li"..-vJ'"'"·"" C ........... ~--~ ,i,ft<-'N<_,~\:\= v® ... ~P')'~I"-""';, ,;,.r-,;,J~,;tu:,,J 0 "'-,'UZ1;:"TID''\1. mf'IIT1"''"'~ f9 ,;SO"""'l<S'V,W'.>,l\'j ® ,,,=~r)"IH ·J,;f!""P-/'@ -..<".'l'l".W:V"'r-<"J ® -. IF·""' un.<rq,\ 0g &11\0J al'r'm~ FW sa-121-is ',:Thffl1J ;in; WJ ;o.\fli'Ntl'N,'WOJ Jr'NN VJl'wY.M 21na:JHJS JNV1d 2Uddn,J '.Jd'v'JScJNV1 ~.m 1--•"J "'ti~ p~rt,~, ~.J? "''1J 1'mr-·,.....,--.. ,,-,,J ~rr>1 ru n """""' 1"'1".V"" sa ~""fl"'-""-!"' :~; (J> OU:,-I-· I-J/(if. .<>., ~~'!'Ix o:; ···--~ P"~"w "fl "'If-'"" op C?Jn' rw h?.....-"lt' ·--~.m qm "-'"M" ""H""-""' "'"!"¥ ~~n '.!"'--<• I U,UUUJ J ' ( J) ()LO-,.. i' )Ni!~., ;;,d1,e;, ,!, LITl,L'L!UJ -<;,-:,.u,,,; '!1-~ ~~J X lf'Lr '"'"'! ~n-.~ W~':<i I' ""'1"' "-JI,}' d:7101 f'1¥"'.!'""l -""'J "I ~"l"IIW"1~d._, -9"""1 ~p.,,, P'if~·"F-"""''""'°' ""l"l'"'-'l...-"'1' :t,,· luLf-"""'I, f'-"' -r, ru'l'll"II' P·" 'r, W'f'l"'Nr"'lf, °'"''f'1"W rw 1r, WID"JPl'l~lfJ ru~>l"W""lr.J "'1~"1"'/'l"-"'lrj SW/1':tl p ,,l ,,z: m ,Z: ,,., ,l p ., f'"",-,Z. p f"'f-'µ""'" r;.w <'·""'.flC\! ~.l'"'J H v,,F'l ~..-P"-""""'")-.. ,.rv-i"'f'"li "'f'·11 ¥°,',la<~ _._.,dl>'-"""!J di")\' ,p.11111~= "~""'01 ,Li"p.,J ~ll<.O.= ~ ""~·'>'-S,""'JJU"""'}"''l~ ,,.,~,'.L!'Jt'Ulfi'dW,/- •'""<J'rlsf"'n'JS ,o.,=l(l M""-IY IW-"'~JJ ~ --, .. ,...,, ""'' /J"c~ ,.uro,·""'1 Ull;r--r,,,,,.c;J q;:u ;FIS J...:JN,Tl::'.; ?>"NN NOWWl)J 1NVN 1'0IWJ0,;1 lllcJ'.JHJS JNV1d JV1d J210HS 11 J.S :J21J:Jn/\ "'""""·'"' ,.o;·-~J o,:; U"J l"""-'l',Y,' ""'" 1ra , c..i.;. .,..,.d l"'''ll-l"V\' r-"' 1ra CXc """'J i°"'""l"I',' ""' 1r-J , (), '---"_j/l>.V:>1(.'lf," f'~ 1rJ l,;~'1'?1/,' F"""lf'J w~"'"'t; r~1rJ rui.:r.,...,,.., f""lra °'"f'""'l'I' f"l.'1r1 ""'f'""·.,W I"" lrJ "<o/-"W P"" lrJ ''"f'-'"11,'P"" 1r1 ""'f'""-q11 r-<' 1r.-1 W'f-'"V/ I""' Ir J !u'f'1"\I/!"-" ll"J l-'-''f·<1'WP-"ll".J Vlf" I t' ),OJ ~1 ~'If'"' I '°I'*! ~'If'"' I P.~.,,r,.i "'If" I F'.~~, '-/ '"f'' /, "'lr.+,z 01 ""lfi"t 'f "-'Ir' l I-! "l~'t Cr'. z,11"" l OZ "'Ii<";; l!. "'If" C. l- ·-91"";; 91 "'Ir"" l ..,,"" r: gz ·."''""~"1""'f"'""-'""'"J 10r,ic>4."f1X~1"-"-'1-".f¥"-' .. ~ ~ -,c=:::i """S w1~'1ae•1c.,;i,r,,'L~) P"'J<-rt"""•,'-"' '"'"".JON ''J'"'.> ~ _ _..<>l ~..p ~•·'?"-"]-.. ,,.-Y.!.crx, ,o·.""10,;:L-FUJ1,u.,ps:i0 c,t,,, 1WIJ ,,..-.... ·,v,=,-1 .qµ:-~;,1 -"-fl"".-! '1""'1'"•'~ '-'Ja>.""W1-=»""'1 =-")l-lOl->~-01r; ""°-":-' .v-mo ""'l ,,,. ==-'1 ~ ,.,..,,.>J><V"'{l -rn="W ~~f7'1 ,;,~r...,., S"~P.PN "'1.J<ll, "'"!'.l .,;,~:'.;"~;' :.:;~ /-,-./ -.,~-:!"-<'JK,;,c"V,'. a,e•,;i~ -~) ... ""d .. "··''-"·'"""1h"'"""""·'J\/~-·- •"'"'"',._....,,,,~.~ 8 .._,.,-,c! ~"° "'""-f'W ~~1 .. ,-~"·'-''" """''ft-'8 ~0 -..=o~o""c '"'·F''"f'~F'"'{~ @ .,.o,,1''f'-'"'0'1 D ,.,~'"J""P,Cl.lJ~ '?I',r;_1 a,wn.J.~-; O .._ ·,m;, •,,_.,fJT'<], J-~,, '~"l~'""'d :;':) ... ~"'""'''v .. e,o,·,~ 0 -. """"'H, ~,~ J, ,.~,v G "-" -;,,.vr "'':'~I\ ('I) -.'""r'-'"'J">i'i,(9 ?J}\OJ 01,fDJ::' P"" S;Jl?JHS S:t!'M'M 1ZIS !JD ;tV,N NC'/,'1','C:-; :].\'l,~11'i}l'\\iV:~ 21na:JHJS JNV1d ?tlddrl,:l '.Jd'v'JSclNV1 F-""' ll<''J "fl"' F'~rt,-, ~.J? so:; c ,:;:;_r,; :h-.. "'.I .vpl ~;-" an?'Y. 1W7~1"~ ,,, cio,. ·"'"i" 're;_· ··;.'.)--~--~ )~~ ""-' P''""~ ""1 "l '·"'''! r~•rt,,,, "fl ""If' P' 'f "'''~'1" cw ""'"""''-f' ep q.ro au..~ ''"JP!'"-""' ,,,·,L-l?t:'. """" 'l.''11• . "''"'v'" './,) (,' 'Jt'.-.' -,-~ ;\1'11 "'d J.>dp -~ ,._..-.-"'''~''"'<;>o.a,1, ;>uC's L/.J/,\~O"t.'i<lSJ >.> IPi" ,n11 p,/::>,'.a;,r'.l ·h.o•.-£!0 .I' :;,.i,o l" a, ... ~ JO ct-; <'O lf"f,X,J J" ctq '"''J" c;,;s· '..IV"-" "-'J -"',"~ ,.,, . ~ •,;.i, ;<"?}; o;:,;,·,o,j, C>j -. C?OIJ 1::or,, I~ P"/'lff'",'S" "HL' c;;>"fl"[\ '-"J'-"'d V WMM O'ft"',-, p:,,' ~-<"~·-., [.11ff"t"1IiqTu 16 ~ H'vd.lJ ,,z I C.TiffJJ'l·;:HJ"II Ht. J~,.'.lt'FH1-,:£j/;·1g h1'f'1'-'W f'-'-' Ir~ °"~'1''W pA! '!1.J "'·~~l'lr-"1r• b•'f'"IPW I"-'' 1nJ WC,.-.,Jl'/1' f"" :nJ "'~'f'l"W~:r, b.llf-r/1' '"' 1r., "'~'1--"l"W ""'Ir, b.1'171'"W """Ir; '°~'f'll-'l'I ""' Ir.! ~\W,~M l"",l F' ,,l r'" ,,z: r,,l p,,,-,: r.,z: p,,;,: p "l I"' ,,z: 'F-".',,!. 11;, 1,/,0J '' " 17,; JJLlrw'l? ~P"'/1'~ .. ~ ""'!'~ 1 •")'El~a,;oa.d,c .... ,~t...._.,,,,q '¥'11' ~-,.,., ,,:..m;:,t,-vr- .ofFV,· ~~ -'-'f'"Jr•;i=,·~ >.JWVLa •-r, 1/NN Nal,W0J • f"."tvCl'<J.-"''-"'~•_.a ·"-V -.,rl-C;!c,1w;:~,s •"'"""'~"'' JO'.V .,t"R"<,! phjj .,.,·"'1ZG~ e~•,qo,;·l,',~ .,..,,.,.,.,o.~c,",,.-p~,:>"J,""' Sl:D, J/\'VN Y;'NVL'.'<l :nna:JHJS JNV1d :J:];11. JN:JW'.JJ\/1d'.J21 saiv 1s:i 1s:i21J2n11 -\/ ~1 ,,_, 1- ,,,.----' -• "'"0""'-" . ' --,....,.,...- -~ ~' e<.&m->e,.... -,-,,--,,,,. •• ,,;.,ll!S·,= WldID!l0"""3>1 n'l'l mi 1.l>'JIJ'I ~ SN01SIA3~ t,§0 ; 'iCIJ6 ~ '!!"'I"'!\\ -1,ocll, JI r.v1:j':I ---~ tm,d, '. f , ~"Y'"""°'M AlWA ddll' •->LSL/0 < ~ :,;~::J ~ ";~",i.i •• , " A;!1c!VA•Allc!VA•,U12M\ I ' l LH~ISH lltll ,fL~ ,, l • ~ p ;,:¥ . ' " ---1 I ' ', I g "' 's S11\'J!J , SlJCN I ;:'.;! ~ J-V1d J.dOHS II JSJdJ:Jll;\ i .Ii "' 1l ' ~ ! --' ~ 3 S:JJVJS8 JS8dJ8nA 'l' ! "' , I ~ '0. ' I I >- "' w "' [;l 5 '- "' ~ -< >- "' w >-'" w "' u w 5 lfL ____ _ ""·-"'-~ ....... , ... °"' 811 ---c,,-_. (~JCl."",W&J c-~---- SE 1/4 SECnON 31, TOWNSHIP 23 N, RANGE 5 E, W.M. VUECREST ESTATES & VUECREST II SHORT PLAT T13:'J£1:f" "'""'"""''" ''""'""""'".....-"'c""' m!!J) o.R s=o ::~:::~~s ,...-.,,.-~.,.---SC',1'.S:JN ----1 20 / ' ' )/ -~ <::, tl TRACT "C" - ~ ~ t±j ,,.,-.,;,,, .. .,. ., i ·, ·-. I ,··.1 Vi ...,_ ~-~ ~=-,.t:-M, --D;.IT I .;,a 1.....,..., I;:.:._ I EXHIBIT 5 WECREST // SHORT PLAT U/!'iXXXXXX *' CTY t:W ~F'H:Jf\. P ,,,,,;/D.,1•;~/P,01: woe" D•o,. 1/UECREST £SU rES Sill: \IIXUW£ CALCULATIONS ""'""-""" "'-'°-""' ,.,,.,_. (:,:~! r";,;;:, ,~:~-cc'"· --- """-'-"" "'"-~ ===---·"-""""""'""""'""'""' """'""" 00 ""' ~···I..:X.~."' "',N, SO< ,-: ... ,--~ ... ""'-"""',$; ~-'"''"""'' ""'"""' GEO TECH RECOIJIJEND"-T10NS: '"'"'""-""°"''"'-'''"''""'""'"'""'°""'sc,_,so,w: '"-4'Y"""""""™'"""""'OS""-'C-SC .. 9CS>H'O'l,a,"" cct< .. N,.,.,,. ~--r:o,,-,;vs ro.,,o,,YIOI< 8(,.-,"' _,.__,, «-<ri:ar "'"" ""-"' "''"''""" "' _,,,. •=. a~~£1~::~.:::£?o~ = me,, A «OPEc>,••CU S:AJ<<J,•01" »IC ><>t> '"°""~"'° M ,Ho r,sr Pff H>CAO<>i' ARC t.r:•f'"'-'' su,,,a,,: roe U«: '5 <""-"~"" '" """""'·="""-'-""'"'""""-·"""'""'"'""''-'Jlf '""''"""' ... ..,,_.,,..,.,o, ..-o:..s,r""' -o, ~,-,,-,c,.,., ..-Hc,ou-,;""'""'''"''"'"' ==~~ ~~,,:=:=·~,,=~:, .... "" =•~1..,""';,~ .._, ....,,.,,...,..,.., °"""-_,. ro ~ """"'"""" ,.,.,« "" =a.a .. ""' "'""'' "'""'""' ~_;:;.~"'~;!;:'~'.;":"»= •. :~~~·; ~'.;'~"'~~"''=~~~~:::. .. ,:;, ::rzr~~i:rr:=~&~~~~- f!A '>£/JENT RES TOR,', TION /,IQ_~ ..... ~"'"'""' ''"'"'''""""""'"'"'""" .. "'" ~, .. ,,,,,:,-, :''.:':'';;'; ::;.;::' 0-" "''"'"""'....,,.,.,"nu;-""° @ NORTH -·= ' "" .., . - RECC...MENDEOFOR~r:N__AJ.. -BY 0.0o __ BY °""'--- BY °""'-- WECREST ESTATES & VUECREST II ii l1DAll AN) G'.AOING Pl.AN U15~:oo.xx / U15:o:xux DRS PROJfCT NO. 12102 " 8 a z l ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ , 0 ~ • ~ 0 " r r:=-i~ I I ; ~.;, ; ,Ii~"• !i ~·~"i'~ ~~;·1~10 ~~~~~~g~~~~~ ~: i .a ··,·-"e .• e~ii•~j:!~!~~'~''!; ~~v~,_ '" ~. · :!5B -~~·~• 'o••a••'i;•'' oai~~ -~~~~j w~~ "'~''13,ice,,,~.i 1 s;,•§ '"e•--•·'c Sa <o~~~~-ia~O!;!~i:1• ~f8: ~~::;:,~ ~~ ~~ ~:ij ,.,,~-•-e•;-,i~"i"' ~~1:al!1,~ ~!' l 1 il e~ jl''~~;;jaijiiE'' OLI~ ~t, ~~ ~~F'bz~i l11 ij•1=1!i~li~l1l1! j~ ol;~l's,. "'.E"':i:6~::;~ l~~i!~~51~5 5~il!i~i ,,,,!~>0 sl•!1•,·1·• ~~~ j.._~j~j~uj~~~~~~~ • 0 -Bil!1°:o!•·''il~ ~j~zi~•.._J~ -~~!~~ ~"' ~1~~.ji:~11,~1·'•!1! i=~23g ii=g ~s s~~f~ ., l~ -~. I" ,, ·r " j "f • • •-1 ,::;:gs:~ h: ,,~, tt«11ii ·~-+ ~ I§~ di, tjl;;i,:~ ~nt;; ~~~~ ~~ii~ -g~i! ~i; i'' -' :i~ ' a; ol~'<l~ ~i i~' ·,5 ,, !~ ' ~:1 ~~i~J~ "li i!i~I ,. !!j! !,· ,!,j;i '~I ~Szi:l~ ;iii ., ,. ~~;,;· a§' ~!;!ii ~t --' ~t;; ~ ~-· ,a•'~ "~" 6~~.JS i;;iw! ,;i !U ;:::c,,u~~ ~,-;;~w"' ~§;ffie g;:~ ;~~ ~""i3~1: ~);~~i .:~u ~~i6 i;'.:w :;,!:!l .,; ... ~~;:jf.> g§j :".~~g~ ;ii~.:!~ <>o 0:::l<'::~~~ ~ .. ;:;j<:;, ~~u ~~t, ~~!~·i~ ~~c ~~;~~ ;S:\i:r"' ,g ... ~ \?;;~ Hi~ ... a;-:, •li••i ffiS;9~ re'~~ ~:i ... ~g~s~ 6C~ .. 'jolt':,, le! g~~~~ ~§S! i~! g,;5~. :I; ~t ... ~~ iUHI ~g:~ 8~ii ""' ~~~ :n ~:i~ i~~~~: ~~~ ~~)g~g ~;o~ ~~j1!~ i~~n~ .,, ~ ... ~ i~U ~§§ ,c~Oz~~ ,:e,;i j~:~g; 2§, ·-· h~ 65'~;;;;:!: ~~e ~~::"~~'£ -~-·--·--·-------- c u j•ii, ~ §,~g~ • ig " ·~~~~-' ~ ug ~~i~I ~ ! -·~ !!"II !, ~i:? iU ~i3;"'~ :';~!:~ ,, ~~~~iS ·-•" ~i; :!!i~lo! ~~ s~,f:if ~,, -~, .. n ::l!!l~E~ §!~c,Q 'l" ., F:5.:i§o'.:; !-hl e~~i'~ ,, oo :,1 ~E~;~~ ii "~ a• !~ Vo ~b ' 0 ~~ ;~~ ., l's~~§/"'~ ., ~-i~~~i~ i~ ,, ~H !:;'p931 n ~~!in! i~J ' i~ l~i .·~1 !t "'' ,. i? . a!,. ~ffi "''i §!f~ ,e, ;, •fl~ •!" !'ll~~ 3. ~~ d ;;~~ r·· ~;~~ ,. ,. !~~·~ ~~~~ ~i c'<!u i~~~ 2!~~ ~i "'"'~w ,0 !!~-~ 3.t.;;:-' r~ 6!ii ., §"'s.:f 62~1:i ., ~!•" :ri:i~ ~-~ ""'' ,,., ~~tO' :;l'""ffi';! ,~ ~~3::: ' !ii~ -, i~w~ ~! '0• l ei;~ g,,~ am i93~ ij; ,~:! ~~~i "-~~:; i -- . g " ~ ' : ~ • ' 3 I ~ ,: .E i i ~ ~ i! ~ 1 ! :1& ;:;~; " >c I I 00 - ,.:l I I .. o< b ,i_ " -z jo I )~ ~:i -" " -cO ,c ' ~ >la'cr,,.;.n _;'.!: ·It'.,)!--~ ~ ~ !"' --~ E ~ ~!~ l!~ S ,-l;io..u..w " : ' ! f i~ • • I ! ~ I ~ ' • !a ~ il I i • • ~ I g ! ~ • ~i~ 0 : oat: '-su> • ~i s ~~ 8 ~~ " • ~;~s~5 ., " ti j~ I ~Qi~~i aC h @ E~ ~§i~l~ Vu ~ •• =l:lt i:: ~! ,:s;!' • §i I 8~f;':cz~ § ts ' ~;:g~i;:J ~~ ,, !, ' "I ! 1:,!~, ~~ So ''"''! 29 ;1 ~~ ' 'Eii• '" :1 ' ' '~a:ij !! '" ~i:f ' •i s! I ~ .!'I~!;;: •1· ~~ ,1~~·, ;! • u~, ~! ~ ·~ -~01~1 ;, ~· !~ . , el"'~ « ,ea " f -~ , .. •, ,, .~ 6~~ ~ il; ~ !::r ,, ;; '!''"! ~~ 5 "' ._ iiE"' 0 d u 1tJ::i~Fil! ui , ,. i M ·~ ,,111a, vsf •" h ~~~~;~ A :; =~ . ,!.l, :i; •!•_;! ,§;~, .• ' 5~~1; tat;; "' '!" ' h~ ~,-Ii'~~! . -· C i• ;,~! g~~;~ .i ~~§;ijil~~ ! i~~t:i::l~ I e· 1-·-• "•1i~ ~' I •§,§,;. :J!• ~~11~ i~~I! ii .. ~i ~ -~ i . .. ;~a§i!1 ~a!i '""'~ --·1~·!~'~" fgi~~ : . ~ • ~i;~~~; :g '"~ -::l~>-i lg~ • ::;:, ,..1-:g li1 .. ,,,,, .. -,.·~~,; ~"li'~:l I ,n:.C,"'t:: C ~~i,':ls l!!!u ! ···~· ,~~ ~~~··~· ;"'...:z~ffi'.i:-< l~•,j l• •• ,g, ,asi•"© i~~ld~~~a -, -~"'"~! ~i©•·c 11 I !~ !.~ g.._,..~"'1 ·FC 'e'•'-,. .~. -1----' --~,, .,,··-~ "I ~-i •• 0 -·-i s, ~~9~ig_~~ !;;;~;i i~t;;c,:,! c,~~ ~~·-i~1'i! ' ' ~ ~~];I ... >-e:. ! l. ~~~g~;~!p :;q~f-,~~ g " '·"I-~ u~~ t.~ E g~< :li:i ,;, •;·~ ~~:~~;~;f~ i!:1""-"' '• > l·'· 'i 11 ··~·· ! j~~g~a~.J~ •• ~.~ ,: "'o "'.!l's ~ l~!·j1 1!, ~::~..,i=~ :: tn3Jt:l1!1if:l!~~~ H ,g,~•p" 'ro• ·~ •s· ~J1h:L I ! 5:,!~ gF'i;;t:i .. ,~. ,i ~ s:,;...;~t'.Hht~ :.1,,.agt .. ~-~· • ~., ~,g !I ~~~ ' ' ···1 ii I ;:;§! ~ifil~ :,~~ g ., '! i_~j'"~ h 5~ ... -os ,,;! --~ !! ~:@:f ~'i ~~i!: ~ ,, "65-li!. ... ii, r i"" ii ~;:::~ c l ip1~--!§ i •a• .,,_; ~Z/j; "' 'i:/u~~ ~~ s,~ ~g~ 1• ::a~;" t-:.:~..,a i i~8~ ~,~!i~ ~~ s,u ._, .! ~ ... ,,, ' ~it H fH'~~ o• ~~~ ~~!in n ' 8,-;--<~ '"' e> ~i~~~g ,a:, ' ~~i i, ~Cai'= Ii ,•, a i,,, C•f"' t,,~~ ' ll~ ,, ""~ ,!~ ~~i 5:a"' ! v, iSh ~o~,::~9 'il; ~i~ ~ o•c i::'. " ~>-o)Q .. ~ ~~~ ; g~~wf~ !l if~ ' ~~~ ,1 !IU .. t,wi!:~,-~· S~o ·-e,c; ~i ~it !~~t:;ju ~~~ !g !-• ~ ,, "'' 0 ~~;~~~ 1, ~!~ 1< ~ii~ 1,, sc,; ~ §:gi~a s ,,o ' ".!; ~~~~ 11 :i~t~ -~ , Qg ~ • ~':i:2',! !: ;6b eC;i§'.>si1 ~c§ 0 trn~ "" 0 '" , ,. "-, f :;'i~~~~~ .... n "-~& .:i~ ijj~~ "~i ';~~a: C i'i! ~ ,:~~ I I"• "'~~~l'; i~~~t -·· ~g~~~~ !gi!;g i'.!:!13t ... i~!St~.~ o~-·u ;~g~;i aid~~ ,r··, ~ ~h§ ... c,;;"!:;~.,, §~,~§~ i, ~·, ~!:; t":. ~~~~ii ~o5c,;~3; ,;:I'="->! o~a~! ,~aha I '!ii!:t.ij = 1Hi 4 H, i o!f ~ ~:.~ 8 ~ ~ ~-J ~ f d "I' ·~ -, -" . ~~ii ~ j~~I 1HJ ~ z 0 ~ " ;;; " w ~ ~ " ~ z ::i ::s ~ ;i ui "' w C!) ~~ ;::z ZIil"' :5wN "'9, 0.<JI zW<ll o:>z ->:,: ti:' 0 I C!)"' I--W . I-:I! N :Eo~ ;:;! :,: ;;; z°'z u:6g Ill I- "'" <Cw :,: (/) u. 0 z 0 ~ 0 a. '.I ~ w " ! ' ,· - i i i 11!1, : !, l l! j H,i l!il c:; ~!:~i, l I! 11 i'!j. :::-~-1111. e~ el !~vl ·f' I ~~ . ~~~~1: ' ,'I i• h ji'il 1''11 !! " ill! §H z < z w >-z .; 2 0 z < " z ~ 0 ~ z 0 2 .i ;,!j ,ii ' ,! ' -I i ·I ., I h ! II j~3 11,1 ,. !! l(.~~ ~~. ; I ~~ " ~;i 3 ~~fri1 j', ~;~~ " H 1 l~l2 ~~i~~~~d ' ii~ ' ,1,! ~~ :l§ fi ~;;~ ' ~~~F '! ~1 ' '" ~h~i~;~~ ' ~i! !, i ~:?;:j'. l o!j1 i~ ~~ ";£!'. Fib~E~~ ! H~ ~~J at~ ll i i'l o"'-o afi;~~~ ,i •! "1'•'!! ' ! 'P ~~ i, i:~~~'~ ~ ~-~;g~ ;~~; l' I~ Oii l ''l l ;i, ' ~1' iv ~~ ( ii :1 ~iU i' :! ~ ,. g ti , !i~~H~~I ~iJ l H ' ;~ f'" g!i1,fi~1 li d!~; il< ' ~; ! Pi ~ _,, I ''I ~i ?.~ J h~ 'j !,l·o· Ii ~t ,.,., ] ti :i ii L ..;lllj • !,r,,•ij ~!it ,, !!iii h '! i ~j j 1:1 ' "~-P!i; 6§1 t~ .,~ ~ l '"''1 r ,_, ~. Ii! !2~ ,,,., ! l M ~~ J~!if {~ l I . #S.,v ~ ~~ i'jl ~~ !; J I •!, ! ~:[ '1~ fa l,! , In 1,1 "i' hii ~H ~.1_ i~l6 ir t~"' hi iii j!,1, ~Uh ' j ' j ~ ' ! l l l ' ui "' UJ " :! u. 0 z 0 ~ 0 a. I ~i~ii: \ ''' i ' I }, ',&, < ! 'f;f, ~ -fJ ·;!t"._ ~ _J ~ i 1 . I -, ~ n ~ • • !! i i 'I l ii i,," l! li !l1l l, !1 JJIL ,, 'l , '1 O• Cl C 'l) 0 I ' '" • Hi II I . ~iil ~ ~ ' 0 g ~ ' _....,,.. 0 ___ j ~--=~-.-~.::--...... ...., .. ' / ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' a ' ' ' . I ~cl ' ': \ ~ \ 'I -"f' L------~,) 1---' Ii : "' ' ' ' ' I I ' !L ______ : ~~=---==-:!_ ' ' ' I ------------------L I I . ' L : I ' ' . j / 1 . I ' "' : .~ >-' () ! ~ l >- i I ; I ; -..... ~ p ~ I-~ () ' ~ i >- ------------.,.......J ' ' ' ' ' ' I il !;:;!,Jl •jj1 i j I ' .!i'~ts ii,. ~1!! !Hi / I / I / il•!~ ' ' // i:j~ ij: __________ _, ---------------•--~ DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE REVIEW REPORT, REVISED ERC MEETING DA TE: Project Nome: Project Number: Project Manager: Owner: Applicant: Contact: Project Location: Project Summary: Site Area: J~ly 15, 20B August 18, 2014 Vuecrest Estates LUAB-000642; ECF, PP, MOD Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner Full Document Available upon Request Schneider Homes I, LLC; 6510 Southcenter Blvd #1; Tukwila WA 98188 Jamie Waltier; Harbour Homes; 1441 N 34 1h St #200; Seattle WA 98103 Maher Joudi; DR Strong Consulting Eng; 10604 NE 38 1h Pl, Suite 232; Kirkland WA 98033 4800 Block Smithers Ave S; Renton WA 98055 The project proponent has submitted an application for a Preliminary Plat subdivision, which requires an environmental review by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. If approved, the project would result in the subdivision of a 6.06 acre property, located in the Talbot planning area of the City, into~ 20 lots suitable for single-family residential use. The property has Comprehensive Plan designations of Residential Low Density, Residential Single- Family, and Residential Medium Density and is corespondlingly zoned Residntial 1, Residential 8, and Residential 14. The west approximately one-third of the property is within the Talbot Urban Separator and is subject to City of Renton Urban Separator Overlay Regulations. The project site is currently undeveloped. 263,328 sf (6.06 acres) Building Area to remain: Building Area to be demolished Project Location Map EXHIBIT 7 N/A N/A SETILEMENT AGREEMENT This SETILEMENT AGREEMENT(" Agreement") is made as of this _f:/_ day of i1J\i'. { (, \•\ 2015, between the City of Renton, a Washington municipal corporation ("Renton") and Harbour Homes, LLC, a Washington limited liability company ("Harbour"). RECITALS A. Renton is a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, organized under the Optional Municipal Code, Title 35A RCW, located in King County, Washington. B. Harbour is the applicant for the preliminary plat known as Vuecrest Estates, Renton File Number LUAB-000642 ("Vuecrest Estates"). C. Vuecrest Estates is located west of Main Ave. S, which is also known as and hereinafter referred to as 102nd Ave. SE, and is separated from 102nd Ave. SE by two parcels of property: King County Parcel No. 3223059171, owned by Joseph and Martha Mackenzie (the "Mackenzie Parcel") and King County Parcel No. 3223059097, owned by KBS Ill LLC (the "KBS Ill Parcel"). The Mackenzie Parcel is located immediately north of the KBS Ill Parcel. D. In its application for preliminary plat approval for Vuecrest Estates, Harbour proposed that the public road to be extended from the north through Vuecrest Estates, known as Smithers Ave. S., be terminated with a temporary cul-de-sac at the boundary of the Mackenzie Parcel, because the owners of the Mackenzie Parcel had no interest in developing the Mackenzie Parcel and no interest in granting an easement through the Mackenzie Parcel for access to 102nd Ave. SE. E. The Renton Hearing Examiner issued a Final Decision Upon Reconsideration concerning Vuecrest Estates (the "Hearing Examiner Decision") that included Condition 13 which read: 13. Prior to the recording of the final plat, a secondary fire access shall be constructed that extends Smithers Ave S to the east ta directly connect to Main Ave S (102nd Ave SE). The extent of street improvements necessary to effectuate this connection shall be determined by the City of Renton Fire Department in accordance with applicable fire code standards and shall be the minimum necessary to provide for safe and effective secondary access for fire trucks and emergency vehicles. F. Harbour appealed the Hearing Examiner Decision to the Renton City Council. G. Subsequent to Harbour filing its appeal, the owner of the KBS Ill Parcel applied to Renton for short plat approval for a project known as Vue crest II ("Vuecrest II"). The proposed layout of Vuecrest II includes a public road identified as Road A between the eastern boundary of Vuecrest Estates and 102''' Ave. SE. Full Document Available upon Request EXHIBIT 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Full Document Available upon Request BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat ) ) ) FINAL DECISION Preliminary Plat LU AlJ-000642 ) ) ) ) ) SUMMARY The applicant requests preliminary plat approval, street improvement waiver and possibly a critical area exemption for a 20-lot residential subdivision. The street wavier is to allow a dead-end road in excess of 700 feet. The critical area exemption is for placing a drainage line across the face of a steep slope. The preliminary plat is approved. The street improvement waiver is not approved. The applicant was unable to establish that the street waiver would not result in an unsafe fire response condition for residents of the proposed subdivision. The critical area exemption is not considered to be consolidated with the preliminary plat and street modifications of this proposal. The staff report at no point identifies the exemption as consolidated with the preliminary plat application. The proposal summary makes no mention of the critical area exemption. However, Page 17 of the staff report recommends approval of a critical areas exemption, suggesting that consolidation was intended. If the exemption was intended to be consolidated with the preliminary plat application, there is insufficient information in the record to assess its merits. RMC 4-3-050(C)(5)(d)(iv) requires a gcotcchnical report to be prepared that assesses compliance with the exemption criteria and to also propose mitigation. No reference to any such report is made in the staff report and no such geotechnical report could be found in the administrative record. Impacts of the proposed stormwater vault and retaining walls are assessed in the geotechnical reports, but nothing else in the geotechnical reports could be found that specifically addressed the drainage line or the exemption criteria. Given the absence of this needed information and the fact PRELIMINARY PLAT -l EXHIBIT 9 ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT LUA13-000642 Application Date: May 21, 2013 Name: Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat of Site Address: PLAN -Planning Review -Land Use Version 1 I January 25, 2016 Fire Review • Building Comments Contact: Corey Thomas I 425-430-7024 I cthomas@rentonwa.gov Recommendations: Environmental Impact Comments: 1. The fire impact fees are applicable at the rate of $495.10 per single family unit. This fee is paid prior to recording the plat. Code Related Comments: 1. The fire flow requirement for a single family home is 1,000 gpm minimum for dwellings up to 3,600 square feet (including garage and basements). If the dwelling exceeds 3,600 square feet, a minimum of 1,500 gpm fire flow would be required. A minimum of one fire hydrant is required within 300 feet of the proposed buildings and two hydrants if the fire flow goes up to 1,500 gpm. A water availability certificate is required from Soos Creek Water and Sewer District. 2. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required to be a minimum of 20 feet wide fully paved, with 25 feet inside and 45 feet outside turning radius. Fire access roadways shall be constructed to support a 30 ton vehicle with 322 psi point loading. All roadways shall be fully constructed and completed in both the Vuecrest and Vuecrest II plats prior to construction of any new homes in the Vuecrest Plat. Planning Review Comments .· Contact: Clark Close 1425-430-7289 I cclose@rentonwa.gov Recommendations: 1. RMC section 4 4 030.C.2 limits haul hours between eight thirty (8:30) a.m. and three thirty (3:30) p.m., Monday through Friday unless otherNise approved in advance by the Development Services Division. 2. Commercial, multi family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours bet\-veen nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plants appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. 4. A National Permit Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is required when more than one acre is being cleared. 5. The applicant may not fill, excavate, stack or store any equipment, dispose of any materials, supplies or fluids, operate any equipment, install impervious surfaces, or compact the earth in any way within the area defined by the drip line of any tree to be retained. 6. The applicant shall erect and maintain six foot (6') high chain link temporary construction fencing around the drip lines of all retained trees, or along the perimeter of a stand of retained trees. Placards shall be placed on fencing every fifty feet (50') indicating the words, "NO TRESPASSING -Protected Trees" or on each side of the fencing if less than fifty feet (50'). Site access to individually protected trees or groups of trees shall be fenced and signed. Individual trees shall be fenced on four (4) sides. In addition, the applicant shall provide supervision whenever equipment or trucks are movina near trees. Engineering Review-Comments . Contact: Rohini Nair I 425-430-7298 I mair@rentonwa.gov Recommendations: I have reviewed the minor modification application for Vuecrest Estates and Vuecrest II and have the following comments: EXISTING CONDITIONS WATER Water service will be provided Soos Creek Water and Sewer service District SEWER Sewer service will be provided by the City of Renton STORM There is existing storm water ditch in the Main Ave S (102nd Ave SE) frontage STREETS Main Ave S (102nd Ave SE) and Smithers Avenue South are residential streets. CODE REQUIREMENTS WATER 1. Water service will be provided by Soos Creek Water and Sewer Service District forVuecrest Estates and Vuecrest II. The City and Soos Creek District have an agreement by which the Water service will be provided by Soos Creek and the sewer service will be provided by the City of Renton. 1. Approved water plans from Soos Creek Water and Sewer service District should be provided to the City at the utility construction permit stage. Ran: January 25, 2016 EXHIBIT 10 Page 1 of 3 ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT LUA 13-000642 of PLAN • Planning Review · Land Use Version 1 I January 25, 2016 Engineering Review Comments Contact: Rohlni Nair I 425-430-7298 I mair@rentonwa.gov SANITARY SEWER 2. Sewer service will be provided by City of Renton for Vuecrest Estates and Vuecrest 11. The City and Soos Creek District have an agreement by which the Water service will be provided by Soos Creek and the Sewer service will be provided by the City of Renton. 3. Applicable sewer fees will be applicable at the time of issuance of the utility construction permit. SURFACE WATER 1. A combined detention and water quality vault located in Vuecrest Estates is proposed to meet the storm water needs of both Vuecrest Estates and Vuecrest II. The storm water vault will require separate building permit review. Storm water BMP's are also proposed for the individual lots. 2. The original geotech report that was submitted for the project identifies the soils as sand glacial till. These soils will not support infiltration. An updated geotech report from the licensed Geotechnical Engineer that includes subsurface exploration at the proposed location of the footings for the bridge/culvert along with recommended design bearing capacities should be provided with the utility construction permit review. 3. The current surface water system development charge ($DC) fee is $1,350.00 per new lot. Fees are payable prior to issuance of the construction permit and the fee rate that is current at the time of issuance of the utility construction permit will be applicable and the fees are payable prior to issuance of the construction permit. 4. A Construction Storm water General Permit from Department of Ecology is required since grading and clearing of the site exceeds one acre. TRANSPORTATION/STREET 1. Payment of transportation impact fee is applicable on the single family houses. The current transportation impact fee rate is $2,214.44 per new lot. The transportation impact fee that is current at the time of building permit will be levied. Payment of the transportation impact fee is due at the time of issuance of the single family building permits. 2. Roads and Private Access a) Smithers Ave South from the north property line ofVuecrest Estates to approximately Station 15+50 -The proposed extension of Smithers Avenue consists of a ROW width of 53 feet (subject to final survey), with 26 feet paved width with 0.5 feet wide curbs, 8 feet wide landscaped planter, and 5 feet wide sidewalks. b) Smithers Ave South from approximately STA 15+50 till STA 17+00 A bridge/culvert is proposed for the crossing over the wetland. The paved width for this portion of Smithers Ave South is 22 feet, with 0.5 feet wide curb on both sides with 5 feet wide sidewalk on the south side. The ROW width is approximately 32 feet (subject to final survey). There should be one foot of flat area at the back of the sidewalk or curb, before the rounding of the slope. The maximum slope allowed back of the sidewalk (and back of curb where there is no sidewalk) is 4H: 1V. c) SE 186th Street (from approximately STA 17+00 of Smithers Ave South to approximately STA 20+50 on SE 186th St.) The paved width of this portion of the street is a 22 foot wide paved road surface with 0.5 feet wide curb on both sides, 5 feet wide sidewalk on the south side immediately adjacent to the curb, and an 8 foot landscape easement behind the sidewalk. The ROW width is 34.5 feet (subject to final survey). A guard rail as per WSDOT Standard Plan C 20.10 02, will be provided near the north curb. A 4' tall black vinyl coated chain link fence is required, and a proposed cast in place concrete wall with a maximum height of 8 feet. (Where the exposed wall height is 6 feet or less or if the clear zone behind the curb is 8 feet or greater (maximum slope of 4H:1V) a guardrail would not be required.) A pedestrian barrier/fence should be located a minimum of 2 feet away from the curb, between the curb and the vertical drop off. "No Parking" signs are required to be provided by the developer along this portion of the street. The street section includes a 2% down slope towards the south with curb and gutter at the south side. d) SE 186th Street (from approximately STA 20+50 on SE 186th Street to Main Ave South/102nd Ave SE) This portion of the street includes a 26 foot wide paved surface, a 0.5 foot wide curb, an 8 foot wide landscaped planter, and 5 foot wide sidewalk, all within a 41.5 foot ROW width with on street parking on the south side of the street The ROW for this half street is 41.5 feet. A 2 foot offset of the paved edge from the property line is also proposed within the ROW with a chain !ink fence at the property line. The maximum slope at the back of sidewalk or back of the traveled edge is shown in the road cross section at 4H:1V. A construction easement and permanent slope easement from the north property neighbor may also be required based on plans that will be reviewed during utility construction permit. The street section has a 2% down slope towards the south. with curb and gutter at the south side for the straight portion of the road. The design includes a 5 foot centerline offset of the roadway centerline of proposed Road A with the existing street SE 186th St. Ran: January 25, 2016 Page 2 of 3 ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT LUA 13-000642 of PLAN -Planning Review -Land Use Version 1 I January 25, 2016 Engineering Review Comments Contact: Rohini Nair j 425-430-72981 mair@rentonwa.gov e) The proposed Road A will be required to be a private shared access of 20 feet paved width in a 20 feet tract, extending to the west property line of Lot 20. This will lead to a dead end access longer than 150 feet without a turnaround, however it is acceptable for Fire Department. f) The proposed Road B will be required to be a private shared access of 20 feet paved width in a 20 feet tract, extending to the west property line of Lot 10. This will lead to a dead end access longer than 150 feet without a turnaround, however it is acceptable for Fire Department. 3. MSHTO LROF Bridge Design Specifications, Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design, WSDOT Bridge Design Manual LRFD,WSDOT Design Memorandums, WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual, FHWA Hydraulic Engineering Circular 18, 20, & 23, and WSDOT Hydraulics Manual should be followed for the bridge/culvert design. The scour analysis should determine a calculated depth of scour based on hydraulics and stream bed materials. 4. Adequate sight distance should be provided at the proposed intersection of the new half street with Main Ave S (102nd Ave SE). 5. No lot is proposed to gain direct access from 102nd Ave SE (Main Street S). The individual driveways shall be as per RMC 4 4 060. 6. Paving and trench restoration will comply with the City's Trench Restoration and Overlay Requirements. 7. Street lighting is required for this plat on the frontage and on the internal access road. LED lighting plans will be included with the civil plan submittal. 8. To meet ADA requirements, an ADA compliant sidewalk ramp will be required to be provided on the opposite side of Main Avenue. GENERAL COMMENTS 1. All construction utility permits for drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals. All utility plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. A licensed Civil Engineer shall prepare the civil plans. 2. Rockeries or retaining walls greater than 4 feet in height will be require a separate building permit. Structural calculations and plans shall be submitted for review by a licensed engineer. Special Inspection is required. 3. A tree removal and tree retention/nrotection nlan and a senarate landscape plan shall be included with the civil plan submittal. Ran: January 25. 2016 Page 3 of 3 September 28, 2015 Project No. 12102 CITY OF RENTON PROJECT NARRATIVE PLAT OF VUECREST ESTATES LUA13-000642 MINOR MODIFICATION The project is a proposed single-family residential development of 9.31 acres, known as Tax Parcel 3123059048 into 20 single-family residential lots. The property is located approximately at 4800 Block of Smithers Avenue S in the City of Renton, Washington. The Site is currently undeveloped. Project Contact Information: Developer: Engineer/Surveyor: Land Use Permits Required: -Preliminary Plat Approval -Final Plat Approval -Environmental Review Zoning and Density: Harbour Homes, LLC 1441 North 34th Street, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98103 (206) 315-8130 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. 620 7'h Avenue Kirkland, WA 98033 (425) 827-3063 Maher A. Joudi, P.E. -Grading Permit -Building Permit The property is divided into R-1 zone on the western portion, R-8 on the eastern portion, and there is a small portion zoned R-14 near the southwest corner of the site. The adjacent properties to the east are zoned R-8. The adjacent properties to the west are zoned R-14. The adjacent properties to the north are zoned R-8 on the eastern portion of the site and zoned R-1 on the western portion of the site. The adjacent properties to the south are zoned R-8 on the eastern portion of the site and zoned R-1 on the western portion of the site. The properties abutting the southeast corner of the site are zoned R-4. The Proposed Site will lie solely within the R-8 zone. All calculations for the project are based on the R-8 area of the site. Page 2 of 4 Current use of Site and existing improvements: The Parcel is currently undeveloped and heavily vegetated. Most of the existing vegetation and trees will be removed within the developable area. Special Site features: The Parcel currently consists of two Category II wetland areas, one located on the eastern edge of the property line and the other enveloping the southern area. The southern wetland connects to a Class 4 stream. This Class 4 stream exits the Parcel near the southwest corner of the site. The proposed subdivision road crosses the Class 4 stream utilizing a 3 sided, precast, concrete culvert. The Parcel also consists of a steep slope critical area. The steep slopes span the entire length of the Parcel, north to south, and begin near the center of the Parcel sloping towards the western property line. Soil Type and Drainage Conditions: Per the King County Soil Survey, onsite soil consists of AgC, Alderwood gravelly sandy loam with slopes ranging from 6-15% and AgD, Alderwood gravelly sandy loam with slopes from 15-30%. A portion of the Site runoff travels west and is collected into a seasonal stream/wetland that eventually discharges into an existing conveyance system in Talbot Road South. The remainder of the runoff from the site sheet flows across the steep slope and into the Campen Springs Condominium conveyance system before entering the conveyance system in Talbot Road South. Proposed Use of Property: The proposed Project is the subdivision of 4.90 net acres into 20 detached single- family residential lots, per the City of Renton's subdivision process. This will result in a net density of 4.08 dwelling units per acre. Lot square footages range from 4,500 to 6,653 s.f., with no lot sizes below the minimum 4,500 s.f. threshold set by the City. Access, Traffic, and Circulation: The Project will gain access through a proposed subdivision road which extends Smithers Avenue South, southerly through the parcel, crosses the Class 4 stream and stubs to the eastern property line near the southeast corner of the Site. The adjacent Vuecrest II Short Plat proposes to continue the roadway to Main Avenue South. The road improvement is reduced to 22 feet of pavement and sidewalk on one side where it impacts the sensitive area to limit the disturbance. The extension of the roadway through the Vuecrest 11 Short Plat will provide secondary access to the Project. Roads A and B will provide access to four lots each; these roads will be limited to 20 feet of pavement within a 20-foot right of way. Land to be Dedicated to the City: All of the right-of-way will be dedicated to the City. The area of public streets will total 40,453 s.f. There will also be two sensitive area tracts along with a storm drainage tract that will be dedicated to the City. Proposed Site Improvements: An existing water main in Smithers Avenue S will be tapped to serve the proposed residences. The existing Sanitary Sewer line in Smithers Avenue S will Page 3 of 4 accommodate the discharged waste. All storm water runoff will be collected and conveyed by a typical catch basin/pipe network to a storm detention vault located in Tract A. A tightline will be constructed down the steep slope and tie directly into the Campen Springs Condominium conveyance system. The Project will meet the drainage requirements of the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (Manual), as adopted by the City. The project will locate a job shack on the site as prescribed by the contractor during construction. Model homes will be built, however, the lots on which these homes will be built has not been determined at this time. Proposed Off-Site Improvements: The extension of the subdivision road through the Vuecrest II Short Plat property will serve as the project secondary access. Should there be a delay in the full roadway improvement on the Vuecrest II property, the developer of Vuecrest Estates will construct a 20-wide emergency vehicle access road through the Vuecrest II property for the benefit of the Vuecrest Estates. The project will also construct approximately 50 feet of storm drainage main on the adjacent Campen Springs property to connect directly into the downstream system. Cut Materials: Approximately 16,000 c.y. of cut and 5,800 c.y. of fill is computed for the Project. The net export volume is approximately 10,200 c.y. Tree Inventory: 44 of the existing 395 significant trees on site will be retained. The required number of trees to be retained is 59. 1 trees. Therefore, 181.2 replacement inches are required. Street trees, trees added to the critical buffers, and trees added to the outer edges of the property will be a minimum 2-inch caliper tree to meet the City's tree retention requirements. See tree retention spreadsheet. Changes between Approved and Proposed Plat: • Net density has increased to 4.08 dwelling units per acre from 4.05 dwelling units per acre. The number of proposed lots is unchanged. • The maximum lot size is proposed to be 6,653 sf where it was previously 8,134 sf. • The right of way configuration has been revised to continue south and cross the sensitive area to provide a stub to the east south of the wetland rather than north of the wetland. • A second shared access, Road B, is now proposed to provide access to Lots 10, 11, 12 and 13. • Secondary Access is now provided through the Vuecrest II Short Plat property. • The tree retention calculations have been revised to remove Dead, Diseased or Dangerous trees from the total count and the retention area has changed due to the roadway modifications. Page 4 of 4 Modifications being requested: 1. Right of Way Width and Improvement Reduction: The right of way is proposed to be reduced to 32 feet south of proposed Lot 9. Proposed improvements are limited to 22 feet of pavement (curb to curb), with curb and gutter on both sides and a sidewalk on the south side only. This is necessary in order to cross the sensitive area while limiting the disturbance. A sidewalk is proposed in order to allow for safe pedestrian connectivity through the public right of way while the 22 feet of traveled way will allow for safe emergency vehicle access. The roadway will be signed "No Parking" on both sides. Public welfare should be enhanced with this proposal as it creates connectivity to a parcel in permitting to allow for secondary access to an area with limited access points. Limiting the disturbance to the critical area by reducing the required improvement enhances public welfare by further protecting environment and potential wildlife habitat. 2. Critical Area Buffer Averaging: Buffer averaging south of the detention vault is proposed in order to maximize the distance between the proposed vault and the top of the steep slope area. Additional buffer area is proposed south of Lots 10 and 11. Limited buffer averaging is required in other areas of the site to maintain usable dimensions for surrounding lots in the subdivision. Public welfare should be maintained or enhanced with enhancement and replanting of the impacted and mitigating buffer areas. New buffer limits will be fenced and protected to allow for native growth and healthy habitats. 3. Shared Stormwater Facility: The Project proposes to construct a detention and water quality vault in Tract A. This facility will be sized to accommodate runoff from both Vuecrest Estates and the Vuecrest II Short Plat. Sharing of facilities provides public benefit in the form of reduced maintenance costs for the City. Estimated Construction Cost & Proposed Market Value: The approximate construction cost is typical of a subdivision of this size and nature totaling approximately $891,625.00. The estimated fair market value of the proposed project is approximately $2,520,000 ($120,000/lot). April 6, 2015 CAG: 15-025, Riverview Park Bridge Replacement, Rodarte Construction, Inc. CAG: 15-032, Sunset Terrace Regional Stormwater Facility, Olson Bros Excavating, Inc. \ Appeal: Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat,~- 001572 Community Services: 2015 Neighborhood Grant Applications Community Services: Purchase & Sale Agreement Amendment, Fawcett property Public Works: lnterlocal Cooperative Purchasing Agreement, Kitsap County Transportation: Increase in Staffing Transportation: Airport Sustainability Management Plan Lease: Amendment 015-15, Aerodyne, LLC, LAG-84-006 Lease: Amendment 2-15, Renton Gateway Center, LAG- 09-006 Lease: Amendment 015-15, Kaynan, Inc., LAG-84-003 Lease: Amendment 09-15, Kaynan, Inc., LAG-85-011 Renton City Council Minutes Page 63 City Clerk reported a bid opening on 3/23/2015 for CAG-15-025, Riverview Park Bridge Replacement; six bids; engineer's estimate $800,000; and submitted staff recommendation to award the contract to the low bidder, Rodarte Construction, Inc., in the amount of $759,628.88. Refer to Finance Committee for discussion of funding. City Clerk reported a bid opening on 3/24/2015 for CAG-15-032, Sunset Terrace Regional Stormwater Facility Project; ten bids; engineer's estimate $738,160.09; and submitted staff recommendation to award the contract to the low bidder, Olson Bros Excavating, Inc., in the amount of $649,550. Council concur. City Clerk Reported appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon reconsideration regarding the Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat (LUA-13- 001572) by Renate Beedon, Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group, accompanied by required fee. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. Community Services Department reported receipt of five 2015 Neighborhood Grant Program applications and recommended funding all five projects totaling $45,252. Refer to Community Services Committee. Community Services Department recommended approval of an amendment to the Purchase and Sale agreement for the Fawcett property, along May Creek, with an agreed upon price of $785,000. Refer to Finance Committee. Public Works Department recommended approval of an lnterlocal Cooperative Purchasing Agreement with Kitsap County to expedite the purchase of capital Items. Council concur. {See page 65 for resolution.) Transportation Systems Division requested authorization to increase a Public Works Department Transportation Systems Division Operations Section Civil Engineer II Position from 0.50 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) to 1.0 FTE. Refer to Finance Committee. Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of a resolution adopting the Renton Municipal Airport Sustainability Management Plan. Refer to Transportation (Aviation) Committee. Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of Amendment 015-15 to LAG-84-006, Aerodyne, LLC, for a land rental rate adjustment from $0.75 to $0.7252 in accordance with a January 2015 lease arbitration decision. Council concur. Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of Amendment 02-15 to LAG-09-006, Renton Gateway Center, for a land rental rate adjustment from $0.57 to $0.7252 in accordance with a January 2015 lease arbitration decision. Council concur. Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of Amendment 015-15 to LAG-84-003, Kaynan, Inc., for a land rental rate adjustment from $0.75 to $0.7252 in accordance with a January 2015 lease arbitration decision. Council concur. Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of Amendment 09-15 to LAG-85-011, Kaynan, Inc., for a land rental rate adjustment from $0.75 to $0.7252 in accordance with a January 2015 lease arbitration decision. Council concur. 3112 SE l 8t1i Street Renton, Washington 98058 March 30, 2015 Jason Seth, City Clerk Renton City Council's Planning and Development Committee 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98057 Subject: Tiffany Park Woods Development Renton City Council's Planning and Development Committee, CITY OF RENTON MAR 3 O 2015 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE There are several issues that I request your permission to briefly bring to your attention with supporting information and/ or photographs. I will be prepared, with information, to discuss any of the following issues. 1) SE 16tli Street accident records. 2) Congested hairpin tum as the water tower. 3) Area school capacity. 4) Friendliness and openness of neighborhoods. 5) Isolation of heritage neighborhood homes. 6) Development buffers 7) Loss of property values to heritage homeowners. 8) Dense housing. 9) Children need to in contact with nature. 10) Neighborhood residents denied the opportunity to gather information for hearings. 11) Requested Environmental Studies. 12)Money emphasis 13) City oversight of builders. 14) Neighborhood disruptions by multi million dollar international corporations. CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Subject/Title: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Final Decision upon Reconsideration dated 2/26/2015 regarding the Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat. (File No. LUA-13-001572) Exhibits: (See Summary for List of Exhibits) Recommended Action: Refer to Planning and Development Committee. Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required:$ Amount Budgeted:$ Total Project Budget: $ SUMMARY OF ACTION: N/A N/A N/A Meeting: REGULAR COUNCIL-06 Apr 2015 Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board: City Clerk Staff Contact: Jason Seth, City Clerk (x6502) Transfer Amendment: $ Revenue Generated: $ City Share Total Project: $ N/A N/A NIA Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision upon Reconsideration on the Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat was filed on 3/12/2015 by Renate Beed on, President of Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group, accompanied by the required $250.00 fee. EXHIBITS: A. Response Letters (Supporting & Denying) (3/27/2015 -3/30/2015) B. City Clerk's letter (3/20/2015) C. Appeal -TPWAG (3/12/2015) D. HEX's Final Decision upon Reconsideration (2/27/2015) E. HEX's Order on Request for Reconsideration II {1/29/2015) F. Revised & Amended Request for Reconsideration -TPWAG (1/28/2015) G. HEX's Order on Request for Reconsideration (1/22/2015) H. Request for Reconsideration -CH& (1/22/2015) I. Request for Reconsideration -TPWAG (1/21/2015) J. HEX's Final Decision (1/7/2015) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Take action on the Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat appeal. I To: City Council City of Renton 1055 Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 From: Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group mailto:renton-opposites@comcast.net 1725 Pierce Avenue SE Renton, WA 98058 Subject: Reserve at Tiffany Park PP -Hearing Examiner Decision (LUA13-001572) Date: Mon, Mar 30, 2015 CITYo FRENro,v MAR 3 0 2015 ,,.'1'f.,.._ Ctry RECEtVEo r,~., CLERl{·so FF/CE Comments Supporting Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision to City Council Dear Sir or Madam: This letter constitutes Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group's Comments Supporting the Notice of Appeal to the City Council of the Final Decision Upon Reconsideration dated February 26, 2015 pursuant to RMC 4-8-D80 and RMC 4-8-110(F)(3). framework for City Council Decision What makes this appeal interesting is that the City of Renton used the alternative threshold determination process commonly referred to as the "mitigated determination of non-significance" set forth in WAC 197-11- 350. With a MONS, promulgation of a formal EIS is not required. An applicant may clarify or change a proposal by revising the environmental checklist and permit application so that a MONS can be issued for the revised project. WAC 197-11-350(2). Alternatively, the municipality may specify mitigation measures and issue a MONS only if the proposal is changed to incorporate those measures. WAC 197-11-350(3). Nonetheless, WAC 197-11-350(2) clearly emphasizes: "If a proposal continues to have a probable significant environmental Impact, even with mitigation measures, an EIS shall be prepared." Courts review a decision to issue a MONS under the "clearly erroneous" standard. A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there Is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the record is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Norway Hill Preservation & Protection Association v. King County Council, 87 Wn.2d 267, 274, 552 P.2d 674 (1976). For the MONS to survive judicial scrutiny, the record must demonstrate that "environmental factors were adequately considered in a manner sufficient to establish prima facie compliance with SEPA, and that the decision to issue a MONS was based on information sufficient to evaluate the proposal's environmental impact. Sisley v. San Juan County, 89 Wn.2d 78, 82-83, 569 P.2d 712 (1977). In essence, what SEPA requires is that the presently unquantified environmental amenities and values will be given appropriate consideration in decision making along with economic and technical considerations. It is an attempt by the people to shape their future environment by deliberation, not default. Norway Hill at 272. In order to achieve this goal, it is important that an environmental impact statement be prepared in all appropriate cases. TPWAG Comments Supporting Notice of Appeal to City Council Page 1 of 4 15) Local government's duty to represent the citizens who pay their salaries. 16) Advice to TPWAG to limit issues. Sincerely, William L. Roenicke 425-271-7785 risingr@integrity.com 2 consideration of these issues to the construction permit stage where the public has little or no input. 5. The hearing examiner's decision fails to adequately address the traffic impacts directly related to ingress and egress for the site, including but not limited to the impact of converting SE 18th Street and 124th Place SE from quiet Cul-De-Sacs into arterials and the reduction in property values resulting there from. As a result, additional traffic studies should be performed to Investigate and revise access routes to the project. 6. The hearing examiner's decision requires Applicant to submit additional documentation to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval, including an updated geotechnical report, revised preliminary plat and landscaping plan, revised wetland mitigation plan, final mitigation plan for retaining walls and phase one environmental site assessment. All of this documentation should have been prepared and should be prepared prior to preliminary plat approval. Otherwise the public will have little or no input on these issues. The City Council's review of the record should lead to the definite and firm conviction that it would be a mistake to rubber stamp this preliminary plat. The extensive mitigation measures outlined in the hearing examiner's decision, and discussed above, are a reliable indicator of major action with significant environmental effects. The mitigation measures do not reduce all significant adverse environmental impacts below the threshold level of significance, but merely postpone their evaluation to the construction permit stage. Consequently the City Council should deny the preliminary plat application and require an environmental impact statement. Conclusion The members ofTPWAG are proud that we have persevered in the face of considerable adversity at the consolidated SEPA/preliminary plat hearing. Given that the deck was stacked so highly against TPWAG and in favor of the Applicant, it is remarkable that we were able to prevail with the hearing examiner so that the Applicant was required to provide the plethora of additional documentation to the city prior to construction permit approval. Most of these issues were simply glossed over or ignored by the Environmental Review Committee's threshold determination and were not included as mitigation measures. Rather than providing reasonable mitigation of adverse environmental impacts, all of this additional documentation is tantamount to a reliable indicator of and suggests significant environmental impacts. Once the Applicant provides this additional documentation, we are confident that it will reveal a wide array of marginal impacts that are very important to the neighbors and together result in a significant impact. TPWAG initially organized to advocate for the preservation of the character of the woods at Tiffany Park as a unique and mature forest in an urban area, habitat for wildlife and sanctuary where community residents hike or simply find peace in the middle of the city. Over time it became apparent that the Applicant provided insufficient and inadequate information to truly understand the massive scope of the proposal and its detrimental impact on the environment. We now have the definite and firm conviction that it was a mistake to excuse an EIS which should give detailed consideration to the alternative possibilities that Applicant's preliminary plat is proportionally and aesthetically out of touch and not compatible with the neighborhood; that existing streets are inadequate to safely handle ingress and egress for the site; that "backroom bargaining" understated and minimized the wetland requirements for the site; that unlawful discharges to the wetlands may destroy the wetlands or cause flooding downstream; that the geotechnical information for the site may be inadequate to understand the risks associated with the massive grading operation, the extensive TPWAG Comments Supporting Notice of Appeal to City Council Page 3 of 4 In a nutshell, this MONS process is a mixed hybrid of both procedural and substantive SEPA because the threshold determination of the DNS (procedural component) is contingent upon the determination that mitigation measures (the substantive component) can alleviate any adverse environmental impacts. Professor William Rodgers, an eminent scholar at the University of Washington, emphasizes that the issue of a mitigated DNS has been hotly debated: "What this process approves Is a kind of backroom bargaining outside of the normal glare of EIS procedures ... As a result, the process should remain under sharp scrutiny." The SEPA rules provide that if a proposal continues to have a probable significant environmental impact after mitigation measures have been applied, an environmental impact statement shall be prepared. This touchstone of the SEPA review process was designed to provide some protection from abuse: "If a MONS is issued and an appealing party proves that the project will still produce significant adverse environmental impacts, then the MONS decision must be held to be "clearly erroneous" and an EIS must be promulgated." Anderson v. Pierce County, 86 Wn.App. 290 (Wn.App. Div. 2 1997). Review of Record Leaves Definite and firm Conviction that Mistake Committed What makes this appeal unique is that the full scope of mitigation measures were not specified and determined until the Hearing Examiner issued the Final Decision Upon Reconsideration dated February 26, 2015. The gist of TPWAG's appeal to the City Council is that the hearing examiner's decision provides inadequate mitigation for the impacts on the environment and on the surrounding community of Applicant's proposed development to support a MONS determination under SEPA. Consequently the preliminary plat application should be denied and an environmental impact statement must be prepared. The record clearly reflects: 1. TPWAG was denied access to the property and denied a fair opportunity to perform our own wetland assessment on the property. The City and Applicant's wetland assessment understates the extent of wetlands on the site. The hearing examiner's decision fails to fully evaluate the significant adverse impacts on the environment resulting from the wetlands. Instead the decision improperly defers consideration of these issues to the construction permit stage where the public has little or no input. 2. The hearing examiner's decision recognizes that there Is uncertainty as to whether the project site is free from hazardous waste, but does not adequately address the probable adverse impact on the environment resulting there from. 3. The hearing examiner's decision fails to adequately address the substantial adverse impacts resulting from the proposed storm drainage system for the site, including the detention vault, roof runoff and downstream impacts. Instead the decision improperly defers consideration of these issues to the construction permit stage where the public has little or no input. 4. Although the hearing examiner's decision recognizes that there is a substantial probable adverse impact resulting from the extensive use of structural retaining walls on the project, the hearing examiner's decision fails to fully and adequately address the adverse impacts resulting from this extensive use of an intricate network of rockeries, modular block retaining walls, lock and load retaining walls, and extensive grading operations and provides inadequate mitigation for the impacts on the environment and the community. Instead the decision improperly defers TPWAG Comments Supporting Notice of Appeal to City Council Page 2 of 4 To: City Council City of Renton 1055 Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Subject: Reserve at Tiffany Park PP -Hearing Examiner Decision CITYOF RENTON MAR 3 0 2015 ~$OD~ ..-1 RECEIVED ¢- CITY CLERK'S OFFICE (LUA13-001572) Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision to City Council Dear Council members: We would like to add our support to the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group' s Notice of Appeal to the City Council of the Final Decision Upon Reconsideration dated February 26, 2015. The cutting of the woods, grading of the land, building of roads, utilities and residences may have a negative impact on wildlife, the environment, property values, neighbors and the citizens of Renton. Here are our comments based on some of the points made in the Appeal (Item numbers from the Appeal): Item 3: "TPWAG was denied access to the property and denied a fair opportunity to perform our own wetland assessment on the property." In a fair and open process there should be nothing to lose by having a second study of the wetlands done to ensure they are properly protected. Item 4: "The hearing examiner's decision recognizes that there is uncertainty as to whether the project site is free from hazardous waste". Shouldn't that be one of the first things established before allowing homes and yards to be built there? And if the developer has information about this that they refuse to divulge, then that definitely casts doubt on the safety of the site. Item 5: "The hearing examiner's decision fails to adequately address the substantial adverse impacts resulting from the proposed storm drainage system for the site." Is this supposed to be resolved before approval? Will leaving it to the construction permit stage allow the developer too much leeway and result in a poor outcome? Item 6: "The hearing examiner's decision recognizes that there is a substantial probable adverse impact resulting from the extensive use of structural retaining walls on the project." This is yet one more thing that should be addressed before excavation necessary for the drainage vault, or the construction of an extensive and intricate network of retaining walls; and that the proposed storm water system may exacerbate downstream storm water capacity issues that the City already considers an environmental nuisance. This proposal continues to have a probable significant environmental impact, even with mitigation measures, so it is important that an environmental impact statement be prepared For all of these reasons, we strongly urge the City Council to deny the preliminary plat application and require an environmental impact statement. Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group RENATE BEEDON President TPWAG Comments Supporting Notice of Appeal to City Council Page 4 of 4 CllY OF RENTON To: City Council City of Renton MAR 3 0 2015 1055 Grady Way RECEIVED Renton, WA 98057 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE From: Robin Jones 3624 SE 19'h CT Renton, WA 98058 Subject: Reserve at Tiffany Park PP· Hearing Examiner Decision (LUAB-001572) Comments Supporting Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision to City Council Members of the City Council: In addition to earlier comments that I have submitted, this letter reflects an expansion on my earlier appeal comments to the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner is required to follow a process and apply the different information presented to him against the Renton Municipal Code to ensure compliance, which he has sought-to do. What he is not always capable of doing is considering unique, intangible factors, which is why the process allows for an appeal to the City Council; hence this letter. I believe the Renton City Council should relook the land decisions made to date for the following unique circumstances. 1. The land use process that has been used to date has not be able to account for the unique nature of this land parcel; the length of time that it has been lying unused and the maturity of the surrounding community. This is a unique block of land that has been pristine for roughly 35 year, surrounded by homeowners who have a well-founded expectation that their property would border a green belt. I would ask for the Council Members to factor this longevity consideration and owner expectations in a re- examination of the current land decision. 2. The land use process that has been used to date has been unable to account for the intangible impact on the community and quality of life concerns that this development action would have. As the representative's for the citizens for this area the Council Members are in the best position to voice these intangible but highly critical concerns. The citizens impacted by this decision have significant worries around school enrollments, decreasing house prices, loss of recreational areas, a declining quality of life and loss of community cohesion. I would ask for the Council Member as our political ---------------------- approval of the project. The style, height and nature of these walls will make a big difference in how this project affects the surrounding neighbors. Is it standard procedure to delay the definition and review of these features, or is it just a way for the developer to avoid providing mitigations? Item 7: "The hearing examiner's decision fails to adequately address the traffic impacts directly related to ingress and egress for the site." If you look at the two proposed entry points, they are both situated such that it will be a huge impact on the people living on those roads. The SE 18th Street entrance in particular will be very congested, especially during construction, as it was not designed to be an arterial. Item 8: "The hearing examiner's decision requires Applicant to submit additional documentation to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval" Is there any reason not to require it before preliminary plat approval? Why not have all the information possible before making that decision? Item 10: "An environmental statement is required by the weight of the evidence." And by the reluctance of the developer to provide all they know about the possibility of hazardous waste on the property. And by their refusal to allow a second wetlands study. It would be proper to know the environmental impact of development on 21 acres of 79 year old woods before giving approval. In short, we expect our public representatives to do everything they can to make sure this site is developed in a responsible way, with an open, thorough process that results in all stakeholders' concerns addressed before the final decisions are made. Thank you. Doug, Elizabeth and Michael Frisch 1717 Pierce Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 425-228-2346 Jason Seth, City Clerk CITY OF RENTON MAR 2 7 2015 RECEIVED 2707 SE 15th Street CITY CLERK's OFFICE Renton, Washington 98058 March 24, 2015 Mayor Dennis Law, and the Renton City Council 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98057 Re: Traffic Safety SE 161 h Street, Tiffany Park Woods Development Mayor Dennis Law, and the Renton City Council, I am a resident of Renton, having lived at the above address for 10 years. During that time there have been many automobile accidents on the streets, and street comer, which border my home, property. Yes, and many accidents in the last five years. The police have been at some of the accidents. Many times the driver is able to drive off before the police arrive. My property has been damaged many times. I have not been compensated for the damage to my property. Fortunately no children in my family have been injured by one of these accidents. I have asked for help from the city to make the street safer, but my requests have always been ignored. I would like to come and explain this problem to the City Council asking for help to make this street safer. To repeat, there have been many accidents on this street in the past five years, some with police attendance. Sincerely, Ruka Khazehie representatives to assess the current land decision to ensure that our concerns in these areas have been addressed. 3. The Land use decision today has not accounted for the ongoing legal action against the Renton School Board around the land action process. This legal action, challenges the Renton School Board's assertion that entering into a single source binding contract prior to engaging with the general public does not meet the intent of the State Law. This legal action is currently active and in the discovery phase. I would ask the Council Member take into consideration that there is a strong possibility that this land action has not followed the legal process as dictated by Washington State Law. Based on these three unique factors ofthis area of land I would asked the Council Members to re-examine the current land decisions and re-shape the current decision to reflect this unique concerns raised above. Sincerely Robin Jones Cynthia Moya From: Sent: To: Jason Seth Friday, March 27, 2015 10:58 AM Cynthia Moya Subject: FW: Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision Reserve at Tiffany Park LUA13-001572 Letter supporting the Reserve at Tiffany Park appeal. -Jason Jason Seth, CMC City Clerk iseth@rentom'.·a.gov 425-430-6502 From: Craig & Jill Jones [mailto:cajones52,cl:comcast.net] Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 9:22 AM To: Jason Seth Subject: Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision Reserve at Tiffany Park LUAB-001572 To: Renton City Council Planning and Development Committee c/o Jason Seth, City Clerk CITY OF RENTON MAR 2 7 2015 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE As parties of interest we are writing to register our support of the appeal by the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group (TPWAG) of Hearing Examiner's Decision regarding the proposed development, Reserve at Tiffany Park (LUA13-001572). We agree with the ten points made by TPWAG that the adverse impacts of this development have not been adequately studied or addressed. It is unusual for such a fully_-canopied parcel of forest to be available for development within the city limits. The proposed development of this tract for 97 homes is problematic in several ways: • the parcel lies at the heart of a long-developed community • it contains several wetlands that require protection • has limited road access • is directly upslope from a city park • is a block away from an elementary school. The issue of storm water runoff and drainage should be of particular concern to the city. As previously testified, the Tiffany Park neighborhood already has water drainage issues during and after heavy rains. The ctty park, Tiffany Park, is at the lowest point of the entire neighborhood and sits on top of Ginger Creek, which was culverted when the park was built. During the rainy season the park's wooded patch becomes a small pond and the playground and playing field become saturated and unusable. Along the curb of Lake Youngs Way near the baseball diamond a puddle often extends well out into the street, sometimes with a footprint as big as a house. The proposed development will remove a thousand mature trees and forest duff, which absorb rain, and replace them with pavement and rooftop to an extent far greater than the surrounding neighborhood. The developer proposes a water retention vault directly behind and upslope of existing houses and about 150 yards away and upslope from the park. If the vault leaks or proves inadequate, flooding could impact those homes and the city's park. We urge the city council to seriously consider the TPWAG appeal and the concerns of the people of the Renton neighborhood who will bear the burden of this development Thank you. Jill Jones Derek Jones Kyleigh Jones 1413 Newport Ct. SE Renton, WA 98058 II ll h 1 l CITY OF RENTON MAR 2 7 2015 ;; 1:: __ ] ________ ·---·· ---·-... ·----.... --. . z.;;6'p, RECEIVED [ , -CHY-CLERK'&GF.flCE • lM.,\J K \::.\J 1~ ro S.~ ;;; it --------·--···-:···-·---n-·······-----·-·· ----...... ·······-········ ----------·-···--·-·······-· ------·--·--------·····-· ····-·· .... ·----- ·-----------···· .r-------__ ·--_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ . __ .1-?P.~. ~-~_:l~~-ft~~----·· 1' _______ .. __ . . _ .11 ____ .. _ _ _ _ __ . .. __ . _Q,~_JJ_\ajA-~ 8)){,I___ . _____ _ I' -.. , -·-----. .µ .................. --··-. ·-......... ·-_µ_~_'l.-}WI$ -.. ·-- ______ . _ ~JASON ~e,1Hr_O.TI' .. .CJ5RJ< _ _ _ __ . ,, -++ MAY.ffi _ t£NN\~ J.A\J'L. Ar--.o 'In~ Jlr;,lrTD Al C.I W C Cll.1 C:JL,, . _ ii \D~s So\Jth Gr~cv war ..... -·.. . -..... , ... -................. -------·--------· .......... --. :IRVJ"lal I.NA. Jf30S7 . ·------·-·-·· ····· it-· ..... ...... ·······-·· -----·- !i . -..... -. . .. --.... ··it· --·-. ..... .. --·----------·· ----. . . --·. ··---. . r!lRI\FllC 5A.FlliJ SE 16n,., S.trca: --·---~-----·-·-···--· .. ··1i·-·-·--------~-----··------~-----------·---·--.... ·----------- ---·-----·jS{AR-· wJ.,T& oui-~ii 1Aw ---AN::)-~c RDJTou ctTV---couNL1t..-___ ---. -... ,... ------------. --------------------. ---. ---r -----. --.. -il .. I. J:\_~\!.l fil£hl.A . _ .R.~.1 QUIT ... O.E . II:-\(_ -~!JV_ 9 ~ _ _ _______________ _ ii RW1DiJ AW HA\/L UUiD ON S.£. 16-ch S(Y'cC'r ·----·······-··-·--··-#···-··-··--------·-----·----------·-. -------------··--. ...... . ........ ----·-. 'i , S\NC.~-I 9B 7, -----· ---.... -4 ·--· ... . ---.. -···----·--·-···-·-· .. ... ······--·-------·-··-·· .... 'I ____ __ _ -4 I. _ W OUUJ U K<i. TO __ COfrf.. _ BU::UZ.~-Tu E. _C.O\J NC I L _ AJD _ _ __ I, ____________ .. ... ..,U..D.lSL.'JSS..._ Cb LS 15 .. S.Vi-, . . _________ __ _ _ __ . __________ _ :1 ----···--·-··· _ ~i.I_WQJiD ~D LJ(<j_"'ffi 1s~ A_ PAfLT'V_ O'f-__ ~Cflllil, ___________ . __ . ___ _j __ t'!)J_ _£.ffi9J l __ ~_QDRJS $_!S.J. _________ . . . . __________________ _ ------____ 4_aJ,\..,_S~L\._ LSCCY/i,~_ .. -----·-__ _ ____ .... ______________ _ .... ___ . _ _ __ ~ ___ k e.'I 1 a r D se . 1 .2ss @ __ ya_Hoc1 ... c.o..1n __ .. _ ___ _ _______ .. ________ _ --------------------------4--------------·-·-------·-·· -------------·-·· ________ liaNL._Ya.L;-----------------· ---, --'··---·-····-··----++------··· ·-·-·-. -··-··-·-. ·····-·-· --····----~-f~.C..... . ··--·· -:I ,; ····---------·-•1· -···--····-····--· -··········--·-.... -·-·· ·-·····---· -----······--. . .. ····· ··---··· __ _____ _ _. ____ -~~()it_l_ \,l\l oU\.D ';J. LS. O __ _a_p E.IIL \clI.C. ___ ffi8!.L ... f\ \OU C.CS. _ .. __________ __ --------. JID __ l\n'/ h orce dS-:t 00 f'\OG _hA\1~ hOMr, ---------- -·---····· -·---· it ntnrta ;;:,re e« a,uo _uo not ~mm T\!'flCD/ 'iD e:.1 1 !Y~1~ _:_ ; ·I CITY OF RENTON 1·.4-6 fM MAR 2 7 2015 u k_) RECEIVED 52.1 2.-,C Are S·~,(e sou ;'2;t:r \N/1 ?a·r,4 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE March 27, 2015 Mayor Law & City Councilmembers City of Renton 1055 Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Re: Letter Supporting Denial of TPW AG Appeal The Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat City File No. LUAB-001572 Dear Mayor Law and Councilmembers: CH& This firm represents Henley USA, LLC ("Henley"), the contract purchaser for the property and applicant for The Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat (the "Preliminary Plat"). By this letter, Henley asks the Council to deny the appeal filed by the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group ("TPW AG"). This letter is submitted in conjunction with Henley's Motion to Dismiss TPWAG's appeal of the Renton Hearing Examiner's decision denying TPW AG's first appeal under the State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") as an improper second appeal of the SEPA threshold Determination ofNon- Significance ("DNS-M"). Should the Council deny the Motion to Dismiss, Henley requests the Council affirm the Hearing Examiner's decision because the Preliminary Plat is in full compliance with the governing regulations and approval of the Preliminary Plat was proper. Pursuant to RMC 4-8-l 10(F)(5) and (8), TPWAG has the burden of proving that "a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record." Absent such proof, the Council must affirm the Examiner's decision. TPWAG's appeal fails to raise any errors of fact or law, and its request for the extreme relief of overturning the findings and conclusions of expert City Staff and the Hearing Examiner should be denied. The Council should atlirm the Hearing Examiner's decision. TPW AG Assertions Nos. 1 & 2: TPW A G's first two assertions fail to raise any error of fact or law capable of review. TPW AG instead makes broad generalized statements that the Hearing Examiner's decision is insufficient to support the DNS-M and the Council should require additional mitigation. The record before the Examiner confirms, as the Examiner ruled, that the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision to approve the Preliminary Plat with the DNS-M is adequately supported by the numerous studies provided and expert conclusions reached during the application process and the hearing before the Examiner. Nothing in TPW A G's Assertions in paragraphs I and 2 warrant reversal of the Examiner's Decision. nrogers@cairncross.com direct: (206) 254-4417 {02773006.D0CK5 ] Jason A. Seth, CMC City Clerk City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 CITY OF RENTON MAR 2 7 201'i RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE \to:t4M'vt l,, iJ, \) Re: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated February 26, 2015, regarding Reserve at Tiffany Park PP. (FIie No. LUA-13-001572 ECF, PP, CAE) Dear Mr. Seth, I am writing in support of the appeal filed March 11, 2015 by Renate Beedon, the designated representative of the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group (TPWAG). I am a party of record, because I gave oral comments at a meeting held at Tiffany Park Elementary, and submitted written comments to City Staff at that meeting. I do not live adjacent to the Tiffany Park Woods. But I know enough about it to have an informed opinion. The errors of fact or law presented in the TPWAG appeal letter seem true to me. The written record as I have seen in letters mailed from City Staff indicates to me that the hearing examiner gave the developer instructions on doing many things that they should have done prior in the process. Now the developer can do it the back door way by having only the project manager watching what they're doing, and the public gets no input. As one of several examples, the hearing examiner requires the applicant to submit extensive additional documentation to the project manager before construction permit approval. But all of this should have been prepared prior to preliminary plat approval. Overall, the written record indicates to me that the process has been unfairly allowed to go forward, basically no matter what. To me, this has the appearance of a pre-determined outcome, with the public interest not seriously considered. I request City Council, in consideration of the written record previously established, including the facts presented in the appeal letter, please stop this runaway process, and find a better alternative use for the unique and beautiful Tiffany Park Woods than the current development plan which is not in the best interests of current and future residents of the City of Renton. Sincerely, Daniel Goldman 1608 Glenwood Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 425-271-6058 Mayor Law & City Councilmembers March 27, 2015 Page 3 TPW AG Assertion No. 4: TPW A G's fourth asserted error alleges that there is uncertainty as to whether the project site is free of hazardous waste. This argument stems from the belief that the property was once subject to two easements in favor of the Department of Defense and therefore it is possible the property was exposed to hazardous substances. TPW A G's allegations relate to sections 3 and 4 of a recorded I 957 summary of five different even older grants, conveyances, and easements. At most, TPWAG's allegations establish that there was a grant of an easement to the Defense Plant Corporation in I 944 across a 14 foot strip of land somewhere in this area, that may or may not include a portion of the land within the plat. TPWAG's allegations are purely speculative as to the presence of hazardous material. TPW AG has provided no evidence of the existence of hazardous materials on the property. As highlighted by the Hearing Examiner, TPW AG was "unable to demonstrate evidence of any overt signs of contamination visible on the site that might justify overturning the substantial weight due the SEPA official's determination that the project site does not contain any hazardous waste necessitating further environmental review." Final Decision upon Reconsideration, pg. 12. TPWAG's bald speculation about possible hazardous waste on the site fails to carry its burden of proving that "a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record." RMC 4-8-l lO(F)(5). The Council should deny TPWAG's appeal and affirm the Preliminary Plat approval. TPWAG Assertion No. 5: TPW AG also asserts that the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision inadequately addresses adverse impacts resulting from the proposed storm drainage system and demands more precise and exhaustive mitigation conditions at this early stage. Again, these arguments arc misguided, as the Hearing Examiner based his approval of the Preliminary Plat on a thorough analysis of more than adequate studies and technical plans to address storm drainage and TPW AG did not present any evidence to the contrary. The Hearing Examiner specifically noted that TPWAG's strategy of making vague accusations that studies and plans are generally inadequate, without providing any support for its claim, is insufficient to overcome the surplus of evidence Henley provided demonstrating compliance with all applicable regulations. Specifically, the Hearing Examiner stated TPW AG has "not identified any deficiencies in these [stormwater runoff] calculations or the regulations that require them." Ruling on Reconsideration, pg. 6. Further, the Examiner noted, "[TPW AG has) not specifically identified how any part of the proposed system would fail to comply with stormwater regulations as they apply to roof runoff and its interaction with wetlands. Under these circumstances it would be appropriate to assign remaining compliance issues to engineering stage final plat review, as contemplated in the City's subdivision review regulations."1 Ruling on Reconsideration, pg. 6. The Code does not require exhaustive final 1 See also Final Decision upon Reconsideration, pg. 18-19 (noting the City had ''reasonably sufficient information at this stage of review to evaluate downstream impacts" and "[s]ince the proposed storm water discharge is consistent with all applicable regulations, is a standard practice for development and also meets the approval of staff, it is determined that the proposed discharge to wetlands will not create any probable significant adverse environmental impacts.") (02773006 DOC'X:5 } Mayor Law & City Councilmembers March 27, 2015 Page 2 TPW AG Assertion No. 3: TPW AG next asserts that the wetlands delineation was done incorrectly, the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision did not fully evaluate the adverse environmental impacts on wetlands, and it improperly deferred these issues to the construction permit stage. All of these arguments are unfounded. A thorough review of the environmental impacts of the Preliminary Plat on wetlands was conducted and numerous experts, including a third-party review by the City, concurred that an EIS was unnecessary because no probable adverse impacts were likely. TPW AG argues as a basis for its appeal that it was denied a fair opportunity to perform a wetlands assessment of the property. A fundamental tenet of property law is that there is no public right of access to private property. TPW AG therefore had no right to access, and the School District had no duty to provide TPW AG, or the general public, access to this private property for the purpose of environmental investigation. There were extensive studies of the environmental impacts on wetlands and numerous experts confirmed that no Environmental Impact Statement ("'EIS") was required because no probable significant adverse environmental impacts would occur. In October 2013, Henley submitted a Wetland Determination study and in February 2014, to account for revisions to the plat, Henley submitted a revised Wetland Determination, both of which were performed by C. Gary Schulz, Inc. At the request of the City of Renton, these studies were then reviewed by an independent third-party consultant, Otak. Upon receipt of the recommendations from the Otak study, Henley again submitted a Revised Wetland Determination and Response in June 2014 and a further response in July 2014. The Hearing Examiner reviewed all of these studies in reaching his Final Decision approving the Preliminary Plat and specifically held that "[g]iven the extensive review of wetland impacts, staffs review and approval of wetland mitigation, and the applicant's compliance with all applicable wetland regulations, it is concluded that the proposal will not create any adverse impacts to wetlands." Final Decision upon Reconsideration, pg. 19. In fact, the project does more than simply avoid adverse impacts to the wetlands. As the Examiner noted, "[t]he applicant's wildlife expert, Racheal Villa of Sound view Consultants testified that the formalized protection of the wetlands and buffers on site would result in an improvement in habitat conditions for both pileated woodpeckers and Townsend's bats over the present situation due to the fairly degraded condition of the habitat at present." Final Decision upon Reconsideration, pg. 13. Thus, the evaluation of environmental impacts on wetlands and the wetlands delineation arc the product of several iterations of expert review and recommendations, and revisions of the Preliminary Plat by Henley to meet these recommendations. This process culminated in an informed and proper decision by the Hearing Examiner approving the Preliminary Plat. The only matters deferred to the time of construction permitting are matters of engineered design that can only be addressed at the time construction permits are processed by the City. I 02773006 DOCX:S I Mayor Law & City Councilmembers March 27, 2015 Page 5 Pursuant to a review of the various traffic studies and expert opinions, the Hearing Examiner made an informed technical decision that any adverse impacts to traffic would be sufficiently mitigated by the conditions imposed. Again, Henley is not disputing any of these conditions and plans to comply with them. Thus, the Council should affirm the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision approving the Preliminary Plat and deny TPW A G's unsubstantiated appeal. TPW AG Assertions 8-10: TPW AG concludes its appeal by making additional generalized arguments that do not raise any specific error of fact or law, but instead urge the Council to abandon the process required under the Renton Municipal Code and SEPA. TPWAG again argues that additional technical studies and detailed plans should be required at this preliminary plat stage instead of later in the development process. But to require Henley to provide engineering and construction level analysis at the time of preliminary plat would be contrary to law. Indeed, under State law, a preliminary plat is a "neat and approximate drawing of a proposed subdivision showing the general layout of streets and alleys, lots, blocks, and other elements of a subdivision." RCW 58.17.020( 4). TPW AG argues for more, more, more, but neither State law nor the Renton Code demand the exhaustive level of analysis that TPW AG requests at the preliminary plat stage of review. The Council should affirm the Examiner's Decision. TPW AG's final generalized argument also is contrary to law, as it asks the Council to overturn the DNS-M reached by City Staff, independent third-party experts, and the Hearing Examiner. While Henley firmly asserts that the DNS-M is proper for all of the reasons stated above, we also reiterate our arguments set forth in our Motion to Dismiss that this second appeal of the SEPA threshold determination is barred by law and not subject to review by the Council. Thank you for your time and attention to this response. For all of the reasons stated above, Henley respectfully requests that the TPWAG Appeal of the Heating Examiner's Final Decision upon Reconsideration be denied and the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision approving the Preliminary Plat be affirmed. Very truly yours, t1 tf IU'ft~,, ~c/cf'Z (}" ., -~ Nancy Bainbri/rge Rogers '"-a NBR/kgb (02773006.DOCX:S I Mayor Law & City Councilmembers March 27, 2015 Page4 plans at this preliminary plat application step, but instead provides a logical and reasonable multistep process by which supplementary materials are added to appropriately fine tune the project as needed. Granting TPW AG's appeal and requiring Henley to submit extremely detailed plans that are required at later stages would be contrary to law. The Council should instead affirm the Hearing Examiner's Decision because the Preliminary Plat complies with the City's development regulations and environmental review procedures. TPW AG has established no error of fact or law in the record that would support reversal of the Examiner's Decision. TPW AG Assertion No. 6: The Council also should reject TPW AG' s argument that the Hearing Examiner failed to adequately mitigate the probable adverse impacts of structural retaining walls. The Hearing Examiner found that retaining walls greater than four feet in height that are visible off-site have a significant adverse aesthetic impact. But the Examiner also expressly concluded that "[t]he aesthetic impacts of the retaining walls can be fully mitigated by the by a [sic] ten foot perimeter landscaping strip." Final Decision, pg. I 0. The Examiner concluded that the ten-foot buffer requirement for visible retaining walls "will prevent the retaining walls from creating probable significant adverse environmental impacts." Final Decision, pg. 11. Again, the Hearing Examiner's careful analysis and thoughtful Decision should not be disturbed in the face of the bare allegations presented by TPWAG. TPWAG has failed to establish an error of fact or law to support reversal. The Council should reject TPWAG's appeal and affirm the Hearing Examiner's approval of the Preliminary Plat. TPW AG Assertion No. 7: TPW A G's last argument asserts that the Hearing Examiner failed to adequately address the project's traffic impacts. TPWAG's argument lacks any support in the record, as the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision was based on extensive traffic studies submitted by Henley and an independent consultant, and these studies concluded that the impacts on traffic were either within the acceptable levels of service or sufficiently mitigated by the required D"IS-M conditions. The Hearing Examiner reviewed the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by TranspoGroup and the Independent Secondary Review requested by the City and prepared by Perteet, the City's third-party transportation reviewer. These studies fully captured any adverse traffic impacts resulting from the project and TPW AG again failed to present any evidence to the contrary. TPW AG also asserts that there will be significant adverse impacts from the conversion of SE 18'h Street and 124'h Place SE from cul-de-sacs to "arterials." In fact, these residential roadways will remain residential roadways. No such conversion of these roads into arterials is contemplated by the Preliminary Plat and, as noted by the Hearing Examiner, TPW AG did not produce any evidence that connecting these roads would create adverse environmental impacts, including diminished property values. Ruling on Reconsideration Requests, pg. 6. Both roadways were long planned to connect to serve this site, whether it was developed as a school, or a residential subdivision. (02773006.DOCX:5 I City of Renton Mun~.11 .. )1 Code; Title IV. Chapter 8, Se<\, .,.. 110 -Appeals 4-8-110C4 Filing of Appeal and Fee: The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 5- 1-2, the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982; Ord. 5660, 5-14-2012; Ord. 5688, 5-13-2013) 4-8-llOF: Appeals to City Council -Procedures 1. Standing: Unless otherwise provided by State law or exempted by a State or federal agency, only the applicant, City or a party of record who has been aggrieved or affected by the Hearing Examiner's decision and who participated in the Hearing Examiner's public hearing may appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision. A person(s) will be deemed to have participated in the public hearing process if that person(s): a. Testified or gave oral comments at the public hearing; or b. Submitted any written comments to City staff or the Hearing Examiner regarding the matter prior to the close of the hearing; or c. Has been granted status as or has requested to be made a party of record prior to the close of the public hearing. 2. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. 3. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing ofthe notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. 4. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the applicant. If a transcript is made, the applicant is required to provide a copy to the City Clerk and the Renton City Attorney at no cost. It shall be presumed that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 5675, 12-3-2012) S. Burden: The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. 6. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional arguments based on the record by parties. 7. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-8-070Hl, as it exists or may be amended, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may modify or reverse the decision of the Hearing Examiner accordingly. (Ord. 5675, 12-3- 2012) 8. Decision Documentation: The decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. 9. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejecting a decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames established under subsection GS ofthis Section. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982; Ord. 4389, 1-25-1993; Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997; Ord. 5558, 10-25-2010) Denis Law _,.;·-[) City of/"'"" - ____ :M:ay:o~r ___ ............... ., I , ) ,~~-------.---, 'W-/c··--·uu·_-.. l i t~ { ', i i_ \ ;. -i -: ' ~ ' J ,, I .' ) ,) -' March 20, 2015 City Clerk -Jason A. Seth, CMC *2"d REVISED LETTER APPEAL FILED BY: Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group by Renate Beedon, President RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated February 26, 2015, regarding Reserve at Tiffany Park PP. (File No. LUA-13-001572 ECF, PP, CAE) To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the hearing examiner's decision on the Reserve at Tiffany Park PP has been filed with the City Clerk. In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-llOF, within five days of receipt of the notice of appeal, or after all appeal periods with the Hearing Examiner have expired, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. Other parties of record may submit letters limited to support of their positions regarding the appeal within ten (10) days of the date of mailing of this notification. The deadline for submission of additional letters is by 5:00 p.m., Monday. March 30, 2015. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee at 3:00 p.m. on Monday, June 8 1 2015, in the Council Chambers, 7'h Floor of Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98057. The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for consideration by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting. Copy ofthe appeal and the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeal of Hearing Examiner decisions or recommendations is attached. Please note that the City Council will be considering the merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. No further evidence or testimony on this matter will be accepted by the City Council. For additional information or assistance, please call Jason Seth, City Clerk, at 425-430-6510. Chris L. Chau Deputy City Clerk Attachments *Error in last paragraph -not based on Code. 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • (425) 430--6510 / Fax (42S) 430--6516 • rentonwa.gov community. Instead th( ·ision improperly defers consideratio~ ....,,ese issues to the construction permit staXhere the public has little or no input. 7. The hearing examiner's decision fails to adequately address the traffic impacts directly related to ingress and egress for the site, including but not limited to the impact of converting SE 18th Street and 124th Place SE from quiet Cul-De-Sacs into arterials and the reduction in property values resulting there from. As a result, additional traffic studies should be performed to investigate and revise access routes to the project. 8. The hearing examiner's decision requires Applicant to submit additional documentation to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval, including an updated geotechnical report, revised preliminary plat and landscaping plan, revised wetland mitigation plan, final mitigation plan for retaining walls and phase one environmental site assessment. All of this documentation should have been prepared and should be prepared prior to preliminary plat approval. Otherwise the public will have little or no input on these issues. 9. The hearing examiner's decision improperly concludes that there is no need for additional SEPA mitigation, environmental review, or the issuance of an environmental impact statement. 10. An environmental statement is required by the weight of the evidence. An environmental impact statement is justified and must be prepared if after applying mitigation measures by changing, clarifying or conditioning of the proposed action, a proposal continues to have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group ~ah i.0-L RENATE BEEDON President TPWAG Notice of Appeal to City Council Lo.."'"\ \A..J(.<.;\J'.J..,A. ~ u,vv..v.J; ~Jeir [-\-.f.r'-"''~ \) c,... '{\ .e C,C,c,_ ~\\:,-ti s -I--€.J.)-.Q_ ~ C rc.u.~ t:,f\,u•, .J ( \)J'.'-~ \ (_)\ \o{ ~L ~\-.S, \2.o c.c.0<.Q_ -.,:\ ,J\i\..V Vl{,y ~ e__ ,\_\ C\-<2...rt\ Page 2 of 2 -Date: Wed, Mar 11, 2015 To: City Council City of Renton 1055 Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 CITY OF A ENT ON c))l-, MAR 12 2015 1 1' \3. .,_.,, I From: Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group mailto:renton-opposites@comcast.net 1725 Pierce Avenue SE Renton, WA 98058 Subject: Reserve at Tiffany Park PP -Hearing Examiner Decision (LUA13-001572) Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision to City Council Dear Sir or Madam: RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE This letter constitutes Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group's Notice of Appeal to the City Council of the Final Decision Upon Reconsideration dated February 26, 2015 pursuant to RMC 4-8-080 and RMC 4-8-llO(F). TPWAG hereby designates Renate Beedon as the designated representative. Summary of Substantial Errors of Fact or Law 1. The hearing examiner's decision provides inadequate mitigation for the impacts on the environment and on the surrounding community of Applicant's proposed development to support a DNS-M determination under SEPA. 2. The City of Renton has authority to ask for mitigation under SEPA, and TPWAG asks the City of Renton to exercise that authority for all issues raised in this Notice of Appeal. 3. TPWAG was denied access to the property and denied a fair opportunity to perform our own wetland assessment on the property. The wetlands delineation has been done incorrectly. The hearing examiner's decision fails to fully evaluate the significant adverse impacts on the environment resulting from the wetlands. Instead the decision improperly defers consideration of these issues to the construction permit stage where the public has little or no input. 4. The hearing examiner's decision recognizes that there is uncertainty as to whether the project site is free from hazardous waste, but does not adequately address the probable adverse impact on the environment resulting there from. 5. The hearing examiner's decision fails to adequately address the substantial adverse impacts resulting from the proposed storm drainage system for the site, including the detention vault, roof runoff and downstream impacts. Instead the decision improperly defers consideration of these issues to the construction permit stage where the public has little or no input. 6. Although the hearing examiner's decision recognizes that there is a substantial probable adverse impact resulting from the extensive use of structural retaining walls on the project, the hearing examiner's decision fails to fully and adequately address the adverse impacts resulting from this extensive use of an intricate network of rockeries, modular block retaining walls and lock and load retaining walls and provides inadequate mitigation for the impacts on the environment and the TPWAG Notice of Appeal to City Council Page 1 of 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 B. Summary of Decision The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for the subdivision of 21.66 acres into single-family residential lots and several critical areas tracts located at the dead end of SE 18th Street and bordered by the Cedar River Pipeline along the southern property boundary and the Mercer Island Pipeline along the eastern property boundary. Two appeals of a mitigated determination of nonsignificance ("MONS") issued under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") were consolidated with the review of the preliminary plat. The Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group ("TPWAG") filed one of the two SEPA appeals and the applicant submitted the second appeal. The preliminary plat is approved subject to conditions. The TPW AG SEPA appeal is denied. The applicant SEPA appeal is sustained, in part. TPW AG raised numerous issues in its SEPA appeal regarding the conversion of the 21.66 acre subject property from a community recreational resource to a residential subdivision. The property is entirely undeveloped and is covered with trails, tree forts and other similar structures that reveal years of community use. In its SEPA appeal TPWAG argues that the loss of this long-time recreational use is an environmental impact that should be subject to SEPA review. As detailed in this decision, the fact that the applicant has allowed neighbors to use its property in the past (or worse, the fact that neighbors may have trespassed in the past) does not justify the imposition of any SEPA requirements because the neighbors will lose that privilege as a result of the development. Similarly, the fact that the applicant has chosen to retain the trees on its land in the past and through that choice provided neighbors with an appealing arboreal view docs not put the applicant in a position where it must now continue to offer that type of view to neighboring properties. With one exception the applicant proposes development that is aesthetically similar and compatible with surrounding uses. For this reason, there is no legal basis for imposing any further environmental review or mitigation to address aesthetic impacts. The one exception is retaining walls. The applicant proposes numerous retaining walls that will reach heights ofup to 21 feet. Retaining walls of this height are not present in the vicinity and the aesthetic impacts of these structures are not similar or compatible to the structures on neighboring properties. Consequently, the MDNS mitigation measures will require ten foot wide perimeter landscaping designed to aesthetically buffer these walls from neighboring uses. TPW AG alleged more technical environmental impacts related to the geotechnical studies, hazardous materials, drainage, wetlands impacts, groundwater impacts, landslide hazards, seismic hazards, and retaining walls. The expert testimony and reports provided by the applicant, verified by experts from the City staff and in some cases, third party peer review, proved to be more compelling than the expert testimony provided by TPW AG, especially when factoring the substantial weight that must be given the SEPA responsible official's determination that the proposal will not create any probable significant adverse environmental impacts. One issue that did require some additional PREUMINARY PLAT-Preliminary Plat -2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 1 I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 FEB 2 7 2015 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON ) ) RE: The Reserve at Tiffany Park ) A. Preliminary Plat ) ) ) Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeals ) ) LUAB-001572, ECF, PP, CAE ) FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION I. SUMMARY Alterations to Final Decision Resulting from Reconsideration Requests A Final Decision was issued on the above captioned matter on January 8, 2015. The Final Decision was subjected to two requests for reconsideration made by the SEPA Appellants and the applicant. This Final Decision Upon Reconsideration incorporates all the changes to the January 8, 2015 Final Decision resulting from the reconsideration requests. The Ruling on Reconsid<:ration Requests, attached to this decision as Attachment C, identifies the basis for all the changes made to the January 8, 2015 Final Decision. None of the changes are significant. The only changes made to the January 8, 2015 Final Decision are those identified in the Ruling on Reconsideration Requests. PRELIMINARY PLAT-Preliminary Plat -I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Exhibit AS: Exhibit AT: Exhibit AU: Exhibit AV: Exhibit AW: Exhibit AX: Exhibit AY: Exhibit AZ: Exhibit BB: Procedural: - City of Renton Preliminary Plat Condition Revision Response (December 11, 2014) TPWAG Post Hearing Closing Argument (December 14, 2014) TPWAG Motion -Late Filing (December 15, 2014) Henley Response to TPW AG Motion -Lale Filing (December 15, 2015) Henley (Proposed) Order Denying TPW AG Motion -Late Filing (December 15, 2014) Hearing Examiner Ruling-Late Filing (December 15, 2014) Henley Response-TPWAG Post Hearing Closing Argument (December 19, 2014) Henley Reply -City of Renton Preliminary Plat Condition Revision Response (December 19, 2014) City of Renton -TPW AG Post Hearing Closing Argument (December 22, 2014) IV. FINDINGS OFF ACT I. Applicant. Henley USA. LLC. 2. Hearing. A consolidated hearing on the preliminary plat application and SEPA appeals was held on November 18, 2014 and continued to December 8, 2014 in the City of Renton Council City Chambers. The record was left open for the appellants to provide a SEPA Closing Argument by December 12, 2014. City staff was also given until December 12, 2014 to provide a SEPA Rebuttal. City staff and the applicant had until December 19, 2014 to provide SEPA closing arguments and preliminary plat comments. Substantive: 3. Project Description and ~- A. Project Descriptio_n. The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for the subdivision of 21.66 acres into 97 single-family residential lots. There is an alternate plat with 96 lots to allow for 30% tree retention (Exhibit 3). The property is located at the dead end of SE 18 1h Street. It is bordered on the south by the Cedar River Pipeline and on the east by the Mercer Island Pipeline. Two appeals of a mitigated determination of nonsignificance ("MDNS") issued under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") were consolidated with the review of the preliminary plat. The subject property consists of four parcels. The majority of the site is located in the R-8 zone. A small portion is located in the R-4 zone. All proposed lots are located in the R-8 zone. The proposed PRELIMINARY PLAT-Preliminary Plat -4 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 m,ttgation was hazardous waste. An appellant expert testified that the prior ownership of the property by the US Department of Defense raised a concern that the property may contain hazardous waste. The applicant refused to grant access to the subject property for purposes of testing for hazardous waste or any other site investigation. The applicant also acknowledged that it did a Phase 1 hazardous waste environmental review when it purchased the property, but never offered the review into evidence. Given the somewhat suspect conduct of the applicant, an MONS condition of review will require that the applicant submit its Phase I review to staff prior to development, to verify that there is no hazardous waste issue with the site. The applicant's SEPA appeal was more limited in scope and only challenged three of the City's MONS conditions, specifically Conditions I, 3 and 6. At hearing the City and applicant agreed to revised language for Conditions I and 3. Condition No. 6 remained the only contested issue in the applicant's appeal. The condition required a 15-foot landscaping buffer around the entire perimeter of the development. This decision only found a ten -foot buffer necessary, limited to areas adjoining proposed retaining walls to conceal the walls from neighboring view. A summary of testimony is attached as Attachment A. The summary is provided as a convenience and reference to those who would like an overview of the evidence presented at the two days of hearings on this application. The testimony section should not be construed as any formal findings of fact and also do not represent what was determined to be important to the final decision. CONTENTS I. SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... I 11. TESTIMONY ....................................................................................................................... 3 III. EXHIBITS ............................................................................................................................ 3 IV. FINDINGS OF FACT .......................................................................................................... 4 V. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ................................................................................................ 24 SEPA APPEAL ........................................................................................................... 25 PRELIMINARY PL/\ T .............................................................................................. 29 VI. DECISION ......................................................................................................................... 40 II. TESTIMONY Please see Attachment A for testimony summary. III. EXHIBITS Please see Attachment B for the exhibits admitted during the hearing. Exhibits admitted after the hearing are as follows: PRELIMINARY PLAT-Preliminary Plat -3 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 - b. MONS Condition 3. The applicant's concerns over MONS Condition No. 3 became moot since the filing of its appeal and the City and applicant have been able to agree upon a revised condition that acceptably mitigates against environmental impacts. MONS Condition 3 provides as follows, The applicanl shall be required to retain 30% of the significant trees on sile wilh exclusions far those trees that are considered dead, diseased, or dangerous. trees located within proposed righls-o.fway, and trees located within the critical areas and their assodated buffers. The applicant initially argued the condition should either be struck as a SEPA condition or modified to require compliance with the Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan, completed by Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. (August 27, 2014) which complies with the 30% retention requirement (Appeal Exhibit A, Attachment 11 ). City staff disagreed. They argued that there are probable averse environmental impacts that are being mitigated by the MONS condition. The City argued the MONS Condition prevents the applicant from using mitigation under RMC 4-4-130(H)(l)(c)(i) to replace trees and instead requires retention of significant trees. The Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan, completed by Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. (August 27, 2014) established that overall the proposal will actually meet the City's SEPA 30% tree retention requirement. To meet this requirement, the applicant must retain or mitigate 188 on-site trees. The Washington Forestry Consultants plan proposes to save 181 of these trees and mitigate the final seven trees. The applicant's tree retention plan analyzed just the 96 lot alternative. However, Mr. Galen Wright of Washington Forestry Consultants stated new field studies performed since the August 27, 2014 report have identified additional significant trees on-site beyond those mapped in the original field survey. These trees will be retained. bringing the total retention to well above the 188 required trees. Mr. Wright stated he was much more confident now regarding the location of trees, their health and which might be viably preserved. Since the applicant ultimately achieved the 30% retention objective, the City and applicant agreed to the following tree retention language as a condition of approval. The applicant shall provide a final Tree Retention Plan, complying wilh the 30% tree retention mitigation measure while demonstrating proposed walls would not impac/ trees proposed for retention. The Final Tree Retention Plan shall be submitled to, and PRELIMINARY PLAT -Preliminary Plat -6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 lots would range in size from 4,500sfto 8,456sf. The average lot size is 5J99sf. Under either the 96 lot or 97 lot scenarios, density would be equal to or less than 5.70 dwelling units per acre. In addition to the residential lots, 13 tracts are proposed for sensitive areas, tree retention, storm drainage, access, pedestrian connections, and open space including an existing 10 foot wide vegetated buffer along the northern boundary. Access to the site would be gained from SE 18th Street with secondary access extended from I 24th Place SE. The site is currently vacant with 1,305 significant trees. The applicant has proposed to retain or mitigate 188 trees in order to achieve the objective of 30% tree retention requirement. Adequate tree retention requires approval of the 96-lot alternative. The site slopes generally to the west/northwest at an approximate average slope of I 0-15% with localized slopes of 25%. The site contains three Category 2 wetlands (Wetlands A, C, and, D) and two Category 3 wetlands (Wetlands Band E). The applicant is requesting a Critical Area Exemption for the extension of SE 18th Street through portions of the buffer associated with Wetland E. The applicant has submitted a Wetland Report, Drainage Report, Traffic Impact Analysis, Geotechnical Engineering study, Arborist Report, and Habitat Data Report. Independent secondary studies for Transportation and Wetlands are included with the application. B. SEPA Appeal. A mitigated determination of nonsignificance ("MONS") was issued for the proposal on September, 2014. Two timely appeals of the threshold determination were filed by the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group (TPWAG) and Cairncross & Hcmpelmann on behalf of Henley USA, LLC. I. Applicant SEcPA A_DQ9_[. The applicant challenged three of the City's MONS conditions, specifically Conditions I, 3 and 6 on the grounds that they impose unlawful obligations on the applicant and restrict the applicant"s ability to develop the plat. a. MONS Condition__l. The applicant argued MONS Condition I should be revised because the condition required earthwork to comply with an earlier, preliminary version of the geotcchnical report which has since been superseded. The applicant requested the SEPA condition be revised to state the earthwork shall be consistent with the final geotechnical report submitted prior to construction (Exhibit J). City staff and the applicant then agreed upon the following language for Condition No. I, which is found to adequately address pertinent environmental impacts: All earthwork performed, implemented by the applicant, shall be consistent with the recommendations of the geo/echnical report, prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., dared September 28, 2012 or consistent with the recommendations of the final City-approved geotechnical report. PRELIMINARY PLAT-Preliminary Plat -5 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 l l 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2. surrounding development. Further, although the applicant proposes a modest increase in density, reasonable minds would certainly differ as to whether this difference in density would create a significant aesthetic impact. The developed portions of the plat are all in the R-8 zone, though the proposed residential density will be 5.7 dwelling units per acre. The minimum density requirement in the zone is 4.0 dwelling units per acre. All adjacent properties are zoned R-8. Proposed lot sizes would range from 4,500 square feet to 8,456 square feet with an average lot size of 5,399 square feet. While the proposed lots appear to be, on average, somewhat smaller than those of the surrounding developments, they are not significantly smaller and are at a density that is lower than would otherwise be allowed within this zone. Further, because of the presence of the two pipelines and the perimeter location of the critical areas tracts, very few of the lots will be directly adjacent to existing residential lots. The pipelines do not offer much in terms of vegetated screening but they do physically separate the proposed lots from existing lots. Any difference in the size of the lots will not be aesthetically significant, especially given the separation of the project from the surrounding neighborhood. Loss of Trei:~~ Not a Probable Significant Environmental Impaft. lt is determined that the loss of trees beyond those required to be retained by City code does not qualify as a probable significant adverse environmental impact. In its environmental review, the City suggests that the perimeter is necessary to make up for the fact that a significant number of trees will be removed, thereby adversely affecting the views currently enjoyed by neighboring properties. Numerous adjoining property owners also commented on this impact. It is determined that the loss of trees owned by the applicant does not qualify as a significant adverse environmental impact. Of course, almost all development of vacant parcels involves the removal of trees. As discussed in COL No 5, in order to justify mitigation beyond the minimum standards set by the City's landscaping code, the project must involve some fairly unique or significant impacts that were not anticipated in the adoption of that code. The existence of such a large parcel (and large number of associated trees) is arguably unique, but that argument is undermined to a large degree by the subjectivity involved in aesthetic review. Given that the applicant is retaining 30% of the trees, it is debatable whether the loss of the other 70% creates a significant aesthetic view impact to neighboring property owners, especially with the buffering that will be required by this decision to obscure retaining walls. PRELIMINARY PLAT -Preliminary Plat -8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. c. MONS Condition 6. MONS Condition No. 6 remains the only contested portion of the applicant's appeal. MONS Condition No. 6 as adopted by the SEPA responsible official required a 15-foot landscape buffer around the entire perimeter of the development. For the reasons identified in FOF No. 5, this perimeter has been reduced to ten feet and must only be placed in areas to conceal proposed retaining walls from neighboring view. 2. TPWAG SEPA Appeal. TPWAG raised several issues in its SEPA appeal, alleging both inadequate review and probable significant adverse environmental impacts. The impacts identified by TPW AG are addressed in FOF No. 5. 4. Surrounding Area. The subject site is surrounding on all sides by single family residential development. To the south it is bordered by the 100 foot wide Cedar River Pipeline. To the east, it is bordered by the 60 foot wide Mercer Island Pipeline. The zoning surrounding the subject on all sides is single family residential (R-8), though there is also a small portion of R-4 zoning to the east. 13 5. Adverse Impacts. The proposal does not create any probable significant adverse 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 environmental impacts. Adequate public facilities and drainage control are provided as determined in Finding of Fact No. 6. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 5, two appeals to the threshold were filed. The issues on appeal from the applicant, Henley, are discussed first. The issues on appeal for the project opponent, the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group, are then discussed. Finally, other impacts not related to either appeal but related to the preliminary plat are discussed below. A. AJJplicant SEPA Issue. As identified in FOF No. 3, only one issue remains in the Applicant's SEPA appeal, specifically the need for perimeter landscaping. It is determined that only the applicant's proposed retaining walls create probable significant environmental impacts and that these impacts can be reduced to nonsignificant levels with ten foot sight obscuring landscaping limited to perimeter areas in front of the retaining walls. I. Pro!)osed ~ Development Aesthetically Compatible with Surrounding Development. With the exception of retaining walls (addressed separately), the proposed development does not create any probable significant impacts because of aesthetic incompatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. A site visit and aerial photographs (Ex. K.6.c) reveal that the surrounding neighborhoods are not exceptionally wooded or treed and that the amount of trees proposed for retention by the applicant would not be less than PRELIMINARY PLAT-Preliminary Plat -7 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 4. view from surrounding residences will be significantly impacted as they change from forest canopy and surrounding homes to rock wall faces of nearly two stories tall in places. The Staff Report notes several walls will be seen by the public (proposed Lots 40, 41, 46, 47, 80, 82, 83-90, 93 and 94{ When considering retaining wall impacts, the height of the wall affects the significance of the impacts. Low retaining walls do not block sunlight and air or obstruct views. The building codes only require building permits for retaining walls four feet or more in height (RMC 4-5-060(E)(2){c)(iv)). This serves as a good threshold height for aesthetic impacts. Retaining walls lower than four feet do not obstruct views for a person of average height. They also tend to be more commonly found in neighborhoods since no building permit is required. for these reasons, the findings in the preceding paragraph on retaining wall aesthetic impacts are limited to retaining walls over four feet or more in height. Retaining walls less than four feet in height are not found to create probable significant adverse environmental impacts. Ten Foot Perimeter Landscaping Fully Mitigates Retaining \V11II Impacts. The aesthetic impacts of the retaining walls can be fully mitigated by the by a ten foot perimeter landscaping strip. The City is recommending a fifteen foot buffer of trees. During testimony, the applicant's arborist stated a ten foot wide butler with a staggered double row of conifers would create a very dense screen in IO years. He noted a 15 foot buffer is not sufficient in width to plant a third row of conifers, which would require a 30 foot buffer. The City's arborist concluded that at least 35 feet was necessary to provide for a site- obscuring buffer of trees and that ten verses fifteen feet would not make any material difference in screening (Decision Attachment A, page 7). Given that staffs 15 foot recommendation is counter to the recommendation of its own arborist 2 and that the applicant's arborist provides a reasonably good 1 In any discussion of lot numbers, this decision is referring to the numbering scheme utilized in the 97-lot alternative (Exhibit 2). The nomenclature of the 96-lot alternative is exactly one lot lower for each lot because the Tree Retention Plan recommended the elimination of Lot 1 of the 97 lot alternative to maintain 30% tree retention. ~ I Staff also advocated for a 15 foot buffer because it would help retain some of the treed character of the project site. See Exhibit A 1, page 19. As outlined in FOF No.5.A.1, the applicant cannot be legally made to compensate for the loss of trees on its property. Further. staff also based its 15 foot buffer requirement upon RMC 4-4-070(F)( 4 )(b ). This perimeter buffer provides for aesthetic screening between single and multi.family housing. This standard does serve as a good analogous standard for rctainilig wall impacts. Unfortunately, the standard only requires six foot high vegetation. A six foot high hedge set against a 21 foot high retaining wall does not accomplish a great deal of PRELIMINARY PLAT -Preliminary Plat -I 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3. The assessment of aesthetic impacts occasioned by the loss of trees is also tempered by the fact that it is debatable from a legal standpoint whether the applicant can be made to mitigate against the loss of a voluntary aesthetic benefit it has provided to the surrounding community. The applicant has had no obligation to retain all of the trees on its property in the past. Surrounding property owners have no entitlement to this currently existing aesthetic benefit. SEPA only requires mitigation and analysis of impacts created by development. The loss of trees in excess of those required by City code is not an impact created by the development, since those trees could have been removed at any time prior to development. The site visit, the record and the code do not reveal that any other properties in the vicinity have had to retain perimeter landscaping or that they provide a similar aesthetic benefit to the surrounding community. Given that no such need was found in the past when trees were removed by other development it is at least somewhat questionable why that is found necessary now in the absence of any code provision expressly requiring such a perimeter. Retaining Walls Create A Probable Significant Adverse Environ_rnsntal Impact. It is determined that the retaining walls proposed by the applicant in excess of four feet create a probable significant adverse environmental impact. As noted in the Staff Report, the applicant is proposing multiple walls on the proposed project. Some of the walls will be rockeries. Some walls are retaining walls which will face into the site. These are walls that allow for a finished grade for a lot to be below the surrounding grade. Other walls will be lock and load walls that allow for a finished lot grade above the surrounding grade. Six foot fencing is allowed on top of both types of walls. These walls arc visible from outside the site. Staff notes the applicant has proposed lock and load walls ranging in height from four feet potentially up to 21 feet high. During testimony, Mr. Talkington stated revised grading plans may allow for reduced retaining wall heights. A site visit to the surrounding neighborhoods was conducted December 28, 2014. Though the subject is largely surrounded by pipeline easements, these easements are cleared of vegetation allowing a direct line of sight into the development and of the retaining walls. The site visit demonstrated that high retaining walls are not a common feature of the surrounding development. The applicant proposes solid rock or concrete walls of up to 21 feet in height. These walls will impact the view of the property from surrounding residences, especially given they are an uncommon feature in the area. As proposed, the PRELIMINARY PLAT -Preliminary Plat -9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 l l 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2. 3. - removed at any time prior to development. It is also at best debatable whether the loss of the other 70% creates a significant aesthetic view impact to neighboring property owners, especially with the buffering that will be required by this decision to obscure retaining walls. Potential Presence of Hazardous Materials. No impacts from hazardous materials arc anticipated. The appellants demonstrated the subject property had at one time been owned by the Department of Defense. They alleged there might be hazardous materials on site based on this former user. For the past 65 years, for all intents and purposes, the site has been covered by a seemingly healthy forest canopy. The appellants were unable to demonstrate evidence of any overt signs of contamination visible on the site that might justify overturning the substantial weight due the SEPA official's determination that the project site docs not contain any hazardous waste necessitating further environmental review. However, nor were the appellants granted access to perform their own studies. The applicant also neglected to submit a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment it said was prepared for the proposal, even after the appellants made the study an issue during the hearing. The actions of the applicant on the hazardous waste issue create uncertainty as to whether the project site is free from hazardous waste. Given that this issue remains unresolved, a condition of approval will require the applicant to submit the results of the Phase I ESA to City staff for confirmation that there are no hazardous materials on site. Wildlife Habitat and C_onnectivity. No probable significant adverse impacts to wildlife habitat are anticipated and the SEPA Responsible Official had sufficient information to adequately assess the impacts. The applicant submitted a Revised Wetland Determination and Response Letter (Exhibit 5), a Habitat Assessment (Exhibit 6), and two Habitat Assessment Technical Memorandums (Exhibits 16 and 17). The City required an independent secondary review of the wetlands report (Exhibit 14). As noted in Conclusion of Law 3.8 below, the SEPA responsible official must make a prima facie showing that he has based his determination upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal (WAC 197-11-335). These multiple studies and memoranda were more than adequate to fully assess the wildlife impacts of the proposal as the appellants have not demonstrated any additional information that could have made any material difference in the official's conclusions. PREUMINARY PLAT-Preliminary Plat -12 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 B. - explanation of how a ten foot buffer can effectively screen the property, it is determined that the ten foot buffering advocated by the applicant's arborist will provide a fully sight obscuring buffer to the retaining walls and as such will prevent the retaining walls from creating probable significant adverse environmental impacts. Limiting the landscape perimeters to the areas where the retaining walls are four feet or more in height should also completely obstruct them from the view of neighboring property owners. For these reasons. the conditions of approval wi II require the applicant to revise its landscaping plan to provide for site obscuring perimeter landscaping adjacent to areas where the retaining walls are four or more feet in height, specifically in the perimeter areas close to Lots 40, 41, 46, 47, 80, 82, 83-90, 93 and 94. TPW AG SEPA Issues. I. Aesthetic Impact Due lo Loss of Trees. The appellants argue there is a significant adverse aesthetic impact due to the loss of trees. With the exception of retaining walls (addressed separately), the proposed development does not create any probable significant impacts because of aesthetic incompatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. As discussed above in Finding of Fact 5.A. I, the surrounding neighborhoods are not exceptionally wooded or treed and the amount of trees proposed for retention by the applicant would not be less than surrounding development. As described in Finding of Fact 5.A.2, the is retaining 30% of the trees. The applicant has had no obligation to retain all of the trees on its property in the past. Surrounding property owners have no entitlement to this currently existing aesthetic benefit. The loss of trees in excess of those required by City code is not an impact created by the development, since those trees eou Id have been aesthetic mitigation. For this reason, the RMC 4-4-070(r)(4)(b) buffer does not serve as an ideal analogous landscaping standard. What the RMC 4-4-070(F)(4)(b) and other RMC 4-4-070 perimeter buffer requirements does show is that the City Council was uncomfortable requiring more than a fifteen foot wide buffer in any situation. Requiring more than 15 feet does in fact to place an unreasonable burden upon the applicant for something as subjective as an aesthetic impact. It is for this reason likely that the City went against the findings of its arborist and only required a fifteen foot buffer instead of a 30 foot buffer. This was an appropriate approach, but did not go far enough since as testified by the applicant's arborist, a fifteen foot would not provide for any significant protection beyond a ten foot buffer. Given that a 30 foot buffer would be unreasonable mitigation, the imposition of a ten foot buffer has to be found acceptable even though there a small chance it may not provide for I 00% screening as concluded by the City's arborist. PRELIMINARY PLAT -Preliminary Plat -11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 to 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 5. there are no seismic hazards on the property (Decision Attachment A, Page 21 ). Mr. Coglas went on to state with respect to site stability and groundwater, the stability of the predominantly flat to gently sloping property is good. In his opinion and based on geologic mapping and subsurface data for the site and surrounding area, the site is very similar to the surrounding developed residential area. There is nothing in the record to indicate an increased danger of seismic hazard beyond that of the surrounding properties. A single-family residential plat in this area is in no more probable seismic danger than the surrounding developed properties. The proposal will not create any probable significant adverse environmental impacts in regards to seismic hazards. Landslide Hazards. The SEPA Responsible Official had adequate information to assess landslide hazards. They appellants argued the soil under the plat has structural anomalies that require further study to determine if there are landslide or other geologically hazardous conditions. The appellants point to bent trees and uneven surfaces located on the site may indicate shallow or slightly deeper ground movement which may be indications of landslide activity in the past or future propensity of slides. They note they requested access to perform their own studies but were denied. Specifically, the appellants have requested expanded soils tests, percolation tests and more test pits and borings to measure localized hydraulic conductivity. As noted above, the applicant has provided a geotechnical report by AES that was reviewed by Earth Solutions, NW. Mr. Coglas of Earth Solutions, NW testified there are no landslide hazards on the property (Decision Attachment A, Page 20). The City's Development Engineering Manager, Mr. Lee, testified he concurred with Mr. Coglas' assessment of the landslide hazard risk. Mr. Lee is a professional engineer with extensive experience in site development and civil engineering in Washington. He noted, the steep areas are very small ( 15-20' feet long) and do not warrant slope stability analysis. Overall on the project site. the approximate slope is only I 0% or so. There are no sensitive or protected slopes on the subject property. The majority of the subject site has less than 15 percent slopes. There are a few areas with slopes of 15 percent to 35 percent. These areas are characterized as Medium Landslide Hazard areas. Mr. Lee stated the City code does not require additional slope stability analysis for these areas. The appellant also asserted that the number and location of test pits were insufficient to evaluate slope stability. Mr. Lee testified there were sufficient numbers of test pits to gauge impacts on ground movement from groundwater PRELIMINARY PLAT -Preliminary Plat -14 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 4. No significant adverse impacts arc anticipated for wildlife or habitat connectivity. With the exception of pileated woodpeckers and Townsend's bats, the fish and wildlife habitat assessment found no listed or endangered species or priority habitat on site. Though the property may function as marginal habitat for many common species, it is geographically isolated from the Cedar River corridor by the Mercer Island Pipeline easement, a residential street. residential lots, a steep slope and the Bonneville Power Administration's easement. Testimony from all sides spoke to the heavy human disturbance on the site including recreational walkers, bikers, unleashed dogs, and the presence of unpermitted structures and pits including forts and paint ball hides. The applicant's wildlife expert, Racheal Villa of Sound view Consultants testified that the formalized protection of the wetlands and buffers on site would result in an improvement in habitat conditions for both pileated woodpeckers and Townsend's bats over the present situation due to the fairly degraded condition of the habitat at present. Seismic Hazard;;. The SEPA Responsible Official had adequate information to assess the seismic hazards and no probable significant adverse impacts are anticipated in regards to these hazards. As to adequacy of review, the applicant provided a geotechnical report by AES (Exhibit 7) that was reviewed, by the request of the applicant, by Earth Solutions, NW (Exhibit K.2). The AES conclusion in the geotechnical report stated the site, from a geotechnical engineering standpoint, is suitable for support of conventional paving, lightly loaded structures and typical buried utilities, all typical improvements in a single family residential subdivision. The AES preliminary geotechnical report and subsequent peer review by Earth Solutions, NW provide information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposal under WAC 197-11 -335. The appellants note the nearest USGS mapped fault zone is 3.9 miles away, though they feel additional testing should occur to determine if there are unmapped fault zones. The appellants argued there was evidence of ground movement in the form of bent trees and hummocky land which could indicate several things including seismic shifting or landslide activity caused by a shallow groundwater table. The City has mapped the site as a Low Seismic Hazard area and outside of the Coal Mine Hazard areas. The applicant has provided a geotechnical report by AES that was reviewed at the applicant's request by Earth Solutions, NW, the firm hired to perform geotechnical work for the applicant going forward. Mr. Coglas of Earth Solutions, NW testified PRELIMINARY PLAT. Preliminary Plat · 13 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 -- Barghausen and the Otak wetlands reviews (Exhibits 14 and 15) as all demonstrating the groundwater table is at or within seven inches of the surface in all wetland areas. Groundwater near the surface is defining feature of wetlands. However, the appellants argue the water table is a flat contour throughout the project site and, as a consequence of a high water table, water intrusion will disrupt or prevent proper installation of utilities, foundation drains and the storrnwater vault. The applicant's geotechnical engineer, Ray Coglas, testified there is perched groundwater on the site, rather than a flat table, a statement Mr. Lee concurred with during testimony (Decision Attachment A, pages 22 and 25, respectively). If the site had a flat water table close to the ground surface all over the site; the whole site would be underwater because of the varying topography, which is of course not the case. He stated perched waters trapped by impervious soils are limited in area and capacity and will drain away when cuts are made to hillsides. The water AES encountered was seepage from perched water rather than the actual groundwater table (Decision Attachment A, page 22). Mr. Coglas referred to the AES test pits and stated they showed no caving or seepage which would indicate weakness in the soils or significant groundwater at or near the surface outside of wetland areas. He stated though there will be some groundwater seepage, he does not expect the site will require dewatering or extensive pumping. AES found no groundwater in its test pits. Mr. Coglas stated even if the appellants are correct and that groundwater is at zero elevation, it could be managed without damaging the feasibility of the project. Mr. Lee also concurred with this statement. Mr. Coglas noted the soils at the subject are not unique to this subject. The entire subject is surrounded by existing development at a similar intensity to the proposed development on similar topography and soils. There is no indication from the record or from the site visit to suggest the utilities; infrastructure or house foundations in the surrounding neighborhoods have failed due to perched groundwater or a high water table. Mr. Coglas noted the presence of groundwater will not preclude development if best management practices are followed. Given Mr. Lee's concurrence in the opinion of Mr. Coglas and the substantial weight required of the findings of the SEPA responsible official, it is determined that the proposal will not create any probable significant adverse groundwater impacts. PRELIMINARY PLAT-Preliminary Plat -16 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 6. -- on site. He would have preferred to see a few more, especially in the vault area. However, as Mr. Coglas testified, the City may require extra analysis during final engineering as the design is finalized. He stated he does not typically require additional geotechnical analysis at this stage of the process. Mr. l.ee felt the information provided was adequate to allow for a determination of impact on the site (See Decision Attachment A, Page 24 ). Mr. Lee's objectivity as a staff employee and his engineering expertise arc determinative on the slope stability issue. He clearly reviewed the gcotechnical reports in detai I and found no need for further investigation or additional information. The findings of the geotechnical analysis are also compelling on their own and the relatively modest slopes of the project site do not raise any apparent cause for concern. For these reasons, it is concluded that the SEPA responsible official had reasonably adequate information to assess the slope stability of the project site. Qroundwate_L The SEPA Responsible Official had reasonably adequate information to assess the groundwater impacts and there are no probable significant adverse groundwater impacts associated with the proposal. The appellants argued there was insufficient study of the groundwater situation on site and the potential affect groundwater might have on development. They note they requested access to perform their own studies but were denied. Specifically, they appellants have requested expanded soils tests, percolation tests and more test pits and borings to measure localized hydraulic conductivity. The applicant provided a geotechnical report (Exhibit 7), a peer review of the geotechnical report (Exhibit K.2), a wetlands report and a revised wetlands report (Exhibit 5), and a drainage report (Exhibit 8). The wetlands reports were independently reviewed by Otak (Exhibits 14 and 15). The City's Development Engineer, Mr. Lee stated the applicant had provided a sufficient number of test pits to gauge impacts of potential groundwater on site (Decision Attachment A, page 24). Given the extensive information provided and the peer review, the applicant has provided information sufficient for the SEPA Responsible Official to issue a threshold determination with respect to groundwater impacts. There are no anticipated adverse impacts related to the groundwater table. The appellants argue groundwater saturation levels at this site make it undevelopable. They point to the AES geotechnical report (Exhibit 7), the Shultz wetlands report (Exhibit 5), the Technical Information Report by PRELIMINARY PLAT -Preliminary Plat -15 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 C. 9. - and discharge monitoring. No building permit or construction permits will be issued until the NPDES conditions are met. Since the proposed stormwater discharge is consistent with all applicable regulations, is a standard practice for development and also meets the approval of staff, it is determined that the proposed discharge to wetlands will not create any probable significant adverse environmental impacts. Air Quality. No significant adverse impacts to air quality are anticipated. During the construction phase of the project, there will be exhaust from trucks and heavy equipment. However, after the construction phase is over, the subdivision will function similarly to the surrounding development with respect to emissions and air quality issues. The proposed development is functionally the same as the existing development pattern. Nothing in the record indicates there will be significant adverse impacts with respect to air quality. Other Impacts Related to the Pr~liminary Plat. I. Wetlands. As proposed and conditioned, the proposal will not create any significant adverse impacts to wetlands. There are five wetlands on site. Three of the wetlands are Category 2; the others arc Category Ill. The applicant submitted a Wetland Determination, prepared by C. Gary Schulz, Inc. (October 30, 2013) and a revised Wetland Determination in response to revisions to the plat including the use of a drainage vault, instead of a drainage detention pond, and the inclusion of a vegetated buffer along portions of the site perimeter (February 28, 2014). Based on public comments (See Exhibit I 0.6), staff required an evaluation by an independent qualified professional regarding the applicant's wetland analysis and the effectiveness of any proposed mitigating measures. On April 3, 2014 an independent secondary wetland review was provided to the City by Otak (Exhibit A, Attachment 14). Following the completion of recommendations in the Otak memo, the applicant submitted a Revised Wetland Determination and Response (June 3, 2014) (Exhibit A, Attachment 5). At the hearing, members of the public expressed concern regarding the protection of wetlands and wild I ife habitat. There was specific concern regarding removal of trees and wetland hydrology. During testimony, Ms. PRELIMINARY PLAT -Preliminary Plat -18 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 7. 8. - Downstream Impacts. The SEPA Responsible Official has information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the downstream impacts of the proposal. The City required a Level I downstream analysis. The proposed Level 2 Flow Control (Exhibit A, page 31) will restrict the flow of the 2-year release rate to 50% of the pre-developed site conditions, which will help to reduce an existing drainage issue. Mr. Lee stated the City is uncertain of a segment of the pipeline that takes the water downstream of the project site and have therefore requested a Level 2 downstream analysis to be performed prior to building permit approval. They want to make sure the project will not exacerbate existing downstream flooding issues. An NPDES permit will be required for the project, which will stipulate the allowable discharge into the conveyance system (Decision Attachment A, Page 25). The City additionally established a SEPA mitigating condition requiring Level 2 downstream analysis for V. mile from the project site. All of the requirements must be met before a building permit or construction permits are issued. With these conditions in place, the City has reasonably sufficient information at this stage of review to evaluate down stream impacts. Dis,harge into Wetlands. The proposed discharge of roof run-off into wetlands will not create a probable significant adverse environmental impact. The detailed local, state and federal standards applicable to stormwater run-off are determinative on the existence of adverse impacts. If the proposed drainage is compliant with applicable regulations, there arc no adverse impacts. The appellants assert that the proposed roof run-off into wetlands is in violation of the Clean Water Act. As noted by the applicant, the King County Surface Water Drainage Manual specifically excludes drainage from roofs (except untreated metal roofs) from consideration as pollution generating sources (Exhibit AF). The appellants have not provided any citation or court opinion that roof run off discharge constitutes a violation of any applicable regulation and no such violation is apparent from the reading of the Clean Water Act. Mr. Talkington, in his testimony for the applicant, noted that discharge of clean or non-point source polluted stormwater into wetlands is common practice and is required to hydraulically charge the wetlands. Mr. Lee stated the applicant had complied with all city, state and federal code requirements with respect to stromwatcr. Mr. Lee testified the codes are sufficient to address all probable stormwater impacts. He further noted a National Pollution Discharge and Elimination System permit will be required for the project, which will ensure that no stormwater pollutants are released into wetlands or groundwater. The permit will include background PRELIMINARY PLAT -Preliminary Plat -17 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2. Tree Retention Required. The proposal provides for adequate tree retention because it complies with the City's tree retention standards, RMC 4-4-l30(C). The applicant submitted two versions of the preliminary plat application. The first version is a 97 lot alternative that does not achieve 30% significant tree retention. The second plat alternative is a 96-lot preliminary plat that achieves 30% significant tree retention and implements the applicant's Tree Protection Report (Exhibit 3). Since the 96-lot alternative implements the applicant's tree retention plan and is consistent with the agreed upon SEPA mitigation measure requiring 30% retention, this is taken as the applicant's proposal and is the design approved by this decision. If the applicant was still intending to pursue a 97-lot design, it should request reconsideration. 9 No other significant impacts are reasonably anticipated from the evidence contained within the 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 administrative record. 6. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Servic_e?, The project will be served by adequate infrastructure and public services. Preliminary adequacy of all infrastructure facilities has been reviewed by the City's Public Works Department and found to be sufficient. Specific infrastructure/services are addressed as follows: A. Wm~_an_g Sewer Servic,e. This site is located in the City of Renton water service boundary. There is an existing 8-inch water main stubbed to the site in SE 20'" Court, in SE 19th Court and SE 18'" Court. This site is located in the 590-water pressure zone. Static pressure in the area ranges from 65-82 psi. The site is located in the City of Renton sewer service area. There is an 8-inch sewer main in SE 18th Street. B. Police and Fire Protection. Police and Fire Prevention staffs indicate that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; subject to the provision of Code required improvements and fees. A Fire Impact Fee, based on new single family lots, will be required in order to mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to City emergency services. The fee is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. Currently the fee is assessed at $479.28 per single family residence. This fee is paid at time of building permit issuance. C. Drainage. As conditioned, the proposal provides for adequate drainage facilities. In order to address concerns raised by staff, as recommended by them a condition of approval requires a Level 2 downstream analysis for Y. mile from the project site to determine if the proposed project would exacerbate existing downstream capacity issues. The applicant submitted a Preliminary Drainage Report prepared by Barghausen. dated PRELIMINARY PLAT-Preliminary Plat -20 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 - Villa of Soundview Consultants stated she was hired by the applicant to perform supplementary wetland review for fish and wildlife habitat. In her study, she found no state or federally listed or protected species on the site. She noted the habitat is fairly disturbed now with evidence of a lot of human intrusion. In her opinion, protection of the wetlands and habitats with proper fencing and signage would result in better protection for the habitat than exists currently. The Otak Supplemental Independent Secondary Review concluded water quality, wetland hydrologic function and flood storage will be protected. The applicant proposes buffer averaging provisions (RMC 4-3-050(M)(6)(f)). The buffer averaging plan provides additional buffer area at ratios that range from 1.6: 1.0 to 9.5: 1.0. Wetlands A, B, C, and D would have buffer areas significantly greater following the buffer averaging proposal. However, staff are concerned the proposed adjustments will not provide adequate buffering on the north and east sides of Wetlands B and C to take into account the proposed ·'lock & load walls" in those locations. The applicant will be required to submit a Final Mitigation Plan (RMC 4-8-120(W)) demonstrating appropriate mitigation for all wetlands and buffer impacts prior to permit approval. The applicant has requested a critical areas exemption allowing a permanent buffer impact to 14sfofthe Wetland E buffor. The exemption would allow the applicant to construct the required full street improvements at SE l 8'h Street (RMC 4-6-060). This area (2 l 9sf) has already been impacted by past infrastructure construction. Staff recommends approval of the critical areas exemption with mitigation for the impact. The critical areas on site have a total area of 118,494 square feet (2.72 acres) and would be located in (Tracts B, G, K, & M). The applicant is proposing to increase wetland buffers which would result in a total native open space used to preserve native forest habitat of approximately 175,199 square feet ( 4.02 acres). As conditioned, no impacts to wetland habitat are anticipated. Given the extensive review of wetland impacts, staffs review and approval of wetland mitigation, and the applicanfs compliance with all applicable wetland regulations, it is concluded that the proposal will not create any adverse impacts to wetlands. PRELIMINARY PLAT-Preliminary Plat -19 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 additional mitigation and the reduction in LOS will not violate the City's adopted level of service. The applicant will be required to pay traffic impact fees prior to issuance of building permits, which provides adequate mitigation against the modest traffic impacts created by the proposal. The TIA noted limited sight distance exists today for southbound motorists on Monroe Avenue SE approaching SE 18th Street due to the roadway geometrics and existing obstructions (fence and on-street vehicle parking). The site distance issue was remedied by an MONS condition that requires the applicant to install a stop sign. Included in the Independent Secondary Review (Exhibit 13) was a recommendation for sight distance analysis at the 124th Place SE and SE I 58'h Street intersection. The report identifies this intersection as a possible sight distance concern. Given the provided TIA does not include an analysis of the sight distance at this intersection, a SEPA mitigation measure was issued requiring the applicant submit a revised TIA including an analysis of the 124 1h Place SE and SE 158th Street intersection sight distance and recommend appropriate mitigation if needed (Exhibit 22). Site distances at all other study intersections were deemed adequate with the exception of Beacon Way SE at SE 16 1h Street. The vertical curve of SE 161h Street presents a visibility concern. A crest vertical curve obstructs sight distance where SE 16th Street crosses Beacon Way SE especially if car speeds exceed posted speed limit signage. There are existing signs (Steep Hill, Slippery When Wet, Advisory I SMPH Speed) at SE 16 1h Street northeast of Beacon Way SE which help to calm existing traffic at this intersection. Approximately 60% of the project's trips are anticipated to utilize this intersection. Therefore, the ERC issued a SEPA mitigation measure requiring the applicant to install an additional warning sign for a CROSSROAD (W2-I symbol) with a 15MPH advisory speed on the southwest directional approach to Beacon Way SE, along the north side of SE 16 1h Street (east of Beacon Way SE) (Exhibit 22). The ERC issued another SEPA mitigation condition at this intersection to reduce cut thru traffic. The applicant is required to install directional information signage (white letters on green background) at S. Puget Drive and 116th Avenue SE facing west (Exhibit 22). The signs are required to read "TIFFANY PARK" with a left arrow and "CASCADE" with a right arrow. Several public comments requested the use of speed bumps as a traffic calming measure along SE 16 1h Street to address sight distance (including vertical), cut through traffic, and spin out concerns which would be aggravated by traffic generated by the proposal. The PRELIMINARY PLAT -Preliminary Plat -22 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 - February 24, 2014 (Exhibit 8). Staff has determined that the preliminary plan is consistent with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters I and 2. Full compliance with the Manual will be required during engineering review. D. PaTks/Open Space. The proposal is consistent with adopted parks and open space standards and, therefore, provides for adequate parks and open space. RMC 4-2-115, which governs open space requirements for residential development, docs not have any specific requirements for open space for residential development in the R-8 district. However, the applicant is proposing a total of 1.26 acres of passive and active open space, in addition to critical areas on site, for the open space needs of the subdivision. The applicant will also be require to pay park impact fees prior to building permit issuace to ensure that the development pays its fair share of system wide park improvements. E. Stree!!i. The proposal, as conditioned, provides for adequate streets and associated infrastructure. The applicant is proposing two points of ingress and egress into the plat; SE 18th St and 124th Place SE. The primary neighborhood streets which would serve project traffic include 1161h Avenue SE, l26'h Avenue SE, SE 1681h Street, SE Petrovitsky Road, S. Puget Drive, and 1081h Avenue SE-Benson Road S. The project site is currently served by King County Metro Route 148 with Routes l 02 and 155 also operating within the vicinity of the subject site. The nearest transit stop for Route 148 is located on Lake Youngs Drive SE and 123'd Avenue SE. Staff received comments from interested parties with respect to traffic specifically related to the need for additional analysis, trip generation, lack of public transit, level of service, sight distance, the Edmonds Avenue SE/SE 16'h Street-Edmonds Way SE intersection, the use of speed bumps for traffic calming, stop signs, and traffic impact fees (See Exhibit l 0). The applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by TranspoGroup, (November, 2013) as part of the original submittal. Based on public comments received, staff required an evaluation by an independent qualified professional regarding the applicant's transportation analysis and the effectiveness of any proposed mitigating measures. The TIA concludes that all affected intersections will continue to operate at an acceptable level of service, except the intersection of Benson Drive S/S Puget Drive, which will fall to LOSE by 2018 with or without the proposed project. The addition of AM peak hour project traffic would add approximately five seconds of average delay to this intersection. Staff concluded that this minor amount of delay did not justify PRELIM[NARY PLAT-Preliminary Plat -21 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 - that no subdivision be approved without making a written finding of adequate provisions for safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from school and/or bus stops. Tiffany Park Elementary and Lindberg High School are within walking distance of the subject site while Nelson Middle School would require future students to be transported to schoo I via bus. As part of the proposed project, sidewalks would be constructed along on-site roadways which would connect to the existing sidewalk system providing adequate provisions for safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from school and/or bus stops. Sidewalks would provide a route between the project site and nearby Tiffany Park Elementary School, including available marked crosswalks at the Kirkland Avenue SE/Lake Youngs Way intersection. The Kirkland Avenue SE/Lake Youngs Way intersection is approximately 300 linear feet from where SE 18th St intersects Lake Youngs Way. Given the number of homes proposed, it is very likely that a large influx of students would attempt to cross Lake Youngs Way SE, at the SE I g<h Street intersection, which does not currently have a marked crosswalk. ln order to provide a more practical safe route to Tiffany Park Elementary from the project site, a SEPA mitigation measure was issued requiring the applicant provide a marked crosswalk at the intersection of SE 18'' Street and Lake Youngs Way. No current bus stops exist for this property as it is currently undeveloped. The Renton School District will be making provisions for the location of bus stops for those students who will be attending Nelson Middle School. A School Impact Fee, based on new single-family lots, will also be required in order to mitigate the proposal"s potential impacts to Renton School District. The fee is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of building permit application. Currently the fee is assessed at $5,455.00 per single family residence and would increase to $5,541.00 on January 1, 2015. V. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I. Authority. RMC 4-7-020(C) and 4-7-050(0)(5) provide that the !!earing Examiner shall hold a hearing and issue a final decision on preliminary plat applications. RMC 4-9-070(R) and RMC 4-8-I IO(A)(2) grant the Examiner authority to review and make final decisions on SEPA appeals. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT -Preliminary Plat -24 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 l l 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 - City does not support the use of speed bumps on public streets. Speed bumps are not desired due to noise, excessive speeds between installations (so drivers can make up time), and result in a reduction in response time of public safety vehicles such as fire engines and aid cars. Several public comments requested internal pedestrian connectivity, connections to neighboring developments/abutting pipelines, connectivity to Tiffany Park Elementary, and the crossing at SE 16th St and Edmonds Way SE intersection (See Exhibit I 0.22). No frontage improvements are required on adjacent street frontage. The internal public streets have been proposed with a right-of-way width of 53 feel which meets the City's complete street requirements for residential access streets. Pavement width of 26 feet, 0.5 foot wide curbs, 8 foot wide landscaped planters (on both sides of the street), 5 foot wide sidewalks (on both sides of the street), drainage improvements. and street lighting are required. The applicant is proposing two pedestrian connections to neighboring developments and an abutting pipeline via Tracts C and E. City staff evaluated the intersection of Edmonds Avenue SE/SE 16'h Street-Edmonds Way SE with respect to pedestrian improvements in 1996, 2005 and again in 2007 and determined that crosswalks were not warranted at this location. The additional development traffic will not exceed the threshold to warrant installation of a crosswalk at this location. As noted in staff testimony above, the proposal will not exceed six dwelling units per acre and therefore is not required to provide alley access. Several public comments dealt with construction traffic (See Exhibit 10.30). The developer will be required to comply with the Renton Municipal Code for haul hours, construction hours, and noise levels. A final Traffic Control Plan complying with the Renton Municipal Code will be required to be submitted and approved prior to construction. 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. The Renton School District anticipates it can accommodate any additional students generated by this proposal at the following schools: Tiffany Park Elementary (0.4 miles from the subject site), Nelson Middle School (1.7 miles from the subject site) and Lindberg High School (0.9 miles from the subject site). RCW 58.17.110(2) provides PRELIMINARY PLAT -Preliminary Plat -23 2 must make a prima facie showing that he has based his determination upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal. WAC 197-11-335. 3 C. No Grounds for an EIS. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I[ 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 TPW AG has not demonstrated a need for additional SEPA mitigation, environmental review or the issuance of an environmental impact statement. All of the grounds for SEPA appeal arc addressed in Finding of Fact No. 5. As determined in that finding, none of the impacts identified by TPWAG qualify as probable significant adverse environmental impacts and TPW AG has not identified an impact for which the SEPA responsible official did not have sufficient information to reasonably assess impacts. D. l'"rime.ter .L!!ndscaping. MONS Condition No. 6 is modified to only require IO foot perimeter landscaping along the retaining walls that are over four feet in height, specifically in proximity to lots 40, 41, 46, 47, 80, 82, 83-90, 93 and 94. The applicant argues that no perimeter buffering is required because the City's landscaping standards do not require buffering and that those standards should be determinative in assessing the need for landscaping. The applicant is correct up to a point. RCW 36.708.030(3) and RCW 43.21 C.240(2)(a) docs allow a city to use its development standards as the exclusive source of mitigation for environmental impacts. However, RCW 43.2 IC.240(2)(a) provides that in order to use development regulations in this manner the City must make a determination in the course of permit review that the development standards in question are adequately addressed by the development regulations. RCW 43.21C.240(4) further clarifies that for development standards to be found to adequately mitigate impacts, imposition of the standards must either avoid or mitigate the impacts; or the legislative body of the city has determined that the development standard sets acceptable levels of impact. Renton's landscaping standards do not adequately address all of the aesthetic impacts created by the proposal. As noted previously, one of the two ways that a development standard can be found to adequately address impacts is if the City Council intended the standard to set acceptable levels of impact. See RCW 43.21C.240(4)(b).The Renton City Council expressly determined that the landscaping standard would not set acceptable levels of aesthetic impact, stating the purpose clause of the landscaping standards that "it is not the intent of these regulations that rigid and inflexible design standards be imposed, but rather that minimum standards be set." The other, more difficult issue involved in ascertaining whether the landscaping standards would adequately address aesthetic impacts is if the standards actually mitigate the impacts. Given the subjectivity of aesthetic perimeter impacts, one would have to conclude that in the vast majority of PRELIMINARY PLAT -Preliminary Plat -26 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 - 2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Design~ations. The majority of the subject property is zoned Residential 8 dwelling units per net acre (R-8). A small portion of the subject property is zoned Residential 4 dwelling units per net acre (R-4). Only the R-8 portion of the property is proposed for residential development. The comprehensive plan map land use designation is Residential Single Family (RSF) and Residential Low Density (RLD). SEPAAPPEAL 3. Review Standard. There are two reasons a DNS can be overturned to overturned: (1) there are unmitigated probable significant adverse environmental impacts; or (2) the SEPA responsible official has not undertaken an adequate review of environmental factors. Each grounds for reversal will be separately addressed below. frobablc Significant Adverse Environmental Impacts. 9 A. JO The primary relevant inquiry for purposes of assessing whether County staff correctly issued a DNS is whether the project as proposed has a probable significant environmental impact. See WAC 197- 11-330( l)(b). WAC 197-11-782 defines "probable" as follows: 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 'Probable' means likely or reasonably likely to occur, as in 'a reasonable probability of more than a moderate effect on the quality of the environment' (see WAC 197-11-794). Probable is used to distinguish likely impacts from those that merely have a possibility of occurring. but are remote or speculative. This is not meant as a strict statislical probability test. If such impacts are created, conditions will have to be added to the DNS lo reduce impacts so there arc no probable significant adverse environmental impacts. In the alternative, an environmental impact statement would be required for the project. In assessing the validity of a threshold determination, the determination made by the City's SEPA responsible omcial shall be entitled to substantial weight. WAC I 97-l l-680(3)(a)(viii). An appeal of an MONS is judicially reviewed under the clearly erroneous standards. Under the clearly erroneous standard, the decision of the SEPA responsible official can only be overturned if, after reviewing the entire record, the decision maker is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. RMC 4-8-11 O- (E)(l 2)(b)(v). The procedural determination by the Environmental Review Committee or City staff shall carry substantial weight in any appeal proceeding. RMC 4-8-11 O(E)(l 2)(a). 23 B. Adequate Environmental Review 24 The second reason a DNS can be overturned is if the SEPA responsible official did not adequately 25 review environmental impacts in reaching his threshold determination. The SEPA responsible official 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT-Preliminary Plat -25 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 - landscaping will raise the aesthetic quality of the city, provide for aesthetic appeal and buffer against the transition from the higher density residential development and its associated retaining walls to the lower surrounding residential densities. The applicants argue in their briefing that requiring perimeter landscaping would be unreasonable because homes would lose yard space. ln the alternative, of course, the applicant may have to lose some lots. Given the judicial construction of "reasonable" in due process and takings cases, the loss of a few lots or yard space would not be considered unreasonable. As a final matter, SEPA mitigation can only be used to impose mitigation against probable significant adverse environmental impacts. As determined in the Finding of Fact No. 5, the solid walls created by the higher portions of the retaining wall easily qualify. No reasonable minds could differ on the opinion that high retaining walls are at odds with the general design of the community and create a mass of rock or concrete wall that is aesthetically adverse. The remaining issue is how high the wall should be to be considered adverse. Again, reference to existing codes is useful as it provides an objective and consistent standard for application. Retaining walls fewer than four feet in height do not require building permit review. Consequently, it can be reasonably anticipated that decorative retaining walls under four feet may not be that uncommon, whereas property owners will only go through the time and expense of building permit review for higher walls when they are necessitated for stability as opposed to decorative purposes. A four feet height is also still low enough to retain the views of surrounding trees, vistas and other natural and landscaped features. For this reason, those portions of the proposal with retaining walls that exceed four feet in height shall be subject to the I 0 foot wide perimeter landscaping requirement imposed in the MDNS. E. Conclusion of Law 3(E) has been renumbered to Conclusion of Law No. 7.5 as directed by 17 the Ruling on Reconsideration. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 F. Loss of Recreational Use. The appellants assert that the project site has been used as a recreational resource by the surrounding community for decades and that its loss is a probable significant adverse environmental impact. The loss of recreational use from the property is not an environmental impact of the proposal subject to SEPA review and mitigation. Even if it were. that loss does not result in any violation of the City's detailed park policies and regulations, compliance of which assures that development will not create demand upon park facilities that exceeds legislatively adopted level of service standards. As a preliminary matter, it should be noted that this decision does not address the prescriptive rights claims made by the appellants to the project site. As ruled in Ex. AG, the Examiner has no authority to address the prescriptive easement claims asserted by the SEPA appellants. Practically speaking, this decision will not prejudice the appellants' prescriptive rights claims if the appellants diligently PRELIMINARY PLAT-Preliminary Plat -28 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 - typical subdivisions the landscaping standards do set an adequate standard. In not imposing any perimeter landscaping requirements between single family residential uses, the City Council must have determined that for the typical subdivision, such landscaping is not necessary. However, the proposed subdivision is not typical. As determined in rinding of Fact No. 6, the proposal will involve up to 16.6 foot high retaining walls that will create a stone wall to the neighborhoods across from it, which in turn can be topped with 6 foot fences. The site visit revealed that no other homes in the vicinity have such retaining walls or similar edifices bordering on public roads. Consequently, the impacts of the subdivision are not typical and likely not the type of impact the City Council considered when it omitted any buffer requirements for adjoining residential uses. Additional mitigation through SEPA is well justified in this case to mitigate against the impact of retaining walls. The City's environmental report also cites that buffering is necessary to off-set the impacts of the densities of the proposal, which are higher than adjoining densities. This does not serve as an adequate justification for buffering. Setting a threshold for adverse aesthetic impacts based upon a difference in density or lot sizes is a completely arbitrary action in the absence of any legislative guidance. The difference in density between the proposal and adjoining uses is not so high that reasonable minds would share the same opinion as to whether the difference is aesthetically adverse. Though both the surrounding areas and the subject are zoned R-8, the developed density of the proposal will not exceed 5.7 dwelling units per acre. Indeed, unlike the retaining walls of the project, differences in residential densities are something that one would reasonably anticipate the Council would have considered in adopting its landscaping standards, and it adopted no perimeter requirements between residential zoning districts with different densities, except as between multi- family and less intense residential uses. For these reasons, the comparatively higher density of the proposal does not create a probable significant adverse environmental impact. Another issue with respect to the SEPA's mitigation measure is to ensure that the City has adopted a SEPA policy that requires the impact to be addressed. RCW 43.21C.060 requires that SEPA mitigation must be based upon policies adopted by the local government authority. Interestingly, the City hasn't adopted its development standards as part of its SEPA policies, so the purpose clause of the landscaping regulations, which promote aesthetic compatibility, can't be used. There are plenty of other SEPA policies that promote aesthetic compatibility. RMC 4-2-070(M)(2)(ii) provide that one of the goals of SEPA review is to assure aesthetically pleasing surroundings. The City's comprehensive plan is another adopted SEPA policy. One of its community design goals is to "raise the aesthetic quality of the city". Objective CD-M recognizes that well designed landscaping provides aesthetic appeal and makes an important contribution to the health, safety, economy and general welfare of the community. Policy CD-88 provides that street trees and landscaping should be required for new development to provide an attractive strcctscape in areas subjected to a transition of land uses. All of these policies are served by the perimeter landscaping required by this decision, since such PRELIMINARY PLAT -Preliminary Plat -27 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 -- 3. Physical Characteristics: Have suitable physical characteristics. A proposed plat may be denied because ofjlood, inundation, or wetland conditions. Construction of protective improvements may be required as a condition of approval. and such improvements shall be no/ed on the final plat. ./. Drainage: Make adequate provision for drainage ways, streets .. alleys, other public ways, water supplies and sanitary wastes. RMC 4-4-080(1)(7): a. Benefits of Joint use driveways reduce the number of curb cuts along individual streets and thereby improve safety and reduce congestion while providing for additional on-street parking opportunities. Join/ use driveways should be encouraged when feasible and appropriate. (Ord . ./517, 5-8-1995) b. Where l'ermilled: Adjoining commercial or industrial uses may utilize a joint use driveway where such joint use driveway reduces the total number r!fdriveways entering the street nelwork, subject to the approval of the Departmenl of Community and Economic Development. Joint use driveways must be created upon the common property line of the properties served or through the granting of a permanent access easement when said driveway dues not exist upon a common property line. Joint use access to the driveway shall be assured by easement or other legal form acceptable to the City. 7. As to compliance with the Zoning Code, Finding 1(2) of the staff report in the portions related to density, lot dimensions, setbacks and building standards (Pages 12-13) are adopted by reference as if set forth in full, with all associated recommended conditions of approval adopted by this decision as well. As depicted in the plat map, Staff Report Ex. 2, most of the lots will directly access a public Road (Road A, SE 18th Street or 124th Place SE). As noted in Finding of Fact 6.G, shared driveways are proposed for Lots 12-14, Lots 15-17, Lots 38-40 and Lots 79-81. Staff additionally suggests Lot I l and Lots 78 take access from the shared driveway. There are no topographical or critical areas issues to preclude these three lots from having shared access. The shared access would reduce the number of curb cuts at the entrance of the plat at I 24th Place SE and along the cul de sac at the end of the same street. Potential vehicle and pedestrian connicts would be lessened by consolidating driveways. However, the applicant testified use of the shared driveway for Lot 11 is problematic because the driveway would be at an angle to the roadway which would also change the design of the house to allow side loading of the garage. The applicant objected to the inclusion of Lot 78 in a shared driveway. There appear to be no material differences between Lots 78 and 81 in terms of orientation or width. As these lots are very near to the subdivision entrance, limiting potential vehicle and pedestrian conflicts is desirable. Though a change to the design of the house on Lot 11 is not an unreasonable accommodation to allow for vehicular and pedestrian safety at the cul de sac, the PRELIMINARY PLAT-Preliminary Plat -30 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 -- pursue those claims in superior court, the proper forum for such a claim. Should the appellants actually succeed in persuading a court that the public has prescriptive rights to the public school property (which appears unlikely at this juncture). they could acquire injunctive or other judicial relief to prevent development of the proposal. No additional SEPA review or mitigation is merited on the recreational use issue because the loss of that use cannot be considered an impact of the proposal. In the absence of any prescriptive rights to the project site, project opponents are left with the argument that the applicant should fond further environmental review or provide for additional mitigation to compensate for the fact that either (I) the applicant was benevolent enough to allow the public to use its property; or (2) the public repeatedly trespassed on the applicant's property. From an equitable standpoint, such a position borders on the absurd. More importantly, the applicant could prevent the public from using its property at any time, with or without the proposal. For this reason, the loss of recreational use should not be considered an impact of the proposal for purposes of environmental review. Even if loss of the recreational use of the site could be legitimately considered an environmental impact for purposes of SEPA, its loss would not qualify as a probable significant adverse environmental impact. The City's comprehensive plan, park impact fees and open space requirements are all designed to assure that each developer is required to provide its proportionate share contribution to the park needs of the city and that the park needs of the public will be met as development progresses. The applicant's proposal is consistent and compliant with all of these requirements. In point of fact the applicant will be required to pay park impact fees at the time of building permit issuance. The applicant is also providing for 1.2 acres of open space, even though no open space is required for subdivisions in the R-8 zone. As would be expected, none of the City's park policies or regulations penalizes a developer for withdrawing the ability of the public to usc or trespass upon its property. Since the applicant is acting fully within the requirements of the City's detailed park policies and regulations, its proposal cannot be considered to create adverse impacts to the City's (i.e. public's) parks and recreational system. PRELIMINARY PLAT 6. Review Criteria. Chapter 4-7 RMC governs the criteria for preliminary review. Applicable standards are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. RMC 4-7-0SO(B): A subdivision shall be consislenl with the following principles of acceptahilily: I. Legal Lois: Create legal building sites which mmply wilh all provisions of the City Zoning Code. 2. Access: Establish access lo a public road for each segregated parcel. PRELIMINARY PLAT-Preliminary Plat -29 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 - Practically speaking, this means that RMC 4-4-040 doesn't apply to retaining walls solely used to stabilize grade separations, since no other provisions in RMC 4-4-040 apply as well. Since the six foot height limit is not required RMC 4-4-040, staff would have to find some other code provision to require the fence. Plat criteria requiring conformance to the comprehensive plan, see RMC 4-7-080(1)( I). include the policies addressing aesthetic impacts identified in COL No. 5.A.1. As determined in Finding of Fact No.6.C, the aesthetic impacts of the retaining walls can be fully mitigated by perimeter landscaping. Staff acknowledged as much at page 13 or the staff report. Therefore, the record contains no adequate justification for a limitation on retaining wall height. RMC 4-7-080(1)(1): ... The Hearing Examiner shall assure conformance with the general purposes of the Comprehensive Plan and adopted standard, .. 8. The proposed preliminary play is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan as outlined in Finding I( I) of the staff report, which 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 /he Hearing Examiner unless the streets shown therein are connected by surfaced road or street (according lo City specifications) lo an exisling slree/ or highway. 9. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 2, the internal road system connects to SE 18th Street and I 24'h Place SE, both public roads. RMC 4-7-120(8): The location of all streets shall conform to any adopted plans for slreels in /he 17 City. 18 10. The City's adopted street plans arc not addressed in the staff report or anywhere else in the 19 20 21 administrative record. However, the proposed internal road system extends two existing stub roads, SE I 8'h Street and I 24'h Place SE. Both extensions will be constructed to City road standards. Consequently, the criterion above is construed as satisfied by the proposal. RMC 4-7-120(C): !fa subdivision is located in the area of an officially designed [sic] trail, 22 provisions shall be made for reservation of/he right-oj:way or ji,r easements to the City for trail 23 24 25 26 purposes. 1 l. According to the Renton Trails and Bikeways Map (Exhibit 20) a pedestrian trail is designated within the Seattle Pipeline abutting the site. The applicant would be required to obtain right-of-way or an access easement across the pipeline for secondary access via !24th Place SE (sec Finding 35.6, Streets). In addition, the applicant would be required to provide a safe crossing for the PRELIMINARY PLAT-Preliminary Plat -32 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 - driveway for Lot 11 would be at an undesirable angle to the shared driveway. The cul de sac serves a limited number of houses. In this instance, the safety effect of removing one driveway access to a cul de sac does not outweigh the impact to Lot I I caused by the creation of off kilter driveway. The approval will be conditioned to require the inclusion of Lots 12-14, Lots 15-17, Lots 38-40 and Lots 78-81 in shared driveways. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5 and 6, 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. 6, the proposal provides for adequate public facilities. 7.5 Retaining Wall Height. The six-foot retaining wall height limitation recommended by staff will not be adopted. Renton does not have any standards imposing height limits on retaining walls outside of setback areas. There is nothing in the record that establishes the potential for any adverse impacts other than aesthetic, and those impacts will be adequately addressed by the staff's recommended landscape perimeter. The retaining wall condition presents two code interpretation issues: (I) whether the City's fence and hedge regulation (RMC 10-4-040) applies to retaining walls, and (2) if RMC 10-4-040 does apply, whether it imposes a six foot height limit on retaining walls. As to the first issue, RMC I 0-4-040 probably does apply to retaining walls. RMC 4-4-040(A) provides that the purpose of RMC 4-4-050 is to regulate the material and height of "fences and hedges." "Fence" is not defined in the RMC. However, walls arc addressed throughout RMC 4-4-040. Most pertinent, RMC 4-4-040(C)( I) provides in relevant part that, "In cases where a wall is used instead of a fence, height shall be measured from the top surface of the wall to the ground on the high side of the wall." This sentence strongly suggests that the wall in question can include retaining walls, since the sentence acknowledges that one side of the wall can be at a higher grade than the other. Retaining walls that project above the higher grade would meet this definition. The applicant argues that this reference to "wall'" as well as others pertains to "European or Calffomia-stylc stone walls." Nothing in the 19 language of RMC 4-4-040 suggests that walls be limited to stone walls. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 In addition to providing some clarity on the applicability of RMC 4-4-040 to retaining walls, RMC 4- 4-040(()( I) also establishes that retaining walls that do not project past the higher grade have a height of zero feet, which is below all the height limits set for walls by RMC 4-4-040. The sentence clearly states that retaining wall height is to be measured from the "'high side of the wall", which would be zero in the case of the retaining walls proposed by the applicant. This result makes sense in light of the other limitation of RMC 4-4-040, that it applies only "'in cases where walls arc used instead of a fence." If a retaining wall does not extend above the higher grade, it doesn't take the place of a fence and hence is not subject to the height limit. In short, retaining walls that only serve to retain soil, as proposed hy the applicant, are not subject to the height limits of RMC 4-4-040. PRELIMINARY PLAT -Preliminary Plat -31 2 d. Clean Water: Every effort shall be made to keep all streams and bodies of water clear of debris and pollutants. 3 -12. The land is suitable for a subdivision. As determined in Finding of Fact 5.B, the stormwater design assures that it will not contribute to flooding and all critical areas will be protected. As 4 determined in Finding of Fact No. 5.B, no lots with primarily 40% slopes will be created. No piping 5 or tunneling of streams is proposed. Trees will be retained as required by RMC 4-4-130 as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5.A. 6 7 RMC 4-7-140: Approval of all subdivisions located in either single family residenlial or multi- family residential zones as defined in the Zoning Code shall be contingent upon the subdivider 's 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 dedication of land or providing fees in lieu of dedication to the Cily, 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 park impact fees prior to building permit issuance. Sec also the discussion on loss of recreational use in Conclusion of Law 3.F above. RMC 4-7-ISO(A): The proposed street system shall extend and create connections between existing streets unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Depanment. Prior 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 £3 of this Section. The roadway classifications shall be as defined and designated by the Department. 14. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 2, the proposed internal roads extend two existing stubs, SE I 8'h Street and 124th Place SE. The internal Road A creates a loop connection between the two public streets which did not exist previously. RMC 4-7-150(8): All proposed street names shall be approved by the City. 15. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-150(C): Streets inlersecting with exLsting or proposed public highways, major or secondary arterials shall be held to a minimum. 16. None of the proposed streets intersect with a public highway or arterial. RMC 4-7-lSO(D): The alignment of all streets shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. The street standards set by RMC ./-6-060 shall apply unless otherwise approved. Street alignment offsets of less than one hundred twentyfive feet ( 125) are not desirable, but may be PRELIMINARY PLAT-Preliminary Plat -34 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 - designated trail across the extension of ] 24th Place SE. As a condition of approval, the applicant shall submit a revised plat plan depicting a safe pedestrian crossing, across the !24th Place SE extension, for the Seattle Waterline Pedestrian Trail. RMC 4-7-130(C): A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication shall be prepared in corif<Jrmance with the following provisions: I. 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 the future residents (such as lands adversely affected by flooding. steep slopes, or rock formalions). Land which the Department or the Hearing Examiner considers inappropriate for subdivision shall not be subdivided unless adequate safeguards are provided against these adverse conditions. a. Flooding/Inundation: If any portion of the land within the boundary of a preliminary plat is subject to flooding or inundation, that portion of the subdivision must have the approval of the State according to chapter 86.16 RCW befiire the Department and the Hearing Examiner shall consider such subdivision. b. Steep Slopes: A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication which would result in the creation ofa lot or lots that primari~v have slopes forty percent (40%) or greater as measured per Ri4C 4-3-050.Jla, without adequate area at lesser slopes upon which development may occur, shall not be approved. 3. Land Clearing and Tree Retention: Shall comply with RMC ./-4-130, Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations. 4. Streams: a. Preservation: Every reasonable efji,rt shall be made to preserve existing streams, bodies of water, and wetland areas. b. Method: If a stream passes through any of the subiec/ property, a plan shall be presented which indicates how the stream will he preserved. The methodologies used should include an overflow area, and an attempt to minimize the disturbance of the natural channel and stream bed. c. Culverting: The piping or tunneling of water shall be discouraged and allowed only when going under streets. PRELIMINARY PLAT-Preliminary Plat -33 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 - 18. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 2. the proposed street system contributes to the grid system by creating loop access which did not previously exist. Both of the intersecting public streets are currently stub roads. Alley access is not required because the proposed density does not meet the 6 dwelling unit/acre threshold. The internal roads are looped as encouraged by the criterion above. The cul de sacs proposed cannot be extended to connect the road network because of the presence of two pipeline easements. The criterion is met. RMC 4-7-150(F): All adjacenl rights-oj:way and new rights-of-way dedicated as part of the plat, including streets. roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their fall width and the pavement and sidewalks shall be constructed as specified in the street standard, or deferred by the Planning/Bui/ding/Public Work, Administrator or his/her designee. 19. As proposed all roads will meet City street profile standards for road with and frontage improvements. RMC 4-7-1 SO(G): Streets that may be extended in the event offuture adjucent plaiting shall be 11 required to be dedicated to the plat boundary line. Extensions of greater depth than an average lot 12 shall be improved with temporary turnaround,. Dedication of a full-width boundary street shall he 13 14 15 16 17 required in certain instances to facilitate future development. 20. As shown in Ex. 2 to the Staff Report, the proposed roads may not be extended due to the presence of pipeline easements. The subject is surrounded on all sides by existing residential development. RMC 4-7-170(A): Insofar as practical. side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial to curved street lines. 18 21. As depicted in Staff Report Ex. 2, the side lines are in conformance with the requirement 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 quoted above. RMC 4-7-170(B): Each lot must have access lo a public street or road Access may be by private access easement street per the requirements of the street standards. 22. As previously determined and conditioned, each lot has access to a public street. RMC 4-7-170(C): The size, shape, and orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area and width requirements of the applicable zoning classification and shall he appropriate for the type of development and use contemplated. Fur/her subdivision of lots wilhin a plat approved through the provisions of this Chapter must he consistent with the then-current applicable maximum density requirement as measured within the plat as a whole. PRELIMINARY PLAT-Preliminary Plat -36 2 approved by the Department upon a showing of need but only after provision of all necessary safezy measures. 3 17. As determined in Finding of Fact 6, the Public Works Department has reviewed and 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 approved the adequacy of streets, which includes compliance with applicable street standards. RMC 4-7-ISO(E): I. Grid: A grid street pallern shall be used to connect existing and new development and shall be the predominant street pattern in any subdivision permilled by this Section. 2. Linkages: Linkages, including streets, sidewalks, pedestrian or bike paths, shall be provided within and between neighborhoods when they can create a continuous and interconnected network of roads and pathways. Implementation of this requirement shall comply with Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Objective T-A and Policies T-9 through T-16 and Community Design Element, Objective CD-Mand Policies CD-50 and CD-60. 3. Exceptions: a. The grid pallern may be adjusted to a "flexible grid" by reducing the number of linkages or the alignment between roads. where the jiJ/lowingjac/ors are pre sen/ on site: i. Infeasible due lo topographical/environmental constraints: and/or ii. Substantial improvemenls are existing ./. Connections: Prior to adoption ofa complete grid street plan, reasonable connections /hat link existing portions of the grid system shall he made. At a minimum. stub streets shall he required within subdivisions to allow future connectivity. 5. Alley Access: Alley access is the preferred street pa/tern except ji,r properties in the Residential Low Density land use designation. The Residential Low Density land use designation includes the RC, R-1. and R-4 zones. Prior to approval of a plat without alley access, the Reviewing Official shall evaluate an alley layout and determine that the use ofalley(.1) is notfeasible ... 6. Alternative Configurations: Ojf,et or loop road, are the preferred al!ernative configurations. 7. Cul-de-Sac Streets: Cul-de-sac streets may on(v he permitted by the Reviewing Official where due lo demonstrable physical constraints no future connection to a larger stree/ pattern is physically possible. PRELIMINARY PLAT-Preliminary Plat -35 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 11 12 13 all lots fronting onto a public street meeting minimum lot widths and those portions of the lots now proposed for shared driveway/access easements as discussed above in Conclusion of Law 5. RMC 4-7-190(A): Easements may be required.for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department. 28. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-190(B): Due regard shall be shown to all natural features such as large trees, watercourses, and similar community assets. Such natural .features should be preserved, thereby adding al/ractiveness and value to the property. 29. Trees will be retained as required by City code as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5. There are no other natural features that need preservation as contemplated in the criterion quoted above. RMC 4-7-200(A): Unless septic tanks are specifically approved by the Public Works Department and the King County Health Department, sani1ary sewers shall be provided by the developer al no cost to the City and designed in accordance with City standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet (8') into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision development. 14 30. As conditioned. 15 16 17 18 RMC 4-7-200(B): An adequate drainage system shall be providedfi,r the proper drainage of all surface waler. Cross drains shall be provided to accommodate all natural water flow and shall be of sufficient length lo permit full-width roadway and required slopes. The drainage system shall be designed per the requirements of RMC 4-6-030, Drainage (Surface Water) Standards. The drainage system shall include detention capacity for the new street areas. Residential plats shall also include detention capacity fi,r fature development of the lots. Water quality features shall also be designed to 19 provide capacity for the new street paving for the plat. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 33. The proposal provides for adequate drainage that is in conformance with applicable City drainage standards as determined in Findings of Fact No. 5 and 6. The City's stormwater standards, which are incorporated into the technical information report and will be further implemented during civil plan review, ensure compliance with all of the standards in the criterion quoted above. RMC 4-7-200(C): The water distribution .1ystem including the locations of fire hydrants shall be designed and installed in accordance with City standard, as defined by the Department and Fire Department requirements. 31. Compliance with City water system design standards is assured during final plat review. PRELIMINARY PLAT-Preliminary Plat -38 - 23. As previously determined and as conditioned, the proposed lots comply with the zoning 2 standards of the R-8 zone, which includes area, width and density. 3 RMC 4-7-170(0): Width between side lot lines at their foremost points (i.e., the points where the side lot lines intersect with the street rixht-of-way line) shall not be less than eixhty percent (80%) of 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 the required lot width except in the cases of(]) pipestem lots, which shall have a minimum width of twenty feet (20 1 and (2) lots on a street curve ar the turninx circle of cul-de-sac (radial lots), which shall be a minimum of thirty five feet (351. 24. The applicant has proposed several lots including Lots 14, 15 and 38 which do not meet the minimum frontage width requirement. As discussed below in Conclusion of Law 27, each of these lots must be eliminated or revised to meet the minimum frontage width requirements. Or, as discussed in Conclusion of Law 5 above, the applicant may also submit an alternative plat plan which includes a combination of all lots fronting onto a public street meeting minimum lot widths and those portions of the lots now proposed for shared driveway/access easements. RMC 4-7-170(E): No residentially zoned lot shall have a depth-to-width ratio x,eater thanfour-to- one (./: /). 13 25. As conditioned, all pipestem lots will be eliminated or revised to meet minimum lot width 14 15 16 17 18 19 requirements which will bring all of the lots into compliance with this criterion. RMC 4-7-l 70(F): All lot corners al inler.,ections of dedicated public rights-of way. except alleys, shall have minimum radius off,jieen feel (15 '). 26. As proposed all lots meet this criterion. RMC 4-7-170(G): Pipestem lots may be permitted for new plats lo achieve the minimum density within the Zoning Code when there is no other feasible alternative to achievinx the minimum density. Minimum Loi Size and Pipestem Width and lengtfh The pipes/em shall not exceed one hundredf,jiy 20 feet (1501 in length and not be less than twenty fee/ (20') in width. The portion of the lot narrower 21 22 23 24 25 26 than eighty percent (110%) of the minimum permilled width shall not be used fi,r lot area calculations or fi,r the measurement of required front yard setbacks. land area included in privo/e access ea.semen!., shall not he included in lot area ca/culaiions. Pipestem lots shall not abut one another. 27. The proposal exceeds the minimum density of 4.0 dwelling units per acre by 1.7 dwelling units per acre and therefore pipestem lots are prohibited. The applicant has proposed several pipestem lots including Lots 12, 14, 15, 17, 38, 40 and 79. As a condition of approval, each of these lots must be eliminated or revised to meet the minimum frontage width requirements. As an alternative, the applicant may also submit an alternative plat plan which includes a combination of PRELJMINAR Y PLAT -Preliminary Plat -37 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 - VI. DECISION The proposed 96-lot preliminary plat as depicted in Ex. 33 to the staff report, and critical area exemption as described in the findings of this decision, are approved subject to the following conditions: I. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated, dated September 22, 2014 except as modified below: a. MONS Condition 1 shall be revised as follows: All earthwork performed, implemented by the applicant, shall be consistent with the recommendations of the geotechnical report, prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., dated September 28, 2012 or consistent with the recommendations of the final City-approved geote~hnical report. b. MONS Condition 6 shall be stricken and replaced with the following [as modified by the Ruling on Reconsideration]: The applicant shall revise its landscaping plan to provide for a IO foot wide on-site street frontage landscape strip as required by RMC 4-4-070(F)( I) for all lots and a 10 foot wide, site obscuring perimeter landscaping adjacent to areas where the retaining walls are four or more feet in height. Landscaping at maturity must exceed the height of the adjacent retaining wall. The final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. Such landscaping shall include a mixture of trees, shrubs, and groundcover as approved by the Department of Community and Economic Development. 2. The applicant shall be required to demonstrate compliance with the minimum 50-foot lot width requirement for all lots with less than 50 feet in width at the foremost points (where the side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way line) pursuant to RMC 4-11-120. The average distance between the side lines connecting front and rear lot lines shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 3. Condition No. 3 has been deleted as directed in the Ruling on Reconsideration. 24 ' All references to the plat map in this decision in the findings and conclusions have been to Exhibit 2 of the staff report. Those references are accurate. However, the plat approved by this decision is depicted in Exhibit 3 of the 25 staff report, which is the 96 lot subdivision as opposed to the 97 lot subdivision. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT -Preliminary Plat -40 -- RMC 4-7-200(0): All utilitie.,· designed lo serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any 2 utilities installed in the parking strip shall he placed in such a manner and depth tu permit the planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all 3 service connections, as approved by the Department. Such installation shall be completed and 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may he required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department. 32. All utilities including the stonnwater vault are proposed to be placed underground. As conditioned, utility installation will be inspected and approved prior to paving of surface materials above the utilities. RMC 4-7-200(E): Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid lo each lot line by subdivider as to obviate the necessity for dislurhing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley improvements when such service connections are extended tu 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 he borne by the developer and/or land owner. The subdivider shall be responsible only for ,·onduit lo serve his developmenl. Conduit ends shall be elbowed to final ground elevation and capped The cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to the subdivider and shall inspect !he conduit and certify lo the City thal ii is properly installed. 33. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-210: A. MONUMENTS: Concrele permanenl control monuments shall be eslab/ished at each and every con/rolling corner of the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the Departmenl. All surveys shall he per the City of Ren/on surveying slandards. B. SURVEY. All other lot corners shall be marked per the City surveying standards. C. STREET SIGNS: The subdivider shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision. 25 34. 26 As conditioned. PRELIMINARY PLAT-Preliminary Plat -39 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 - 9. The applicant shall be required to establish a Native Growth Protection Easement over those parts of the site encompassing wetlands and their associated buffers and place fencing and signage along the outer buffer edge prior to Final Plat approval. I 0. The applicant shall be required to submit a fill source statement, if fill materials are brought to the site, in order to the City to ensure only clean fill is imported prior to construction. 11. The applicant shall provide a final Tree Retention Plan, complying with the 30% tree retention SEPA mitigation measure while demonstrating proposed retaining walls would not impact trees proposed for retention. The Final Tree Retention Plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 12. The applicant shall submit a revised plat plan, which is an clement of the City's required construction plan set, depicting a safe pedestrian crossing, across the 1241• Place SE extension, for the Seattle Waterline Pedestrian Trail. The revised plat plan, as part of the construction plan set, shall be submitted to, and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager, Community Services Department, and the Transportation Department prior to construction permit approval. 13. The applicant shall be required to obtain right-of-way or a public access easement through the Cedar River Pipeline, for the extension of 124th Place SE, to the satisfaction of the Plan Reviewer prior to construction permit approval. 14. Pedestrian lighting shall be depicted on the lighting plan at the entrances of Tracts C and E (from the proposed right-of-way). The lighting plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager and the Plan Reviewer prior to construction permit approval. 15. The Preliminary Plat plan shall be revised so that no more than 4 lots may gain access via a shared driveway and that at least one such lot shall meet minimum lot width requirements along a street frontage pursuant to RMC 4-7-170.D (a minimum of 80% of the required lot width/40 feet or 35 leet along a street curve). The lot(s) which provides physical frontage along the street shall only be allowed vehicular access from the shared private driveway. In order to provide shared access, Lots 14, 17 and 38 shall be widened to 35 feet and take primary access from the shared driveway. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 16. The plat plan shall be revised so that all lots have no less than a 40-foot lot width where side lot lines intersect with the street right of way or for radial lots be a minimum of 35 feet in width. Specifically, proposed Lots 14, 17, and 38 would be required to be widened to 35 feet PREI.IMINARY PLAT -Preliminary Plat -42 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 -- 4. The applicant shall be required to submit a revised plat and landscaping plan, which arc elements of the City's required construction plan set, depicting curb bulbouts at street intersections where on-street parking is located or calling for no curb bulbouts and installation of "no parking" designations where street parking is prohibited at street intersections. The revised plat and landscaping plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 5. The applicant shall eliminate individual access directly from internal public streets for those lots abutting private streets and/or shared driveway access easements, specifically Lots 12- 14, Lots 15-17, Lots 38-40 and Lots 78-81 in shared driveways. Said lots shall be required to take access from the abutting private street and/or access easement and shall not exceed access thresholds pursuant to RMC 4-6-060.J and K. Lot 11 may access the public street directly. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. Furthermore, the access restriction for such lots is required to be noted on the face of the Final Plat prior to recording. 6. The applicant shall revise the proposed mitigation plan to depict all retaining walls on site, including lock & load walls on the north and east sides of Wetlands ll and C. The applicant shall also identity if proposed walls are anticipated to impact critical area buffers and provide appropriate mitigation for such impacts. A Final Mitigation Plan, pursuant to RMC 4-8- 120.W, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 7. The temporary buffer impacts consisting of minor intrusions or disturbance from construction activities shall be restored with appropriate grading, soil amendments, and the planting of native species to the satisfaction of the Current Planning Project Manager. The revised mitigation plan shall be submitted to, and approved by. the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 8. The existing wetland mitigation plan already assures that 1,331 square feet of additional wetland buffer area is being provided to mitigate for both existing buffer impacts to Wetland E that are not associated with the Plat, as well as the loss of 14 square feet of the Wetland F: buffer which loss is associated with the extension of SE 18 1h Street. To provide an additional offset for the impacts resulting from the requested exemption associated with the fill of 14 square feet of buffer to extend SE 18th Street. The applicant has agreed to provide and shall provide enhancement to the Wetland 'E' buffer immediately abutting SE 18 1h Street, as well as enhanced plantings adjoining that buffer area within Tract M. A revised mitigation plan shall be submitted to. and approved by. the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. PRELIMINARY PLAT -Preliminary Plat -41 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Department. All surveys shall be per the City of Renton surveying standards. All other lot comers shall be marked per the City surveying standards. The subdivider shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision. 26. [This condition added as directed by the Ruling on Reconsideration to address Roof run-off). Roof run-off that impacts wetlands shall not be allowed mix with polluting surfaces. Category 2 wetlands may not be structurally or hydrologically engineered for runoff quantity or quality control as required by KCSWDM Reference 5. City staff shall require design adjustments as authorized by KCS WDM 1.2 to the extent necessary to prevent adverse impacts to wetland hydrology caused by roof runoff. DATED this 26'h day ofJanuary, 2015. City of Renton Hearing Examiner APPEAL RIGHTS AND VALUATION NOTICES RMC 4-8-080 provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-l IO(E)(14) requires appeals of the hearing examiner"s decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision. There is no right to reconsideration as the decision has already been subject to reconsideration. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office. Renton City Hall -7th floor, ( 425) 430-6510. The City Council's jurisdiction to hear SEPA appeals is contested by the applicant. The City Council shall determine whether it has any jurisdiction to hear an appeal of the SEPA portion of this decision. Affected property owners may request a change m valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. PRELIMINARY PLAT-Preliminary Plat -44 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 - in order to comply with the condition. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 17. The applicant shall submit a revised plat plan depicting the elimination of all pipestem lots (lots which are less than 40 feet in width where the side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way or for radial lots are less than 35 feet) within the subdivision. Specifically, proposed Lots 12, 14, 15, 17, 38, 40, and 79 would be required to be eliminated or revised to meet minimum frontage width requirements. The applicant may also submit an alternative plat plan which includes a combination of all lots fronting onto a public street meeting minimum lot widths and those portions of the lots now proposed for shared driveway/access easements could be placed in Shared Driveway Tracts with easements placed over them pursuant to RMC 4-6-060, Street Standards. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 18. Any proposal to convert the Storm water vault within Tract A to a Stormwater detention pond be considered a Major Plat Amendment subject to the requirements outlined under RMC 4-7- 0SOM.2. 19. The applicant shall be required to create a homeowners' association and maintenance agreemcnt(s) for the shared utilities, landscape areas and maintenance and responsibilities for all shared improvements of this development. A draft of the document(s) shall be submitted to Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval by the City Attorney and Property Services section prior to the recording of the final plat. 20. The applicant shall submit the results of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment to the City for review. Appropriate mitigation. if any, shall be completed prior to issuance of building permits. 21. All road names shall be approved by the City. 22. Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department. 23. Sanitary sewers shall be provided by the developer at no cost to the City and designed in accordance with City standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet (8') into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision development. 24. Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded 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. 25. Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling corner of the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the PRELIMINARY PLAT -Preliminary Plat -43 allows for replacement of trees through nullgation (RMC 4-4-130(H)(l)(e)). The condition is overreaching and overly burdensome. The City has failed to identify an adverse significant environmental impact related to tree preservation in the applicant's proposal. They are intending to preserve 30% of the trees. The developer needs to be able to replace trees that might be inadvertently damaged during construction rather than complying to a hard set retention percentage. They aren't intending to clear cut. They plan to protect the 30% of the trees. A few extra might come down through inadvertent damage. If so, those will be properly mitigated. With respect to Condition #6, the perimeter buffer, as stated in the original MONS condition it was a "minimum 15 foot buffer" which became 15-50 feet in width around the entire perimeter. There is no significant environmental impact here and the City is not entitled to impose mitigation here. There is no legal authority or justification by the City to require Henley to protect one use from another when the use is the same. The neighboring property owners could plant trees in their own yards. As designed by Henley, the project already minimizes visual impact to neighboring uses in ways that are not required by the code. The code does not impose a perimeter buffer of any sort on a single family project like this. The majority of this site includes a perimeter buffer of 10-15 feet. There is more on critical areas tracts. The average buffer width is 55 feet. In addition, they have the two pipeline rights of ways, which are 60 feet and 100 feet wide. Adding in the pipelines, the average buffer goes up to 100 feet between homes from this project and adjacent homes. This is well outside of rough proportionality. Mr. Barry Talkington is a civil engineer with Barghausen Consulting Engineers. Mr. Talkington described his education and qualifications. He prepares designs and layouts for single family projects. He designs roads, infrastructure, storm ponds, etc. He's prepared about 50 preliminary plats. It is typical for him to design a preliminary plat and then start into more detailed engineering design. They have prepared preliminary and final grading plans. Ms. Rogers presented Exhibit A-I 1, the ultimate plat layout. Mr. Talkington described the exhibit, the 96-lot version of the plat. There was an earlier version with more lots but they removed one to meet the 30% tree retention requirement. They eliminated Lot I from the original submittal. In response to Ms. Rogers, Mr. Talkington described the various perimeter buffers, ranging including 50 feet in Tracts B and Mand near Lots 13 and 14, the buffer is 15 foot wide. They have a IO foot buffer that increase to nearly 80 feet by Lot 19 by the Mercer Island Pipeline. The minimum proposed buffer is IO feet. By Tract G, the buffer is 100 feet. The Mercer Island Pipeline is 60 feet wide. The minimum setback along this area is 70 feet. Some lots do touch the property boundary, though that is adjacent to the 100 foot wide Cedar River Pipeline. There is additional greenspace in Tract H, G and J. In some places the buffer goes from 15 feet to 200 feet. The average buffer width is approximately 50 feet. With the pipeline areas, the average buffer width is over 100 feet. Only six - ATTACHMENT A The Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeals (LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAE) TESTIMONY SUMMARY SEPA Appeal #I-Applicants Applicant Testimony Ms. Nancy Rogers, applicant's Attorney, stated the applicant had filed an appeal to the City's SEPA MDNS based on three issues. They felt the geotechnical report should be updated to reference the current geotechnical report. They have issues with Conditions #3 and #6. They believe it's better for the project and environment to have Henley comply with a tree protection plan and have Henley's arborist work with the City's arborist to a,sure that as many trees as possible are preserved. They requested amendments to Condition 3. In addition, Condition 6 was imposed in the MDNS. It would impose a 15-50 foot perimeter buffer around the entire site. This is overreaching and unduly burdensome. The applicant is going above and beyond to provide buffering, which is not necessary because they are proposing single family uses next to single family uses. There are two rights of ways along substantial portions of the borders, the Mercer Island Water Pipeline and the Cedar River Water Pipeline. One is 60 feet wide; the other is JOO feet wide. There is already substantial buffering between existing uses and the project site. They have an analysis responding to the City staff SEPA analysis filed last Friday (Exhibit Kl 1). Ms. Rogers summarized this analysis. They appealed Condition #1. Staff felt that Condition #1 would be acceptable if they amended the condition to include compliance with the revised geotechnical report. The applicant agrees. With respect the appeal to Conditions #3 for tree preservation and #6 for the proposed perimeter buffer, mitigation conditions under SEPA are subject to state and federal law, statutory and case law that establish a nexus of rough proportionality. That nexus is required to be shown by the City prior to imposition of these mitigation conditions. Case law dealing with the imposition of buffers had held that buffers need to be imposed when two very dissimilar uses are proposed adjacent to each other. That is not the case here. With respect to Condition #3, the scope of that condition has morphed from the SEPA MDNS to the staffs current opinion. The applicant appealed this condition to require compliance with the applicant's tree protection plan rather than the more general requirement that they comply with relevant City codes. Staff is requiring 30% retention of trees rather than the Code requirement that -Ms. Rogers addressed staff Report (page 21) regarding retaining walls. She stated the staff felt those retaining walls would interfere with tree retention. She asked, in general, does designing a site to include retaining walls help or hinder tree preservation. Mr. Talkington responded it can help by reducing grading requirements along the perimeter of the site and protect trees. When he designs a plat, the cost of construction is considered. Retaining wall construction is more expensive than grading. They were directed to save trees, which meant construction of retaining walls. Ms. Rogers asked who Mr. Talkington turned to when he needed to determine the effects of his design for retaining walls on tree preservation. Mr. Talkington said that's a question for the arborist. Ms. Timmons asked Mr. Talkington to describe his thought process on providing the buffers he provided and their merit. Mr. Talkington stated it started with the road network. They had two locations to tie into for an internal road. In creating the road corridors, they tried to lay out lots that would be evenly distributed on both sides of the road. They looked to use the property most efficiently for the lot layout with respect to the grading. They tried to reduce the overall grading. Ms. Timmons asked if Mr. Talkington saw merit in providing a perimeter buffer. Mr. Talkington stated he didn't show as many buffers initially. They initially looked to retain trees in larger pockets in other areas. As the project evolved to its current configuration, they considered saving trees as part of the buffer. Ms. Timmons asked as a practical matter, how would a 15 foot buffer affect plat design? Mr. Talkington stated that he had considered it. There are many alternative scenarios. They looked at how the buffer would impact their original design. There was a significant change in lot yield. Ms. Timmons asked if Mr. Talkington considered aesthetics in his design. He stated he did because he wanted the project outcome to be plea,ing. Mr. Steve Lee, Renton Development Engineering Manager, stated typically the City doesn't see as much of a concise grading plan proposed for preliminary plat. He is glad Mr. Talkington prepared one. He asked Mr. Talkington to describe the setback from the walls. Mr. Talkington stated that is a question for the geotechnical engineer, however there is no need for a setback from the geo-grid. Mr. Lee asked if construction of the geo-grid caused excavation in to natural areas. Mr. Talkington stated it did. Also, cut walls will require a wall drain behind them. Mr. Lee asked if the walls would need to be setback into the lots in order to reduce the impact on the natural areas. Mr. Talkington said they design the walls to be entirely on the subject lot and not within the open space. Mr. Lee asked if a tree is located near a drainage wall, would the tree be impacted. Mr. Talkington stated he didn't know. Mr. Galen Wright, of Washington Forestry Consultants, is an arborist. Mr. Wright described his education and qualifications. He has owned his company for 21 years. Their focus is on urban forestry consulting. He personally has 35 years of experience. He's worked on 1,400 similar projects lots touch the perimeter of the property, all along the Cedar River Pipeline. In his opinion, the project does not result in a significant adverse aesthetic impact to the neighbors. With respect to retaining walls, Mr. Talkington stated retaining walls are not purely cosmetic, though they can be. The purpose is to shorten the distance needed for a grade transition. There is grading involved in nearly all projects in the Pacific Northwest. Grading is accomplished via slopes or retaining walls. To create a hypothetical lot, either grade more land or build a wall along the edge and grade less. Lots with significant trees were designed with retaining walls to retain more trees. A building permit is required for a wall of 4 feet high or greater. Mr. Talkington has prepared building permit applications for this project and the associated grading plans which will be submitted today. Ms. Rogers asked about Exhibit K6, related to the grading plans. Ms. Rocale Timmons asked if this was the Erosion Control plan set. Mr. Talkington confirmed it is. In response to Ms. Rogers, for Lots 18-21, Mr. Talkington stated the retaining walls would be rockeries. The lot grade is below the existing grade. He noted the top and bottom of the wall elevations. For example, Lot 19's wall is 4.5 feet. A cut wall is for when a retaining wall is retaining the existing grade when the pad grade is below the existing grade. For a pad above the existing grade, they would use a fill wall. These walls are constructed differently. Fill walls require extra stabilization. In every place where there is a cut wall, the face of the wall will be to the interior of the project. For the fill walls, the face is to the exterior of the project. Mr. Talkington addressed the staff Report (Page 13) concern about the height and visibility of walls along the Cedar River Pipeline. The wall at Tract A will be visible, though there will be landscaping planted between the walls and the perimeter. For Lots 79 and 81 (Exhibit K6a, Lots 80 and 82), there is a cut rockery wall. This wall will not be visible from outside the project. For Lot 40, there is a retaining wall. It is 4-6 feet to prop up the access drive. This will be visible. There's another wall at 7.5 feet. Lots 45 and 46 have a fill wall at 16 feet tall. In response to the staff Report, Mr. Talkington reviewed the heights of the walls. They prepared an alternative design to reduce the heights of the walls. The wall will now be 6 feet tall (Exhibit K6b, the revised grading plan for Lots 44-47). The portion of Lot 46 that borders the Cedar River Pipeline has a 2 foot wall. The wall at Lot 47 is 1.7 feet to 6 feet tall. Henley will be willing to agree to a Plat Condition that will call for the walls to be the revised height. Ms. Timmons asked about the relevancy of this line of questioning to the SEPA Appeal, specifically Conditions #3 and #6. Ms. Rogers stated she understood the staffs buffer requirements to screen the adjacent neighbors from the development, including the impact of retaining walls. Ms. Timmons agreed to relevance. Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Talkington to speak to the walls along Road A near Tract K. Mr. Talkington referred to this wall as a fill wall. There is an open space tract, Wetlands B and C, which will provide a screen for the wall. Focusing on this part of the plat, Mr. Talkington stated there was no significant adverse environmental impact with respect to the aesthetics. -Ms. Rogers asked if this process is described in the tree protection plan. Mr. Wright said it is. He stated he has no doubt this project will retain more than 30% of trees even accounting for field adjustments for hazardous trees or others that can't or shouldn't be saved. Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Wright about the perimeter buffer. She said the City is concerned about a 50% sight obscuring buffer. She asked about the lO foot buffer specifically. Mr. Wright stated he understood the buffer and the tree retention within the buffer. He stated he also is familiar with Henley's plan to provide 6 foot fences along the backyards. With the lO foot buffer and fences, the 50% screening requirement will be met. New trees can also be planted in any gaps. In his opinion, a 15 foot buffer would add a few more trees, but not a huge amount. Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Wright thought there was a significant adverse environmental impact from the project. The City Attorney objected. The Examiner stated the question limited to aesthetic impacts is allowed. Mr. Wright stated the 6 foot fence is sight obscuring. There are trees everywhere but the stormwater facility and a few in the pipelines. There are several layers of buffering. There will be places where you can see new houses better than others, but there will be a fence and trees. Within a few years trees will fill the gaps. Ms. Rocale Timmons asked Mr. Wright if he knew how many trees exist on the site. He stated there were 1,305 trees on-site. This is a contiguous canopy cover. The canopy is viewed by surrounding property owners. They are proposing to keep 181 trees plus the trees in the critical areas and buffers. There are 626 significant trees in the buildable areas. There are many other poor quality trees. They will remove over 400 significant trees. Ms. Timmons asked how the removal of so many trees would impact the surrounding property owners. Mr. Wright said it's aesthetic. There is no other impact. Ms. Timmons asked about the revised tree retention plan. She asked if the new plan is approvable as is. Mr. Wright stated it was and they will exceed the minimum 30% requirement. He stated it is a valuable contribution to the environment. In response to Ms. Timmons, he stated an adequate width for a natural vegetated buffer depends on the type of trees, the age of the trees and the how they are growing. There are places on site where the screen is dense and others that are thinner. They didn't map alders and cottonwoods. They didn't include those in the survey. Ms. Timmons asked what buffer width is necessary to provide screening in a natural vegetated state. Mr. Wright stated it depends on site conditions. Mr. Wright stated if they plant in a IO foot buffer with a double staggered row of conifers, it will create a very dense screen in 10 years. A 15 foot buffer is not adequate to add a third row that would require about 30 feet of buffer. City Testimony Rocale Timmons addressed the applicant's testimony with respect to Conditions #3 and #6. The City's mitigation measure is not intended to preclude replacement of trees damaged during - of many scales since 1994. He stated in general, his tree protection plans are accurate. The trees he has designated for protection are saved. Though, occasionally, they will find an edge tree that doesn't look as good after the project and before. In that case, they mitigate the tree. The tree protection plan exhibits are Exhibit A4 (June) and Exhibit Al2 (August). The August plan is tied to the most recent layout. Ms. Rogers noted the report concludes this is a "well treed site". By that, Mr. Wright stated means he was able to save two or three clusters to break up the clear cut look. If they supplement with lot trees and street trees, in IO years the property will be well treed. There is a nice low brush community on the site that improves the buffer capacity of the vegetation. The wetlands on site are also well treed. Ms. Rogers stated the 30% tree retention requirement translates to preserving 188 on-site trees. The August tree retention plan proposes to save 181 trees and relocate others. Mr. Wright stated his understanding of the Renton code with respect to construction damage means the tree can be replaced at a ratio of 2: I. He stated he is familiar with SEPA staff Condition #3. He said his understating of the requirement was not to mandate a hard 30% requirement without field judgment. The code allows them to save trees but mitigate those that can't be saved. Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Wright how many trees would be saved. Mr. Wright replied well in excess of 188 trees would be saved. They have re-analyzed the edges and found there were more trees than they had earlier expected before a more formal survey was undertaken. Mr. Wright discussed the relationship between retaining walls and trees. He stated he had the grading plan in hand when he did his follow up evaluation. They had been very hard on the edge trees initially. Later, he was able to perform a tree by tree analysis with the grading plan in hand. Trees respond very differently to walls based on where the majority of their roots are growing. He did a tree by tree analysis to determine how much, if any, intrusion could be done to a tree's root protection zone. This is usually a later stage analysis. He's very confident in his current estimation of the number of tree that will be viably preserved. He knows exactly which trees will be impacted, and how for each edge tree. Mr. Wright said the next step is to have a pre-construction meeting. They always ask to be included in that conference. At that time the clearing limits are staked. He walks those boundaries. If there is anything different from current knowledge, then they will make field adjustments. They mapped tons to trees. Sometimes, they'll find the survey and field location don't quite match. They adjust clearing limits during the field observation. They' II remove hazardous trees if they find them. After that, they put up tree protection fences. If anything changes during construction, then Mr. Wright asks to be included in the decision of how to treat the trees. -condition would be adequate to require a tree protection plan and have it approved by the City. He stated it could. With respect to MDNS Condition #6, the buffer requirement was for sight obscuring and was 15 feet wide. The staff analysis (Exhibit N) increased that buffer from 15 feet to 15-50 feet. Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Flatley had read Exhibit K He stated he hadn't. Ms. Rogers asked if he was familiar with the City's Comprehensive Plan. He stated he was generally familiar with it. He stated he was not familiar with specific policies. Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Flatley to review a large area photo with respect to his earlier testimony (Exhibit K6c). Mr. Flatley stated he recognized the area and that there are a number of green, treed areas around the subject. He agreed there is a large protected corridor along the Cedar River and at Tiffany Park. He further agreed that with or without Tiffany Park, there will remain treed areas near the project. Mr. Flatley stated the City's landscaping code with respect to screening allows planting and fencing. He agreed the project plan includes fences and vegetation. Mr. Flatley stated he didn't have any knowledge of buffers on adjoining properties but didn't see any in the aerial photo. Ms. Timmons stated that staff is standing by their analysis. For mitigation measure #3 it sounds as if the appellant intends to meet the 30% requirement. That's all the City is requesting. The applicant is failing to consider the City's intend is to protect the existing tree canopy. The mitigation measure is intended to preclude replacement tree. The code is inadequate to do that without the mitigation measure. However, a tree retention plan is amenable to the City. For mitigation measure #6, the staff feels they have proven impact and provided adequate mitigation. Staff feels the public are the appropriate people to provide information on impacts. Applicant Testimony In response to the Examiner, Mr. Talkington stated in the northern portion of the plat, the 15 foot buffer would be preserved but clearing and a wall would be located in the lots themselves (Lots 11- 14 ). No additional clearing will go into the buffer area. For Lots 15-18, there will be no wall. All other improvements would be within the lot area. There will be no additional clearing. Ms. Rogers asked the Examiner to read the SEPA Appeal argument letter dated November 18, 2014. As stated in that letter, the City staff and the applicant are in agreement to Revised Conditions # 1 and #3. However, they would argue to keep the existing language in the condition, but add a comma and add a statement that an updated tree protection plan and land clearing plan to be submitted and approved prior to construction. Condition #6 deals with a perimeter buffer. No perimeter buffer is required in this zone and none exist surrounding the subject. The requirement would be unique in this area and they would be buffering their single family uses from surrounding single family uses. -construction. The applicant is citing the wrong code. Condition #3 is solely designed to require a tree retention plan. The applicant has provided a plan that does not meet the requirement. It is not detailed enough to be used during construction. Staff analysis (Exhibit N) goes through the significant adverse impact of removing such a large tree canopy. The staff feels the MONS condition defines a significant impact and provides appropriate mitigation. With respect to Condition #6, Ms. Timmons stated staff has demonstrated a significant impact to surrounding property owners with respect to aesthetics. Staff feels the mitigation measure adequately addresses these impacts. Mr. Terry Flatley, City of Renton Urban Forestry and Natural Resources Manager, described his education and qualifications. He has reviewed at least 50 tree retention plans for the City. Mr. Flatley stated he had not visited the site personally. It is a fully timbered site with 100% canopy cover. He described the site as a large woodland area in the middle of the City in the middle of a subdivision. This is a rare site. He believes it is necessary to protect the tree canopy. The City tries to retain as much canopy as possible. He believes the appropriate amount of trees to protect is a minimum 30%. In response to Ms. Timmons, Mr. Flatley stated a 10 foot buffer is adequate to support a natural vegetated perimeter, depending on the type of vegetation. This strip will retain smaller vegetation, but not large mature trees. He provided a recommendation for a perimeter buffer of 35 to l 00 feet. To his knowledge, the City requested a 15 foot buffer. In terms of accommodating trees, there are some extra trees being protected. Five feet is a very minor increment. It would allow for more planting. Mr. Flatley stated he felt a buffer is needed along the southern perimeter because buffers are to moderate climate and obscure sites from view. It's an aesthetic issue for trail users and adjacent neighbors. The buffer would provide privacy. Mr. Flatley stated without an adequate screen there would be significant adverse aesthetic impacts to trail users and neighbors. A 15 foot buffer would reduce the impacts. In response to the Examiner, Mr. Flatley stated the difference between a 10 foot and a 15 foot buffer is not significant in terms of mitigating impacts. Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Flatley had reviewed the revised tree protection plan for the project. He stated he had reviewed Exhibit 11 today but his review is based on the 2013 version. Ms. Rogers asked if it was possible Mr. Wright's tree retention plan would assure protection of 30% of the trees on the site. Mr. Flatley stated with oversight it is possible. Ms. Rogers asked if he provided that oversight. He said he didn't. Ms. Rogers asked if the City's MONS Condition #3 was essentially a restatement of City code. Mr. Flatley agreed that is was. Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Flatley had provided SEPA mitigation measures to staff and asked the staff to implement them. He stated he hadn't. Ms. Rogers asked if the had not been released. She had to request it from the director. If there is no notice before the appeal starts, how can the City be trusted? On June 14, 2012 the Renton Reporter asked if Renton's tree preservation policy was just for show. Ms. Donnelly presented pictures of Piper's Bluff. Forty-seven trees were supposed to be retained or mitigated. Some of the trees were saved. Many were cleared. The trees being planted are decorative and replacing Douglas Firs and other large trees. Some trees must be saved. She also showed examples of construction dirt on the road in front of her house. The dirt is washing into Green Creek and May Creek. No one at Renton cares about the street or the environment. Ms. Barbara Smith stated considering the greenbelt surrounding the pipelines is not realistic. Those are dirt paths without trees. Ms. Smith stated she should not have to plant trees on her yard, plus the trees are 80-100 feet high. Replanting trees won't compensate. They are losing their quality of life. The wildlife that's there will be removed. The school district shouldn't have sold it. They didn't provide proper notice of sale. They were denied access to do further studies but the developer was allowed on it. She encourages the City to put strict enforceable timelines. She found 97 reviews on this developer online. Only 5 were positive. They are local and speaking to poor construction, leak issues, mold in new homes and poor customer service. People wait years to have construction defects repaired. SEPA Appeal #2-Project Opponent TPWAG Appellant Testimony Mr. Daniel McMonagle is the attorney for the project opponents, the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group. The opponents have lived in this neighborhood for 34 years and have historically used the woods. Mr. David Beedoo is a member of the TPW AG and has lived in the neighborhood since it was built 34 years ago. He lives at 1725 Pierce Avenue SE in Renton. Mr. Beedon lives directly adjacent to the project. He can walk to the former school property in five minutes. The TPW AG is composed of five persons who hold officer positions in a non-profit corporation formed in March 2014. The purpose of the group is to mitigate as much as possible any environmental or other impacts coming out of this development. He has experience in the woods. He has been walking in these woods since 1982. He exercises there and watches wildlife. The character of the woods has been mostly unchanged for all that time. Some changes there were related to dirt embankments on paths to facilitate mountain biking. There are teepee and treehouses built here. The woods have never been fenced, except along the Cedar River Pipeline. The fence has been there at least 34 years. It has been unmaintained. The fence is along the City of Seattle Watershed property line. It is not a school district fence. The wocds property has never been signed no trespassing. -There is no significant impact in terms of aesthetics. They have voluntarily provided 10-200 feet (50 foot average) buffers and two pipelines of 60 to 100 feet (Mercer Island Trail and Cedar River Trail corridors, respectively). Only six lots touch a property boundary. Some have fill walls, the highest currently proposed is 6 feet high. There is a 100 foot Cedar River Trail buffer adjacent to these properties and between adjacent properties. The City's SEPA analysis cited Comprehensive Plan Objective COG and Policies 50 and 55 as justification for the perimeter buffer. Those policies do not apply here. The City omitted the citation of the objective, which does not apply here. These uses are not different. The proposed use and adjacent use are the same. The tree canopy is being protected. There is no need for a perimeter buffer of 15 feet, let along 50 feet. Addition of a buffer after the fact will invalidate the proposal and violate state law. Public Testimony Ms. Claudia Donnelly lived in the Renton Potential Annexation Area in Renton Highlands. Ms. Donnelly stated she had submitted questions. In February 2014, in an article in the Renton Reporter, Ms. Timmons stated all 1,300 trees would be coming down. How will the protected trees be protected? This developer will clear cut all of the trees and put in replacement trees. At Ms. Donnelly's subdivision, Windstone, and at Piper's Bluff, this same developer clear cut all of the trees. Who will make sure the trees won't be clear cut? Ms. Donnelly stated she was concerned about the proposed stormwater detention pond failing and impacting the development. At Windstone, the detention pond failed three times spilling water and mud into a wetland and Honey Creek. At Piper's Bluff, the detention pond failed and dumped yellow water into May Creek. Renton officials do not work on the weekend; they will not protect the wetlands. Ms. Donnelly stated Renton allowed Safeway to build on wetlands three summers ago. They started getting water coming up through the floor and had to rope off the area. The hours of construction ordinance must be followed. How will it be? Renton has an ordinance keeping dirt off of the road and protecting streams during construction. The laws are not being enforced. Renton doesn't allow working on Sundays. This developer had contractors working on Sundays in at least Windstone and Piper's Bluff. No staff person will be there to monitor them. The City does not require the contractor to get the necessary NPDES permit from DOE prior to start of work. Additionally, the City doesn't require erosion control fences near wetlands, private property or streams before clearing starts. They don't make the contractors have the necessary permits for clearing before building permits. In the late 1990s a builder cleared without permits and there was no consequence. Ms. Donnelly expressed concern about the Renton appeal process. On November 26, there was a notice in the paper talking about the appeal timeframe for this development, yet the document itself school district to allow them to do a third party wetland evaluation. The school district denied the request stating it did not further the interest of the school district or the developer. The Examiner asked Mr. McMonagle to tie the historic use of the property to a SEPA impact, noting the public did not have a right to use this property in the first place. How is there an adverse impact under SEPA? There could be a prescriptive use, but the Examiner does not have the authority to adjudicate prescriptive use or adverse possession. The Examiner noted Halverson v. Bellevue, and the limits on restrictions of Hearing Examiner authority, specifically Legune v. Clallam County, and others. The Examiner's authority is limited to those described specifically in the City code. The Examiner asked Mr. McMonagle to provide a brief on the issue of the authority and relevance of the public prescriptive right to the property by November 28th with applicant and City response by December 5th. Mr. Steven Neugebauer of SNR Company is a licensed hydrogeologist and engineering geologist. He presented a PowerPoint presentation highlighting the relevant issues from his report (Exhibit M49). Mr. Neugebauer described his qualifications. He stated the biggest issue with this project is groundwater and the engineering geology of the site. The big thing is the SEPA document is inadequate. His scope for this project is to assess the applicant's studies and to review the environmental impacts of the project. SEPA should produce information regarding impacts. The SEPA checklist is not designed to gather all the impacts. There should be more intensive studies done here because of the intensity of the development and of the surrounding development. There are only preliminary studies, which are inadequate. Mr. Neugebauer stated the history of the site needs to be reviewed as far back as possible. His presentation will focus on the SEPA issues. Only four studies have been incorporated in the SEPA checklist, there are now 22 studies. Mr. Neugebauer described the wildlife corridor link along the greenbelt from the subject to the Cedar River. This is the only significant open area in the local region. The moor is surrounded by development except for this narrow wildlife corridor on the northeast corner. He showed maps dating back to 1865 to show historical water flows. In 1898 the Black River still flowed, the Green River Valley was the White River Valley and the Duwamish Waterway was still a river. There are wetlands shown on the map in this area as back as 1898. The entire regional drainage system has changed since then. The title report shows in 1936 this subject property had been cleared and was owned by the railroad and in 1945 by a Department of Defense corporation. This is an important issue to SEPA because there might have been wartime activity here with potential contaminants. Mr. Neugebauer states there should have been a Phase I ESA. Mr. Neugebauer showed the development pattern in 1990. It has been forested since the 1940s. The oldest trees are about 65 years old. Mr. Neugebauer showed the geomorphology of the area. The property had been in a melt water channel from the last ice age that became the Cedar River. Drainage goes both to the southwest and northeast. The area has many depositional environments for soils. There are structural anomalies in There is an extensive trail system in the woods that were there when he moved in. There are nine separate access points along the two pipeline rights of way and other at the end of 18th Street. These are trailheads. The trails are a large loop with several connector trails. The outer loop is about a 15 minute walk. Mr. Beedon has personally been pruning and trimming trails to keep them open. He believes the school district performed maintenance there four times in the last three decades including cutting down dangerous trees and removing trash or yard waste. He is aware of no other activity from the school district on the property. The school district performed maintenance there in 2000, 2010, and twice in 2011. Each of these incidents was related to a request for action to the school district by a member of the public. Mr. Beedon spoke to the school district in 2000 about illegal activity on the property. That prompted the 2000 maintenance and the placement of signage discouraging dumping. In 2010, Mr. Beedoo called the school district to ask why some trees had been removed. The school district stated there were dangerous trees. In 2011 he spoke with the school district about illegal trash and a fire pit on the property. The school district responded by cleaning up the trash and removing the fire pit. Mr. Beedon quoted an email sent to him by Mr. Mike Rouch of the school district. The email stated, "I got the sense this is an important asset to your neighborhood and I wanted our folks to do what we could to restore the beauty there." Mr. Beedon stated the school district had essentially left the property alone. Mr. Beedon stated the trails have been used for recreational walking, running, dog walking, bicycling, socializing, wildlife viewing, and inventorying plants. Kids build forts and tree houses. This area is used extensively for recreation, on a daily basis there are at least a dozen people in there. Over the years, thousands of people have used it. Use of the area has increased due to the informal maintenance of the paths. Aesthetically, the woods are beautiful. It's a wild area with a variety of vegetation and wetlands. The topography is interesting. There are seasonal creeks. It reminds him of the foothills of the Cascades, though with less dramatic topography. Mr. Beedon described wildlife he has seen on the property including bobcat, pileated woodpecker, red headed sapsuckers, ducks, crows, other types of birds, deer, and owls. Mr. Beedoo stated there are a rich variety of plants on the property. There are also at least two geocaches on the property. Mr. Beedon showed pictures of stormwater accumulated on the two pipelines on the property. The pipelines drain onto the school district property. Recently, the City of Renton cleaned out drain pipes to improve the drainage and reduce flooding. In response to Mr. McMonagle, Mr. Beedon stated he had hired Mr. Neugebauer in September 2014 to perform studies on the property and review the applicant's studies. The TPW AG had asked the - inches below ground level. Groundwater is a flat line, it is not contoured. This site needs additional study to determine how it can be developed. An EIS should be required. Mr. Neugebauer read definitions for various types of groundwater and hydric soils from the USGS. The applicant's report shows so much water there that development without pumps may not be feasible. Groundwater is also protected from pollutants. It's illegal to discharge pollutants into groundwater. Water from the homes cannot be discharged into the wetlands. Mr. Neugebauer stated the AES geotechnical report is not adequate to satisfy SEPA requirements. It stated that in the report. There have not been the extensive studies that should have been prepared. There were inadequate numbers of test pits. Though they acknowledge groundwater will be near the surface in winter (8" from surface), but don't describe how they plan to deal with it. The report was paid for by the school district and was inadequate in scope. The report shows the site has geotechnical critical areas, specifically erosion, site stability and other indicators of shallow ground creep or slumping. The site will need deep infiltration strategies to get the stormwater down below the high water table and into a more permeable layer. There is no capacity for stormwater infiltration on this site. This may be why the developer has chosen a stormwater vault because a pond won't infiltrate. Anything excavated below the surface will have groundwater issues. Drainage ditches will be full of water. If you put a vault where groundwater is at the surface, the vault will have to be tied down to bedrock or it will float out of the ground. There need to be much more detailed studies. The geotechnical report says the slope angles are for areas where groundwater seepage is not present at the face of the slope. There will need to be some sort of temporary de-watering. Mr. Neugebauer stated the water will come back and flood basements and keep stormwater from flowing. Based on our review, the deposits are not the type the report suggests. This soil is impermeable. The AES report assumes the soil is permeable. The soils promote shallow ground creep and slumping. Mr. Neugebauer reviewed the Environmental Review Committee report. He believes it is inadequate and an EIS should have been prepared. This project was done in too many disjointed steps. On page 8 of AES, the report says the wetlands may be groundwater influenced. However, there is no further study to determine what to do. Having groundwater within 8" of the surface is a major issue. There is a 12" culvert discharging stormwater into the wetland. That's illegal under the Clean Water Act. They cannot discharge to a point source. There need to be better studies. The Environmental Review Committee report states the project will result in minimal loss of vegetation to the site. That's impossible given the current proposal. According to the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, there is priority habitat here. The removal of existing vegetation will remove a great deal of the evapotranspiration on this site. The trees may remove as much as 75% of the water from the site. The ERC is more worried about views than the more critical water issues. -the area. There are no geological reports performed by the applicant and they couldn't perform their own. He stated there should have been more soils tests, percolation tests, more test pits and borings. There is neither engineering geology nor hydro geological studies. He showed a geologic map of the area and pointed to geologic issues from the confluence of two seismic faults. This might influence landslide activities. The USGS maps show that the closest fault zone is 3.9 miles, though there may be others nearby that haven't yet been mapped. Geologists look for bend trees and uneven surfaces. There are many bent trees here. That indicates ground movement. The ground is moving slowly and the trees are bending with it. There might be shallow or slightly deeper ground movement. He walked the site, but didn't perform studies because the school district wouldn't allow it. The SEPA documents say there are no structures on the site, but there are treehouses and forts. The site is vacant but not unused. The Opponents state there is no SEPA document, only a report from the City's Environmental Review Committee. Mr. Steven Neugebauer discussed the title report's historical accounts of ownership of the project site (Page 12). There is an easement for a natural gas pipeline. There are several other easements for various purposes. Ms. Rogers asked about the relevance of this testimony. Mr. McMonagle asked Mr. Neugebauer to describe the relevance of this testimony in terms of SEPA. Mr. Neugebauer stated the SEPA checklist asks about potential hazardous wastes on the property. No studies were conducted. The title report shows potential hazardous uses in the past. A phase 1 environmental site assessment should have been conducted. Mr. Neugebauer stated the applicant hadn't shown how they were dealing with the City's drainage easement, which is part of the City's drainage system. Ms. Rogers noted that the drainage easement was released. Mr. Neugebauer stated his concern from a geologic perspective is that there were no geologic or hydrogeologist studies performed for this site. There isn't enough information. This site could have fault zones. Also, there is potential evidence of ground creep or slumps. His specific concern is that these mobile soils must be dealt with, which would require further study. He also stated the SEPA Checklist is wrong because the studies came later. He stated the Checklist was wrong because it ignored recreational activities and recreational structures on the property. Mr. Neugebauer stated 14 days is insufficient to review the many studies that were performed as part of this application. He stated he had reviewed all of the documents and believes an Environmental Impact Statement should have been required. The SEPA Checklist was the only document presented. The SEPA document should show what the conditions are in a summary format. Another issue is the hydrology and geology of the site. The wetland detenmination by Gary Shultz and the Technical Information Report from Barghausen and the Otak report show groundwater saturation levels that make this site undevelopable. The groundwater will be too high in the rainy season. Mr. Neugebauer referred to the Shultz report. He stated the depth to the water table is zero ----------------------------- Mr. Neugebauer stated stormwater is being directed to a vault but it will not treat the stormwater for heavy metals. Ms. Rogers referred to the 2012 AES report. The top of page 2 states the site is suitable for buried utilities, paving and structures. Mr. Neugebauer stated they also said additional studies would be conducted. Ms. Rogers asked if he understood that detailed construction and engineering review and much more intensive studies will be conducted before final plat. Mr. Neugebauer reiterated he felt the cart was being placed before the horse in that the SEPA review is now for a reason. It allows for adequate public comment. Later phases do not. Ms. Rogers referred to the aerial photo (Exhibit K6c) and asked Mr. Neugebauer if the project site isn't completely surrounded by similar residential developments. He stated there is forested land around here and existing development is less dense. He did agree there are existing houses and roads surrounding the project. He doesn't know if there are existing geological or hydrological issues affecting the existing homes, however he speculates that may be why the areas to the northeast and east are not developed. Applicant Response Mr. Kevin Jones, Transportation Engineer, Transpo Group, prepared the traffic report for this project. He also reviewed the public comments and will respond to them. He's responding specifically to letters from Mr. Roenicke and Ms. Garlough. Mr. Roenicke was concerned that the traffic counts were conducted in June 2013, a time period when the adjacent elementary school is out for summer. Mr. Jones responded by noting that they acknowledged school was out of session. As such, they added to their counts school traffic based on the enrollment of school at the time, which is within eight students of the current student count. They looked at average trip rates for elementary schools and inflated the counts by 210 AM Peak and 70 PM Peak hour trips. Ms. Garlough claimed to have taken counts themselves and compared them to the Transpo report. Ms. Garlough stated the traffic volume was 30% higher than Transpo's measurements. Mr. Jones agreed that traffic volumes fluctuate day to day; however, the traffic volume in the neighborhood is low. The volumes are low enough that you could double traffic and still have Level of Service (LOS) A or B at all of the surrounding intersections. The intersection operation will stay high and not fall below an acceptable LOS that would require mitigation. Mr. Jones responded to another comment about the impact of new residential traffic on school pedestrian traffic by stating that the overlap in traffic conditions would be in the morning. The residence peak happens after school is out. The projected increase in volumes on Lake Youngs Way is 10-45 +/-trips in the AM Peak hour. This increase, on average, is one vehicle or less per minute during that time period. Traffic volumes fluctuate and there may be an extra car or two in that time period. The school traffic tends to be concentrated in 30 minute intervals. Most of the project traffic won't mix with school traffic volumes. -Mr. Neugebauer stated the ERC is basing its opinions on studies that are too preliminary. The issue of liquefaction isn't addressed at all. There is no study as to how the displaced groundwater will affect neighbors. Mr. Neugebauer's final point is that there is no cohesive and conclusive SEPA document. You can't make a final environmental determination on a document that doesn't exist. Ms. Timmons a~ked Mr. Neugebauer if he'd read the drainage report in the application packet. Mr. Neugebauer stated he had. Ms. Timmons asked Mr. Neugebauer to relate his testimony to the drainage report. Mr. Neugebauer stated the applicant put the cart before the horse because there are no studies for groundwater hydrology. There isn't enough information to form a drainage report. In response to the Examiner, Mr. Neugebauer stated he would have done test pits and boring, piezometer studies and look for the groundwater. If the wetlands are there, the groundwater is there. We need additional studies to determine where the water really is. If it's at the surface, the drainage report is incorrect. The Examiner asked if they know the groundwater is, why does there need to be additional study. Mr. Neugebauer stated the drainage plan isn't taking into account the groundwater. A building pad cannot be placed where the groundwater at the surface. Utilities cannot be placed within the groundwater, particularly sewer which would be continuously draining groundwater. Ms. Rogers asked if he was familiar with the 1995 Local Project Review Act (RCW 36.70B ). Mr. Neugebauer stated he wasn't. Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Neugebauer was aware of the SEPA provisions that provide that city regulations can be sufficient to mitigate environmental impacts. Mr. Neugebauer stated he had looked at it and at the requirements for an EIS. Ms. Rogers asked if he had worked with real estate developers who are speculatively buying property. He stated he did and that developers did feasibility studies. He stated phase I environmental site assessments (ESA) were common. He had not seen the applicant's Phase I ESA and couldn't speak to whether one existed. It is a typical procedure. Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Neugebauer was familiar with the City's preliminary plat procedures. He responded he was slightly familiar with them. Mr. Neugebauer stated a project of this size would typically have an EIS. He had never seen a development of this size with this much contention without an EIS. Ms. Rogers stated the applicant had prepared a SEPA Checklist June 2014. Mr. Neugebauer was not aware of the newer checklist. In response to Ms. Rogers, Mr. Neugebauer stated the test pits from Mr. Shultz's report were taken throughout the project site, though most are in the wetland areas. He stated there are high levels of water throughout the site because water tables are flat. He stated he was not aware of a 303D listing for any water on the site, though all wetlands are expected to be so listed to allow discharge. -Youngs Way. Some would go to SE 16th Street; others would go to Royal Hills. Other traffic would go to Beacon, Ferndale or other routes to SE 16th Street and Edmonds Avenue. He stated SE 16th Street had more grade than SE 18th Street; otherwise the roadway geometry was comparable. Mr. McMonagle asked Mr. Jones about the development's proposed roads. Mr. Jones stated the development will have roads designed to the current standards. Ms. Racheal Villa, of Soundview Consultants, described her experience and qualifications. Her company conducted the fish and wildlife habitat assessment for the property (Exhibit K, page 40). Together, all the scientists who worked on this report have about 80 years of experience. She is a qualified senior author for biological assessments under WSDOT, which is fairly unique. Ms. Villa stated she had visited the project site. She was hired to perform supplementary wetlands review for fish and wildlife habitat. They reviewed the wetlands assessment. They reviewed lists of species from the USFW and the WA DFW for priority habitats and species offsite associated with the Cedar River corridor. There was nothing specifically mapped on site, so they looked to see what wa, on-site. In their normal critical areas assessment, they would usually incorporate wetlands and habitat scientists. They found nothing specifically listed for priority protection. They reviewed a wider area for noise and stormwater impacts (Exhibit A, Attachment 16). Ms. Villa noted the habitat here is fairly disturbed on a large scale basis. There is a lot of human intrusion. It's not directly connected to the Cedar River corridor. There are trees, but the wildlife has to cross the 60 foot wide water easement, cross a residential road, cross residential yards, cross a 40% slope and then the Bonneville Power Administration's easement to the Cedar River corridor. It's discontinuous, isolated and highly disturbed. The prior testimony documents that by mentioning the extensive use practiced here. Ms. Villa stated they looked at all potentially regulated species on site including all state and federal listed species and habitat. They found habitat potentially associated with pileated woodpeckers and Townsend's bat, both Washington State listed species. Ms. Villa stated there is a great deal of woodpecker activity. She didn't see nests, but she did see snags. Pileated woodpeckers utilize 1,480 acres, which would include the whole Cedar River corridor. It is possible the woodpeckers are foraging on site. Woodpeckers are a residential, non-migratory species. Ms. Villa stated Townsend's bats might use the site seasonally during the summer for foraging for insects. The DFW would require protecting wetlands, associated buffers and large trees. Ms. Villa stated the plat will not result in a loss of significant, protected habitat for these two listed species. Ms. Villa stated the bobcat is not a listed species. It's a hunted species that doesn't have specific requirements for habitat protection. Ms. Rogers asked Ms. Villa her opinion of the impact of the proposed project. Ms. Villa stated if the wetlands and buffers are protected and off-leash dogs and people on bikes were kept out, the -Mr. Jones spoke to potential safety issues for school pedestrian traffic. He stated there won't be much impact because the volumes are low. Also, they are providing a pedestrian crosswalk at 18th and Lake Youngs Way. Given the speed limits, the pedestrian crossing and relatively small increase in volumes, there do not anticipate a safety hazard. There is concern about visibility on 16th Street and there was a suggestion this is an accident prone area. They review the accident logs from the City for this location. Specifically, they reviewed collision records for SE 16th Street between Beacon Way SE and Lake Youngs Way SE. For a four year period, there were no collisions reported in this area. There is a grade difference between Beacon and Ferndale. They looked at the collision records and measured daily traffic volumes over a seven day period. 16th Street serves about 3,300 vehicles per day. 4.8 million vehicles traveled along that section in four years without a single reported collision. There was one in February of this year, though that was related to icy conditions. Mr. Jones stated the data does not support the assertion this location is a collision prone location. They will also add additional signage on the north side of 16th Street indicating there is an intersection approaching. The geometrics of the road make it difficult to see the intersection. There is a sign now recommending speed limits of 15 mph in this area. There are sidewalks along the route to the school (Exhibit A9, Figure I). Mr. Jones responded to a comment from Ponderosa Estates. Residents in this subdivision are concerned about long waits nearby intersections, specifically the intersection labelled Intersection 13 in the Transpo report. They evaluated the intersection from a delay standpoint in the AM and PM Peak. The intersection was not originally reviewed, but was added at the City's request. The review of this intersection was this year while school was in session. Based on the data and the stop control of this intersection, they found this intersection has 15 seconds of average delay or less. The delay will not significantly increase with this development looking out to 2018. It's currently 13 seconds in both the AM and PM Peak. The LOS is B now and will stay that way. This is an acceptable delay under the City's standards. No change in traffic control is necessary. Another issue with respect to school traffic is whether there will need to be extra traffic control personnel from the school. Mr. Jones stated he didn't know, but that the use of traffic crossing guards is a typical occurrence in this area. He doesn't anticipate the school district will need to hire traffic control personnel they don't already have. Mr. McMonagle asked Mr. Jones about the changes from the original to the revised traffic study. Mr. Jones stated that in both cases, there were the two proposed entrances there are right now. Mr. McMonagle asked Mr. Jones to explain the route persons in the subdivision would use to get out to a minor arterial. Mr. Jones stated that 60% of the Tiffany Park traffic was assumed to go to the west and the remainder would go south. Of the westbound traffic, they assumed the majority of it would go to SE 16th Street via some route. They would then access Edmonds A venue. They revised the study because there was a lot of public comment about the absence of that intersection in the study. For the southbound traffic, they assumed the traffic would mostly go to SE 18th Street to Lake --Perched, seasonal high water is common. Mr. Schultz stated the areas that will be wet in the winter will be protected. In June 2013, there was no water at all on site. Mr. McMonagle asked Mr. Schultz whether he's a hydrogeologist. Mr. Schultz stated he wasn't. He is a wetland ecologist. Mr. McMonagle asked if Mr. Schultz can interpret hydrology. Mr. Schultz stated delineating wetlands requires an understanding of wetland hydrology, though he didn't provide either a hydrology report or a geologic report. Mr. Ray Coglas, of Earth Solutions NW, described his education and qualifications. He is a licensed geotechnical engineer. He's been a registered geoengineer since 1998. He is the president of Earth Solutions NW. Mr. Coglas stated he had been present for the TPWAG testimony and had visited the project site. He submitted a letter as part of the exhibit package (Exhibit K, page 33 ). Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Coglas to discuss his letter and his response to Mr. Neugebauer. Ms. Rogers asked to discuss the soil and groundwater characteristics on the site, specifically as they related to the ability to develop the project. Mr. Coglas stated his role was initially to review the AES report. His portion was review of prior reports, field surveys and review of public comments. With respect to the AES report and some of the testimony he'd heard, the AEA report is standard practice. The site is fairly to moderately sloping site, mainly glacial till though there may be some outwash. The level of investigation that was done as part of the AES report was similar to what his firm would have done. A lot of time geotechnical reports are driven by the proposed use. Kurt Merryman authored the AES report. He is reputable. The report was valid. They adequately characterized on site conditions. The one thing that stood out to Mr. Coglas is that AES didn't throw up any red flags. There's nothing in the report that would suggest major problems. AES was working for the school district and would have been required to tell the district if they thought there would be issues for development. All sites are unique, however this is a typical glacial till site. The level of investigation was appropriate with test pits. If it had been him, he'd done the same type of review for the intended use. If this was proposed to be a 25 story office building with three levels of underground parking, then far more intensive study would have been needed. The analysis that was done was appropriate for the scale of the site and proposed type and intensity of use. In preparing his summary, he looked at all that. He agrees with the AES conclusions. A lot of what a geotechnical engineer does is determining the scope of analysis needed. They could have done a lot more, but the budget and type of project didn't require it. Most of the activity will be near surface and low intensity. Ms. Rogers asked if there would be additional geotechnical analysis to support construction and engineering design at the permit stage. Mr. Coglas stated as far as the actual engineering of the project when it comes to assigning actual values for designer, his firm will prepare a geotechnical report that may or may not include more information. The final design isn't finished, so they don't know yet where they'll need more specific information. -wetlands would be better protected than they are now. A typical buffer around a critical area is split rail, which does not keep wildlife out. They function to keep humans and their pets out. Ms. Rogers asked Ms. Villa to summarize her November 18, 2014 memo. Ms. Villa summarized the letter by saying they reviewed for potentially regulated species and habitats in accordance with the City of Renton's codes. They concluded the proposal will not likely cause adverse impact on listed species or critical habitats with implementation of best management practices. Protection of wetlands, buffers and significant trees are proposed. She also mentioned the current condition with anthropogenic structures, unleashed pets and many other disturbances to wildlife currently occurring on the site. With respect to non-game species, they were surveyed in the review. She reiterated this is a high! y disturbed, isolated patch. Ms. Villa discussed the stormwater filtration system which will remove many pollutants. There is no direct downstream connection to Ginger Creek, which is a tributary to Cedar River. The plan as proposed will protect the downstream areas. Mr. McMonagle stated he didn't understand the description of the critical areas fence. Ms. Villa described what a wooden, split rail fence looks like. Mr. Gary Schulz is a wetlands ecologist. Mr. Schultz described his education and qualifications. He is a sole proprietor who does habitat assessments, mitigation planning, and wetland and stream studies. He is a water and sewer district commissioner. Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Schultz if he had visited the project site. He stated he had, many times. His work was focused on wetland delineation and stream identification. He used the ACOE, the DOE Wetlands Manual. He put transects on the property and walked the site in a pattern to determine the location of wetlands. He delineated the wetlands. His delineation was reviewed by Otak, the City's peer reviewer. Mr. Schultz concluded the wetlands are isolated and separated from downstream habitats and water. The southern pipeline dams the site and prevents the flow of surface water off site. They are pocket depressions that are influenced by perched groundwater on a seasonal basis. He visited the site during March and June to view where the water was by season. Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Schultz tracks weather patterns. He stated he used the SeaTac rainfall record. His review was conducted in March 2014, when the rainfall was 5-6 inches above normal for that time of year. According to the news, it was record breaking month, though he couldn't quote the record. Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Schultz about shallow groundwater and the data plots described by Mr. Neugebauer. Mr. Schultz stated they were all near wetlands boundaries. Mr. Schultz reviewed these extra data points at the request of Otak. Mr. Schultz stated Mr. Neugebauer used the term 'aquake regime'. This term means hydric soils. A lot of these plots were outside the wetland boundaries and didn't have hydric soils. They aren't part of the wetland, though it was a wet time of year. Mr. Schultz stated the soils on site are Alderwood, which typically overlay an impervious till layer. -Erosion is something to be managed. They derive the characterization of erosion from the USDA (now NRCS) soil characterization. These soil types were derived for agriculture. When working fields, it was good to know which soils had high erosion qualities. In development, the type of erosion hazard is not significant. Tiffany Park has some slight to moderate erosion areas. However, they control erosion through many different methodologies. The final product is stabilized. Erosion is managed through engineering solutions. Mr. Coglas stated there are no seismic hazards on this property. The Seattle fault is 3. 7 miles north. We live in a tectonically active environment. There might be a splay or other features under Tiffany Park, but none are known. It's important to know that the residential building code for this area is sufficient to offset seismic risk in this region. A more intense structure or development would require more studies, but low density residential development does not. There is a low seismic hazard here, according to the City. With respect to coal mine hazards, Mr. Coglas stated they had reviewed the coal mine maps. AES also addressed this. They are outside the boundary where further study is needed for coal mine hazards. Mr. Coglas stated there are no potential adverse environmental impacts in relation to geotechnical issues. In response to the Examiner, Mr. Coglas stated he was hired a~ peer review for the AES report. He was also hired to respond to public comments. Mr. Coglas stated he disagreed with Mr. Neugebauer's conclusions the entire site is somehow going to be underwater or flooded. The groundwater is perched on glacial till that undulates and is uneven. Mr. Coglas said in these environments, based on studies and his experience, it's likely there will be some groundwater seepage when they do utility excavations or cuts/fills. This is not a site that will require dewatering or extensive pumping. The groundwater table is perched with various, isolated seams. In the Kent Valley, pulling water out would draw the whole water table down. This isn't the case here. The water table will be shallow near the wetlands. The AES report, except for the narrative, doesn't document any observed groundwater in the test pits. In exploration pit #6, they noted weak groundwater seepage below 8 feet. It was the dry season. The Examiner asked if Mr. Neugebauer is correct in his conclusion the groundwater level is at zero elevation, would that cause a problem for construction. Mr. Coglas said that would be a problem, but that is not the case. However, if it was at zero elevation, they could manage it. The stormwater system might need to change, but it could be feasibility changed. Mr. Coglas stated the notion that the groundwater is right at the surface everywhere on the project is absurd. Mr. McMonagle asked Mr. Coglas about the test logs in the back of the AES report. Mr. Coglas stated the pits were all test excavations, rather than borings. He agreed there were 12 test pits on the 22 acres dug on September 6, 2012. He agreed all of the pits were done on the same day (Exhibit With respect to shallow groundwater, Mr. Coglas stated there is groundwater in the northwest. He stated the various depths of groundwater testified to before (6", 8", or 2'), AES characterizes the water table at 8' in depth during the summer. It fluctuates seasonally. There's nothing in the AES report suggesting 2' in the summer. It reports 8' in depth. The thing he wants to point out is this site is a perched groundwater condition. Glacial till is dense and cemented and does not allow vertical penetration of surface water to depth. That's common. He is not surprised that during wetland studies they encountered shallow or ponding water in the depressional wetland areas. To suggest the whole site will be underwater is not consistent with a perched groundwater table. There are recessional sands at the surface that allow water to pass through. That water then gets trapped in the impervious layer. He deals with groundwater on all of his projects. It is not a condition that precludes development. There's nothing unique to the plot of Tiffany Park or its surrounds geologically speaking. The Kent Valley is a flat, deep alluvial deposit with a level groundwater table that fluctuates evenly across the valley floor. The Kent Valley is like a deep bathtub. That's not the case here. The till layer is shallow and undulating in Tiffany Park. The elevation change across Tiffany Park is 40'. For example, if the groundwater table were level here, a change in 40' in elevation across the site would cause most of it to be underwater. That's not the case. There are seep environments that are seasonally wet, but they are localized based on the topography and glacial till layer. Groundwater seepage is managed during construction; it doesn't preclude construction. Mr. Rogers asked Mr. Coglas to discuss managing stromwater during construction, specifically, will the stormwater vault float? Mr. Coglas stated that almost every single project he's on has stormwater facilities, many of them are vaults. He's done hundreds of vaults. They look at excavation, the base, storage capacity, stability of the side slopes, and backfill. Tiffany Park is not an environment where he would be concerned with buoyancy of his vault structure. There might be a large seep at the beginning of the cut because of built up water pressure. This usually attenuates over time as the trapped water is drained. They always put a footing drain around the vault if they are concerned the groundwater seam might create excess hydrostatic pressure on the concrete walls. They aren't concerned about buoyancy here. He has done projects that du have buoyancy issues. In that case, there are many best management practices to prevent the vault from being displaced. Ms. Rogers asked to turn back to the AES report. She asked Mr. Coglas to discuss the log reports for the test pits. Mr. Coglas stated geotechnical engineers dig test pits to evaluate soil profiles. Notes suggesting no caving or seepage are very useful because it speaks to the strength of the soil. Groundwater seepage is different from the groundwater table. In the Kent Valley, they would call any water they found the groundwater table, rather than seepage. In this case, there is a difference. Mr. Rogers noted Mr. Neugebauer asked for additional studies. Mr. Coglas described his report and its detail of the geological hazards on site. Mr. Coglas stated there were no slopes that met the City's criteria for sensitive or protected areas. There are some local, isolated areas that may meet the 40% criteria, but as a geotechnical engineer, he looks at stability. The code specifies the boundaries. Mr. Coglas stated there are no landslide hazards or high erosion hazards on the project site. Mr. Talkington stated the preliminary plat process starts with city approval. The next step is preparation of full construction plans and drainage reports. Additional information will be requested from sub-consultants. They prepared a preliminary drainage report for the general storm drainage design. They will do a final, more specific drainage report next. The final drainage report is usually a fine tuning, though there may be changes that require more extensive revisions. Mr. McMonagle asked if Barghausen Consulting is an engineering firm. Mr. McMonagle asked whether Barghausen was paid hourly from the consultant or as a contingent fee. Mr. Talkington stated it wasn't contingent. Staff Response Mr. Steve Lee, City of Renton Development Engineering Manager, described his position with the City and his relevant work experience and qualifications. Mr. Lee he had reviewed the project files and performed a site visit. He has experience in the Cedar River area for the last ten years. Mr. Lee responded to Mr. Neugebauer's testimony. He stated Mr. Neugebauer's points were very general. Most of the issues Mr. Neugebauer raises were dealt with well by Mr. Coglas. Mr. Lee stated the Cedar River issues will always be present. The river system is young and new. There have been sloughing issues, but they were caused by deforestation in the early 20th century, earthquakes and other acts of nature. The Cedar River is now controlled by the US Army Corp of Engineers (ACOE). There is a bit of control in the form of two upstream dams. Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) has the capability of metering the flow of the Cedar River. Within the last five years, there was an 80 year event of 10,000cfs. In the past. that would have causes landslides and flooding at Boeing. That didn't occur because of the controls in place by the ACOE and SPU. Mr. Lee stated Mr. Coglas has performed at least 20 projects in the City of Renton. He is correct in his review of the geotechnical study by AES. The site is very similar to other sites in the city. The steep areas are very small ( 15-20' feet long) and do not warrant slope stability analysis. Overall on the project site, the approximate slope is 10% or so. The City does not require additional slope stability analysis. With respect to the number of test pits in the AES study, Mr. Lee stated there were sufficient numbers of test pits to gauge impacts of potential groundwater on site. He would have preferred to see a few more, especially in the vault area. However, as Mr. Coglas testified, the City may require extra analysis. He stated he does not typically require additional geotechnical analysis at this stage of the process. They may ask for deeper borings or excavation pits. The residential nature of this proposal wouldn't usually require it. They will look at this again to determine if more geotechnical information is needed for the walls, cuts, grading and the stromwater vault. Mr. Lee felt the information provided was adequate to allow for a determination of impact on the site. The AES didn't mention issues of groundwater on the site. Therefore, they didn't feel the need to require secondary review. The City determined the AES report was adequate. A 7, Figure 2). Mr. Coglas stated he is a licensed civil engineer, not a licensed geologist or hydrogeologist. They have them on staff. He reviews those reports and has studied these specialties. He's familiar with the two basic groundwater environments at this site. Mr. McMonagle referred to Page I of the AES report that there is a caution the report should be reviewed and revised to support a specific development proposal. Mr. Coglas stated he was retained in October 2014. He was hired to provide peer review of the AES report, prepare a site evaluation, review the plat proposal and provide feedback on community comments. Mr. McMonagle asked if Mr. Coglas had done physical investigation of the site. Mr. Coglas said he had not and was unsure of whether he would be asked to going forward. He anticipates what he would do on a follow up report which would include further review of plat plans. Mr. Coglas stated construction is done year round right now. He prepares different recommendations to deal with groundwater, depending on the season. With respect to the vault, the physical dimension for this vault is very large, but he doesn't know exactly how big. His role is to help the contractor to install the vault and deal with any groundwater or geotechnical issues to ensure the vault is installed correctly and will function. The vault will probably be 12-18' deep. They will have 100 times more bearing capacity than is needed. There will be a soil cap. He'll look at the stability of the excavation to ensure the walls hold. Mr. Coglas showed where the stormwater vault will be located on the plat. Mr. Coglas agreed the deepest test pit was 10.5', though he's gone deeper on other projects. The shallowest test pit was 8'. He agreed the only test pit in the vicinity of the vault was Test Pit #11, to a depth of 8.5'. Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Coglas to clarify his role in the project going forward. He stated his firm is the geotechnical engineer of record and will assume that role going forward. Mr. Barry Talkington, of Barghausen Consulting Engineers, is the civil engineer for the project and designed the plat. Mr. Talkington spoke of the drainage release on the title. A drainage release states there is stormwater leaving a property and draining on another property. It is not an easement with an exact location. His design of the plat addressed the release by looking at upstream drainage basins around the property. The drainage release in the title is for the Ponderosa subdivision, at least a half mile from the property. It is uphill, but there is no physical way water can drain from that property on to the project property. The drainage release was executed in 1965, before much of the present development was constructed. The drainage release described the entire section (640 acres). It's just an historical remainder. Mr. Talkington stated discharging clean storrnwater into wetlands is a common practice. The drainage is discharged into the buffer to recharge the hydrology of the wetland. With respect to street widths, the streets inside the project are narrower than in the surrounding communities, in conformance with current city code. --constraints. Mr. Lee stated he was not aware of this. With respect to the storm water, Mr. Lee stated the initial design was for a pond but changed to a vault sometime this year. Mr. McMonagle asked if the vault addition would typically trigger the need for additional review. Mr. Lee stated they would typically ask for more information but they haven't yet requested more geotechnical information from the applicant. Ms. Timmons asked if the City can get the extra information in an engineering packet. Mr. Lee stated it could. Ms. Rocale Timmons stated the studies provided by the applicant; especially the technical studies will be fine-tuned in detail at the time of construction permit submittal. These studies are used to determine if there are probably adverse impacts from the development. The appellant has asserted there hasn't been adequate time to review the proposal and the attendant studies. This project has been in review for nine months. The file has been available. The appellant has been provided with these studies, including the revised studies from June 2013. There were two Notices of Application released. Ms. Timmons entered Exhibit AK. The September 2014 notice included the revised SEPA checklist. With respect to wetlands, the City asked for a third party study. That study was completed by Otak. Otak provided two separate memos in response to revised studies from Mr. Schultz. Otak affirmed the final wetland determination (Exhibit AS). Otak determined there was a wetland missed by the applicant. The studies were revised to acknowledge the fifth wetland on-site. Otak then affirmed all of the revisions made by Mr. Schultz. Staff agrees with the TPW AG appellant regarding tree preservation for wildlife on site. With respect to transportation, staff agrees with testimony provided by Mr. Jones of Trans po Group. Perteet, the City's consultant, concurred with the Transpo study. They feel all potential impacts are mitigated. Staff agrees with the testimony provided by Ms. Villa with respect to critical areas and buffers. Applicant Rebuttal Ms. Rogers stated the applicant agrees with staff on every issue with the exception of the requirement of a 15 foot buffer. Appellant Rebuttal Mr. Neugebauer stated he was concerned about the stormwater vault filter. There are no specifications on this. He has never seen a filter that can remove dissolved metals. He is concerned about the maintenance of the filter. Who will change it or maintain it? Mr. Lee spoke to the stormwater drainage issues. The only concern the City may have is the placement of the vault. They may require additional and deeper test pits to detennine if there is groundwater that would have a detrimental effect on the vault structure. In that instance, they will do a buoyancy calculation to detennine the static water volume. A certain amount of water will hold the vault down. They need to know how much water that is and when it will be in the vault. In response to Ms. Timmons, Mr. Lee stated the storm drainage water will be pre-treated and will prevent polluted water from running off into the wetlands. The vault will treat all PGIS run off and discharge to a closed conveyance system. None of the pollution generating systems will discharge into a wetland. Mr. Lee stated the City of Renton will require a Level 2 downstream analysis to describe the downstream conveyance after leaving the site. They are uncertain of a segment of the pipeline that takes the water. They want to make sure there is no downstream flooding. An NPDES permit will be required for the project. The permit stipulates allowable discharge into a conveyance system. That will include background monitoring as well as discharge monitoring. All of the requirements must be met before a building permit or construction permits are issued. Mr. Lee summarized the local, state and federal code requirements. The applicant has complied with all code requirements. He stated these codes are sufficient to address all probable stormwater impacts. He said the Seattle pipeline is monitored by SPU. If they see even a fraction of a movement in that hillside, they'll know. This is the drinking water in the City of Seattle. In response to the Examiner, Mr. Lee stated the deep, static groundwater level was uniformly along the wetland level at the project, it could affect the development. They would discover this instance during construction. If grades are lower than the wetland level, they will require more borings and test pits. The Examiner asked if the code regulations would allow the City to ask for more borings. Mr. Lee stated it comes down to professional liability as defined in the RCW. The person stamping the plans is responsible. The City is responsible for life safety only. The engineering staff can require more borings if they think there might be an issue. If there are groundwater issues present, the proposed vault is the best solution. In response to Ms. Rogers, Mr. Lee stated there is a difference between the perched groundwater table and the static, deeper groundwater level. There are no indications of the static groundwater level above 8'. Mr. Lee agreed with Mr. Coglas' assertion that the surface groundwater could be addressed during construction. Mr. McMonagle asked if Mr. Lee was aware the geotechnical report was prepared for the school district rather than the applicant. Mr. Lee stated he was. Mr. McMonagle asked if there shouldn't have been at least one test pit per acre. Mr. Lee stated the geotechnical engineering consultant will get a representative sampling of the site. They add more bores if they see dissimilarities in the site. Mr. McMonagle asked if Mr. Lee was aware AES limited its number of test pits based on budgetary The proposal meets most bulk and dimensional standards if all conditions of approval are met. The only issue is Lot 19. This lot may not meet minimum lot width standards, but will be conditioned to meet the standard. The applicant has provided a landscape plan. This plan does not comply with the code, but could with minor modifications. Per the development standards, there are several proposed walls ranging from 4' to 21' on-site. These walls are outside the height limit. Staff has requested a height limit on walls. Staff would be open to terracing of walls to reduce the overall height. With respect to critical areas, most requirements are met with conditions. The applicant has asked for modifications to wetland buffers. There are impacts from walls that must be revised. There were public comments related to habitat. The site provides habitat for non-listed species. The tree preservation plan is sufficient to provide habitat. Based on the provided tree inventory, approximately 679 trees were excluded from retention calculations. At least 188 trees must be preserved on site or replaced at a mitigation ratio to allow 30% tree retention. The applicant proposes to protect 181 trees and mitigate seven others. In terms of the analysis from subdivision regulations, the proposal complies if all conditions of approval are met. The applicant must provide a safe crossing for the trail. In response to the Examiner, Ms. Timmons stated there is no applicable street plan in the area. There were several comments regarding transportation issues. The proposed development would generate 1,000 weekday trips. Intersections near the project would remain at acceptable levels of service. A SEPA mitigation measure requires a new stop sign at Monroe Avenue. Staff has included an additional condition of approval to address sight distance concerns. Staff has also recommended additional signage. Staff feels as conditioned, all impacts for transportation are mitigated. With respect to residential lots, there are several pipe stem lots. Staff would like to see the applicant revise these lots to comply with code or provide for shared driveways. Shared driveways are preferred to reduce curb cuts. Parks, police and fire staff indicate there are sufficient resources to support the development if all fees are paid. Adequate provisions for safe walking conditions for students are provided. Sidewalks will be constructed to connect to the existing sidewalk system. Staff has recommended a SEPA mitigation measure to include a crosswalk improvement at Lake Youngs Way at SE 18th Street. Adequate provision for water and sewer are provided. The drainage report complies with the 2009 Stormwater Manual. There will be a vault within Tract A. The applicant will need to provide a downstream analysis for stormwater conveyance. -Mr. Neugebauer said he's been practicing hydrogeology for 33 years. He stated perched. groundwater doesn't occur on slopes. The water drains through. The groundwater follows the contour of the land. He stated the unsaturated zone flow is at negative pressure. Groundwater is at atmospheric pressure. The applicant is describing an impossible scenario. They can see the groundwater through pressure gradients. He stated the water table at an elevation is a water table. He stated they are using the applicant's information which is incomplete. The groundwater will go with the slope of the ground. Either the water's at the surface and there is a wetland or it's not. In the upper 30", the bioturbation zone, the ground is unsaturated. The water flows through the pore space and creates a vacuum behind it. There is just not enough information to really say where the groundwater is and where it's going. Finally, Mr. Neugebauer stated groundwater is regulated under the Clean Water Act. Point sources cannot be wetland hydrology. Preliminary Plat Staff Testimony Ms. Rocale Timmons gave a PowerPoint presentation (Exhibit AL). The site is located in the Benson Hill community planning area in the Tiffany Park neighborhood. It is 22 acres located in the R8 zone. It is bordered by the Cedar River Pipeline and the Mercer Island Pipeline. There are 1,300 trees on this vacant site. It is owned by the Renton School District. It is surrounded by existing single family residences. It ties into two existing street stubs which will be extended into the site. The applicant is requesting critical areas exemptions and preliminary plat approval. The City has received 72 comment letters. Staff was present at a community meeting held by TPW AG and conducted a separate meeting in September 2014. On September 22, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued a MDNS decision with 11 mitigation measures. Two appeals were filed. The environmental determination did not include new issues related to zoning, permitted uses, density, construction mitigation, and others. The applicant is proposing 97 lots. There is a 96 lot proposal to allow 30% retention of trees. There will be a 5.7 du/acre density. Average lot size is 5,400sf. The site has five wetlands (three Category II and two Category Ill). The applicant is proposing buffer reductions with mitigation in the form of buffer extensions. The applicant is asking for a critical areas exemption for the extension of SE 18th Street to allow for a small buffer impact. Staff supports the requested exemption. Staff relied heavily on the Comprehensive Plan. There are many significant trees, critical areas, wildlife and an established density and use pattern that are unique. Ms. Timmons described the Comprehensive Plan policies the staff relied on in their analysis. The staff attempted to provide harmony and balance between existing and new neighborhoods. The proposal complies with the Comprehensive Plan as conditioned. Condition 9 is the wetland mitigation associated with Wetland E, at the southeast section of the site. The wetland mitigation plans show they have already exceeded the required buffer. They have to extend the street. The critical areas exemption is for I 4sf of impact from the required sidewalk. The City has asked for additional buffer area. They disagree but will agree to provide enhanced plantings. Condition 17 is a typographical error. Condition 18 is related to pipe stem lots which are really about the shared driveway issue. Mr. Gary Schultz, the wetland ecologist, described the mitigation impacts the applicant is providing. His testimony is specifically related to Condition 9. Mr. Schultz described the l ,331 sf of additional buffer the applicant is proposing. Ms. Rogers stated Ms. Timmons agreed to the revised Conditions I, 4, 9, 13 and 17. Ms. Timmons stated they disagree with applicant revised Conditions 3, 5, 6, and 16. In response to the Examiner, Ms. Vanessa Dolby, stated she would not be opposed to changing Condition 5 to allow them to request a variance. She could not comment on whether staff would support a variance. These would be administrative variances. Ms. Rogers stated that they did not apply for a variance because they were told they didn't need to. Mr. Barry Talkington spoke to the difference between cut and fill walls. A cut is needed when the finished lot grade is below the existing grade. The wall stabilizes the grade. A fill wall includes fill on top of existing grade. The finished lot is above existing grade. This is and engineered wall with reinforcing fabric. Mr. Talkington stated the revised plan reduces the 2 I' high wall above Tract A and the 18' high wall along the Cedar River Pipeline. That wall will come down to 6'. The height from the high side of the walls is zero if they apply the code in effect when they submitted. In their case, the finished grade is the top of the wall. Mr. Talkington described the limits on site grading imposed by two entrances, ADA standards, etc. The overall objective is to balance cut/fill on site. They are limited by the road access and ADA standards for road slopes through intersections. They can only change grades on site so much. As the plan is laid out there are grade differences from lot to lot that requires walls. They attempt to maximize lot areas and reduce impacts to surrounding buffers. If they meet the City's conditions, they will lose lots, reduce lot sizes and impact the buffers. Use of walls allows them to decrease impacts. For Conditions 6 and I 6, Mr. Talkington spoke to a set of maps (Exhibit AO) depicting the shared driveway plans. He prepared the plans. For lots 9-14, the shared driveway easement will be used Lots 12-14. Lot 14 has direct access to the cul-de-sac but there will be no driveway there. The City would also require Lot I l to use this driveway. This is not desirable because the driveway would be at an angle to the roadway which would also change the design of the house to allow side loading of -In response to the Examiner, Ms. Timmons stated there will be no alley access. This proposal does not meet the threshold. There are two zones on the property. Applicant Testimony Ms. Rogers presented a letter describing the applicant's rationale for revised conditions of approval along with a set of revised conditions for the plat (Exhibits AM and AN, respectively). Ms. Rogers asked for approval of the plat subject to revised conditions. They are generally supportive of the staff report. They have a few areas of disagreement. Ms. Rogers wanted to emphasize a point that the client is under contract to purchase the project from the Renton School District. This is surplus land the district cannot use. Ms. Rogers noted they are asking for revisions to Conditions 4, 5, 6, 9, and 16-18. They are requesting additional changes to conditions to fix typographical errors, repetition, and non-contested issues. The City has recently changed its justification for Condition 3 for the 15 foot buffer. The City had originally erroneously relied on incorrect Comprehensive Plan policies. They are now turning to policies that also don't support the need for a buffer. Aesthetics are not an adequate basis to impose a perimeter buffer. There is already an average 50 foot perimeter buffer proposed along with two pipelines. There is no need for an additional buffer. With respect to Condition 4, they have proposed a modification to the location of curb bulb outs. They feel the City will agree with this revision. Condition 5 is the biggest issue. This is the condition that City is asserting that retaining walls must be limited to 4 feet in the front yard and 6 feet in the back yard. The City is referencing a condition related to aesthetic dividers, not retaining walls. None of the retaining walls concepts are referenced in this condition. Even if this particular code were to apply, the measurement of height does not apply. The walls they have designed are essential to the design of the plat. Exhibit AM, Attachment B, are two staff reports for current amendments to the walls and hedges section of the code. Title 4 does not have standards for retaining walls. Exhibit AM, Attachment C is a city handout that establishes a difference between fences, hedges and walls and engineered retaining walls. Exhibit AM, Attachment D is the pre-application memo for the original meeting Henley had with the City. You never get a written report again until you see the Hearing Examiner. The City stated the proposed retaining walls are not subject to the fences portion of the code. Even if the code has recently changed, they are vested to the old code. If the retaining walls are reduced or eliminated, we'll end up doing more grading. That will result in impact to trees and increased construction impacts. They have submitted a grading plan with reduced retaining wall heights. Conditions 6 and 16 are about shared private driveways. They are concerned the City is demanding an extra lot use the shared private driveways. There is a specific instance when this will not work. -Ms. Barbara Smith stated she didn't realize she needed to submit the reviews for Henley Homes (Exhibit AQ). Ms. Rogers noted they were not a comprehensive review. Staff Rebuttal Ms. Timmons stated for the driveway portion of the code, please review RMC 4-4-080. This code allows discretionary authority in the code to limit the number of driveways accessing the street. staff does not agree with the proposed revisions to Conditions 6 and I 6. They want to see Lots I I and 78 to access abutting shared driveways. the garage. The City is attempting to apply the amended code to the plot rather than the code under which the project vested. The staff Report stated Lot 14 had inadequate frontage. This has been corrected. For Lots 15-17, they had originally designed the shared driveway to service Lots 15 and 16. They have now included Lot 17 on the shared easement. They have also corrected the frontage of Lot 17 to comply with code. Next to Lots 15-17, there is a pedestrian tract. For Lots 38-40, the issue is the same as for Lots 15-17. They have revised the lots to allow Lot 38 to comply with the width requirement and access the shared easement. For Lots 79-81, Lot 81 was added to allow access to the shared right of way. Lot 78 will not access the shared driveway. With the applicant's revised condition language, they are willing to ensure access to shared driveways for three lots rather than the City's suggested four. Public Testimony Ms. Jill Jones is a Renton resident. She's heard experts testifying and noted that many of these people testifying have not walked the roads. She has lived there and walked therefor years. This is a valuable resource. The Cedar River corridor cannot be walked by residents. There is no access here because it is steep. The woods are fully canopied, with easy trails. Henley says because the development is single family residences, they shouldn't have to provide a buffer. The development is much denser than the existing neighborhoods. The trees are mature and were pre-existing 30 years ago. The road is wide. There are many trees. Grass planting strips absorb the rain. Ms. Jones showed an example of other Henley developments that have no trees and narrow parking strips. The homes will be taller and larger than the existing houses on much smaller lots. There will be no stormwater areas. Currently Tiffany Park floods in heavy storms. She has serious doubts about the ability to provide adequate stormwater drainage. She also observed a pileated woodpecker in the woods on April 14, 2014. Ms. Beedoo would like to ask the Examiner to walk the woods before he makes a decision. This is important. She has listened to all of the testimony. The experts seem to care but they have shown no concern about what they are tearing down. This piece of wood should be preserved. They are taking away something irreplaceable. She feels this piece of property should be preserved for future generations and all of us. She asked the Examiner to walk this area. Also, she has observed pileated woodpecker nests in these woods. They don't migrate. This is not about not wanting development. This is about preserving a precious piece of woods. She wouldn't care if they built a prison there is it was cleared. This is about nature and the trees. She can't imagine all these trees being tom down. If the citizens hadn't become active, the forest would be clear cut. They have a right as citizens to be heard and care about the environment. Exhibit N: Exhibit 0: Exhibit P: Exhibit Q: Exhibit R: Exhibit S: Exhibit T: Exhibit U: Exhibit V: Exhibit X: Exhibit Y: Exhibit Z: Exhibit AA: Exhibit AB: Exhibit AC: Exhibit AD: Exhibit AE: Exhibit AF: Exhibit AG: Exhibit AH: Exhibit Al: Exhibit AJ: Exhibit AK: -21. TIA Report (November 2013) 23. Tree Protection Report (November 13, 2013) 24. SEPA Checklist (November 13, 2013) 39. Miscellaneous Photographs of Surrounding Site 40. Professional Qualifications -Steven Neugebauer 41. Neugebauer Expert Report (November 17, 2014) 47. Pre-Hearing Statement regarding Prescriptive Easement (November 18, 2014) 48. TPW AG Correspondence with Renton School District Staff Appeal Analysis (November 18, 2014) Henley Pre-Hearing Order Request Hearing Examiner Order Requesting Reply to Pre-Hearing Order Request TPW AG Response to Pre-Hearing Order Request City Response to Pre-Hearing Order Request Henley Response to Pre-Hearing Order Request Pre-Hearing Order McMonagle Notice of Appearance Flatley Resume Lee Resume Declaration of Timmons Not Used Renton Reporter Article (Donnelly) Letter to Editor (Donnelly) 5 Photographs (Donnelly) TPW AG Memo on HEX Authority and Halverson v. Bellevue (November 28, 2014) City of Renton Response to TPW AG Memo of 11/28/14 (December 5, 2014) Henley Response to TPWAG Memo of 11/28/14 (December 5, 2014) Hearing Examiner Ruling on Examiner Authority and Halverson v. Bellevue (December 7, 2014) Title Report/Chain of Title (TPW AG) Roenicke TPW AG Summary Testimony Garlough TPW AG Summary Testimony Timeline Preliminary Plat Exhibits Exhibit l: Exhibit 2: Exhibit 3: Exhibit 4: Exhibit 5: Exhibit 6: Exhibit 7: Exhibit 8: Exhibit 9: HEX Report Preliminary Plat Plan (July 16, 2014) Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan (July 16, 2014) Tree Protection Report (June 6, 2014) Revised Wetland Determination and Response Letter (June 3, 2014) Habitat Assessment (January 16, 2014) Geotechnical Report (September 28, 2012) Drainage Report (February 24, 2014) Traffic Impact Analysis (April 23, 2014) - ATTACHMENTB The Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeals (LUAIJ-001572, ECF, PP, CAE) EXHIBITS ADMITTED DURING HEARING SEPA Appeal Exhibits Exhibit A: Exhibit B: Exhibit C: Exhibit D: Exhibit E: Exhibit F: Exhibit G: Exhibit H: Exhibit I: Exhibit J: Exhibit K: Exhibit L: Exhibit M: City of Renton Environmental Analysis (Attachments 1-18 are listed as Preliminary Plat Exhibits 1-18 below) Environmental (SEPA) Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated (Preliminary Plat Exhibit 22 below) Environmental Checklist (June 10, 2014) Comprehensive Plan (Land Use, Transportation and Community Design Elements) Acceptance and Notice of Application Affidavit Service by Mailing (November 24, 2014) Notice of Application and Off Hold Notice Affidavit Service by Mailing (July 25, 2014) Commitment for Title Insurance TPWAG Letter to Renton School District (September 10, 2014) Renton School District Letter of Denial to TPW AG (September 16, 2014) Henley Appeal Henley SEPA Appeal Exhibits I. a. HEX Staff Recommendation Report b. Pre-Application Notes c. Wetland Determination (October 30, 2013) d. Wetland Determination (February 28, 2014) 2. Letter Report from Ray Coglas 3. RSD Resolution No. 0312/13 4. SPU Letter (November 4, 2014) 5. Drainage Release 6. Site Maps and Aerial Photos 7. Airsoft Guns Documentation 8. Revised Plans, Alternate Layouts 9. COR COW Meeting (September 9, 2013) 10. Area Water Well Logs 11. Legal Analysis and Argument (November 18, 2014) 12. Soundview Consultants Letter, Racheal Villa 13. Grete Associates Report, 2008 TPW AG Appeal TWPAG SEPA Appeal Exhibits 19. TIR Report (November 12, 2013) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ._,, crrv OF Rl!NTON FEB 2 7 2015 RECEIVED crrv CLERK'S OFFICE BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON ) ) RE: The Reserve at Tiffany Park ) Preliminary Plat ) ) ) Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeals ) ) LUAIJ-001572, ECF, PP, CAE ) RULING ON RECONSIDERATION REQUESTS Summary 19 The Final Decision issued on January 8, 2015 is left largely unchanged as a result of reconsideration 20 requests filed by the SEPA Appellants and the applicant. The changes authorized by this decision 2I 22 will be implemented in a REVISED FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION, issued on the same date as this accompanying ruling. The applicant's reconsideration request was originally filed as a Request for Clarification and all of the applicant's requests were granted as they just helped clarify the intent of the Final Decision. The SEPA Appellants requested substantive changes and 23 most of those requests were denied. Since the applicant denied access to the SEPA Appellants to 24 conduct wetland studies at the project site, the SEPA Appellants were authorized to admit additional wetland evidence during the reconsideration process. However, this new evidence merely proved 25 cumulative and was not sufficient to overcome the findings made by Otak, the independent third 26 party reviewer of the applicant's wetland determinations. A condition will be added requiring PRELIMINARY PLAT - Exhibit 10: Exhibit 11: Exhibit 12: Exhibit 13: Exhibit 14: Exhibit 15: Exhibit 16: Exhibit 17: Exhibit 18: Exhibit 19: Exhibit 20: Exhibit 21: Exhibit 22: Exhibit 23: Exhibit 24: Exhibit AL: Exhibit AM: Exhibit AO: Exhibit AP: Exhibit AQ: -Public Comment Letters: 10.1-10. 70 Alternative Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan (August 29, 2014) Alternative Tree Protection Report (August 27, 2014) Independent Secondary Review -Traffic Independent Secondary Review -Wetland (April 3, 2014) Supplemental Independent Secondary Review -Wetland (July 9, 2014) Habitat Assessment Technical Memorandum (February 11, 2014) Habitat Assessment Technical Memorandum (June 12, 2014) Landscape Plan (July 16, 2014) Transportation Concurrency Approval Renton Trails and Bikeways Map Environment Review Committee (ERC) Staff report SEPA Determination and Mitigation Measures (September 22, 2014) Public Meeting Notice Notice of Application Affidavits Staff Power Point Presentation Applicant Letter of Revised Plat Conditions (December 8, 2014) Shared Driveway Jones, Photographs Henley Homes Reviews from Internet 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 I 5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 -- R-9 Order on Request for Reconsideration II dated January 29,2015. Henley Request for Reconsideration The Henley request for reconsideration was originally submitted as a request for clarification and was largely uncontested. The requests are addressed individually below using the numbering system of Ex. 2 as follows: I. P. 28, line 9 should read "10 foot wide perimeter landscaping requirement" instead of" 15 foot wide perimeter landscaping requirement". The revised MONS condition imposed by the Final Decision imposes a I 0-foot perimeter landscaping requirement and this supersedes any conflicting background language in the decision. 2. The applicant asserts that the reference to the •·10 foot wide on-site landscaping strip for all lots" in MONS Condition No. 6 is too ambiguous. This quoted language was taken from recommended Condition No. 3 of the staff report, which also combined the on-site landscaping strip with perimeter landscaping requirements and also provided no further clarification on the location of he "on-site landscaping strip". The applicant made no further effort to clarify the language when it requested revision to Condition No. 3 in its December 8, 2014 request for revised conditions, Ex. AM. Now the applicant asserts and the City has no objection to the assertion that the language is ambiguous. MONS Condition No. 6 will be clarified to note that the •·on-site landscaping strip" is the frontage landscaping required by RMC 4-4-070(F)( I). 3. Specific lot references in MONS Condition No. 6 will be removed. MONS Condition No. 6 will read as follows: The applicant shall revise its landscaping plan to provide for a 10 foot wide on-site street frontage landscape strip as required by RMC 4-4-070(F)(I) for all lots and a I 0 foot wide, site obscuring perimeter landscaping adjacent to areas where the retaining walls are four or more feet in height. Landscaping at maturity must exceed the height of the adjacent retaining wall. The final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. Such landscaping shall include a mixture of trees, shrubs, and groundcover as approved by the Department of Community and Economic Development. 4. Conclusion of Law No. 3(E) of the Final Decision shall be renumbered as Conclusion of Law No. 7.5. 5. Condition of Approval No. 3 is deleted. PRELIMINARY PLAT -3 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 compliance with stormwater regulations that pertain to roof run off. Although compliance with these requirements is already required during engineering review for final plat approval, the requirements are called out in the conditions of approval to ensure that engineering staff makes a priority of ensuring that stormwater wetland impacts are addressed as contemplated in the City's stormwater regulations. Background This ruling responds to two reconsideration requests. The SEPA Appellants requested reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's decision on the above-captioned matter by letter dated January 21, 2015. An Order on Request for Reconsideration was issued in response on January 22, 2015 directing the SEPA Appellants to limit the new evidence of their request for reconsideration to that authorized by the Renton Municipal Code. The SEPA Appellants submitted a modified request for reconsideration on January 28, 2015 within the time frame required by the January 22, 2015 order. Since the SEPA Appellant's first request for reconsideration, the applicant has also submitted a timely request for reconsideration dated January 22, 2015. The applicant's request for reconsideration replaced an earlier request for clarification. An Order on Request for Reconsideration II was issued on January 29. 2015. The final reply deadline was set for February 10, 2015. This deadline was extended to February 11, 2015 by email order dated February 4, 2015. R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 R-6 R-7 R-8 Evidence/Argument Relied Upon Administrative Record established at the close of the hearing on December 8. 2014. Henley Request for Reconsideration dated January 22. 2015. SEPA Appellant Request for Reconsideration dated January 28. 2015 in addition to pictures of wetlands taken on January 16. 2015 as included in the SEPA Appellant January 22, 2015 request for reconsideration. Henley February 4, 2015 Response to Request for Reconsideration City February 5, 2015 Response to Request for Reconsideration SEPA Appellant Reply dated February 9, 2015 Henley Reply dated February 9, 2015. Order on Request for Reconsideration dated January 22. 2015. PRELIM!NAR Y PLAT -2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 l 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2. W_etland Delineations. Wetland boundaries were accurately delineated. The new evidence presented by the SEPA appellants (January 16. 2015 photographs, Ex. 3) shows that standing water extended beyond the wetland boundaries staked by the applicant on January 16, 2015. The SEPA Appellants also provided evidence in Ex. 6 that the conditions existing when the applicant's wetland delineations were conducted were exceptionally dry. This evidence and the other arguments and evidence presented by the SEPA Appellants during the hearing in chief is not sufficient to overcome the expert opinions and delineation work performed by the applicant and the independent third party experts (Otak) that reviewed the work. The SEPA Appellants do raise valid points, but the fieldwork done by the applicant's expert was verified by the third party experts (Otak) on March 17, 2014, an exceptionally rainy month. As noted in p. 2 of Ex. 14, one of the Otak reports: Please note that the wetland delineation was performed in June 2013, whereas the rainfall amount as of March 17, 2014, was approximately 5.58 inches above the normal amount for March (National Wea/her Service): ... In the Ex. 14 report Otak further identified that during their March 17, 2014 site visit that standing water extended from a depth of several inches to 1.5 feet deep beyond delineated wetland boundaries. Despite these findings and conducting its visit in an exceptionally wet spring month, Otak still concluded that the delineations were accurate. As noted in the applicant's reconsideration response, Ex. 4. a wetland delineation is not based exclusively on the presence of water, but rather is based upon several factors including hydrology, soils and vegetation. The issues raised by the SEPA Appellants certainly puts the conclusions of the applicant's expert into question, but those concerns are put to rest by Otak's third party review. There is no reason to doubt the objectivity or competency ofOtak's review and for that reason it proves determinative on the wetland issues. 3. Buffer Averaging. The SEPA Appellants identify areas where the project encroaches into wetland buffers. The SEPA Appellants do not dispute that these encroachments were authorized as part of the applicant's buffer averaging and they do not identify how the buffer averaging plan fails to meet applicable City buffer averaging standards. Absent any evidence to the contrary, it cannot be concluded that the averaging plan found to be code compliant by third party reviewer Otak and City Staff fails to meet City standards. 4. Trees. The SEPA Appellants assert that a ten-foot wide buffer in front of retaining walls would not be sufficient to obscure the walls from view. No evidence is referenced or explanation proffered as to why the buffer would be insufficient. The final decision on this matter contained a detailed review of the evidence on the sufficiency of the buffer width and the SEPA Appellants did not identify any error in this analysis. The ten foot wide buffer is still found to be sufficient. 5. Stormwater. The SEPA appellants assert that the removal of trees wi II reduce 75% of the property's ability to process storm water and that a 24'' discharge pipe as proposed by the appellant is inadequate to handle stormwater. It is determined that the City's stormwater regulations provide for adequate stormwater mitigation. PRELIMINARY PLAT-5 2 3 SEPA Appellant Request for Reconsideration The SEPA Appellants' request for reconsideration is addressed by topic below, following the order presented by the SEPA Appellants in their request for reconsideration, Ex. 3: 4 I. Wetland New Evidence. The SEPA Appellants request admission of photographs taken 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 January 16, 2015. ln their reply, Ex. 6, the SEPA Appellants also present evidence regarding climatic conditions taken from Weatherspeak. The evidence is admitted because the SEPA Appellants were denied an opportunity to do their own wetland assessment on the subject property. The evidence presented by the SEPA Appellants would not normally be admitted due to the strict prohibition on admission of new evidence as outlined in the Examiner's January 22, 2015 Order on Reconsideration. Although of course the appellants could not have photographed the flooded conditions present on January 16, 2015 prior to the close of the hearing, the type of evidence supporting their claim (e.g. that the time of the wetland delineation was during an unusually dry period, etc.) could have been made from other sources, such as eyewitness testimony and soil samples. RMC 4-8-IOO(G)(9) does allow for the introduction of new evidence that was not reasonably available during the hearing, but this provision needs to be strictly construed to be consistent with the ··one hearing" objectives ofthc Regulatory Reform Act as discussed in the Order on Reconsideration. [f RMC 4-8-IOO(G)(9) is interpreted as authorizing a hearing participant to augment the record any time they find a new piece of corroborating evidence to support their case, the reconsideration process simply becomes a "do-over., opportunity for hearing participants to fill in gaps in their case they should have covered the first time around. New evidence should only be admitted if there was no other evidence available to the hearing party that could have equally proven their point. In this case, the SEPA Appellants weren't otherwise given a reasonable opportunity to argue that the conditions taken during the wetland delineation conducted by the applicant were unusually dry and may have lead to inaccurate results. Since delineations are largely based upon soil and vegetation samples and observations, the SEPA Appellants most effective way to prove their point would have been to do their own wetland delineation. However, the applicant denied the SEPA Appellants property access to conduct such a delineation. For this reason, the SEPA Appellants should be granted substantial flexibility in presenting evidence on the presence and location of wetlands. Through the actions of the applicant, the SEPA Appellants have been forced to rely upon secondary evidence to support their position. If this type of evidence arises for the first time during the reconsideration period, it is fair to let them use it. The Weatherspeak evidence presented in the reply was available during the hearing, but it was used as rebuttal to points raised by the applicant during reconsideration argument. Given the flexibility due the SEPA Appellants on wetland evidence, the Weatherspeak evidence is also admitted. PRELIMINARY Pl.AT -4 the close of the hearing, the SEPA appellants should have identified where in the record the suggestion was made and why the staff and applicant response were deficient. In the absence of that 2 type of information, the SEPA Appellant requests for revision cannot be considered. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 DATED this 261h day of February, 2015. City of Renton Hearing Examiner PRELIMINARY PLAT -7 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 -- The City of Renton has adopted the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual under RMC 4- 6-030(C). This manual requires that storm water runoff rates and volumes match pre-development, forested conditions. In short, the City's stormwater regulations already require stormwater systems to be designed to take into account the impact of tree removal and are also designed to assure that all stormwater facilities, including pipes, have adequate capacity to handle stormwater run-off. The applicant has prepared a preliminary set of calculations in its Technical Information Report, Ex. A, att. 8, which addresses the reduction in natural stormwater retention occasioned by the loss of trees. The SEPA appellants have not identified any deficiencies in these calculations or the regulations that require them. Condition No. 2 of the MDNS also requires a Level 2 downstream analysis, which will verify the adequacy of pipe sizes. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the City's stormwater regulations are determinative on the adequacy of stormwater mitigation. Further, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary on the applicant's compliance with those stormwater regulations, City engineering staffs finding of adequacy on the preliminary calculation is also determinative. 6. Roof Runoff. The SEPA Appellants assert that the proposed diversion of rooftop run off into wetlands violates City stormwater regulations. The Appellants also assert that roof top run off will mix with pollutants in yards and then flow into wetlands. The applicant responds that the roof top runoff is proposed to be diverted away from polluting surfaces so that no mixing will occur. The applicant also asserts that compliance with stormwater manual requirements will be achieved during final engineering review. City engineering staff have determined that the proposal's proposed stormwater system will comply with applicable stormwater regulations as conceptually proposed for preliminary plat review. The SEPA appellants have not specifically identified how any part of the proposed system would fail to comply with stormwater regulations as they apply to roof runoff and its interaction with wetlands. Under these circumstances it would be appropriate to assign remaining compliance issues to engineering stage final plat review, as contemplated in the City's subdivision review regulations. However, to remove any doubt, a condition of approval will require that (I) roof run-off that impacts wetlands will not be allowed to mix with any polluting surfaces; (2) Category 2 wetlands may not be structurally or hydrologically engineered for runoff quantity or quality control as required by KCSWDM Reference 5; and (3) City staff shall require design adjustments as authorized by KCSWDM 1.2 to the extent necessary to ensure that wetland hydrology is not adversely affected by the proposal. 5. Traffic. The SEPA Appellants assert that the conversion of SE I 8'h St. and 124'h Place SE from cul de sacs to throughways to serve the project is not sufficiently mitigated and will reduce their property values by $30,000. The reduction in property values is new evidence that cannot be considered during reconsideration since that information was reasonably available to the SEPA Appellants during the hearing in chief. The SEPA Appellants also make several suggestions for revising access routes to the project site. It is too late to consider these types of suggestions after the close of the hearing. Any change to access would require a re-evaluation of traffic impacts, which could take substantial investigation and study by both the applicant and staff. Since the record is closed, the opportunity for that type of analysis is gone. If any of the suggestions were made prior to PRELIMINARY PLAT-6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 applicant is given the opportunity to limit its response to evidence in the record and reserve the right to respond to newly presented evidence if any such evidence is admitted. If the applicant chooses this course of action, the examiner will rule on the admissibility of evidence after the submission deadlines outlined below and then provide an additional opportunity for response to new evidence by the applicant and final reply by the SEPA appellants before ruling on the reconsideration requests. In the alternative, the applicant may "cover all bases" and argue against the admission of new evidence while also presenting new evidence to the extent necessary to respond to any new evidence from the SEPA appellants that is admitted into the record. ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION I. Persons who testified at the hearing on the above-captioned matter and City staff shall have until 5:00 pm, February 4, 2015 to provide written comments in response to the Request for Reconsideration submitted by the SEPA Appellants on January 28, 2015 and the Request for Reconsideration submitted by the applicant on January 22 2015. Only persons who participated in the SEPA appeal may comment on the SEPA appeal issues. All comments are limited to the issues raised in the requests for reconsideration. 2. The SEPA Appellants and the applicant shall have until February 9, 2015 at 5:00 pm to provide a written reply to the responses to their own reconsideration requests. 3. All written comments, responses and replies authorized above must be emailed to the Examiner at <1ll,r,'chhLl11 <c ~mail.u,m; Rocale Timmons at RTi1nnH1n,0 Rcnl,,!J_\\M'--'--'-; Renate Beedon at rcntPn-npp1J:-;i1csQ1 l'Pm1.:a-..t.nct~ Nancy Rogers at. ~R,_)~ch@CairnL'fl"'"'"·u.Hn and Cynthia Moya at CMoya@Rentonwa.gov. In the alternative written comments may be mailed or delivered to Rocale Timmons, City of Renton Senior Planner, at 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Mailed or delivered comments must be received by the City by the deadlines specified in this Order. DATED this 29th day of January, 2015. City of Renton Hearing Examiner PRELIMINARY PLAT-2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CITY OF RENTON ~ . J 'S° ii W'I =:I . 11 JAN 2 9 2015 RECENED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTOJ'li ) ) RE: The Reserve at Tiffany Park ) Preliminary Plat ) ) ) Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeals ) ) LUAI3-001572, ECF, PP, CAE ) ORDER ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION II The SEPA Appellants requested reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's decision on the above- captioned matter by letter dated January 21, 2015. An Order on Request for Reconsideration was issued in response on January 22, 2015 directing the SEPA Appellants to limit the new evidence of their request for reconsideration to that authorized by the Renton Municipal Code. The SEPA Appellants have submitted a modified request for reconsideration on January 28, 2015 within the time-frame required by the January 22, 2015 Order. Since the SEPA Appellant's first request for reconsideration, the applicant has also submitted a timely request for reconsideration dated January 22, 2015. The reconsideration requests from both the SEPA Appellants and the applicant will be distributed to the parties of record of this proceeding for response and reply. It is recognized that once again the SEPA appellants are attempting to introduce new evidence in the record and that applicable legal standards only allow new evidence under very limited circumstances. This places the applicant in the difficult position of arguing against the admission of new evidence while at the same time having to respond to the new evidence in case the evidence is admitted. The PRELIMINARY PLAT· 1 Wetland Determination, Measuring and Staking Newly Discovered Evidence Pursuant to the Hearing Examiner's Order on Request for Reconsideration dated January 22, 2015 TPWAG removed all photographs of the wetlands taken on January 16, 2015. These photographs were simply provided to show that the wetland boundary markers and wetland buffer markers are standing in bodies of water. Photographs of this condition were not readily available at the time of the hearings because the wetland studies were performed after a 3 month draught (2013) or after unusual we seasons (2014) ofthe year. The photographs that have been removed show typical conditions in January and bring into question the delineation of the limits of the wetlands and suggests the boundary of Wetland Band possibly wetland C were not correctly delineated. RMC 4-8-100(G)(9) provides that "any interested person feeling that the decision of the Hearing Examiner is based on "erroneous procedures, errors of law or fact, error in judgment or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing" may make a Request for Reconsideration. Thus the Renton Municipal Code allows the Hearing Examiner to consider this limited discovery of new evidence. TPWAG believes that the wetland photographs removed from this Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration fall into this category of evidence and should be considered by the Hearing Examiner. TPWAG requests that they be allowed to resubmit these photographs as newly discovered evidence. Problems • One of our concerns is the wetlands and the way they have been determined, measured and staked. As you can see from our comments below, we believe that the wetland depiction alone has been done incorrectly and therefore question the way other studies pertaining to this development have been conducted. An EIS would clearly provide the city and all interested parties with information that is correct and fully evaluate the significant adverse impacts on the environment. The originol study by OTAK pointed out many discrepancies in the original study submitted by Schulz. The OTAK study claimed that the wetlands are actually larger than described in the original study submitted by Schulz. After the Applicant received the OTAK study, a meeting was held between the City of Renton, Schulz and OTAK. At that on-site meeting the Applicant apparently convinced the OTAK consultants that the original study by Schulz was correct and the OTAK study was not. If you look at and compare both reports, you can see significant changes between the two versions of OTAK studies. TPWAG requested minutes for this meeting from the City of Renton and was told that there were no minutes because this was a "field trip" and that the two revised wetland reports from Schulz and OTAK were record enough. Apparently, there is no written record of what was said and decided by whom during this off-site meeting in the woods. One thing the participants of the "field trip" did agree on is the addition of wetland D. TPWAG Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration Page 2 of 8 To: City of Renton Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts mailto:olbrechtslaw@gmail.com City of Renton 1055 Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 From: Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group mailto:renton-opposites(cucomcast.net 1725 Pierce Avenue SE Renton, WA 98058 Subject: Reserve at Tiffany Park PP -Hearing Examiner Decision (LUAB-001572) Revised and Amended Request for Reconsideration Dear Mr. Olbrechts: Date: Wed, Jan 28, 2015 CITY OF RENTON ,v\ '.~/ JAN 2 8 2015 ()1../"",- RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE This letter constitutes Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group's Revised and Amended Request for Reconsideration pursuant to RMC 4-8-100(G)(9) and RMC 4-8-110(E)(13), which provide for reconsideration of a hearing examiner's decision if a party of record believes the decision is based on "an erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing." TPWAG has elected to pursue this Request for Reconsideration Pro Se and hereby designates Renate Beedon as the designated representative. References • Letter entitled, "RE: The Reserve at Tiffany Park -Preliminary Plat-Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeals - LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAE -Final Decision", from Phil Olbrechts -City of Renton Hearing Examiner, dated Jan 8, 2015. Scope • The Hearing Examiner's decision provides inadequate mitigation for the impacts on the environment and on the surrounding community of Applicant's proposed development to support a DNS-M determination under SEPA. • The City of Renton has authority to ask for mitigation under SEPA, and TPWAG asks the City of Renton (via the Hearing Examiner) to exercise that authority in the areas discussed in this letter. • An environmental impact statement is justified and must be prepared whenever significant adverse impacts on the environment are probable, not just when they are inevitable. If an environmental statement is required by the weight of the evidence and if the responsible city authority does not require an environmental impact statement then the decision is clearly erroneous. • The Hearing Examiner is entitled to consider newly discovered evidence not reasonably available at the prior hearing. TPWAG Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration Page 1 of 8 • The maps provided by t , · ,plicant show that plats and streets a!· ·dy encroach onto wetland boundaries acknowledgeci ~ythe Applicant. If we, TPWAG, are co,, _ct in our assumption that the wetlands have been marked incorrectly and that all the wetlands are bigger than depicted by the Applicant, than the proposed lots and street will greatly violate the wetland buffers and therefore the wetland code/regulations, etc. • We believe that this aspect alone should call for an EIS, since it is possible that more errors or oversights like with the wetlands have been made throughout the whole proposed development. • We hope that at least the wetland delineation will be revisited and re-staked and then reviewed again • (A visit to the City of Renton Clerk's office on Monday, January 26, 2015 by TPWAG revealed that several sets of original drawings were incomplete, thus we were unable to study these drawings in conjunction with our request for reconsideration. The city planner, Ms. Timmons, told TPWAG that the drawing dated August 2014, is "old". This "old" drawing showed the presence of a storm water retention pond rather than a vault as presented during the Hearing Examiner's meetings in 2014. After Ms. Timmons left, we looked for newer drawings but could not find any. The City Clerk staff told us that they were not in possession of newer drawings.) Relief Requested • Discount the one-sided testimony of Applicant's wetlands expert (because the property owner refuses to allow TPWAG to bring an independent expert on the property) • Require the property owner to allow TPWAG to bring a wetlands expert on site, allow adequate time to find an expert who is willing to work with private citizens, allow adequate time for the expert to prepare a report, and then hold a meeting to examine the results. TPWAG requests that it be invited should such a meeting take place. • Direct the Applicant and City Staff to make a complete set of original drawings available for review by the public as soon as possible to support this process. • Require an EIS to resolve the unanswered probable significant environmental impacts as raised by Steve Neugebauer in his testimony before the Hearing Examiner, and as are raised in this letter. Trees Problems • A 10 foot buffer around the property is inadequate, not only because of esthetic value but also because it does not provide sufficient protection from the high winds that occur regularly in our area. • During the Hearing Examiner's meetings on Nov 18, 2014 and Dec 8, 2014, we witnessed public testimony from Claudia Donnelly and Jill Jones showing how the developer had apparently removed all trees from another development, even though the City of Renton requires them to retain trees. Relief Requested • Require a buffer of at least 20 feet around the property • Therefore, we request that the City of Renton ensure that the developer doesn't intentionally or carelessly damage the few trees that are required to be retained under city ordinance, and then use that as legal loophole to circumvent city ordinance and remove the "damaged" trees. • Consider assigning a person on site during construction hours to monitor activities to ensure code compliance. • Consider steep fines for careless or intentional damage to trees. TPWAG Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration Page 4 of 8 OTAK Secondary Review Memo -4-3-1• • We are providing you with a Tree Cutting/Land Clearing Plan, which shows how the proposed lots (in particular lots 70, 79 and 80) appear to encroach onto the wetlands B and C. • Also encroaching onto wetland C is a street. On the "Preliminary Cover Sheet for Tiffany Park" chart it looks like the street is cutting right into the wetland. ~ 1 f ·--I ! I ~ I L f ~I r-, I ·' I iii if' hi I EXHIBtr 11 • These encroachments appear on the Tree Cutting/Land Clearing Plan dated in 2014. (Date is too small to read). TPWAG Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration Page 3 of 8 the hearing examiner. Reference Section 5. Therefore t, I -ection is merely summarizing applica\'' -law and should be considered by Relief Requested Applicant should comply with the Wetland Hydrology Protection Guidelines Traffic Problems • Applicant's expert has testified that the level of service on the roads surrounding the proposed development will be acceptable per the applicable city and state laws. However, that analysis did not address the impact of converting SE 18th Street and 124th Place SE from quiet cul-de-sacs into arterials for the traffic from almost 100 new homes (over 1,000 vehicles per day -mostly on SE 18th Street -by Applicant's own estimates). • Realtors know that the difference in value between a house on a busy street and a house on a cul-de- sac is significant. • We have researched home prices on quiet and cul-de-sac streets vs. busy streets. Those findings showed that the 16 homeowners on SE 18 Street can probably each expect a $30,000 loss in property value as a result of the increased traffic on this street should the development go forward. The city has noted to that they take no responsibility for any loss sustained. More ingress and egress points to the development would certainly help to disperse the traffic. (Roenicke Testimony.) • Applicant also seems to be well aware of this fact. The planned development contains not one, but two cul-de-sacs (instead of building adequate roads to carry traffic in and out)! • We respect Applicant's right to develop their property, but we expect the applicant to respect the property rights of the surrounding community. We believe that Applicant is maximizing its profit by unfairly externalizing its costs to the neighboring property owners. Relief Requested • We ask the City of Renton to intervene to ensure equal protection under the law. • Consider substantially reducing the number of allowable houses in the proposed development. • Consider requiring at least one more access road to the proposed development {even if Applicant has to buy existing houses to create such access). • Consider removing speed bumps that are blocking arterial streets to the South {especially 126th Avenue SE, SE 164th Street, and SE 160th Street). This will provide less incentive for drivers from the proposed development to avoid the back entrance (i.e., 124th Place SE) and for drivers coming from Fairwood to use Pierce Ave SE and SE 16th Street. • Consider street modifications to encourage traffic to use Royal Hills Drive SE instead of SE 16th Street. Royal Hills Drive SE is currently a bus snow route. It is a wide road, it has a gentle incline, it has good sight distance, and it is sanded when icy, so it is much better suited for the heavy volume of traffic than is SE 16th Street. 1. Re-open the north end of Beacon Way SE to Puget Drive SE. 2. Close the intersection at SE 16th Street and Edmonds Avenue SE. Local traffic will be able to use the newly opened Beacon Way SE, and traffic from Edmonds Way SE will no longer have to fight arterial traffic on SE 161 " Street to leave their neighborhood. TPWAG Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration Page 6 of 8 • If trees are damaged ani 1 -t be removed, require Applicant to r1 ~e the damaged trees with equivalent *mature* trees, _.id prohibit them from using any of the uriginal canopy from the removed tree for any purpose other than to allow the new tree to grow. Storm Water Problems • Per Steve Neugebauer's testimony, removing trees will remove 75% of the property's ability to process storm water. • 24" pipe (as proposed by Applicant) is barely good enough for a 10-year storm. 100-year storms are common. We may have a few 100-year storms in any calendar year. Thus, it is likely that the neighboring properties will be flooded regularly as a result of the proposed development. Relief Requested • Consider requiring a larger storm water drainpipe along SE 18th Street. • Consider requiring "pervious" pavement (that allows water to pass through it) on all streets, sidewalks and driveways, so that the storm water can be naturally mitigated on site. • Consider requiring retention of at least 6" of topsoil on all exposed surfaces (e.g., lawns) to minimize the need for watering, and so that the storm water can be naturally mitigated on site. • TPWAG requests that storm water management studies, calculations be completed in compliance with the City of Renton Storm Water Management Requirements, as further defined by the adopted King County Surface Water Design Manual; sections which specifically address this issue are titled: Core Requirements #2 Off site Analysis, and Core Requirements #4 Conveyance Systems. The City of Renton has some added amendments for special community situations. Roof Runoff Problems • Although roof runoff by itself may not be a pollutant, when it is mixed with chemicals and pesticides used in the yard it becomes a pollutant. • Although roof runoff may not be a target pollution-generating surface, roof runoff is still subject to flow control per Core Requirement #3 which mandates that the City may require design adjustments per the wetland hydrology protection guidelines in Reference 5. • KCSWDM Reference 5, Wetland Hydrology Protection Guidelines, mandates that a wetland may not be structurally or hydrologically engineered for runoff quantity or quality control in Category 2 wetlands. (We have attached the Wetland Hydrology Protection Guidelines.) Applicable Laws The Hearing Examiner's Order on Request for Reconsideration provides that "applicable laws are not considered new evidence." The Wetland Hydrology Protection Guidelines are part of the King County Surface Water Design Manual. Section 6.2 of the KCSWDM provides "roof runoff is subject to flow control per Core Requirement #3. Section 1.2 of the KCSWDM provides that where there is potential impact to wetland hydrology, "ODES may require design adjustments per the wetland hydrology reference guidelines in TPWAG Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration Page 5 of 8 ' """"-....... -,. st 'l80th 5t . -··c.-r . .,,.. -.;,::::-. ' ' •• \~ I Jct + = I S( MWSt j I ---• I S::,,,r_.;: b. ,Ylt.: ,; \ f " Figure 1 -Area Map .... ,_, __ ' I """"" Severe . _ imp?ct II ' I TPWAG Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration ' ! = I t SE 161st Sc Sl'Nlrd St Sp~,:d b:_;rr:~~ Page 8 of 8 '°"'"'"' ..... II 4-~ .. .; ~ ' :. ', C«fcr Rivef t SE(t-1, .,. 5( ( Environmental Impact Statement Problems • An environmental impact statement is justified and must be prepared whenever significant adverse impacts on the environment are probable, not just when they are inevitable. If an environmental statement is required by the weight of the evidence and if the responsible city authority does not require an environmental impact statement then the decision is clearly erroneous. • The problems raised in this request for reconsideration, together with the issues raised at the appeal hearing, coupled with Applicant's refusal to provide full documentation of environmental conditions at the site and the full extent of structural retaining walls at the site, and the piecemeal manner in which the City of Renton and the Applicant addressed problematic issues for the wetlands, detention vault, drainage and retaining walls, weigh in favor of requiring preparation of an environmental impact statement. Relief Requested • The City of Renton should require an environmental impact statement for the project. Respectfully submitted by Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group with the hope that you reconsider our issues. Thank you. RENATE BEEDON President cc: Rocale Timmons mailto:RTimmons@Rentonwa.gov Nancy Rogers mailto:NRog2rs,niCairncross.com TPWAG Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration Page 7 of 8 Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner, City of Renton Rmrve al Tiffany Park !Vet/and Review Page 2 April 3, 2014 Two Otak wetland biologists visited the site on March 17, 2014, to confirm whether the wetland delineation was consistent with the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology 1997), as required by the R!IIC. An Otak biologist made an additional site visit on March 31, 2014. Please note that the wetland delineation was performed in June 2013, whereas the rainfall amount as of March 17, 2014, was approximately 5.58 inches above the normal amount for ]\larch (National Weather Service); and on 1"Iarch 31, 2014 was 5.85 inches above normal for March. Comment 1 -Delineation Method The wetland determination report cites the US Army Corps of Engineers wetland delineation manuals (1987 and 2010 supplement) for the methodology used. However, the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Mam1a! (Ecology 1997) is required by R!IIC 4-3-050.M.4.a. Recommendation: The applicant should ensure that the wetland delineation is consistent with the methodology required by the RMC. Comment 2 -Survey Map We have not seen a surver map showing all of the wetland flags, which is necessary for confirming the wetland delineation. As discussed below, some wetland flags were not found in the field; however, if we ha<·e a detailed map and some of the flags remain, all of those missing flags may not need to be replaced. Recommendation: "lbe applicant should submit a map showing all of the sun·eyed wetland flags (from June 2013 and any upcoming re,·isions). In addition, missing wetland flags should be replaced as deemed necessary for Otak's confirmation of the wetland edges. Comment 3 -Wetland A We agree with portions of Wetland A's delineated edges. However, we could not find some of the flags (including Wetland A-I) in the southern part of the wetland. It appears that the wetland areas extend farther out than the delineated edge, specifically near Flags A-1, A-3, A-5, and A-6. In these areas, we obsen-ed hydrophytic vegetation (if any plants at all), hydric soils, and wetland hydrology (mainly inundation). On March 17, 2014, in some areas that appeared to be outside of the delineated (flagged) wetland, inundation was over 1 foot deep during our site ,·isit (see Photograph 1). We agree that Wetland A meets the criteria outlined in the RMC for a Category 2 wetland, which is required to have a SO-foot buffer. Reco=endation: Wetland,\ should be reexamined and any differing edges re-flagged during the early growing season (before mid-May). Any changes to the wetland should be included in the revised Wetland Detettnination Report and project plans. K:\prnicct\32300\]2]85.\ \Repum\Critid -\rcas Re\·iew Memo_21ll4_04l.)3.doc Technical Memorandum 10230 .\E Points Dn'/Jc Suite 400 Kirkland, U":A. 980}} Phone (,2;) 822-4-1-16 Fax (4H) 827-9;77 To: From: Copies: Date: Subject: Project No.: Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner City of Renton -Current Planning Darcey Miller, Senior Wetland Scientist (425) 739-7977 April 3, 2014 Reserve at Tiffany Park Wetland Delineation Review 32385.A This re,-iew pertains to the Preliminary Plat application for the RcserYe at Tiffany Park (City of Renton LUA13-001572) submitted by the applicant, Nonstar De,-elopment, Inc., to the City of Renton (City). The proposed ReserYe at Tiffany Park is located generally to the east of Tiffany Park, to the north of SE ! 58'h Street, anJ south and west of Pierce A nnue SE. Otak has been asked by the City of Renton (the City) to re,-iew the submitted critical areas document and to prO\-ide comments regarding its applicability to the Renton Municipal Code (Rll!C), specifically, Section 4-3- 050, Critical Areas Regulations. The folknving documents were reviewed in terms of compliance \Vith the critical areas sections of the City code: • Wetland Detenninalion: Rmroe al Tijfatl)' Park, prepared by C. Gary Schulz, dated February 28, 2014; • Plan set for the Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat, prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., signed February 27, 2014. • Technical Information Report, prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated ;\'oHmbcr 12, 2013, and re,-ised February 24, 2014. 1be Wetland Determination identifies three Category 2 wetlands and one Category 3 wetland on the site, which are required to han SO-foot and 25-foot buffets, respecti,·e!y. The report indicates that wetland buffet "'-eraging is proposed for the project site, and outlines the rationale for meeting the requirements fat buffer aYeraging described in the R/\!C. J..:::\pro1~cr\3231l0\3238S.\ \Rc.11orts\l.nud _\re;i~ Re,·iew '.'.km(J_21114_()4f)3 Jnc Roca/e Timmons, Senior Planner, City of Renton Rmrve at Tiffany Park Wetland Review Comment 7 -Offsite Wetlands (NE side Mercer Island Pipeline ROW) Page4 April 3, 2014 Several offsite wetlands were observed on the northeast side of the Mercer Island Pipeline Right-of- way (northeast of the gra,·el access road). These wetlands appear to be Category 3 wetlands; if so, they are likely far enough away so that their 25-foot buffers do not extend onto the project site. Recommendation: The applicant should confirm that buffers from these offsite wetlands do not extend onto the property. Comment 8 -Wetland in Southwest Comer of Site A wetland was observed in the southwest comer of the site, to the north of SE 18'• Street and southeast of the adjacent development's fence. The area was dominated by saltnonberry, Himalayan blackberry, and reed canarygrass. On March 17, 2014, hydric soils and up to 4 inches of inundation were observed, and water was draining from the wetland onto the sidewalk along the north side of SE 18'h Street. Recommendation: The wetland (if it is determined to be one) should be delineated, classified, and added to the revised Wetland Determination Report and project plans. Comment 9 -Flowpath from Wetland B During our March 17, 2014 site visit, water was obsernd flowing generally west out of\Vetland B to the southwest corner of the project site (see Photographs 3, 4, and 5), then offsite into the Cedar River Pipeline Right-of-way. The wetted width of the flowpath onsite on March 17'h was approximately 3 to 6 feet, and the water depth was 1 to 3 inches. \' egetation on the edges of the stream generally consists of upland species such as Indian plum. A defined stream channel with bed and banks was not observed. Sorted gra,·els were obserYed in several small portions of the flowpath; however, these gravels were generally angular and therefore h3\·e not been subject to flow strong enough to round their edges. During our March 31, 2014 site visit, no water was obsen·ed along the flowpath that had been observed on March 17'h. Standing water was present at Wetland B (beyond the flagged wetland edge), but no flowing surface water was observed exiting the wetland. No streams are mapped on or adjacent to the site. The closest stream is Ginger Creek, approximately 800 feet offsite to the west. Ginger Creek is a Class 4 tributary to the Cedar Ri,·er, per RMC Figure 4-3-050-Q4 (Streams and Lakes). Given the above information, it is our opinion that water flows through this area only during/ after high rainfall events, drains quickly, and that the area does not meet the definition of a stream. Recommendation: No action is necessary. K: \pcuj..:ct\323110\J23R5. \ \Rep om \Critical .\t~as Rcqe-,v :O,kmo _20 l-l_l}41)3_doc Rocale Timmons., Senior Planner., City of Renton Rmroe al Tiffan} Park Wetland Rwiew Comment 4-Wetlands 8 and C Page 3 Apn"/ 3, 2014 During our site visits, standing water extended generally 10 to 70 feet farther than the delineated edges of\\letlands Band C. In addition, Wetlands Band Care not separated by upland area; they appear to be part of the satne wetland. On l\larch 17, 2014, inundation ranged from senral inches to 1.5 feet deep in areas that tnay be outside of the delineated wetland edge. Hydrophytic ,·egetation (mainly salmon berry and red alder) and hydric soils were also observed in the majority of these areas. \'\'e agree that Wetland C meers the criteria outlined in the R.'\[C for a Category 2 wetland, which is required to have a SO-foot buffer; howeHr, because \\letlands Band C are connected (one wetland), the area flagged as Wetland B would also be considered a Category 2. Recommendation: Wetlands Band C should be reexamined and any differing edges re-flagged during the early growing season (before mid-1\lay). Confirm the rating and buffer size for Wetland B. Any changes to the wetlands should be included in the re,·ised \'<;'etland Determination Report and project plans. Comment 5 -Wetland D We agree with the majority of the wetland flag locations on Wetland D, although the wetland appears to extend approximately 25 feet to the south of Flags D-3 and D-4. W'e agree that \X'etland D meets the criteria outlined in the R.'\JC for a Category 2 wetland. Recommendation: The wetland should be reexamined and any differing edges re-flagged during the early growing season (before mid-1\lar)-,\ny changes to the wetland should be included in the reYised \'17etland Determination Report and project plans. Comment 6 -Offsite Wetland (SW side Mercer Island Pipeline ROW) An offsite wetland ad1acent to the Resern at Tiffany Park site was obserred on the southwest side of the l\lercer Island Pipeline Right-of-way (see Photograph 2). lbe northwest end of the wetland is southwest of (in line with) lS'h Court SE. This linear wetland is approximately 150 to 200 feet long and contains hvdrophytic Yegetation (creeping buttercup, reed canarygrass, and other grasses) and hydric soils. Wetland hydrology observed on :\larch 17, 2014, ranged from saturation at the surface to saturation at 4 inches below the surface. This wetland likely meets the critena in the Ri\JC for a Category 3 wetland, which is required to h"'·e a 25-foot buffer. Recommendation: If permission is granted from the offsite lando\\·ner, the wetland should be delineated, classified, and added to the re,·ised Wetland Determination Report and plans. If permission for delineation is not receiYed, the wetland location should be estimated and shown on the plans, along "~th the buffer. 1-.:: \rr11j~ct\3:!300\323fG.\ \Rq,(Jm\Cnucal .\n:a::; Rcrn:w ;\krno_2fl 14_0-lil.l.doc Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner, City of Renton Rmroe al Tiffany Park Wetland Review PHOTOGRAPHS Photograph 1: Wetland A, near southern delineated edge (3/17 /14) Page 6 April 3, 2014 Photograph 2. Offsite wetland on Mercer Island Pipeline ROW, facing SE (3/17 /14) K:\pro1ect\3231J0\32385.\. \Reports\ Critic a! .-\:re:u; Renew ~kmo_201-l-_0403.doc Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner, City of Renton Rmm al Tif!a"J' Park IVetlancl Review Comment 10-Offsite Wetland (Cedar River Pipeline ROW) Page 5 Apni 3, 2014 Tbe flowpath described in Comment 9 drains into the Cedar River Pipeline RO\\', to the southwest of the southwest corner of the Tiffany Park site. Inundation was observed in the area, as well as FAC or wetter ngetation and potentially hydric soils; therefore, the area appears to be a wetland (see Photograph 6). Recommendation: The wetland (if it is determined to be one) should be delineated, classified, and added to the re,-ised Wetland Determination Report and plans. Comment 11-Buffer Averaging "!be buffer a,·eraging proposal in the Wetland Determination Report has demonstrated that it meets all of the requirements in RMC 4-3-050.M.6.f. Howe,·er, re,·isions to wetland edges will likely change this proposal. Recommendation: The applicant should re,·ise the buffer averaging proposal to be consistent with the any necessary revisions to the wetland edges and wetland buffers onsitc. Comment 12 -Temporary Buffer Impacts Sheets 6 and 7 of the plan set (Preliminary Grading Plan) show disturbed areas in wetland buffers that will result from grading and wall installation. Tbese temporary buffer impacts are not discussed m the \'('etland Determination Report, nor are they shown on Figure 2 in the report. Recommendation: The applicant should re,·isc the wetland documentation to discuss all temporary impacts to wetland buffers, including impacts to specific functions and how restoration will replace those functions. A restoration planting plan for the disturbed areas should be prmided as part of 60% design. Encl. Photographs Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner, City of Renton Reserve al Tiffany Park fFetland Review Photograph 5. Water flowing west out of Wetland B (3/17 /14) Pages Apnl 3, 2014 Photograph 6. Offsite wetland on Cedar River Pipeline ROW, facing SW (3/31 /14) K:\pro1cct\3231))\32.)85.\ \Reports \Critical _\teas Rc:,·iew 1',.kmn_2014_04f13.doc Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner, City of Renton Reseroe at Tiffan_;' Park Wetland Review Photograph 3. Flowpath, partially in walking trail (3 / 1 7 / 14) Photograph 4. Flowpath, partially in walking trail (3/31/14) K·\prn1cct\32Jllll\J2J85.\ \Ri:ports\Critic.L .\rcas ReYit'\\-Memo_20\·U.l4il3.drx Page 7 Apni 3, 2014 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 requirement is to provide for a more efficient permitting system by preventing decision makers from holding one new hearing after another ad infinitum as new factual issues occur and also to prevent public confusion about when to participate in an on-going series of public hearings. See RCW 36.70B.010. Allowing new evidence after the close ofa hearing essentially creates a second hearing. Renton's land use ordinances must be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with the one hearing rule of the Regulatory Reform Act. The hearing on this matter was closed on December 19, 2014, the last date that evidence was authorized for the hearing of this application. No new evidence is allowed after December 19, 2014, except as authorized by the Regulatory Reform Act or the Renton Municipal Code. Given that the SEPA Appellants may not have been aware of the restriction on new evidence, they will be given an opportunity to reformulate their reconsideration request so that it is properly limited to evidence that has been admitted into the record of this proceeding. ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION 11 I. The SEPA Appellants have until 5:00 pm, January 28, 2015 to re-submit their Request for Reconsideration so that it does not contain any new evidence. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Persons who testified at the heari~g on the above-captioned matter and City staff shall have until 5:00 pm, February 4, 2015 to provide written comments in response to the Request for Reconsideration submitted by the SEPA Appellants in response to the January 28, 2015 deadline. Only persons who participated in the SEPA appeal may comment on the SEPA appeal issues. All comments are limited to the issues raised in the Request for Reconsideration subject to the January 28, 2015 deadline. The SEPA Appellants shall have until February 9, 2015 at 5:00 pm to provide a written reply to the responses authorized in the preceding paragraph. 19 4. All written comments, responses and replies authorized above must be emailed to the Examiner at ,,Il,rcclltsLl\\ ,i ,•mail.com; Rocale Timmons at R riirnnun, a Rc'ntlrn\\ct.~,n; Renate Beedoo at 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 rcntn11-n1--ipo.sik~.".-> ii (LHncast.nct; Nancy Rogers at. \: Ru!:2~·r:-ti Cairm •. 'ro~:,;i.t:urn and Cynthia Moya at CMoya@Rentonwa.gov. In the alternative written comments may be mailed or delivered to Rocale Timmons, City of Renton Senior Planner, at 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Mailed or delivered comments must be received by the City by the deadlines specified in this Order. 5. No new evidence may be presented in the replies or responses. All information presented must be drawn from documents and testimony admitted into the public hearing of this proceeding. Applicable laws, court opinions and hearing examiner decisions are not considered new evidence and may be submitted if relevant to a response or reply to the Applicant's request for reconsideration. PRELIMINARY PLAT -2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON ) ) RE: The Reserve at Tiffany Park ) Preliminary Plat ) ) ) Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeals ) ) LUAB-001572, ECF, PP, CAE ) ORDER ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION The SEPA Appellants have requested reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's decision on the above-captioned matter by letter dated January 21, 2015. Since the reconsideration request affect parties of record and the interests of the City, the parties of record who testified at the hearing and City staff will be given an opportunity to respond to the request for reconsideration before a decision on the reconsideration request is issued. Any responses must be based upon evidence that is already in the record. No evidence that has not been recorded at the hearing or entered as an exhibit at the hearing will be considered in the reconsideration request. The SEP A Appellants do not appear to be aware that once a land use hearing is closed, no new evidence may be considered except under very limited circumstances. Their reconsideration request appears to include photographs and reports that were not admitted into the administrative record of this appeal. The restriction on new evidence arises from the Regulatory Reform Act requirement that there be no more than one public hearing on a land use permit application. RCW 36.70B.050(2) provides that city and county land use permit review procedures only authorize one open record hearing per project permit application or consolidated project permit application. The purpose of this PRELIMINARY PLAT -I CITY OF RENTON fl {)I January 22, 2015 VIA EMAIL Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts City of Renton 1055 Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Re: The Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat City File No. LUAI3-001572 -Request for Reconsideration Dear Examiner Olbrechts: JAN 2 2 20111.i/2 RECEIVED r cH~FFICE This firm represents Henley USA, LLC ("Henley"), the contract purchaser for the property and applicant for the above-referenced preliminary plat. Henley submits this written request pursuant to RMC 4-8-JOO(G)(9) and RMC 4-8-l lO(E)(l3), which provide for reconsideration ofa Hearing Examiner's Decision ifa party of record believes the Decision is based on "an erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, errors in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing." We originally sought review of these issues as a request for review of technical errors under RMC 4-8-1 OO(G)(7). We are filing this request for reconsideration to ensure that these issues are reviewed as we have not yet received a ruling on our earlier request; however, we believe they should be more appropriately considered in our previously filed request for clarification and correction of technical errors. I. There may be errors of fact or law on p. 28, line 9. Here, there is a typographical error referencing a "15 foot wide perimeter landscaping requirement." That should be revised to reference a "l O foot wide perimeter landscaping requirement." 2. There may be errors of fact or law on p. 40, lines 7 -I 0. Here, the first portion of Examiner's Condition l .b, which revises MONS Condition 6, reads: "The applicant shall revise its landscaping plan to provide for a IO foot wide on-site landscape strip for all lots." As revised, this Condition also goes on to address the IO foot perimeter landscaping for certain lots with retaining walls facing neighboring property owners, that resulted from the SEPA Appeal. The linkage of those two issues raises a possibility for misinterpretation. We ask the Examiner to separate the issues or otherwise clarify that there is a difference between the l O foot front yard landscaping issue called for by code, and the IO foot buffer for retaining walls along the edge of the property that resulted from the SEPA Appeal. nrogers@ca1rncrors.com direct: (206) 254-44!7 {02743372DOCX;2 } 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 6. In order to prevent confusion, the City Clerk's Office is directed to not distribute this Order to the parties of record until the SEPA Appellants have submitted a revised Request for Reconsideration pursuant to the terms of this Order. When that revised Request is submitted, the City Clerk's Office should distribute the revised Request for Reconsideration along with this Order to the parties of record. The January 21, 2015 Request for Reconsideration should not be distributed to the parties of record at any time (unless of course someone makes a specific request for a copy). DATED this 22nd day of January, 2015. City of Renton Hearing Examiner PRELIMINARY PLAT -3 Hearing Examiner Phil OlbrJ, ., January 22, 2015 Page 3 4. There may be errors of fact or law on pp. 28 -29, discussion of Retaining Wall Height. The retaining wall height issue was raised as part of the preliminary plat proceeding, not the SEPA Appeals. Accordingly, it should fall under the preliminary plat discussion that begins on p. 30 of the Examiner's Decision. 5. There may be errors of fact or law on p. 40, Examiner's Condition 3. Condition 3 should be deleted because it was replaced and superseded by Condition 4. Thank you for your time and attention to this request. Nancy Bainbridge Rogers NBR/kgb cc: Rocale Timmons (02743372.00CX:2) Hearing Examiner Phil OlbrJ, .3 January 22, 2015 Page 2 The record reflects that these are two separate issues. Specifically, the City Staff Report to the Examiner (Exhibit K.1.a), at p. l 3, described how I 0-feet of street frontage landscaping was required by RMC 4-4-070(F)(l ), which provides: "Ten feet (IO') of on-site landscaping is required along all public street frontages, with the exception of areas for required walkways and driveways and those zones with building setbacks less than ten feet (IO'). In those cases, ten feet (IO') of landscaping shall be required where buildings are not located." The Staff Report continued by noting that the code-required I 0-foot front yard landscape strip was not shown on the landscape plan in the record. The Staff Report also then described the ERC determination to impose a 15 foot perimeter buffer, and then stated that City Staff was recommending a condition that would require submittal of a new landscape plan to depict two things: (!) "a IO-foot wide on-site landscape strip for all lots," and (2) a "15-foot wide vegetated buffer surround the subject site ... " We ask that the two issues be plainly separated in the plat conditions. 3. There may be errors of fact or law on p. 26, lines 4-5, that is also repeated on p. 40, line 11, which text lists Lots 40, 41, 46, 47, 80, 82, 83-90, 93, and 94. Here, the Examiner's Decision text, and Examiner's Condition l .b, which revises MONS Condition 6, calls for a IO foot wide area of perimeter landscaping where retaining walls are greater than 4 feet in height above the ground surface, so as to buffer the visual impact of those walls on the existing neighborhood. To reflect the evidence in the record, we request that the list of specified lots either be revised or eliminated. As noted on Exhibit K.6.a, and in the testimony of Barry Talkington, Lots 80 and 82 have a "cut" wall, meaning that the wall is not visible outside the property line of the plat, meaning there can be no visual impact of the wall to buffer. Lots 83 -90, and 93 -94 are buffered behind Tract A, which tract is already wider than l O feet and which tract is already planned for landscaping. Thus, if revised, the list of lots should include only Lots 40, 41, 46, 4 7, plus a note that as to Lots 83 -90, and 93 -94, the revised landscaping plan for Tract A should confirm that site obscuring landscaping will be planted in Tract A. Also, the revision should note that only walls that are on the perimeter property line, over 4 feet as measured from above-ground, and visible from neighboring properties should be subject to the buffering requirement. Alternatively, because as described in the testimony of Barry Talkington, the plat design continues to evolve in the engineering process, there is the very real possibility that some walls on the perimeter may drop below four feet in height above the lower level of the ground surface, meaning that an alternative approach for the Condition language on p. 40 would be to omit the list oflots entirely and instead state that: "A IO foot wide, site obscuring landscaping buffer shall be provided adjacent to areas where retaining walls are four feet or more in height above the ground surface on the low side of the wall, and where those walls are located on the perimeter of the property and are visible to neighboring property owners." {02743372.DOCX:2 I been conducted. An EIS ( Jld dearly provide the city and all inte\ ~,ced parties with information that is correct and fully evaluate the significant adverse impacts on the environment. The ORIGINAL study by Otak pointed out many discrepancies in the original study submitted by Schulz. Specifically, this study claimed that the wetlands are actually larger than the original study submitted by Schulz. After the Applicant received the Otak study, a meeting was held between the City of Renton, Schulz and Otak. This was an on-site meeting where apparently the Applicant convinced the Otak consultants that the original study by Schulz was correct and the OTAK study was not. If you look at and compare both reports, you can see significant changes between the two versions of Otak studies. One thing they did agree on is the additional wetland D. --ch~ OTAK Secondary Review Memo -4-3-1· • As you can see from the pictures taken On January 16, 2015, the wetland boundary markers and in some cases even the wetland buffer markers are standing in bodies of water. This is NOT after a record rainfall, but during a typical day in January. This is of great concern to us, as it suggests that the boundary of wetland Band possibly wetland C were not correctly delineated. TPWAG Request for Reconsideration Page 2 of 20 To: City of Renton Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts mailto:olbrechtslaw@gmail.com City of Renton 1055 Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 From: Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group mailto:renton-opposites@comcast.net 1725 Pierce Avenue SE Renton, WA 98058 Subject: Reserve at Tiffany Park PP -Hearing Examiner Decision (LUAB-001572) Request for Reconsideration Dear Mr. Olbrechts: Date: Wed, Jan 21, 2015 CITY OF RENTON "((\ ~ JAN 2 1 2015 t-f.1. . .\111( RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE This letter constitutes Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group's Request for Reconsideration pursuant to RMC 4- 8-110(E)(13). TPWAG has elected to pursue this Request for Reconsideration Pro Se and hereby designates Renate Beedon as the designated representative. References • Letter entitled, "RE: The Reserve at Tiffany Park -Preliminary Plat -Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeals - LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAE -Final Decision", from Phil Olbrechts -City of Renton Hearing Examiner, dated Jan 8, 2015. Scope • The Hearing Examiner's decision provides inadequate mitigation for the impacts on the environment and on the surrounding community of Applicant's proposed development to support a DNS-M determination underSEPA. • The City of Renton has authority to ask for mitigation under SEPA, and TPWAG asks the City of Renton (via the Hearing Examiner) to exercise that authority in the areas discussed in this letter. • An environmental impact statement is justified and must be prepared whenever significant adverse impacts on the environment are probable, not just when they are inevitable. If an environmental statement is required by the weight of the evidence and if the responsible city authority does not require an environmental impact statement then the decision is clearly erroneous. Wetlands Problems • Wetland determination, measuring and staking One of our concerns is the wetlands and the way they have been determined, measured and staked. As you can see from our comments below, we believe that the wetland depiction alone has been done incorrectly and therefore question the way other studies pertaining to this development have TPWAG Request for Reconsideration Page 1 of 20 TPWAG Request for Reconsideration Page 4 of 20 TPWAG Request for Reconsideration Page 3 of 20 TPWAG Request for Reconsideration Page 6 of 20 TPWAG Request for Reconsideration Page 7 of 20 • TPWAG Request for Reconsideration Page 10 of 20 TPWAG Request for Reconsideration Page 9 of 20 • We are supplying copy of a topographical map showing the location of trees and wetlands upon which we indicate location of photos taken on January 16, 2014 .. (Topographic Survey, Renton School District, February 2008) ..... --, ' I • ~.,.. Renton School District Survey Map 1 ,-.,f./s~ _ /·l--------------v ; ·. \ l, I C 1,, \ --·/, \ 8·f1?; .... \ t~~-•\ '...._~\'o~-... ....... \, ""I'\ .. \ r• \y . ' ·. \ . .c;_i 1 ·-' \~----.-,---------~ \ ! ~-\ \:._ I : ,.:..: I . ' ,, I o/ \ .... \ I • • • J. ~~fl, 8'Mr:· :-;4 ;, ;14:,:-;. ~.l-J' TPWAG Request for Reconsideration s~v Z·r/J - 1?.t~ r~~ Page 12 of 20 1 .. f ,,.: f,.; .'\:1,A·,··'l.'i'-\ 11'. /.,::.('.5 TPWAG Request for Reconsideration Page 11 of 20 -, ... '--..... c --... ~ ~....ill" L.AAC6cAP'i: .. _;..I, ea, RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK ·-... -· .... -·-·-------,,.. .. ____ . _ ::.E .. _ ·w;: 'E---- ::":!"""-..="""'-•. w,,.-.. --=.w-n-_-_ .: iiiKCC----.1-- .,... _.__,..__""I!:",__ ----•=" ---------~ " c!~..r "::", ·-· •~JI :::"-.. ---'•· -1--· 1~; ·-. £, ....... -1--.:-. :.-:. ..... "la • ..,...-;;.."":;:"..:..-:.=:'"~~ · M'J'U'S,1'--·-·----• ~----~------~~-"'."-=--1:;;:-1:: :-i !~}t;: Ji~~'. '" ~r .. -',:.•,•-. .....,.,. .. _l..-.::Al'l"-Ml:"--i..;;.::a; ---·----.-.,,.,.,·-- :£. =.. ..... --'.l-·-,· . -;.,::"_., ... #'~:-·:~~J~= EXHIBIT 18 • Also encroaching onto wetland C is a street. On the "Preliminary Cover Sheet for Tiffany Park" chart it looks like the street is cutting right into the wetland . • • These encroachments appear on the Tree Cutting/Land Clearing Plan dated in 2014. (date is too small to read) . • • In addition, on the "Preliminary Cover Sheet for Tiffany Park" the wetland is encroached even more than on the previous maps. In other words, it appears that the wetlands keep shrinking to make room for proposed lots. TPWAG Request for Reconsideration Page 14 of 20 • We are also providing you with a Tree Cutting/Land Clearing Plan, which shows how the proposed lots are appearing to encroach onto the wetlands B and C, in particular lots 70, 79 and 80. RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK ·-·--·----............... ~ .... or,,, ____ _ -~ .~· • • l l t • . ... ..~- "V:'£.l --·, ' \ EXHIBIT 11 . ····------- • TPWAG Request for Reconsideration Page 13 of 20 • 24" pipe (as proposed by J. •.. ,cant) is barely good enough for a 10-L.r storm. 100-year storms are common. We may have a few 100-year storms in any calendar year. Thus, it is likely that the neighboring properties will be flooded regularly as a result of the proposed development. Relief Requested • Consider requiring a larger storm water drainpipe along SE 18th Street. • Consider requiring "pervious" pavement (that allows water through it) on all streets, sidewalks and driveways, so that the storm water can be naturally mitigated on site. • Consider requiring retention of at least 6" of topsoil on all exposed surfaces (e.g., lawns) to minimize the need for watering, and so that the storm water can be naturally mitigated on site. • TPWAG requests that storm water management studies, calculations be completed in compliance with the City of Renton Storm Water Management Requirements, as further defined by the adopted King County Surface Water Design Manual; sections which specifically address this issue are titled: Core Requirements #2 Off site Analysis, and Core Requirements #4 Conveyance Systems. The City of Renton has some added amendments for special community situations. Roof Runoff Problems • Although roof runoff by itself may not be a pollutant, when it is mixed with chemicals and pesticides used in the yard it becomes a pollutant. • Although roof runoff may not be a target pollution-generating surface, roof runoff is still subject to flow control per Core Requirement #3 which mandates that the City may require design adjustments per the wetland hydrology protection guidelines in Reference 5. • KCSWDM Reference 5, Wetland Hydrology Protection Guidelines, mandates that a wetland may not be structurally or hydrologically engineered for runoff quantity or quality control in Category 2 wetlands. (We have attached the Wetland Hydrology Protection Guidelines.) Relief Requested • Applicant should comply with the Wetland Hydrology Protection Guidelines. 'FT .. 16 Wetland hydrology • Protection gufdellnes.~ Traffic Problems • Applicant's expert has testified that the level of service on the roads surrounding the proposed development will be acceptable per the applicable city and state laws. • However, that analysis did not address the impact of converting SE 18th Street and 124th Place SE from quiet Cul-De-Sacs into arterials for the traffic from almost 100 new homes (over 1,000 vehicles per day -mostly on SE 18th Street -by Applicant's own estimates). • Realtors know that the difference in value between a house on a busy street and a house on a Cul-De- Sac is significant. TPWAG Request for Reconsideration Page 16 of 20 • • The photos taken on January 16 clearly show that several wetland boundary and wetland buffer markers are clearly inside of the wetland boundaries and/or buffers. This is of great concern to TPWAG. The maps provided by the Applicant show that plats and streets already encroach onto wetland boundaries acknowledged by the Applicant. If we, TPWAG, are correct in our assumption that the wetlands have been marked incorrectly and that the wetlands are bigger than depicted by the Applicant, than the proposed lots and street will greatly violate the wetland buffers and therefore the wetland code/regulations, etc . • • We believe that this aspect alone should call for an EIS, since it is possible that more errors or oversights like with the wetlands have been made throughout the whole proposed development . • We hope that at least the wetland delineation will be revisited and re-staked and then reviewed again Relief Requested • Discount the one-sided testimony of Applicant's wetlands expert (because the property owner refuses to allow TPWAG to bring an independent expert on the property) • Require the property owner to allow TPWAG to bring a wetlands expert on site, allow adequate time for the expert to prepare a report, and then hold a meeting to examine the results. • Require an EIS to resolve the unanswered probable significant environmental impacts as raised by Steve Neugebauer in his testimony before the Hearing Examiner, and as are raised in this letter. Trees Problems • During the Hearing Examiner's meetings on Nov 18, 2014 and Dec 8, 2014, we witnessed public testimony from Claudia Donnelly and Jill Jones showing how the developer had apparently removed all trees from another development, even though the City of Renton requires them to retain trees. • Therefore, we request that the City of Renton ensure that the developer doesn't intentionally or carelessly damage the few trees that are required to be retained under city ordinance, and then use that as legal loophole to circumvent city ordinance and remove the "damaged" trees. Relief Requested • Consider assigning a person on site during construction hours to monitor activities to ensure code compliance. • Consider steep fines for careless or intentional damage to trees. • If trees are damaged and must be removed, require Applicant to replace the damaged trees with equivalent •mature• trees, and prohibit them from using any of the original canopy from the removed tree for any purpose other than to allow the new tree to grow. Storm Water Problems • Per Steve Neugebauer's testimony, removing trees will remove 75% of the property's ability to process storm water. TPWAG Request for Reconsideration Page 15 of 20 1. Re-open the end of Beal . Way SE to Puget Drive SE. 2. Close the intersection at SE 16th Street and Edmonds Avenue SE. Local traffic will be able to use the newly opened Beacon Way SE, and traffic from Edmonds Way SE will no longer have to fight arterial traffic to leave their neighborhood . ~ .. "' ... ~~ ,~t ,,._Q ~ q," "{, ,.;.rflr ~.r. ./ i I ~ rl P .... ::1~, c~·•: SE 2tn St SE IGOth St SE 162'"1d SI ffl a. 3 0 , ~ > :. ~ ffl w "' " Is ~ l .s:; -';?. ~ (•"'"""' '•'"'' (~ l,1ri·c r,~·t, .. ,< \ <>' q. ,t ... j .. \. • '\ ... \. ... ' ., ~~ "f"11,."'S( \ ,,,, '""" St ' •," ~ .. "' ... '\ •. ~~-..,,, · ... .. SE 1S7t1', St SE 160t.li St St 163rd St ;; • r lO \'Ol;..-,c<J! 'l-N"r• :::=~~·"')" Figure 1 -Area Map iklyif lf1115 o, SE 1r,,;i ...... •• ""' ~ 8 ~.., • r..~.,.°""'9 .:::1":d·~f) ~' :,-~ i "'-'!~',! ",\ \"7th St! ·1s.~ (".!c,,, ~ 't,. \t\i'r,s ~ •. ''.. ... ~- ~ ;;; • ~ ' .. ! t ~ il: 160th St {a Ii SE tfil:.t S1 \ • ~ ., ~ l "' .. SE 162nd St ~ 5~ 1(;2r1d St SE 163rd SI ~ ' t t • • • ~ ~ , , "' " • ! ~ 5£ 164.lh SI TPWAG Request for Reconsideration Page 18 of 20 c, ... ~,-,1,, ',1...-,.,, ,, ~ Ol ~ " ! , i ii " "' SE 164th ~t o "Usually the differl -' in pricing is someplace between 6% i. . 16% depending on what type of traffic is traveling on your busy street and at what times." (http://www.realestateabc.com/homeguide/selling-busy-street.htm) o "For instance, you may have a stellar home, but if it's on a busy street, Its value will undoubtedly be less than a comparable home on a road less traveled. Potential rezoning of adjacent areas also can affect comps: If that lovely forest behind your home is due to become a sea of condominiums, your home's value is likely to be less than a similar home that will retain its forest view." {http://www.realtor.com/home-values/HomeValuesFag.aspx) o "Nevertheless, the single obstacle to getting anyone interested in our home is the close proximity to the access road .... It needs to be priced alot less than the comps .... around here it seems a house siding a busy street sells for 10-15% less than the same house inside the s u bd ivisio n." (http://www. zil low .com/ advice-th read/Tips-Suggestions-to-Se 11-House-N ear-Busy- Street/17954 /) o "How much do you think the street knocks off the price tag? ... I'd say 10-25%, depending on the street." {http :ljforums.redfin.com/tS/Seattle/Selling-House-on-Busy-Street/td-p/53 731) • Applicant also seems to be well aware of this fact. The planned development contains not one, but two Cul-De-Sacs (instead of building adequate roads to carry traffic in and out)! • We respect Applicant's right to develop their property, but we expect them to respect the property rights of the surrounding community. We believe that Applicant is maximizing their profit by unfairly externalizing their costs to the neighboring property owners. • With this proposed development, we estimate that Applicant will effectively be taking $1,560,000 from surrounding property owners without compensation. We ask the City of Renton to intervene to ensure equal protection under the law. o Based on City of Renton Plat maps. o Based on Zillow.com for typical property values of $300k. o 14 houses along SE 18th Street with severe 15% impact. o 4 houses along 124th Place SE with severe 15% impact. o Another 50 houses on surrounding roads with 5% impact. o Thus, 18 property owners lose an estimated $45,000 each and 50 property owners lose an estimated $15,000 each. o Meanwhile Applicant's preliminary plat map shows that they intend to build 26 houses along their Cul-De-Sacs, giving an estimated 26 * $45,000 = $1,170,000 in additional profit for Applicant. Relief Requested • Consider substantially reducing the number of allowable houses in the proposed development. • Consider requiring at least one more access road to the proposed development (even if Applicant has to buy existing houses to replace with roads). • Consider removing speed bumps that are blocking arterial streets to the South (especially 126th Avenue SE, SE 164th Street, and SE 160th Street). This will provide less incentive for drivers from the proposed development to avoid the back entrance (i.e., 124th Place SE) and for drivers coming from Fairwood to use Pierce Ave SE and SE 16th Street. • Consider street modifications to encourage traffic to use Royal Hills Drive SE instead of SE 16th Street. Royal Hills Drive SE is currently a bus snow route. It is a wide road, it has a gentle incline, it has good sight distance, and it is sanded when icy, so it is much better suited for the heavy volume of traffic than is SE 16th Street. TPWAG Request for Reconsideration Page 17 of 20 ,, ... • < \~ V F " ; "' \.+ ,.., t "~ Royat Hills CJ, St \-., " ... ~ 4, -,-'.st .,. ·~ '"d~Jr .. open sever~ •• I ~ 9 ,st . t ... SE16th5tJ,aC "'.1St e'· ( .. lq,y~ \, '\ '~ <i."'c;, ..... close'... "'"' !< !< '\. "~ ~ 1,.l'''4i .,.~ " ~ ""' ot;, -5'V / i' / t...-.,-;,,., C;i'• ~;( S£ Z1sl St SE 16lfld Sc ~ I ~ • -SE 164th St m 0. & s-.. 1 ~ ~ w ~ .,, ~ 1 l .t: -"' ~ ~ ~ CJc~mv,·.,1 a'<!·•,~ c~ni,, SE 1S71h St se 16Ct1-s1 ~ 4-,t'J.l:'S! • c,,,,,.,. ~ t!--=-LlN , • S..hc>:., ' ~ = • • ! SE 16Jrd 5! ~ l g S! lb41t-~ 11( ~"'" ,,. .. .til '.is /. 4,rfY°-~.t •" "' severe ' \ imp·'a"ctr--t--- SE 19r1t Ct rM.,,y,... I ",-0!"0~· .-.., ... ,. [c-,~ . ...,.,. speed bumps ~ Sf 20t11 Cr speed severe impact • l f <· bumps, < C--hrl< .,~ 'i ? -r. • -,;. 5E 162nd S.1 ~ ::( I s ~ .l • £ ;; l ~ " 0 " Sf 164th SI Figure 2 -Area Map 5[ 16-0,t, 51 • Sf ~6lsr S1 • ' .,. SE 162rd St SE 103rd St ~ ' • £ " speed bumps TPWAG Request for Reconsideration Page 20 of 20 :,, I £ • " "' I • • ~ CU<ll< ,·>lr, ''''"'"" ., ::, ~ ! ~ • t G " U 164U'1S! " Environmental Impact Statemenl Problems • An environmental impact statement is justified and must be prepared whenever significant adverse impacts on the environment are probable, not just when they are inevitable. If an environmental statement is required by the weight of the evidence and if the responsible city authority does not require an environmental impact statement then the decision is clearly erroneous. • The problems raised in this request for reconsideration, together with the issues raised at the appeal hearing, coupled with Applicant's refusal to provide full documentation of environmental conditions at the site and the full extent of structural retaining walls at the site, and the piecemeal manner in which the City of Renton and the Applicant addressed problematic issues for the wetlands, detention vault, drainage and retaining walls weigh in favor of requiring preparation of an environmental impact statement. Relief Requested • The City of Renton should require an environmental impact statement for the project. Respectfully submitted by Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group with the hope that you reconsider our issues. Thank you. RENATE BEEDON President cc: Rocale Timmons mailto:RTimmons@Rentonwa.gov Nancy Rogers mailto:NRogers@Cairncross.com TPWAG Request for Reconsideration Page 19 of 20 Roca/e Timmons, Senior Planner, City of Renton Reserve at Tif!a'!Y Park Wetland Review Page2 April 3, 2014 Two Otak wetland biologists visited the site on March 17, 2014, to confirm whether the wetland delineation was consistent with the Washington Stat, Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology 1997), as required by the RlvIC. An Otak biologist made an additional site visit on March 31, 2014. Please note that the wetland delineation was performed in June 2013, whereas the rainfall amount as of March 17, 2014, was approximately 5.58 inches above the normal amount for March (National Weather Service); and on March 31, 2014 was 5.85 inches above normal for March. Comment 1 -Delineation Method The wetland determination report cites the US Army Corps of Engineers wetland delineation manuals (1987 and 2010 supplement) for the methodology used. However, the Washington Stat, Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology 1997) is required by Rlv!C 4-3-050.M.4.a. Recommendation: The applicant should ensure that the wetland delineation is consistent with the methodology required by the Rlv!C. Comment 2 -Survey Map We have not seen a survey map showing all of the wetland flags, which is necessary for confirming the wetland delineation. As discussed below, some wetland flags were not found in the field; however, if we have a detailed map and some of the flags remain, all of those missing flags may not need to be replaced. Recommendation: The applicant should submit a map showing all of the surveyed wetland flags (from June 2013 and any upcoming revisions). In addition, missing wetland flags should be replaced as deemed necessary for Otak's confirmation of the wetland edges. Comment 3 -Wetland A We agree with portions of\'Cetland A's delineated edges. However, we could not find some of the flags (including Wetland A-1) in the southern part of the wetland. It appears that the wetland areas extend farther out than the delineated edge, specifically near Flags A-1, A-3, A-5, and A-6. In these areas, we observed hydrophytic vegetation (if any plants at all), hydric soils, and wetland hydrology (mainly inundation). On March 17, 2014, in some areas that appeared to be outside of the delineated (flagged) wetland, inundation was over 1 foot deep during our site visit (see Photograph 1). We agree that \Vetland A meets the criteria outlined in the RMC for a Category 2 wetland, which is required to have a SO-foot buffer. Recommendation: Wetland A should be reexamined and any differing edges re-flagged during the early growing season (before mid-May). Any changes to the wetland should be included in the revised \',;'etland Determination Report and project plans. K:\projccr\323(Hl\3Z3KS, \ \R.c.-ports\Cntical .\tl'as Ret-iew Memo_2014_0403.doc Technical Memorandum 102 30 .1"\"E Points Drive Suit, 400 IGrkland, W'.A 980 3 3 Phone (425) 822-4446 Fax (425) 827-9577 To: From: Copies: Date: Subject Project No.: Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner City of Renton -Current Planning Darcey !lfiller, Senior \'i'etland Scientist ( 425) 739-7977 April 3, 2014 Reserve at Tiffany Park Wetland Delineation Re,~ew 32385.,-\ This review pertains to the Preliminary Plat application for the Reserve at Tiffany Park (City of Renton LUA13-00!572) submitted by the applicant, Novastar Development, Inc., to the City of Renton (City). The proposed Reserve at Tiffany Park is located generaJly to the east of Tiffany Park, to the north of SE 158'0 Street, and south and west of Pierce Avenue SE. Otak has been asked by the City of Renton (the City) to review the submitted critical areas document and to provide comments regarding its applicability to the Renton Municipal Code (R.MC), specifically, Section 4-3- 050, Critical Areas Regulations. The follo\\mg documents were re,~ewed in terms of compliance "~th the critical areas sections of the City code: • Wetland Determination: Reseroe at Tijfafl) Park, prepared by C. Gary Schulz, dated February 28, 2014; • Plan set for the Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat, prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., signed February 27, 2014. • Technical Information Report, prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated November 12, 2013, and revised February 24, 2014. The \1ietland Determination identifies three Category 2 wetlands and one Category 3 wetland on the site, which are required to have 50-foot and 25-foot buffers, respectiYely. The report indicates that wetland buffer averaging is proposed for the project site, and outlines the rationale for meeting the requirements for buffet averaging described in the RMC. K: \pmJ(.'Ct\32-'i00\32385. \ \Rcpurts \Cnt:1cal ,\.rca~ Renew :\.[~mo_2014_0403.duc Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner, City of Renton Reserve at Tiffany Park Wetland Review Comment 7 -Offsite Wetlands (NE side Mercer Island Pipeline ROW) Page4 April J, 20 I 4 Several offsite wetlands were observed on the northeast side of the Mercer Island Pipeline Right-of- way (northeast of the gravel access road). These wetlands appear to be Category 3 wetlands; if so, they are likely far enough away so that their 25-foot buffers do not extend onto the project site. Reconunendation: The applicant should confirm that buffers from these offsite wetlands do not extend onto the property. Comment 8 -Wetland in Southwest Comer of Site A wetland was observed in the southwest comer of the site, to the north of SE 18'' Street and southeast of the adjacent development's fence. The area was dominated by salmonberry, Himalayan blackberry, and reed canarygrass. On March 17, 2014, hydric soils and up to 4 inches of inundation were observed, and water was draining from the wetland onto the sidewalk along the north side of SE 18'' Street. Recommendation: The wetland (if it is determined to be one) should be delineated, classified, and added to the revised Wetland Detennination Report and project plans. Comment 9-Flowpath from Wetland B During our !I-larch 17, 2014 site ,-isit, water was observed flowing generally west out of Wetland B to the southwest corner of the project site (see Photographs 3, 4, and 5), then offsite into the Cedar River Pipeline Right-of-way. The wetted width of the flowpath onsite on March 17'' was approximately 3 to 6 feet, and the water depth was 1 to 3 inches. Vegetation on the edges of the stream generally consists of upland species such as Indian plum. A defined stream channel with bed and banks was not observed. Sorted gravels were observed in se\·eral small portions of the flowpath; however, these gravels were generally angular and therefore have not been subject to flow strong enough to round their edges. During our March 31, 2014 site visit, no water was obsen·ed along the flowpath that had been obseffed on March 17''. Standing water was present at \"'etland B (beyond the flagged wetland edge), but no flowing surface water was observed exiting the wetland. No streams are mapped on or adjacent to the site. The closest stream is Ginger Creek, approximately 800 feet offsite to the west. Ginger Creek is a Class 4 tributary to the Cedar River, per RMC Figure 4--3-050-Q4 (Streams and Lakes). Given the above information, it is our opinion that water flows through this area only during/after high rainfall events, drains quickly, and that the area does not meet the definition of a stream. Recommendation: No action is necessary. K:\pro1cct\32300\J2385,\ \Repom\Criric!U .\teas Rei.-iew Mcmo_2014_0403.doc Rocale Timmons, St:nior Planner, City of Renton Reseroe at Tiffany Park lf?,tland fuview Comment 4-Wetlands B and C Page 3 April 3, 2014 During our site visits, standing water extended generally 10 to 70 feet farther than the delineated edges of Wetlands Band C. In addition, Wetlands Band Care not separated by upland area; they appear to be part of the same wetland. On March 17, 2014, inundation ranged from several inches to 1.5 feet deep in areas that may be outside of the delineated wetland edge. Hydrophytic vegetation (mainly salmon berry and red alder) and hydric soils were also observed in the majority of these areas. We agree that Wetland C meets the criteria outlined in the Rl'v!C for a Category 2 wetland, which is required to have a SO-foot buffer; however, because Wetlands Band Care connected (one wetland), the area flagged as \'i'etland B would also be considered a Category 2. Recommendation: Wetlands Band C should be reexamined and any differing edges re-flagged during the early growing season (before mid-l\fay). Confirm the rating and buffer size for \'•/etland B. Any changes to the wetlands should be included in the revised Wetland Determination Report and project plans. Comment 5 -Wetland D \'i'e agree with the majority of the wetland flag locations on Wetland D, although the wetland appears to extend approximately 25 feet to the south of Flags D-3 and D-4. We agree that \'l'etland D meets the criteria outlined in the RMC for a Category 2 wetland. Recommendation: The wetland should be reexamined and any differing edges re-flagged during the early growing season (before mid-May). Any changes to the wetland should be included in the revised \'i/etland Determination Report and project plans. Comment 6-Offsite Wetland (SW side Mercer Island Pipeline ROW) An offsite wetland adjacent to the Reserve at Tiffany Park site was observed on the southwest side of the Mercer Island Pipeline Right-of-way (see Photograph 2). The northwest end of the wetland is southwest of (in line "'~th) 18'h Court SE. This linear wetland is approximately 150 to 200 feet long and contains hydrophytic vegetation ( creeping buttercup, reed canarygrass, and other grasses) and hydric soils. \'i'etland hydrology observed on March 17, 2014, ranged from saturation at the surface to saturation at 4 inches below the surface. This wetland likely meets the criteria in the Rl\!C for a Category 3 wetland, which is required to have a 25-foot buffer. Recommendation: If permission is granted from the offsite landowner, the wetland should be delineated, classified, and added to the re,~sed \X'etland Determination Report and plans. If permission for delineation is not received, the wetland location should be estimated and shown on the plans, along with the buffer. K:\proj,,ct\3231!0\32385.-\ \Reports\Cntical :\ri.::as Rc\icW ~km,)_2014_0-M)3.Joc Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner, City of Renton Reserve at Tiffa'!Y Park Wetland Review PHOTOGRAPHS Photograph 1: Wetland A, near southern delineated edge Page 6 April 3, 2014 Photograph 2. Offsite wetland on Mercer Island Pipeline ROW, facing SE (3/17 /14) K:\prnrect\J2:mfl\J2385,\ \Ri;:fl!Jrt~\Critical ;\reas Rc-,.iew i\fcmu_.2014_04(13.duc Rocalt: Timmons, Senior Planner, City of Renton &serve al Tiffany Park Wetland &view Comment 10 -Offsite Wetland (Cedar River Pipeline ROW) Page 5 April 3, 2014 The flowpath described in Comment 9 drains into the Cedar River Pipeline ROW, to the southwest of the southwest comer of the Tiffany Park site. Inundation was observed in the area, as well as FAC or wetter vegetation and potentially hydric soils; therefore, the area appears to be a wetland (see Photograph 6). Recommendation: The wetland (if it is detennined to be one) should be delineated, classified, and added to the re;;sed \'('etland Determination Report and plans. Comment 11-Buffer Averaging The buffer averaging proposal in the Wetland Determination Report has demonstrated that it meets all of the requirements in RMC 4-3-050.M.6.f. However, rn;sions to wetland edges will likely change this proposal. Recommendation: The applicant should revise the buffer averaging proposal to be consistent with the any necessary re,;sions to the wetland edges and wetland buffers onsite. Comment 12 -Temporary Buffer Impacts Sheets 6 and 7 of the plan set (Preliminary Grading Plan) show disturbed areas in wetland buffers that will result from grading and wall installation. These temporary buffer impacts are not discussed in the Wetland Determination Report, nor are they shown on Figure 2 in the report. Recommendation: The applicant should revise the wetland documentation to discuss all temporary impacts to wetland buffers, including impacts to specific functions and how restoration .,.;n replace those functions. A restoration planting plan for the disturbed areas should be pro,;ded as part of 60% design. Encl. Photographs K: \rrojl>Ct\323()()\32185. \ \R.epurt~ \Cntica! . .\reas Rc~iew \[i;mo_2i)J 4_ 04113.doc ( Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner, City of Renton Reserve al Tijfa'!J Park Wetland Review Photograph 5. Water flowing west out of Wetland B (3/17 /14) Page 8 April 3, 2014 Photograph 6. Offsite wetland on Cedar River Pipeline ROW, facing SW (3/31/14) K:\pruject\32.30(1\32385:\ \Reports \Critical .\reas Rcnev.-Memu_20l4_04(13.Joc Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner, CityofRenton Reserve at Tiffany Park Wetland Review Photograph 3. Flowpath, partially in walking trail (3/17 /14) Photograph 4. Flowpath, partially in walking trail (3 / 31 / 14) K:\proJKt\32300\J.2385. \ \Reports\Crit:tcal .\rea_., Rl'new l\1t!mo~2rJ14_04'l3.doc Page 7 April 3, 2014 SfTTIUl\i I 2 CORF REQUIREMENTS TABLE L2.3.A SllMMARY OF FLOW COIWROL PERFORMANCE CRITERIA ACCEPTABLE FOR IMPACT MITIGATION'" IDENTIFIED PROBLEM AREA-SPECIFIC FLOW CONTROL FACILITY REQUIREMENT OOWNSTREAM Basic Flow Control {FC) Areas Conservation FC Areas Flood p,.oblem FC Areas No Problem Identified Apply the Level 1 flaw control Apply the historic site Apply the existing or historic Apply the minimum area-standard, which matches existing conditions Level 2 flow control site conditions Level 2 flow specific flow control site conditions 2-and 10-year slandard, which matches control standard (whichever is performance criteria. peaks historic durations for 50% of 2-appropriate based on yr through 50-year peaks AND downstream flow control area) matches historic 2-and 10-AND match existing site I vear neaks conditions 1 00-vear neaks Type 1 Drainage Problem Additional Flow Control Ne additional flow control or No additional flow control or Conveyance System Hold 10-year peak to overflow T other m1trgation 1s needed other mitigation is needed Nuisance Problem peakr21<J1 Type 2 Drainage Problem Additional F!ow Controf No add1t1onal flow control is No additional flow control is Severe Erosion Apply the existing site conditions needed, but other mit1gat1on needed. but other m1t1gat1ori Problem Level 2 flow control standard(3H41 may be requ1red 41 may be require<f•l Type 3 Drainage Problem Additional Flow Control Additional Flow Control Additional Flow Control Severe Flooding Apply the existing site conditions Apply the historic site If flooding is from a closed Problem Level 3 flow control standard to conditions Level 3 flow control depression, make design peak flows above the overflow r. standard. If flooding is from a adjustments as needed to peak. If flooding 1s from a dosed dosed depression, make meet the "special provision for depression. make design design adjustments as needed closed depressions" <3ll 5) adjustments as needed to meet the to meet the "special provisior, "special pro111sion for closed for closed depressions"nH51 depressions":3):51 Potential Impact to Add1t1onat Flow Control Add1ll0nal Flow ContrSj!I Additional Flow Control Wetland Hydrology as DOES may require design DOES may require design ODES may require design Determined through a adjustmenls per the wetland adJustments per the wetland adjustments per the wetland Critical Area Review per hydrology protection guidelines in hydrology protection guidelines hydrology protection guide· KCC 21A.24.100 Reference Section 5 in Reference Section 5 lines in Reference Section 5 Notes (:) More than one set of problem-specific performance criteria may apply if two or more downstream drainage problems are identified through offsite analysis per Core Requirement #2. If this happens, the performance goals of each applicable problem-specific criteria must be met. This can require e:densive, time.consuming analysis to implement multiple sets of outflow performance critena if additional onsite flow control is the only viable option for mitigating impacts to these problems. In these cases. it may be easier and more prudent to 1mplemenl the historic site conditions Level 3 now control standard in place of the other.vise required area-specific standard. Use of the historic Level 3 flow control standard satisfies the specified performance cnteria for all the area-specific and problem-specific requirements except 1f adjustments are required per the special provision for dosed depressions described below in Note 5. "' Overflow T, is the return period of conveyance system overflow. To de!ermine T requires a minimum Level 2 downstream analysis as detailed in Section 2.3.1.1 To avrnd this analysis. a T, of 2 years may be assumed IJI Offsite improvements may be implemented in lieu of or 1n combination with additional flow control as allowed in Section 1.2.2.2 (p. 1·28) and detailed in Section 3.3.5 '" A tightline system may be required regardless of the flow control standard being applied if needed to meet the discharge requirements of Core Requirement #1 (p. 1-21) or the outfall requirements of Core Requirement #4 (p 1-54), or if deemed necessary by ODES where the risk of severe damage is high. "' Special Provision for Closed Depressions with a Severe Flooding Problem: 1F the proposed project discharges by overland flow or conveyance system to a closed depression experiencing a .severe flooding problem ANO the amo'Jnt of new impervious surface area proposed by the project is greater than or equal to 10% of the t OD-year water sur1ace area of the closed depression. THEN use the "point ol compliance analysis technique" described in Section 3.3.6 to verify that waler surface levels are not increasing for the return frequencies at which flooding occurs. up to and induding the 100.year frequency. If necessary. iteratively adjust onsite flow control performance to prevent increases. Note. The poinr of compliance analySJs relies on certain field measurements taken directly at the closed depression (e.g soils tests, topography etc.). If permission to enter private property for such measurements is denied. ODES may waive this provision and apply the existing site conditions Leve! 3 flow control standard w,tn a mandatory 20% safety factor on the storage volume J .,,;Vi009 1009 Surfai.:c Water f)i:sign Manual 1-36 - SFCTIU\! 6 2 GENER Al REQlHRl:Ml:::NTS roR Wl) FACILIT[J:S runoff is unaft~cted b) whether or not thl' runt1 ff is dcw.ined. Therefore. facilities such as wctponds. ·which arc sized b;. a siinpk Yolumc-ba:.cJ approach that doe~ not route llo\\s thrnugh i.l detention faci!it;.. arc the same site wfo:ther the} pn.:ccdc or follo,Y detention. "\:otc that facilities which arc sized based on \·olumc and \\-hir.:11 include routing of flows through a detention facility. such as the dctaild sand tilter method. an~ sig.nilicantly smaller \\hen loc:1kd d1mnstream of detention. c\en though the same \olumt: uf,\atcr is tre~lt:J in either situation. This is because the dctcntion focilit~ routing se4uenct:: St1ire:s pc..iks \\lthin the pond and rck~~L~l..'.s thcm at a slu\\ r,1tc. reJucing tl1e size of the sand filter pond suhseqUl:nt!~ nt'ei.kd (thi.: \olumc needed to stnrl' thl' pi.:aks m:ed not be pr1rvideJ ug....iin in Lhe sand tilrer pundJ. Flow Volume to be Treated \\"hc:11 water qualit) tn:atmenl is required r,ursuant to the ..:or.: and src..:ial requirements of this manual. it is intended th;Jt a minimum of95%, of the annual avera~e runoff ·rnlume in the (8:,. ear) timc-serii:s. as ddcrrninl'd \\ith Lhe KCRTS model. he ln:,Hl'd. Dr.:signs using the \\'Q design flow fas discussed aho\'e) will treat thi'.'-minin1um Hilumo.:. Treatable Flows As st:J.ti.:J in Clrnrter 1. nnl) runoff from t.:1rgeL pollution-gener:J.ting surfo1.-es must h.~ tn;:Jtcd using the ·watl'r qualit) facilit) options indi1.·ated in the aprlkuhk \\-:J.ter quallt:,. mi.::nu. Thcst: surfai.::cs include hoth polh1tio11-generating imperi-iou.'i surface und pollution-,:enerating peniouJ .mrfm.:e. "T argi.::t" means thi.!L r()rtion from which rum1tT must he treated using a \\atcr qu;:ility fai.::ilit) ~ sri.::(;itiet.i in Chapti.:r I. Pollutio11-generati11g impen·ious surface.,· arc those impc1, lous surfacc.s "hich art:" subject lil \ chicular use l)f storagt: of erndihlc or lcachahlc lllJtL·rials. Wi.\Stcs. or chcmkals: and \~hich 1Tct:iu direct rainfall or thc ru11-on 0r hlo\\'-i n of rai nfal I. !'or subJivision.s.. targctpollufion-generating impervious surfaces t:,.pic1lly indudc righhJf-,\·ay impnJYL'ITIL'llts (road'.'-). parking areas and dri\'t·ways that art' not/11/~r di~persed as srcciticJ in Scclion 1.2.3 . .2. l\kt:i! roofs arc also consid~red to be pollutitm-generating impen·iouJ .mrface unless th.:~ an.· LrcatcJ to prc\cnt leaching. Pollution-generating pai·ious surface.~ arc tho'.'-t: non-imper\ ious surfaci:s suhjcct tl) use of pi.:sticides antl t'cttili/.-:rs. loss pf snil. nr the use or S\l)rag_c nf crl,diblc llr kw:hahk mati.::riab. ,,astL'S. or l'hi.::rnii.::als. Filr subJi,·isii.:ms. targd pollutio1t- Kenerating perl'ious surfaces typi..:;illy indudc Lr.wns and landscarcd are.:1s that are not/u/~r disper.\·ed and fron, \Yhich there \\·ill nol he a nmccnlr:J.tcd surface discharge in a natur;.il ch.:11111el or m:J.n-rnaJc con, c:,.. ancc S) stem from th.: site. The-folltm ing points summarilt' \\ hich site thl\\s mu:it be trcutcd -ind uni.ler what circumst;:mce5· • 1\I I run oil fro111 target pollution-generaling imperl'ious .mrft1ces is to be treated thrnugh the water 4u:.1lit: fa1:ility or fo.i.:ilitics required in Chapter I and S?ecitil'd in the Chapter 6 menus. • Runoff from la\\ ns and landscaped areas general I) m erl1ov.s luwurd :,trl'ct Jrainugi.:: systems where it is com e::,.cd to tri.::atmcnt foci litii.::s ailing: n ith the wad runoff f fo\,\CV(:r_ sometimes runoff from h.ick: ards drains into upi.::n sr,aci.:: or buffi.::r ureas. [n Lhc.se cases, hurti.::rs ma: he usl."J to pnn idc the rcltuisltc water quJ.lil) treatment proYl1.kd { 1) runoff sheet llu\\s into the buffer tJr a dispersal trench is rmvided to disperse fln\\'S broad!:,. Into thL' huffcr·. and (2/ Lhl' tlm, path thnrugh the pol!ution- gcnerating an:;J is limiLl;.'d Lo ahoul 2!10 f;;t:L. • Drainage from impcn i,ius surfaces that are not pollution-generating (such as mo.st roofs) or arc not target pollution-generating sur-faces rnu:,. b) p~lSS the treatmi.::nt facil it~. 11 Roof runuff is. huwen!r. still suhjel'l to tkm contrnl rer Con: Rc<.juircment #J. \lotc that metal roofs arc L'onsid.:rr.:-d rLil!ution- gencrating unlt::ss they an.: trcati;:d tn rre\ent leai.:hing. 11 Available data on 1he quality of roof runoff was examined Although there are instances of polluted roof runoff, they tend to be related to galvanized roofing matenals or industrial processes There is also data that suggests the poilutant concentration of atmosphenc fallout decreases with vertical elevation. See "Water Quality Thresholds Decision Pai::er" Apnl 1994 King County Surface Water Management Division (now Waler and land Resources Division) 20119 ~urfacc Water Dcsi~n Manual 6-18 Guide Sheet 18: Stormwater Wetland Assessment Criteria Excerpted from 2005 DOE Stormwater Manual for Westem Washington This guide sheet gives criteria that disqualify a natural wetland from being structurally or hydrologically engineered for control ofstormwatcr quantity. quality. or both. These criteria should be applied only after performing the alternatives analysis outlined in Guide Sheet I A. l. A wetland should not be structurally or hydrologically engineered for runoff quanticy or quality control and should be given maximum proteciion from overall urban impacts (see Guide Sheet 2. Wetland Protection Guidelines) under any of the fo\lowing circumstances: • In its present state it is primarily an estuarine or forested wetland or a priority peat system. • It is a rare or irreplaceable \vetland type. as identified by the V,/ashington Natural Heritage Program. the Puget Sound Water Quality Preservation Program. or local government. • 1.t provides rare, threatened, or endangered species habitat that could be impaired by the proposed action. Determining whether or not the conserved species will be affected by the proposed project requires a careful analysis of its rt:quiremcnts in relation to the anticipated habitat changes. It provides a high level of many functions. Jn general. the \\ctlands in these groups are classified in Categories land II in the '"\Vashington State \Vetland Rating System of Western \.Vashington." That publication is available on-line at http://\\'ww.ec, .\H1.2.~n".ibiblio/ss:a.htmlc1"s. 2. A wetland can be considered for structural or hydrological modification for runoff quantity or quality control if most of the follo\\o'ing circumstances exist: Tt is classified in Category JV in the "\\'ashington State Wetland Rating System of Western Washington". In general. Category IV wetlands have monotypic vegetation of similar age and class. lack special habitat features, and are isolated from other aquatic systems. Any functions lost through hydrologic or structural modification in a Category IV wetland would have to be compensated/replaced. • The wetland has been previously disturbed by human activity. as evidenced by agriculture, fill. ditching. and/or introduced or invasive weedy plant species. ~009 Surface Wata lJ1:::>1g11 Manual KING CO{ll\TY. WASHJNGTON. SlJRFACE WATER DESIGN \1ANUAl KING COUNTY. WASHII\GTO'i SURF ACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL REFERENCE 5 WETLAND HYDROLOGY PROTECTION GUIDELINES DOE GUIDE SHEET 1 B: STORMWA TER WETLAND ASSESSMENT CRITERIA DOE GUIDE SHEET 28: GUIDELINES FOR PROTECTION FROM ADVERSE IMPACTS OF MODIFIED RUNOFF QUANTITY DISCHARGED TO WETLANDS I 19/2009 • The \Vetland is threatened by potential impacts exclusive of stom1water management. and could receive greater protection if acquired for a stormwater management project rather than left in existing ownership. • There is good evidence that the \Vetland actually can be restored or enhanced to perfo1m other functions in addition to runoff quantity or quality control. • There is good evidence that the wetland lends itself to the effective application of the Wetland Protection Guidelines in Guide Sheet 2. • rhc wetland lies in th~ natural routing of the runoff. Local regulations often prohibit drainage diversion from one basin to another. • The \Vetl:.md allo\VS runoff discharge at the natural location. • The-\Vetland has been deprived of a significant amount of iL'i water supply by draining or previous urbani?ation ( c. g., by loss of ground\\ater supply). and stom1watcr runoff is sufficient to augment the water supply. A particular candidate is a wetland that has experienced an increased summer dry period. especially if the drought has been extended by mnre than two 1,veeks. • Construction for structural or hydro!ogic modification in order to provide runoff quantity or quality control will disturb relatively little of the \\etland. • The v.etland can provide the required storage capacity for quantity or quality control through an outlet orifice modification to increase storage of \\ater. rather than through rai::;ing the existing overflow. Orifice modification is likely to require less construction activity and consequent neg.attn: impacts. • Under existing conditions the wetland's experiences a relatively high degree ofv,iater level fluctuation and a range of velocities (i.e., a \Vetland associated with substantially flowing water. rather than one in the headwaters or entirely isolat~d from flowing water). • The \\etland doi..:s not exhibit any of the follov,·ing features: Significant priority rcat system or forested zones that will ..::xperience substantially altered hydroperiod as a result of the proposed action: Regionally unusual biological community types; Animal habitat features of relatively high value in the region (e.g .. a protected. undisturbed area connected through undisturbt:d corridors to other valuable habitats, an important breeding site for protected species): The presence of protected commercial or sport fish: Contiguration and topography that \Vi]I require significant modification that may thrt:aten fish stranding; A relative!, high degree of public interest as a result of. for example, offering valued local open space or educational. scientific. or recrt:ational opportunities. unless the proposed action would enhance these opportunitil·s: Compute mean annual and mean monthly \VLF as the arithmetic averages for each year and month for which data are available. To forecast future hydroperiod use one of the following methods. listed in order of preference: • Estimation by the continuous simulation computer model calibrated during pre- development analysis and run for the historical rainfall period- The resulting data can be used to express the magnitudes of depth fluctuation. as well as the frequencies and durations of surpassing given depths. [Note: Post- development modeling results should generally be compared with predevelopment modeling results. rather than directly with field measurements. because different sets of assumptions under] ie modeling and monitoring. Making pre-and post-development comparisons on the basis of common assumptions allm.vs cancellation of errors inherent in the assumptions.] • Estimation according to general relationships developed from the Pugd Sound Wetlands and Stonn,vater Management Program Research Program. as follows I in part adapted from Chin 1996 ): -Mean annual WLF is very likely ( I 00% of cases measured) to be < 20 cm (8 inches or 0.7 ft) if total impervious area (TTA) cover in the watershed is < 6% (roughly corresponding to no more than 15% of the watershed convened to urban land use). -Mean annual \VLF is very likely ( 89% of cases measured) to be> 20 cm if TIA in the watershed is> 21% (roughly corresponding to more than 30% of the ,.,.atersheJ conve11ed to urban land use). -Mean annual \\/LF is somewhat likely (50% of cases measured) to be> 30 cm ( 1.0 ft) if Tl A in the watershed is> 21 % (roughly corresponding to more than 30% of the watershed converted to urban land use). -Mean annual WLF is. likely (75°/o of cases measured) to be> 30 cm. and somewhat likely (50% of cases measured) to be 50 cm (20 inches or 1.6 ft) or higher. if TIA in the watershed is> 40% (roughly co1Tesponding to more than 70% of the watershed converted to urban !and use). -The frequency of stage excursions greater than 15 cm (6 inches or 0.5 t\J above or below pre-development levels is somewhat likely (54% of cases measured) to be more than six per year if the mean annual \VLF increases to> 24 cm ( 9.5 inches or 0.8 ft). Guide Sheet 28: Guidelines for Protection from Adverse Impacts of Modified Runoff Quantity Discharged to Wetlands Excerpted from 2001 DOE Stormwater Manual for Western Washington I. Protection of wetland plant and animal communities depends on controlling the wetland"s hydroperiod, meaning the pattern of fluctuation of\\ater depth and the frequency and duration of exceeding certain levels. including the length and onset of drying in the summer. A hydrologic assessment is useful to measure or estimate elemLnts of the hydroperiod under existing pre-development and anticipated postdevelopment conditions. This assessment should be performed with the aid ofa qualified hydrologist. Post-deYelopment estimates of\\ atcrshed hydrology and \vetland hydroperiod must include the cumulative effect of all anticipated watershed and \Vetland modifications. Provisions in these guidelines pertain to the llill anticipated build-out of the \Vet!and·~ watershed. This analysis hypothesizes a fluctuating \Yater stage over time before development that could tluctuatc more. both higher and lower after development: these greater fluctuations arc tt::rmed stage excursions. The guidelines set limlts on the frequency and duration of excursions. as welt as on overall \i..:ater level nU<.:tuation. after development. To determine existing hydroperiod use one of the following methods. listed in order of preference: • Estimation by a continuous simulation computer model- The model should be calibrated \iVith at least one year of data taken using a continuously recording level gage under existing. conditions and should be run for the historical rainfall period. The resulting data can bt: used to express the magnitudes of depth fluctuation. as well as the frequencies and durations of surpassing given depths. [Note: Modeling that yields high quality information of the type needed for wetland hydroperiod analysis is a complex subject. Providing guidance on selecting and applying modeling options is beyond the scope of these guidelines but is being developed by King County Surface Water Management Division and other local jurisdictions. An alternative possibility to modeling depths, frequencies. and durations ,-vithin the wetland is to model durations above given discharge kvcls entering the \\"etland over various time periods (e.g .. seasonal. monthly. weekly). This option requires further development.] • Measurement during a series of time intervals (no longer than one month in length) over a period ofat lt!aSt one year of the maximum water stage, using a crest stage gage. and instantaneous v,.-ater stage. using a staff gage--The resulting data can be used to express water level fluctuation ( WLF) during tht' interval as follows: Average base stage= (lnstantane0us stage at beginning of interval + Instantaneous stage at end of interval )/2. \\'LF = Crest stage -Average base stage • Note: To apply this guideline a continuous simulation computer model needs to be employed. The model should be calibrated with data taken under existing conditions at the wetland being analyzed and then used to forecast post- development duration of excursions. 4. The following hydroperiod limits characterize wetlands inhabited by breeding native amphibians and apply to breeding zones during the period I February through 31 May. If these limits are exceeded. then amphibian breeding success is likely to decline. If the analysis described above forecasts exceedences, one or more of the management strategies listed in step 5 shou!J be employed to attc:mpl to stay within the limits. • The magnitude of stage excursions above or below the pre-development stage does not exceed 8 cm. and the total duration of these excursions does not exceed 24 hours in any 30 day period. • Note: Ta apply this guideline a continuous simulation computer model needs to be employed. The model should be calibrated with data taken under existing conditions at the \\etland being analyzed and then used to forecast post- development magnitude and duration of excursions. 5. If it is expected that the hydropcrioJ limits stated above could be exceeded. consider strategies such as: • Reduction of the level of development: • Increasing runoffintiltration [Note: fntiltration is prone to failure in many Puget Sound Basin locations with glacial till soils and generally requires pretreatment to avoid clogging. In other situations infiltrating urban runoff may contaminate groundwater. Consult the storm\1 .. ater management manual adopted by the jurisdiction and carefully analyze intiltration according to its prescriptions.]: • Increasing runoff storage capacity: and • Selective runoff bypass. 6. After development, monitor hydroperiod with a continuously recording level gauge or staff and crest stage gauges. !fthe applicable limits are exceeded, consider additional applications of the strategies in step 5 that may still be available. It is also recommended that goals be established to maintain ke)' vegetation species, amphibians, or both. and that these species be monitored to determine if the goals are being met. -The average duration of stage excursions greater than 15 cm above or below pre-development levels is likely (69% of cases measured) to be more than 72 hours if the mean annual \VLF increases to> 20 cm. 2. The following hydroperiod limits characterize wetlands "ith relatively high vegetation species richness and apply to all zones within all wetlands over the entire year. If these limits are exceeded. then species richness is likely to decline. If the analysis described above forecasts exceedences. one or more of the management strategies listed in step 5 should be employed to attempt to stay within the limits. • Mean annual WLF (and mean monthly WLF for every month of the year) does not exceed 20 cm. Vegetation species richness decrease is likely ,...-ith: ( 1) a mean annual (and mean monthly) WLF increase of more than 5 cm (2 inches or 0.16 ftJ if predevelopment mean annual (and mean monthly) \VLF is greater than 15 cm. or (2) a mi.:an annual (and mean monthly) W'LF increase to 20 cm or more ifpre- development mean annual (and mean monthly) WLF is 15 cm or less. • The frequency of stage excursions of 15 cm above or belmv predevt.>lopment stage does not exceed an annual average of six. Note: A short-term lagging or a<lYancement of the continuous record of,\ater levels is acceptable. The 15 cm limit applies to the temporary increase in maximum water surface elevations (hydrograph peaks) after storm events and the maximum decrease in water surface elevations (hydrogruph valley buttoms) between events and during the dry season. • The duration of stage excursions of 15 cm above or belo\1. predevelopmenl stage does not exceed 72 hours per excursion. • The total di)· period (when pools dry down to the soil surface everywhere in the wetland) does not increase or decrease b:'.'i more than two weeks in any year. • Alterations to '"atershed and \\etland hydrology that may cause perennial wetlands to become vernal are avoided. 3. The follov.ing hydroperiod limit characterizes priority peat wetlands (bogs and fens as more specifically defined by the Washington Depai1ment of Ecology) and applies to all zones over the entire year. If this limit is exceeded. then characteristic bog or fen wetland vegetation is likely to decline. If the analysis described above forecasts exceedence. one or more of the management strategies listed in step 5 should be employed to attempt to stay within the limit. • The duration of stage excursions above the predevelopment stage does not exceed 24 hours in any year. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 - subject property from a community recreational resource to a residential subdivision. The property is entirely undeveloped and is covered with trails, tree forts and other similar structures that reveal years of community use. In its SEPA appeal TPW AG argues that the loss of this long-time recreational use is an environmental impact that should be subject to SEPA review. As detailed in this decision, the fact that the applicant has allowed neighbors to use its property in the past ( or worse, the fact that neighbors may have trespassed in the past) does not justify the imposition of any SEPA requirements because the neighbors will lose that privilege as a result of the development. Similarly, the fact that the applicant has chosen to retain the trees on its land in the past and through that choice provided neighbors with an appealing arboreal view does not put the applicant in a position where it must now continue to offer that type of view to neighboring properties. With one exception the applicant proposes development that is aesthetically similar and compatible with surrounding uses. For this reason, there is no legal basis for imposing any further environmental review or mitigation to address aesthetic impacts. The one exception is retaining walls. The applicant proposes numerous retaining walls that will reach heights of up to 21 feet. Retaining walls of this height are not present in the vicinity and the aesthetic impacts of these structures are not similar or compatible to the structures on neighboring properties. Consequently, the MDNS mitigation measures will require ten foot wide perimeter landscaping designed to aesthetically buffer these walls from neighboring uses. TPW AG alleged more technical environmental impacts related to the geotechnical studies, hazardous materials, drainage, wetlands impacts, groundwater impacts, landslide hazards, seismic hazards, and retaining walls. The expert testimony and reports provided by the applicant, verified by experts from the City staff and in some cases, third party peer review, proved to be more compelling than the expert testimony provided by TPW AG, especially when factoring the substantial weight that must be given the SEPA responsible official's determination that the proposal will not create any probable significant adverse environmental impacts. One issue that did require some additional mitigation was hazardous waste. An appellant expert testified that the prior ownership of the property by the US Department of Defense raised a concern that the property may contain hazardous waste. The applicant refused to grant access to the subject property for purposes of testing for hazardous waste or any other site investigation. The applicant also acknowledged that it did a Phase I hazardous waste environmental review when it purchased the property, but never offered the review into evidence. Given the somewhat suspect conduct of the applicant, an MDNS condition of review will require that the applicant submit its Phase I review to staff prior to development, to verify that there is no hazardous waste issue with the site. The applicant's SEPA appeal was more limited in scope and only challenged three of the City's MDNS conditions, specifically Conditions l, 3 and 6. At hearing the City and applicant agreed to revised language for Conditions I and 3. Condition No. 6 remained the only contested issue in the applicant's appeal. The condition required a 15-foot landscaping buffer around the entire perimeter PRELIMINARY PLAT-2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CITY OF RENTON -JAN O 8 2015 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON ) ) RE: The Reserve at Tiffany Park ) Preliminary Plat ) ) ) Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeals ) ) LUAlJ-001572, ECF, PP, CAE ) FINAL DECISION I. SUMMARY The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for the subdivision of21.66 acres into single-family residential lots and several critical areas tracts located at the dead end of SE 18th Street and bordered by the Cedar River Pipeline along the southern property boundary and the Mercer Island Pipeline along the eastern property boundary. The applicant is requesting a Critical Area Exemption for the extension of SE 18th Street through portions of the buffer associated with Wetland E. Two appeals of a mitigated determination of nonsignificance ("MDNS") issued under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") were consolidated with the review of the preliminary plat. The Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group ("TPWAG") filed one of the two SEPA appeals and the applicant submitted the second appeal. The preliminary plat is approved subject to conditions. The TPW AG SEPA appeal is denied. The applicant SEPA appeal is sustained, in part. The Critical Areas Exemption is approved. TPW AG raised numerous issues in its SEPA appeal regarding the conversion of the 21.66 acre PRELIMINARY PLAT-1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 - IV. FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: I. Applicant. Henley USA, LLC. 2. Hearing. A consolidated hearing on the preliminary plat application and SEPA appeals was held on November 18, 2014 and continued to December 8, 2014 in the City of Renton Council City Chambers. The record was left open for the appellants to provide a SEPA Closing Argument by December 12, 2014. City staff was also given until December 12, 2014 to provide a SEPA Rebuttal. City staff and the applicant had until December 19, 2014 to provide SEPA closing arguments and preliminary plat comments. Substantive: 3. Project Description and Appeal. A. Project Description. The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for the subdivision of 21.66 acres into 97 single-family residential lots. There is an alternate plat with 96 lots to allow for 30% tree retention (Exhibit 3). The property is located at the dead end of SE 18th Street. It is bordered on the south by the Cedar River Pipeline and on the cast by the Mercer Island Pipeline. Two appeals of a mitigated determination of nonsignificance ("MONS") issued under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") were consolidated with the review of the preliminary plat. 16 The subject property consists of four parcels. The majority of the site is located in the R-8 zone. A small portion is located in the R-4 zone. All proposed lots are located in the R-8 zone. The proposed lots would range in size from 4,500sfto 8,456sf. The average lot size is 5,399sf. Under either the 96 lot or 97 lot scenarios, density would be equal to or less than 5. 70 dwelling units per acre. In addition to the residential lots, 13 tracts are proposed for sensitive areas, tree retention, storm drainage, access, pedestrian connections, and open space including an existing IO foot wide vegetated buffer along the northern boundary. Access to the site would be gained from SE 18th Street with secondary access extended from I 24th Place SE. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 The site is currently vacant with 1,305 significant trees. The applicant has proposed to retain or mitigate 188 trees in order to achieve the objective of 30% tree retention requirement. Adequate tree retention requires approval of the 96-lot alternative. The site slopes generally to the west/northwest at an approximate average slope of 10-15% with localized slopes of 25%. The site contains three Category 2 wetlands (Wetlands A, C, and, D) and two Category 3 wetlands (Wetlands Band E). The 25 applicant is requesting a Critical Area Exemption 26 portions of the buffer associated with Wetland E. for the extension of SE 18th Street through PRELIMINARY PLAT -4 ------------------------------ - of the development. 1bis decision only found a ten -foot buffer necessary, limited to areas adjoining 2 proposed retaining walls to conceal the walls from neighboring view. 3 A summary of testimony is attached as Attachment A. The summary is provided as a convenience and reference to those who would like an overview of the evidence presented at the two days of 4 hearings on this application. The testimony section should not be construed as any formal findings 5 of fact and also do not represent what was determined to be important to the final decision. 6 CONTENTS 7 I. 8 II. III. 9 IV. SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... I TESTIMONY ....................................................................................................................... 3 EX! II BITS ............................................................................................................................ 3 IO I I 12 13 V. VI. FINDINGS OF FACT ......................................................................................................... 4 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ................................................................................................ 24 SEPA APPEAL. .......................................................................................................... 24 PRELIMINARY PLAT .............................................................................................. 30 DECISION ......................................................................................................................... 39 II. TESTIMONY 14 Please see Attachment A for testimony summary. 15 16 III. EXHIBITS Please see Attachment B for the exhibits admitted during the hearing. Exhibits admitted after the 17 hearing are as follows: 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Exhibit AS: Exhibit AT: Exhibit AU: Exhibit AV: Exhibit AW: Exhibit AX: Exhibit A Y: Exhibit AZ: Exhibit BB: City of Renton Preliminary Plat Condition Revision Response (December 11, 2014) TPWAG Post Hearing Closing Argument (December 14, 2014) TPWAG Motion-Late Filing (December 15, 2014) Henley Response to TPW AG Motion -Late Filing (December 15, 2015) Henley (Proposed) Order Denying TPW AG Motion -Late Filing (December 15. 2014) !!earing Examiner Ruling-Late Filing (December 15, 2014) Henley Response -TPW AG Post Hearing Closing Argument (December 19, 2014) Henley Reply -City of Renton Preliminary Plat Condition Revision Response (December 19, 2014) City of Renton -TPW AG Post Hearing Closing Argument (December 22. 2014) PRELIMINARY PLAT-3 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 -- City staff disagreed. They argued that there are probable averse environmental impacts that are being mitigated by the MONS condition. The City argued the MONS Condition prevents the applicant from using mitigation under RMC 4-4-130(H)(l)(e)(i) to replace trees and instead requires retention of significant trees. The Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan, completed by Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. (August 27, 2014) established that overall the proposal will actually meet the City's SEPA 30% tree retention requirement. To meet this requirement, the applicant must retain or mitigate 188 on-site trees. The Washington Forestry Consultants plan proposes to save 181 of these trees and mitigate the final seven trees. The applicant's tree retention plan analyzed just the 96 lot alternative. However, Mr. Galen Wright of Washington Forestry Consultants stated new field studies performed since the August 27, 2014 report have identified additional significant trees on-site beyond those mapped in the original field survey. These trees will be retained, bringing the total retention to well above the 188 required trees. Mr. Wright stated he was much more confident now regarding the location of trees, their health and which might be viably preserved. Since the applicant ultimately achieved the 30% retention objective, the City and applicant agreed to the following tree retention language as a condition of approval, The applicant shall provide a final Tree Retention Plan, complying with the 30% tree retention mitigation measure while demonstrating proposed walls would not impact trees proposed for retention. The Final Tree Retention Plan shall be submilted lo. and approved by. the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. c. l\10NS Condition 6. MONS Condition No. 6 remains the only contested portion of the applicant's appeal. MONS Condition No. 6 as adopted by the SEPA responsible oflicial required a 15-foot landscape buffer around the entire perimeter of the development. For the reasons identified in FOF No. 5, this perimeter has been reduced to ten feet and must only be placed in areas to conceal proposed retaining walls from neighboring view. 2. TPW AG SEPA Appeal. TPW AG raised several issues in its SEPA appeal, alleging both inadequate review and probable significant adverse environmental impacts. The impacts identified by TPW AG are addressed in FOF No. 5. PRELIMINARY PLAT -6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 - The applicant has submitted a Wetland Report, Drainage Report, Traffic Impact Analysis, Geotechnical Engineering study, Arborist Report, and Habitat Data Report. Independent secondary studies for Transportation and Wetlands are included with the application. B. SEPA Appeal. A mitigated determination of nonsignificancc ("MONS") was issued for the proposal on September, 2014. Two timely appeals of the threshold determination were filed by the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group (TPWAG) and Caimcross & Hempclmann on behalf of Henley USA, LLC. 1. Applicant SEPA A1meal. The applicant challenged three of the City's MONS conditions, specifically Conditions 1, 3 and 6 on the grounds that they impose unlawful obligations on the applicant and restrict the applicant's ability to develop the plat. a. MONS Condition 1. The applicant argued MONS Condition 1 should be revised because the condition required earthwork to comply with an earlier, preliminary version of the geotcchnical report which has since been superseded. The applicant requested the SEPA condition be revised to state the earthwork shall be consistent with the final geotechnical report submitted prior to construction (Exhibit J). City staff and the applicant then agreed upon the following language for Condition No. 1, which is found to adequately address pertinent environmental impacts: All earlhwork performed, implemenled by the applicant, shall be consistenl wilh /he recommendalions of/he geotechnica/ report, prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., dated September 28, 2012 or consistent with the recommendations of the final City-approved geotechnica/ report. b. MONS Condition 3. The applicant's concerns over MONS Condition No. 3 became moot since the filing of its appeal and the City and applicant have been able to agree upon a revised condition that acceptably mitigates against environmental impacts. MONS Condition 3 provides as follows, The applicant shall be required to retain 30% of the significant trees on site with exclusions for those trees that are considered dead, diseased, or dangerous, trees located within proposed rig his-of-way, and frees located within the critical areas and !heir associated buffers. The applicant initially argued the condition should either be struck as a SEP A condition or modified to require compliance with the Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan, completed by Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. (August 27, 2014) which complies with the 30% retention requirement (Appeal Exhibit A, Attachment 11 ). PRELIMINARY PLAT -5 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2. lots. The pipelines do not offer much in terms of vegetated screening but they do physically separate the proposed lots from existing lots. Any difference in the size of the lots will not be aesthetically significant, especially given the separation of the project from the surrounding neighborhood. Loss of Trees Not a Probable Significant Environmen~tal Impact. It is determined that the loss of trees beyond those required to be retained by City code does not qualify as a probable significant adverse environmental impact. In its environmental review, the City suggests that the perimeter is necessary to make up for the fact that a significant number of trees will be removed, thereby adversely affecting the views currently enjoyed by neighboring properties. Numerous adjoining property owners also commented on this impact. It is determined that the loss of trees owned by the applicant does not qualify as a significant adverse environmental impact. Of course, almost all development of vacant parcels involves the removal of trees. As discussed in COL No 5, in order to justify mitigation beyond the minimum standards set by the City's landscaping code, the project must involve some fairly unique or significant impacts that were not anticipated in the adoption of that code. The existence of such a large parcel (and large number of associated trees) is arguably unique, but that argument is undermined to a large degree by the subjectivity involved in aesthetic review. Given that the applicant is retaining 30% of the trees, it is debatable whether the loss of the other 70% creates a significant aesthetic view impact to neighboring property owners, especially with the buffering that will be required by this decision to obscure retaining walls. The assessment of aesthetic impacts occasioned by the loss of trees is also tempered by the fact that it is debatable from a legal standpoint whether the applicant can be made to mitigate against the loss of a voluntary aesthetic benefit it has provided to the surrounding community. The applicant has had no obligation to retain all of the trees on its property in the past. Surrounding property owners have no entitlement to this currently existing aesthetic benefit. SEPA only requires mitigation and analysis of impacts created by development. The loss of trees in excess of those required hy City code is not an impact created by the development, since those trees could have been removed at any time prior to development. The site visit, the record and the code do not reveal that any other properties in the vicinity have had to retain perimeter landscaping or that they provide a similar aesthetic benefit to the surrounding community. Given that no such need was found in the past when PRELIMINARY PLAT-8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 - 4. Surrounding Arca. The subject site is surrounding on all sides by single family residential development. To the south it is bordered by the 100 foot wide Cedar River Pipeline. To the east, it is bordered by the 60 foot wide Mercer Island Pipeline. The zoning surrounding the subject on all sides is single family residential (R-8), though there is also a small portion ofR-4 zoning to the east. 5. Adverse Impact~. The proposal does not create any probable significant adverse environmental impacts. Adequate public facilities and drainage control are provided as determined in Finding of Fact No. 6. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 5, two appeals to the threshold were filed. The issues on appeal from the applicant, Henley, are discussed first. The issues on appeal for the project opponent, the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group, are then discussed. Finally, other impacts not related to either appeal but related to the preliminary plat are discussed below. A. Applicant SEPA Issue. As identified in FOF No. 3, only one issue remains in the Applicant's SEPA appeal, specifically the need for perimeter landscaping. It is determined that only the applicant's proposed retaining walls create probable significant environmental impacts and that these impacts can be reduced to nonsignificant levels with ten foot sight obscuring landscaping limited to perimeter areas in front of the retaining walls. I. Proposed Development . Aesthetically Compatible with Surrounding Developm~11.t With the exception of retaining walls (addressed separately), the proposed development does not create any probable significant impacts because of aesthetic incompatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. A site visit and aerial photographs (Ex. K.6.c) reveal that the surrounding neighborhoods are not exceptionally wooded or treed and that the amount of trees proposed for retention by the applicant would not be less than surrounding development. Further, although the applicant proposes a modest increase in density, reasonable minds would certainly differ as to whether this difference in density would create a significant aesthetic impact. The developed portions of the plat are all in the R-8 zone, though the proposed residential density will be 5. 7 dwelling units per acre. The minimum density requirement in the zone is 4.0 dwelling units per acre. All adjacent properties are zoned R-8. Proposed lot sizes would range from 4,500 square feet to 8,456 square feet with an average lot size of 5,399 square feet. While the proposed lots appear to be, on average, somewhat smaller than those of the surrounding developments, they are not significantly smaller and are at a density that is lower than would otherwise be allowed within this zone. Further, because of the presence of the two pipelines and the perimeter location of the critical areas tracts, very few of the lots will be directly adjacent to existing residential PRELIMINARY PLAT -7 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 4. ----------------------------------- retaining walls four feet or more in height (RMC 4-5-060(E)(2)(c)(iv)). This serves as a good threshold height for aesthetic impacts. Retaining walls lower than four feet do not obstruct views for a person of average height. They also tend to be more commonly found in neighborhoods since no building pennit is required. For these reasons, the findings in the preceding paragraph on retaining wall aesthetic impacts are limited to retaining walls over four feet or more in height. Retaining walls less than four feet in height are not found to create probable significant adverse environmental impacts. Ten Foot Perimeter Landscaping Fully _Mitigates Retaining Wall Impact~. The aesthetic impacts of the retaining walls can be fully mitigated by the by a ten foot perimeter landscaping strip. The City is recommending a fifteen foot buffer of trees. During testimony, the applicant's arborist stated a ten foot wide buffer with a staggered double row of conifers would create a very dense screen in IO years. He noted a 15 foot buffer is not sufficient in width to plant a third row of conifers, which would require a 30 foot buffer. The City's arborist concluded that at least 35 feet was necessary to provide for a site- obscuring buffer of trees and that ten verses fifteen feet would not make any material difference in screening (Decision Attachment A, page 7). Given that staffs IS foot recommendation is counter to the recommendation of its own arborist 2 and that the applicant's arborist provides a reasonably good explanation of how a ten foot buffer can effectively screen the property, it is determined that the ten foot buffering advocated by the applicant's arborist will provide a fully sight obscuring buffer to the retaining walls and as such ' I Staff also advocated for a 15 foot buffer because it would help retain some of the treed character of the project site. Sec Exhibit A I, page 19. As outlined in FOF No.5.A. I, the applicant cannot be legally made to compensate for the loss of trees on its property. Further, staff also based its 15 foot buffer requirement upon RMC 4-4-070(FJ(4)(b). This perimeter buffer provides for aesthetic screening between single and multi-family housing. This standard does serve as a good analogous standard for retaining wall impacts. Unfortunately, the standard only requires six foot high vegetation. A six foot high hedge set against a 21 foot high retaining wall does not accomplish a great deal of aesthetic mitigation. For this reason, the RMC 4-4-070(F)(4)(b) buffer does not serve as an ideal analogous landscaping standard. What the RMC 4-4-070(f)(4)(b) and other RMC 4-4-070 perimeter buffer requirements does show is that the City Council was uncomfortable requiring more than a fifteen foot wide buffer in any situation. Requiring more than 15 feet does in fact to place an unreasonable burden upon the applicant for something as subjective as an aesthetic impact. lt is for this reason likely that the City went against the findings of its arborist and only required a fifteen foot buffer instead of a JO foot buffer. This was an appropriate approach, but did not go far enough since as testified by the applicant's arborist, a fifteen foot would not provide for any significant protection beyond a ten foot buffer. Given that a 30 foot buffer would be unreasonable mitigation, the imposition of a ten foot buffer has to be found acceptable even though there a small chance it may not provide for 100% screening as concluded by the City's arborist. PRELIMINARY PLAT-JO 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3. -- trees were removed by other development it is at least somewhat questionable why that is found necessary now in the absence of any code provision expressly requiring such a perimeter. Retaining Walls Create A Probable Significant Adverse Envirorn:rie11tal Impact. It is determined that the retaining walls proposed by the applicant in excess of four feet create a probable significant adverse environmental impact. As noted in the Staff Report. the applicant is proposing multiple walls on the proposed project. Some of the walls will be rockeries. Some walls are retaining walls which will face into the site. These are walls that allow for a finished grade for a lot to be below the surrounding grade .. Other walls will be lock and load walls that allow for a finished lot grade above the surrounding grade. Six foot fencing is allowed on top of both types of walls. These walls are visible from outside the site. Staff notes the applicant has proposed lock and load walls ranging in height from four feet potentially up to 21 feet high. During testimony, Mr. Talkington stated revised grading plans may allow for reduced retaining wall heights. A site visit to the surrounding neighborhoods was conducted December 28, 2014. Though the subject is largely surrounded by pipeline easements, these easements are cleared of vegetation allowing a direct line of sight into the development and of the retaining walls. The site visit demonstrated that high retaining walls are not a common feature of the surrounding development. The applicant proposes solid rock or concrete walls of up to 21 feet in height. These walls will impact the view of the property from surrounding residences, especially given they are an uncommon feature in the area. As proposed, the view from surrounding residences will be significantly impacted as they change from forest canopy and surrounding homes to rock wall faces of nearly two stories tall in places. The Staff Report notes several walls will be seen by the public (proposed Lots 40, 41, 46, 47, 80, 82, 83-90, 93 and 94)1. When considering retaining wall impacts, the height of the wall affects the significance of the impacts. Low retaining walls do not block sunlight and air or obstruct views. The building codes only require building permits for 1 In any discussion of lot numbers, this decision is referring to the numbering scheme utilized in the 97-lot alternative (Exhibit 2). The nomenclature of the 96-lot alternative is exactly one lot lower for each lot because the Tree Retention Plan recommended the elimination of Lot 1 of the 97 lot alternative to maintain 30% tree retention. PRELIMINARY PLAT -9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3. the project site does not contain any hazardous waste necessitating further environmental review. However, nor were the appellants granted access to perform their own studies. The applicant also neglected to submit a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment it said was prepared for the proposal, even after the appellants made the study an issue during the hearing. The actions of the applicant on the hazardous waste issue create uncertainty as to whether the project site is free from hazardous waste. Given that this issue remains unresolved, a condition of approval will require the applicant to submit the results of the Phase I ESA to City staff for confirmation that there are no hazardous materials on site. Wilqlife Habitat and Connectivity. No probable significant adverse impacts to wildlife habitat are anticipated and the SEPA Responsible Official had sufficient information to adequately assess the impacts. The applicant submitted a Revised Wetland Determination and Response Letter (Exhibit 5), a Habitat Assessment (Exhibit 6), and two Habitat Assessment Technical Memorandums (Exhibits 16 and 17). The City required an independent secondary review of the wetlands report (Exhibit 14). As noted in Conclusion of Law 3.B below, the SEPA responsible official must make a prima facie showing that he has based his determination upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal (WAC 197 -11-335). These multiple studies and memoranda were more than adequate to fully assess the wildlife impacts of the proposal as the appellants have not demonstrated any additional information that could have made any material difference in the official's conclusions. No significant adverse impacts are anticipated for wildlife or habitat connectivity. With the exception of pileated woodpeckers and To,vnsend's bats, the fish and wildlife habitat assessment found no listed or endangered species or priority habitat on site. Though the property may function as marginal habitat for many common species, it is geographically isolated from the Cedar River corridor by the Mercer Island Pipeline easement, a residential street, residential lots, a steep slope and the Bonneville Power Administration's easement. Testimony from all sides spoke to the heavy human disturbance on the site including recreational walkers, bikers, unleashed dogs, and the presence of unpermitted structures and pits including forts and paint ball hides. The applicant's wildlife expert, Racheal Villa of Sound view Consultants testified that the formalized protection of the wetlands and buffers on site would result in an improvement in habitat conditions for PRELIMINARY PLAT· 12 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 B. - will prevent the retaining walls from creating probable significant adverse environmental impacts. Limiting the landscape perimeters to the areas where the retaining walls are four feet or more in height should also completely obstruct them from the view of neighboring property owners. For these reasons, the conditions of approval will require the applicant to revise its landscaping plan to provide for site obscuring perimeter landscaping adjacent to areas where the retaining walls are four or more feet in height, specifically in the perimeter areas close to Lots 40, 41, 46, 47, 80, 82, 83-90, 93 and 94. TPWAG SEPA Issues. 1. 2. Aesthetic Impact Due to Loss of Trees. The appellants argue there is a significant adverse aesthetic impact due to the loss of trees. With the exception of retaining walls (addressed separately), the proposed development does not create any probable significant impacts because of aesthetic incompatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. As discussed above in Finding of Fact 5.A. l, the surrounding neighborhoods are not exceptionally wooded or treed and the amount of trees proposed for retention by the applicant would not be less than surrounding development. As described in Finding of Fact 5.A.2, the is retaining 30% of the trees. The applicant has had no obligation to retain all of the trees on its property in the past. Surrounding property owners have no entitlement to this currently existing aesthetic benefit. The loss of trees in excess of those required by City code is not an impact created by the development, since those trees could have been removed at any time prior to development. It is also at best debatable whether the loss of the other 70% creates a significant aesthetic view impact to neighboring property owners, especially with the buffering that will be required by this decision to obscure retaining walls. Potential Presence of Hazardous Materials. No impacts from hazardous materials are anticipated. The appellants demonstrated the subject property had at one time been owned by the Department of Defense. They alleged there might be hazardous materials on site based on this former user. For the past 65 years, for all intents and purposes, the site has been covered by a seemingly healthy forest canopy. The appellants were unable to demonstrate evidence of any overt signs of contamination visible on the site that might justify overturning the substantial weight due the SEPA official's determination that PRELIMINARY PLAT-11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 -- structural anomalies that require further study to determine if there are landslide or other geologically hazardous conditions. The appellants point to bent trees and uneven surfaces located on the site may indicate shallow or slightly deeper ground movement which may be indications of landslide activity in the past or future propensity of slides. They note they requested access to perform their own studies but were denied. Specifically, the appellants have requested expanded soils tests, percolation tests and more test pits and borings to measure localized hydraulic conductivity. As noted above, the applicant has provided a geotechnical report by AES that was reviewed by Earth Solutions, NW. Mr. Coglas of Earth Solutions, NW testified there are no landslide hazards on the property (Decision Attachment A, Page 20). 1be City's Development Engineering Manager, Mr. Lee, testified he concurred with Mr. Coglas' assessment of the landslide hazard risk. Mr. Lee is a professional engineer with extensive experience in site development and civil engineering in Washington. He noted, the steep areas are very small ( 15-20' feet long) and do not warrant slope stability analysis. Overall on the project site, the approximate slope is only I 0% or so. There are no sensitive or protected slopes on the subject property. The majority of the subject site has less than 15 percent slopes. There are a few areas with slopes of I 5 percent to 35 percent. These areas are characterized as Medium Landslide Hazard areas. Mr. Lee stated the City code does not require additional slope stability analysis for these areas. The appellant also asserted that the number and location of test pits were insufficient to evaluate slope stability. Mr. Lee testified there were sufficient numbers of test pits to gauge impacts on ground movement from groundwater on site. lie would have preferred to see a few more, especially in the vault area. However, as Mr. Coglas testified, the City may require extra analysis during final engineering as the design is finalized. He stated he docs not typically require additional geotechnieal analysis at this stage of the process. Mr. Lee felt the information provided was adequate to allow for a determination of impact on the site (See Decision Attachment A, Page 24 ). Mr. Lee's objectivity as a staff employee and his engineering expertise are determinative on the slope stability issue. He clearly reviewed the geotechnical reports in detail and found no need for further investigation or additional information. The findings of the geotechnical analysis are also compelling on their own and the relatively modest slopes of the project site do not raise any apparent cause for concern. For these reasons, it is concluded PRELIMINARY PLAT -14 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 4. 5. -- both pileated woodpeckers and Townsend's bats over the present situation due to the fairly degraded condition of the habitat at present. Seismic Hazards. The SEPA Responsible Official had adequate information to assess the seismic hazards and no probable significant adverse impacts are anticipated in regards to these hazards. As to adequacy of review. the applicant provided a geotechnical report by AES (Exhibit 7) that was reviewed, by the request of the applicant, by Earth Solutions, NW (Exhibit K.2). The AES conclusion in the geotechnical report stated the site, from a geotechnical engineering standpoint, is suitable for support of conventional paving, lightly loaded structures and typical buried utilities, all typical improvements in a single family residential subdivision. The AES preliminary geolechnical report and subsequent peer review by Earth Solutions, NW provide information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposal under WAC 197-11-335. The appellants note the nearest USGS mapped fault zone is 3.9 miles away, though they feel additional testing should occur to determine if there arc unmapped fault zones. The appellants argued there was evidence of ground movement in the form of bent trees and hummocky land which could indicate several things including seismic shifting or landslide activity caused by a shallow groundwater table. The City has mapped the site as a Low Seismic Hazard area and outside of the Coal Mine Hazard areas. The applicant has provided a geotechnical report by AES that was reviewed at the applicant's request by Earth Solutions. NW, the firm hired to perform geotechnical work for the applicant going forward. Mr. Coglas of Earth Solutions, NW testified there are no seismic hazards on the property (Decision Attachment A, Page 21 ). Mr. Coglas went on to state with respect to site stability and groundwater, the stability of the predominantly flat to gently sloping property is good. In his opinion and based on geologic mapping and subsurface data for the site and surrounding area, the site is very similar to the surrounding developed residential area. There is nothing in the record to indicate an increased danger of seismic hazard beyond that of the surrounding properties. A single-family residential plat in this area is in no more probable seismic danger than the surrounding developed properties. The proposal will not create any probable significant adverse environmental impacts in regards to seismic hazards. Landslide Hazards. The SEPA Responsible Official had adequate information to assess landslide hazards. They appellants argued the soil under the plat has PRELIMINARY PLAT -13 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 7. topography, which is of course not the case. He stated perched waters trapped by impervious soils are limited in area and capacity and will drain away when cuts are made to hillsides. The water AES encountered was seepage from perched water rather than the actual groundwater table (Decision Attachment A, page 22). Mr. Coglas referred to the AES test pits and stated they showed no caving or seepage which would indicate weakness in the soils or significant groundwater at or near the surface outside of wetland areas. He stated though there will be some groundwater seepage, he does not expect the site will require dewatering or extensive pumping. AES found no groundwater in its test pits. Mr. Coglas stated even if the appellants are correct and that groundwater is at zero elevation, it could be managed without damaging the feasibility of the project. Mr. Lee also concurred with this statement. Mr. Coglas noted the soils at the subject are not unique to this subject. The entire subject is surrounded by existing development at a similar intensity to the proposed development on similar topography and soils. There is no indication from the record or from the site visit to suggest the utilities; infrastructure or house foundations in the surrounding neighborhoods have failed due to perched groundwater or a high water table. Mr. Coglas noted the presence of groundwater will not preclude development if best management practices are followed. Given Mr. Lee's concurrence in the opinion of Mr. Coglas and the substantial weight required of the findings of the SEPA responsible official, it is determined that the proposal will not create any probable significant adverse groundwater impacts. Downstream Impacts. The SEPA Responsible Official has information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the downstream impacts of the proposal. The City required a Level I downstream analysis. The proposed Level 2 Flow Control (Exhibit A, page 31) will restrict the flow of the 2-year release rate to 50% of the pre-developed site conditions, which will help to reduce an existing drainage issue. Mr. Lee stated the City is uncertain of a segment of the pipeline that takes the water downstream of the project site and have therefore requested a Level 2 downstream analysis to be performed prior to building permit approval. They want to make sure the project will not exacerbate existing downstream flooding issues. An NPDES permit will be required for the project, which will stipulate the allowable discharge into the conveyance system (Decision Attachment A, Page 25). The City additionally PRELIMINARY PLAT-16 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 6. that the SEPA responsible official had reasonably adequate information to assess the slope stability of the project site. Groundwater. The SEPA Responsible Official had reasonably adequate information to assess the groundwater impacts and there are no probable significant adverse groundwater impacts associated with the proposal. The appellants argued there was insufficient study of the groundwater situation on site and the potential affect groundwater might have on development. They note they requested access to perform their own studies but were denied. Specifically, they appellants have requested expanded soils tests, percolation tests and more test pits and borings to measure localized hydraulic conductivity. The applicant provided a geotechnical report (Exhibit 7), a peer review of the geotechnical report (Exhibit K.2), a wetlands report and a revised wetlands report (Exhibit 5), and a drainage report (Exhibit 8). The wetlands reports were independently reviewed by Otak (Exhibits 14 and 15). The City's Development Engineer, Mr. Lee stated the applicant had provided a sufficient number of test pits to gauge impacts of potential groundwater on site (Decision Attachment A, page 24). Given the extensive information provided and the peer review, the applicant has provided information sufficient for the SEPA Responsible Official to issue a threshold determination with respect to groundwater impacts. There are no anticipated adverse impacts related to the groundwater table. The appellants argue groundwater saturation levels at this site make it undevelopable. They point to the AES geoteehnical report (Exhibit 7), the Shultz wetlands report (Exhibit 5), the Technical Information Report by Barghausen and the Otak wetlands reviews (Exhibits 14 and 15) as all demonstrating the groundwater table is at or within seven inches of the surface in all wetland areas. Groundwater near the surface is defining feature of wetlands. However, the appellants argue the water table is a flat contour throughout the project site and, as a consequence of a high water table, water intrusion will disrupt or prevent proper installation of utilities, foundation drains and the stormwater vault. The applicant's geotechnical engineer, Ray Coglas, testified there is perched groundwater on the site, rather than a flat table, a statement Mr. Lee concurred with during testimony (Decision Attachment A, pages 22 and 25, respectively). If the site had a flat water table close to the ground surface all over the site; the whole site would be underwater because of the varying PRELIMINARY PLAT-15 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 functionally the same as the existing development pattern. Nothing in the record indicates there will be significant adverse impacts with respect to air quality. C. Other Impacts Related to the Preliminary Plat. 1. Wetlands. As proposed and conditioned, the proposal will not create any significant adverse impacts to wetlands. There are five wetlands on site. Three of the wetlands are Category 2; the others arc Category III. The applicant submitted a Wetland Determination, prepared by C. Gary Schulz, Inc. (October 30, 2013) and a revised Wetland Determination in response to revisions to the plat including the use of a drainage vault, instead of a drainage detention pond, and the inclusion of a vegetated buffer along portions of the site perimeter (February 28, 2014). Based on public comments (See Exhibit 10.6), staff required an evaluation by an independent qualified professional regarding the applicant's wetland analysis and the effectiveness of any proposed mitigating measures. On April 3, 2014 an independent secondary wetland review was provided to the City by Otak (Exhibit A, Attachment 14). Following the completion of recommendations in the Otak memo, the applicant submitted a Revised Wetland Determination and Response (June 3, 2014) (Exhibit A, Attachment 5). At the hearing, members of the public expressed concern regarding the protection of wetlands and wildlife habitat. There was specific concern regarding removal of trees and wetland hydrology. During testimony, Ms. Villa of Soundview Consultants stated she was hired by the applicant to perform supplementary wetland review. for fish and wildlife habitat. In her study, she found no state or federally listed or protected species on the site. She noted the habitat is fairly disturbed now with evidence of a lot of human intrusion. In her opinion, protection of the wetlands and habitats with proper fencing and signagc would result in better protection for the habitat than exists currently. The Otak Supplemental Independent Secondary Review concluded water quality, wetland hydro logic function and flood storage will be protected. The applicant proposes buffer averaging provisions (RMC 4-3-050(M)(6)(f)). The buffer averaging plan provides additional buffer area at ratios that range from PRELIMINARY PLAT -18 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 8. 9. -~---------------------------------- -- established a SEPA mitigating condition requmng Level 2 downstream analysis for V. mile from the project site. All of the requirements must be met before a building permit or construction permits are issued. With these conditions in place, the City has reasonably sufficient information al this stage of review to evaluate down stream impacts. Discharge into Wetlands. The proposed discharge of roof run-off into wetlands will not create a probable significant adverse environmental impact. The detailed local, state and federal standards applicable to stormwater run-off are determinative on the existence of adverse impacts. If the proposed drainage is compliant with applicable regulations, there are no adverse impacts. The appellants assert that the proposed roof run-off into wetlands is in violation of the Clean Water Act. As noted by the applicant, the King County Surface Water Drainage Manual specifically excludes drainage from roofs (except untreated metal roofs) from consideration as pollution generating sources (Exhibit AF). The appellants have not provided any citation or court opinion that roof run off discharge constitutes a violation of any applicable regulation and no such violation is apparent from the reading of the Clean Water Act. Mr. Talkington, in his testimony for the applicant, noted that discharge of clean or non-point source polluted stormwatcr into wetlands is common practice and is required to hydraulically charge the wetlands. Mr. Lee stated the applicant had complied with all city, state and federal code requirements with respect to stromwater. Mr. Lee testified the codes are sufficient to address all probable stormwater impacts. He further noted a National Pollution Discharge and Elimination System permit will be required for the project, which will ensure that no stormwater pollutants are released into wetlands or groundwater. The permit will include background and discharge monitoring. No building permit or construction permits will be issued until the NPDES conditions are met. Since the proposed stormwater discharge is consistent with all applicable regulations, is a standard practice for development and also meets the approval of staff, it is determined that the proposed discharge to wetlands will not create any probable significant adverse environmental impacts. Air Quali_!y. No significant adverse impacts to air quality are anticipated. During the construction phase of the project, there will be exhaust from trucks and heavy equipment. However, after the construction phase is over, the subdivision will function similarly to the surrounding development with respect to emissions and air quality issues. The proposed development is PRELIMINARY PLAT -17 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 - No other significant impacts are reasonably anticipated from the evidence contained within the administrative record. 6. i\d_ffil!<19Y of _lnJtastructure/f11bli_c_Service_s. The project will be served by adequate infrastructure and public services. Preliminary adequacy of all infrastructure facilities has been reviewed by the City's Public Works Department and found to be sufficient. Specific infrastructure/services are addressed as follows: A. Water and Sewer Service. This site is located in the City of Renton water service boundary. There is an existing 8-inch water main stubbed to the site in SE 201h Court, in SE 19th Court and SE 18th Court. This site is located in the 590-water pressure zone. Static pressure in the area ranges from 65-82 psi. The site is located in the City of Renton sewer service area. There is an 8-inch sewer main in SE 18 1h Street. B. Police <l!l4 Fire Protection. Police and Fire Prevention staffs indicate that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; subject to the provision of Code required improvements and fees. A Fire Impact Fee, based on new single family lots, will be required in order to mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to City emergency services. The fee is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. Currently the fee is assessed at $479.28 per single family residence. This fee is paid at time of building permit issuance. C. Orainag£. As conditioned, the proposal provides for adequate drainage facilities. In order to address concerns raised by staff, as recommended by them a condition of approval requires a Level 2 downstream analysis for Y, mile from the project site to determine if the proposed project would exacerbate existing downstream capacity issues. The applicant submitted a Preliminary Drainage Report prepared by Barghausen, dated February 24, 2014 (Exhibit 8). Staff has determined that the preliminary plan is consistent with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters I and 2. Full compliance with the Manual will be required during engineering review. D. Parks/Open Spa~c. The proposal is consistent with adopted parks and open space standards and, therefore, provides for adequate parks and open space. RMC 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-8 district. However, the applicant is proposing a total of 1.26 acres of passive and active open space, in addition to critical areas on site, for the open space needs of the subdivision. PRELIM!NAR Y PLAT -20 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2. - 1.6: 1.0 to 9.5: 1.0. Wetlands A, B, C, and D would have buffer areas significantly greater following the buffer averaging proposal. However, staff are concerned the proposed adjustments will not provide adequate buffering on the north and east sides of Wetlands B and C to take into account the proposed "lock & load walls" in those locations. The applicant will be required to submit a final Mitigation Plan (RMC 4-8-120(W)) demonstrating appropriate mitigation for all wetlands and buffer impacts prior to permit approval. The applicant has requested a critical areas exemption allowing a permanent buffer impact to 14sf of the Wetland E buffer. The exemption would allow the applicant to construct the required full street improvements at SE 18 1h Street (RMC 4-6-060). This area (2 l 9st) has already been impacted by past infrastructure construction. Staff recommends approval of the critical areas exemption with mitigation for the impact. The critical areas on site have a total area of 118,494 square feet (2.72 acres) and would be located in (Tracts B, G, K, & M). The applicant is proposing to increase wetland buffers which would result in a total native open space used to preserve native forest habitat of approximately 175,199 square feet ( 4.02 acres). As conditioned, no impacts to wetland habitat are anticipated. Given the extensive review of wetland impacts, staffs review and approval of wetland mitigation, and the applicant's compliance with all applicable wetland regulations, it is concluded that the proposal will not create any adverse impacts to wetlands. Tree Retention Required. The proposal provides for adequate tree retention because it complies with the City's tree retention standards, RMC 4-4-130(C). The applicant submitted two versions of the preliminary plat application. The first version is a 97 lot alternative that does not achieve 30% significant tree retention. The second plat alternative is a 96-lot preliminary plat that achieves 30% significant tree retention and implements the applicant's Tree Protection Report (Exhibit 3). Since the 96-lot alternative implements the applicant's tree retention plan and is consistent with the agreed upon SEPA mitigation measure requiring 30% retention, this is taken as the applicant's proposal and is the design approved by this decision. If the applicant was still intending to pursue a 97-lot design, it should request reconsideration. PRELIMINARY PLAT -19 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ._.,. Included in the Independent Secondary Review (Exhibit 13) was a recommendation for sight distance analysis at the I 24th Place SE and SE 158'h Street intersection. The report identifies this intersection as a possible sight distance concern. Given the provided TIA does not include an analysis of the sight distance at this intersection, a SEPA mitigation measure was issued requiring the applicant submit a revised TIA including an analysis of the 124th Place SE and SE I 5gth Street intersection sight distance and recommend appropriate mitigation if needed (Exhibit 22). Site distances at all other study intersections were deemed adequate with the exception of Beacon Way SE at SE 16th Street. The vertical curve of SE 16th Street presents a visibility concern. A crest vertical curve obstructs sight distance where SE 16th Street crosses Beacon Way SE especially if car speeds exceed posted speed limit signage. There are existing signs (Steep Hill, Slippery When Wet, Advisory 15MPH Speed) at SE I 6th Street northeast of Beacon Way SE which help to calm existing traffic at this intersection. Approximately 60% of the project's trips arc anticipated to utilize this intersection. Therefore, the ERC issued a SEPA mitigation measure requiring the applicant to install an additional warning sign for a CROSSROAD (W2-I symbol) with a 15MPH advisory speed on the southwest directional approach to Beacon Way SE, along the north side of SE 161h Street ( east of Beacon Way SE) (Exhibit 22). The ERC issued another SEPA mitigation condition at this intersection to reduce cut thru traffic. The applicant is required to install directional information signage (white letters on green background) at S. Puget Drive and 116th Avenue SE facing west (Exhibit 22). The signs are required to read "TIFF ANY PARK" with a left arrow and "CASCADE" with a right arrow. Several public comments requested the use of speed bumps as a traffic calming measure along SE I 6th Street to address sight distance (including vertical), cut through traffic, and spin out concerns which would be aggravated by traffic generated by the proposal. The City does not support the use of speed bumps on public streets. Speed bumps are not desired due to noise, excessive speeds between installations (so drivers can make up time), and result in a reduction in response time of public safety vehicles such as fire engines and aid cars. Several public comments requested internal pedestrian connect1v1ty, connections to neighboring developments/abutting pipelines, connectivity to Tiffany Park Elementary, and the crossing at SE 16th St and Edmonds Way SE intersection (See Exhibit I 0.22). No frontage improvements are required on adjacent street frontage. The internal public streets have been proposed with a right-ol~way width of 53 feet which meets the City's PRELIMINARY PLAT-22 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 -- The applicant will also be require to pay park impact fees prior to building permit issuace to ensure that the development pays its fair share of system wide park improvements. E. Streets. The proposal, as conditioned, provides for adequate streets and associated infrastructure. The applicant is proposing two points of ingress and egress into the plat; SE 18th St and I 24th Place SE. The primary neighborhood streets which would serve project traffic include 116'• Avenue SE, 126th Avenue SE, SE 168th Street, SE Petrovitsky Road, S. Puget Drive, and 108th Avenue SE-Benson Road S. 1be project site is currently served by King County Metro Route 148 with Routes I 02 and 155 also operating within the vicinity of the subject site. The nearest transit stop for Route 148 is located on Lake Youngs Drive SE and l 23'd Avenue SE. Staff received conunents from interested parties with respect to traffic specifically related to the need for additional analysis, trip generation, lack of public transit, level of service, sight distance, the Edmonds Avenue SE/SE 16th Street-Edmonds Way SE intersection, the use of speed bumps for traffic calming, stop signs, and traffic impact fees (See Exhibit I 0). The applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by TranspoGroup, (November, 2013) as part of the original submittal. Based on public comments received, staff required an evaluation by an independent qualified professional regarding the applicant's transportation analysis and the effectiveness of any proposed mitigating measures. The TIA concludes that all affected intersections will continue to operate at an acceptable level of service, except the intersection of Benson Drive SIS Puget Drive, which will fall to LOS E by 2018 with or without the proposed project. The addition of AM peak hour project traffic would add approximately five seconds of average delay to this intersection. Staff concluded that this minor amount of delay did not justify additional mitigation and the reduction in LOS will not violate the City's adopted level of service. The applicant will be required to pay traffic impact fees prior to issuance of building permits, which provides adequate mitigation against the modest traffic impacts created by the proposal. The TIA noted limited sight distance exists today for southbound motorists on Monroe Avenue SE approaching SE 18th Street due to the roadway geometrics and existing obstructions (fence and on-street vehicle parking). The site distance issue was remedied by an MONS condition that requires the applicant to install a stop sign. PRELIMINARY PLAT -21 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO I 1 12 13 14 15 16 - Sidewalks would provide a route between the project site and nearby Tiffany Park Elementary School, including available marked crosswalks at the Kirkland Avenue SE/Lake Youngs Way intersection. The Kirkland Avenue SE/Lake Youngs Way intersection is approximately 300 linear feet from where SE I 8th St intersects Lake Youngs Way. Given the number of homes proposed, it is very likely that a large influx of students would attempt to cross Lake Youngs Way SE, at the SE I 8'h Street intersection, which does not currently have a marked crosswalk. In order to provide a more practical safe route to Tiffany Park Elementary from the project site, a SEPA mitigation measure was issued requiring the applicant provide a marked crosswalk at the intersection of SE 18 1h Street and Lake Youngs Way. No current bus stops exist for this property as it is currently undeveloped. The Renton School District will be making provisions for the location of bus stops for those students who will be attending Nelson Middle School. A School Impact Fee, based on new single-family lots, will also be required in order to mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to Renton School District. The fee is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of building permit application. Currently the fee is assessed at $5,455.00 per single family residence and would increase to $5,541.00 on January I, 2015. V. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I 7 I. Authority. RMC 4-7-020(C) and 4-7-050(0}(5) provide that the Hearing Examiner shall 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 hold a hearing and issue a final decision on preliminary plat applications. RMC 4-9-070(R) and RMC 4-8-1 IO(A)(2) grant the Examiner authority to review and make final decisions on SEPA appeals. 2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan DesignaJions. The majority of the subject property is zoned Residential 8 dwelling units per net acre (R-8). A small portion of the subject property is zoned Residential 4 dwelling units per net acre (R-4 ). Only the R-8 portion of the property is proposed for residential development. The comprehensive plan map land use designation is Residential Single Family (RSF) and Residential Low Density (RLD). SEPAAPPEAL PRELIMINARY PLAT · 24 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 complete street requirements for residential access streets. Pavement width of 26 feet, 0.5 foot wide curbs, 8 foot wide landscaped planters (on both sides of the street), 5 foot wide sidewalks (on both sides of the street), drainage improvements, and street lighting are required. The applicant is proposing two pedestrian connections to neighboring developments and an abutting pipeline via Tracts C and E. City staff evaluated the intersection of Edmonds Avenue SE/SE 16'h Street-Edmonds Way SE with respect to pedestrian improvements in 1996, 2005 and again in 2007 and determined that crosswalks were not warranted at this location. The additional development traffic will not exceed the threshold to warrant installation of a crosswalk al this location. As noted in staff testimony above, the proposal will not exceed six dwelling units per acre and therefore is not required to provide alley access. Several public comments dealt with construction traffic (See Exhibit I 0.30). The developer will be required to comply with the Renton Municipal Code for haul hours, construction hours, and noise levels. A final Traffic Control Plan complying with the Renton Municipal Code will be required to be submitted and approved prior to construction. 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. The Renton School District anticipates it can accommodate any additional students generated by this proposal at the following schools: Tiffany Park Elementary (0.4 miles from the subject site), Nelson Middle School (1.7 miles from the subject site) and Lindberg High School (0.9 miles from the subject site). RCW 58.17.110(2) provides that no subdivision be approved without making a written finding of adequate provisions for safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from school and/or bus stops. Tiffany Park Elementary and Lindberg High School are within walking distance of the subject site while Nelson Middle School would require foture students to be transported to school via bus. As part of the proposed project, sidewalks would be constructed along on-site roadways which would connect to the existing sidewalk system providing adequate provisions for safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from school and/or bus stops. PRELIMINARY PLAT -23 2 - impact for which the SEPA responsible official did not have sufficient information to reasonably assess impacts. 3 D. Perimeter Landscaping. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MONS Condition No. 6 is modified to only require IO foot perimeter landscaping along the retaining walls that arc over four feet in height, specifically in proximity to lots 40, 41, 46, 47, 80, 82, 83-90, 93 and 94. The applicant argues that no perimeter buffering is required because the City's landscaping standards do not require buffering and that those standards should be determinative in assessing the need for landscaping. The applicant is correct up to a point. RCW 36.70B.030(3) and RCW 43.21C.240(2)(a) does allow a city to use its development standards as the exclusive source of mitigation for environmental impacts. However, RCW 43.21C.240(2)(a) provides that in order to use development regulations in this manner the City must make a determination in the course of permit review that the development standards in question are adequately addressed by the development regulations. RCW 43.21 C.240( 4) further clarifies that for development standards to be found to adequately mitigate impacts, imposition of the standards must either avoid or mitigate the impacts; or the legislative body of the city has determined that the development standard sets acceptable levels of impact. Renton's landscaping standards do not adequately address all of the aesthetic impacts created by the proposal. As noted previously, one of the two ways that a development standard can be found to adequately address impacts is if the City Council intended the standard to set acceptable levels of impact. See RCW 43.21C.240(4)(b).The Renton City Council expressly determined that the landscaping standard would not set acceptable levels of aesthetic impact, stating the purpose clause of the landscaping standards that "it is not the intent of these regulations that rigid and inflexible design standards be imposed, bu! rather !hat minimum slandards be set." The other, more difficult issue involved in ascertaining whether the landscaping standards would adequately address aesthetic impacts is if the standards actually mitigate the impacts. Given the subjectivity of aesthetic perimeter impacts, one would have to conclude that in the vast majority of typical subdivisions the landscaping standards do set an adequate standard. In not imposing any perimeter landscaping requirements between single family residential uses, the City Council must have determined that for the typical subdivision, such landscaping is not necessary. However, the proposed subdivision is not typical. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 6, the proposal will involve up to 16.6 foot high retaining walls that will create a stone wall to the neighborhoods across from it, which in turn can be topped with 6 foot fences. The site visit revealed that no other homes in the vicinity have such retaining walls or similar edifices bordering on public roads. Consequently, the impacts of the subdivision are not typical and likely not the type of impact the City Council considered when it omitted any buffer requirements for adjoining residential uses. Additional PRELIMfNARY PLAT -26 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 - 3. Review Standard. There are two reasons a DNS can be overturned to overturned: (I) there are unmitigated probable significant adverse environmental impacts; or (2) the SEPA responsible official has not undertaken an adequate review of environmental factors. Each grounds for reversal will be separately addressed below. A. Probable Significan.LAdverse EnvironmentaJ!mpacts. The primary relevant inquiry for purposes of assessing whether County staff correctly issued a DNS is whether the project as proposed has a probable significant environmental impact. See WAC 197- 11-330(1 )(b). WAC 197-11-782 defines '"probable" as follows: 'Probable' means likely or reasonably likely to occur, as in 'a reasonable probability of more than a moderale e.ffecl on the quality of the environment' (vee WAC 197-//-794). Probable is used to distinguish likely impacts from rhose that merely have a possibility of occurring. but are remote or speculative. This is nor meant as a strict statistical probability test. If such impacts arc created, conditions will have to be added to the DNS to reduce impacts so there are no probable significant adverse environmental impacts. In the alternative, an environmental impact statement would be required for the project. In assessing the validity of a threshold determination, the determination made by the City's SEPA responsible official shall be entitled to substantial weight. WAC I 97-l l-680(3)(a)(viii). An appeal of an MONS is judicially reviewed under the clearly erroneous standards. Under the clearly erroneous standard, the decision of the SEPA responsible official can only be overturned if, after reviewing the entire record, the decision maker is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. RMC 4-8-I IO- (E)(l 2)(b )(v). The procedural determination by the Environmental Review Committee or City staff shall carry substantial weight in any appeal proceeding. RMC 4-8-l lO(E)(l2)(a). Adeguate Environmental Review 18 8. 19 The second reason a DNS can be overturned is if the SEPA responsible official did not adequately review environmental impacts in reaching his threshold determination. The SEPA responsible official must make a prima facie showing that he has based his determination upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal. WAC 197-11-335. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 C. No Grounds for an EIS. TPW AG has not demonstrated a need for additional SEPA mitigation, environmental review or the issuance of an environmental impact statement. All of the grounds for SEPA appeal are addressed in Finding of Fact No. 5. As determined in that finding, none of the impacts identified by TPW AG qualify as probable significant adverse environmental impacts and TPW AG has not identified an PRELIMINARY PLAT -25 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 - As a final matter, SEPA mitigation can only be used to impose mitigation against probable significant adverse environmental impacts. As detennined in the Finding of Fact No. 5, the solid walls created by the higher portions of the retaining wall easily qualify. No reasonable minds could differ on the opinion that high retaining walls are at odds with the general design of the community and create a mass of rock or concrete wall that is aesthetically adverse. The remaining issue is how high the wall should be to be considered adverse. Again, reference to existing codes is useful as it provides an objective and consistent standard for application. Retaining walls fewer than four feet in height do not require building pennit review. Consequently, it can be reasonably anticipated that decorative retaining walls under four feet may not be that uncommon, whereas property owners will only go through the time and expense of building permit review for higher walls when they are necessitated for stability as opposed to decorative purposes. A four feet height is also still low enough to retain the views of surrounding trees, vistas and other natural and landscaped features. For this reason, those portions of the proposal with retaining walls that exceed four feet in height shall be subject to the 15 foot wide perimeter landscaping requirement imposed in the MONS. E. Retaining Wall Height. The six-foot retaining wall height limitation recommended by staff will not be adopted. Renton does not have any standards imposing height limits on retaining walls outside of setback areas. There is nothing in the record that establishes the potential for any adverse impacts other than aesthetic, and those impacts will be adequately addressed by the staffs recommended landscape perimeter. The retaining wall condition presents two code interpretation issues: (I) whether the City's fence and hedge regulation (RMC I0-4-040) applies to retaining walls, and (2) if RMC I0-4-040 does apply, whether it imposes a six foot height limit on retaining walls. As to the first issue, RMC I 0-4-040 probably does apply to retaining walls. RMC 4-4-040(A) provides that the purpose of RMC 4-4-050 is lo regulate the material and height of "fences and hedges." "Fence" is not defined in the RMC. However, walls are addressed throughout RMC 4-4-040. Most pertinent, RMC 4-4-040(C)( 1) provides in relevant part that, "In cases where a wall is used instead of a fence, height shall be measured from the lop surface of the wall to the ground on the high side of the wall." This sentence strongly suggests that the wall in question can include retaining walls, since the sentence acknowledges that one side of the wall can be at a higher grade than the other. Retaining walls that project above the higher grade would meet this definition. The applicant argues that this reference to "wall" as well as others pertains to "European or California-style stone walls." Nothing in the language of RMC 4-4-040 suggests that walls be limited to stone walls. In addition to providing some clarity on the applicability of RMC 4-4-040 to retaining walls, RMC 4- 4-040(C)(l) also establishes that retaining walls that do not project past the higher grade have a height of zero feet, which is below all the height limits set for walls by RMC 4-4-040. The sentence PRELIMINARY PLAT-28 2 - mitigation through SEPA is well justified in this case to mitigate against the impact of retaining walls. 3 The City's environmental report also cites that buffering is necessary to off-set the impacts of the densities of the proposal, which are higher than adjoining densities. This docs not serve as an 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 adequate justification for buffering. Setting a threshold for adverse aesthetic impacts based upon a difference in density or lot sizes is a completely arbitrary action in the absence of any legislative guidance. The difference in density between the proposal and adjoining uses is not so high that reasonable minds would share the same opinion as to whether the difference is aesthetically adverse. Though both the surrounding areas and the subject are zoned R-8, .the developed density of the proposal will not exceed 5.7 dwelling units per acre. Indeed, unlike the retaining walls of the project, differences in residential densities arc something that one would reasonably anticipate the Council would have considered in adopting its landscaping standards, and it adopted no perimeter requirements between residential zoning districts with different densities, except as between multi- family and less intense residential uses. For these reasons, the comparatively higher density of the proposal does not create a probable significant adverse environmental impact. Another issue with respect to the SEPA's mitigation measure is to ensure that the City has adopted a SEPA policy that requires the impact to be addressed. RCW 43.21C.060 requires that SEPA mitigation must be based upon policies adopted by the local government authority. Interestingly, the City hasn't adopted its development standards as part of its SEPA policies, so the purpose clause of the landscaping regulations, which promote aesthetic compatibility, can't be used. There are plenty of other SEPA policies that promote aesthetic compatibility. RMC 4-2-070(M)(2)(ii) provide that one of the goals of SEPA review is to assure aesthetically pleasing surroundings. The City's comprehensive plan is another adopted SEPA policy. One of its community design goals is to "raise the aesthetic quality of the city". Objective CD-M recognizes that well designed landscaping provides aesthetic appeal and makes an important contribution to the health, safety, economy and general welfare of the community. Policy CD-88 provides that street trees and landscaping should be required for new development to provide an attractive streetscape in areas subjected to a transition of land uses. All of these policies are served by the perimeter landscaping required by this decision, since such landscaping will raise the aesthetic quality of the city, provide for aesthetic appeal and buffer against the transition from the higher density residential development and its associated retaining walls to the lower surrounding residential densities. The applicants argue in their briefing that requiring perimeter landscaping would be unreasonable because homes would lose yard space. In the alternative, of course, the applicant may have to lose some lots. Given the judicial construction of "reasonable" in due process and takings cases, the loss of a few lots or yard space would not be considered unreasonable. PRELIMINARY PLAT-27 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 - borders on the absurd. More importantly, the applicant could prevent the public from usmg its property at any time, with or without the proposal. For this reason, the loss of recreational use should not be considered an impact of the proposal for purposes of environmental review. Even if loss of the recreational use of the site could be legitimately considered an environmental impact for purpcses of SEPA, its loss would not qualify as a probable significant adverse environmental impact. The City's comprehensive plan, park impact fees and open space requirements are all designed to assure that each developer is required lo provide its proportionate share contribution to the park needs of the city and that the park needs of the public will be met as development progresses. The applicant's proposal is consistent and compliant with all of these requirements. In point of fact the applicant will be required to pay park impact fees at the time of building permit issuance. The applicant is also providing for 1.2 acres of open space, even though no open space is required for subdivisions in the R-8 zone. As would be expected, none of the City's park policies or regulations penalizes a developer for withdrawing the ability of the public to use or trespass upon its property. Since the applicant is acting fully within the requirements of the City's detailed park policies and regulations, its proposal cannot be considered to create adverse impacts to the City's (i.e. public's) parks and recreational system. PRELIMINARY PLAT 6. Review Criteria. Chapter 4-7 RMC governs the criteria for preliminary review. Applicable standards are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions oflaw. RMC 4-7-080(B): A subdivision shall be consistent with the following principles ofacceptability: I. legal lots: Create legal building sites which comply with all provisions of the City Zoning Code. 2. Access: Establish access to a public roadfi,r each segregated parcel. 3. Physical Characteristics: Have suitable physical characterislics. A proposed plat may be denied because of flood, inundation, or wetland conditions. Construction 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 provision for drainage ways. streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies and sanitary wastes. RMC 4-4-080(1)(7): a. Benefits of Joint use driveways reduce the number of curb cuts along individual streets and thereby improve safety and reduce congestion while providing for additional on-street parking PRELIMINARY PI .AT -30 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 clearly states that retaining wall height is to be measured from the "high side of the wall", which would be zero in the case of the retaining walls proposed by the applicant. This result makes sense in light of the other limitation of RMC 4-4-040, that it applies only "in cases where walls are used instead of a fence." If a retaining wall does not extend above the higher grade, it doesn't take the place of a fence and hence is not subject to the height limit. In short, retaining walls that only serve to retain soil, as proposed by the applicant, are not subject to the height limits of RMC 4-4-040. Practically speaking, this means that RMC 4-4-040 doesn't apply to retaining walls solely used to stabilize grade separations, since no other provisions in RMC 4-4-040 apply as well. Since the six foot height limit is not required RMC 4-4-040, staff would have to find some other code provision to require the fence. Plat criteria requiring conformance to the comprehensive plan, see RMC 4-7-080(1)(1), include the policies addressing aesthetic impacts identified in COL No. 5.A.1. As determined in Finding of Fact No.6.C, the aesthetic impacts of the retaining walls can be fully mitigated by perimeter landscaping. Staff acknowledged as much at page 13 of the staff report. Therefore, the record contains no adequate justification for a limitation on retaining wall height. F. Loss of Recreational Use. The appellants assert that the project site has been used as a recreational resource by the surrounding community for decades and that its loss is a probable significant adverse environmental impact. The loss of recreational use from the property is not an environmental impact of the proposal subject to SEPA review and mitigation. Even if it were, that loss does not result in any violation of the City's detailed park policies and regulations, compliance of which assures that development will not create demand upon park facilities that exceeds legislatively adopted level of service standards. As a preliminary matter, it should be noted that this decision does not address the prescriptive rights claims made by the appellants to the project site. As ruled in Ex. AG, the Examiner has no authority to address the prescriptive easement claims asserted by the SEPA appellants. Practically speaking, this decision will not prejudice the appellants' prescriptive rights claims if the appellants diligently pursue those claims in superior court, the proper forum for such a claim. Should the appellants actually succeed in persuading a court that the public has prescriptive rights to the public school property (which appears unlikely at this juncture), they could acquire injunctive or other judicial relief to prevent development of the proposal. No additional SEPA review or mitigation is merited on the recreational use issue because the loss of that use cannot be considered an impact of the proposal. In the absence of any prescriptive rights to the project site, project opponents arc left with the argument that the applicant should fund further environmental review or provide for additional mitigation to compensate for the fact that either (I) the applicant was benevolent enough to allow the public to use its property; or (2) the public repeatedly trespassed on the applicant's property. From an equitable standpoint, such a position PRELIMINARY PLAT-29 2 3 4 - RMC 4-7-080(1)(1): ... The Hearing Examiner shall assure conformance with the general purposes of the Comprehensive Plan and adopted standardL. 8. The proposed preliminary play is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan as outlined in Finding [( l) of the staff report, which is incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. 5 RMC 4-7-120(A): No plan for the replalting, subdivision, or dedication of any areas shall be approved by the Hearing Examiner unless the streets shown therein are connected by surfaced road 6 or street (according to City specifications} to an existing street or highway. 7 8 9 10 11 9. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 2, the internal road system connects to SE 18'h Street and 124th Place SE, both public roads. RMC 4-7-120(8): The location of all streets shall conform to any adopted plans for streets in the Cily. 10. The City's adopted street plans are not addressed in the staff report or anywhere else in the administrative record. However, the proposed internal road system extends two existing stub roads, 12 SE 18'h Street and 124th Place SE. Both extensions will be constructed to City road standards. 13 Consequently, the criterion above is construed as satisfied by the proposal. 14 RMC 4-7-120(C): If a subdivision is located in the area ofan officially designed {sic} /rail, provisions shall be made for reservation of/he right-of-way or for easements to the City for /rail 15 purposes. 16 11. According to the Renton Trails and Bikeways Map (Exhibit 20) a pedestrian trail is 17 designated within the Seattle Pipeline abutting the site. The applicant would be required to obtain 18 19 20 21 22 23 right-of-way or an access easement across the pipeline for secondary access via I 24th Place SE (sec Finding 35.6, Streets). In addition, the applicant would be required to provide a safe crossing for the designated trail across the extension of I 24th Place SE. As a condition of approval, the applicant shall submit a revised plat plan depicting a safe pedestrian crossing, across the I 24th Place SE extension, for the Seattle Waterline Pedestrian Trail. RMC 4-7-BO(C): A pla/, short plal, subdivision or dedication shall be prepared in conformance wilh lhe following provisions: I. Land Unsuitable for Subdivision: Land which is found lo be unsuilahle for subdivision includes 24 land with fea/ures likely to be harmful to the safety and general hea//h of the fulure residents (such 25 26 as lands adversely affected by flooding. sleep slopes, or rock formations). Land which !he Department or lhe Hearing Examiner considers inappropriate for subdivision shall not be subdivided unless adequa/e safeguards are provided against these adverse conditions. PRELIMINARY PLAT-32 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 - opportunities. Joint use driveways should be encouraged when feasible and appropriate. (Ord. 4517, 5-8-1995) b. Where Permitted: Adjoining commercial or industrial uses may utilize a joint use driveway where such joint use driveway reduces the total number of driveways enlering the street network, subject to the approval of !he Department of Community and Economic Developmen/. Joint use driveways mus/ he created upon !he common property line ufthe properlies served or lhrough the granting of a permanenl access easement when said driveway does not exist upon a common property line. Join/ use access lo the driveway shall be assured by easement or other legal form acceptable to the City. 7. As to compliance with the Zoning Code, Finding 1(2) of the staff report in the portions related to density, lot dimensions, setbacks and building standards (Pages 12-13) are adopted by reference as if set forth in full, with all associated recommended conditions of approval adopted by this decision as well. As depicted in the plat map, Staff Report Ex. 2, most of the lots will directly access a public Road (Road A, SE 18th Street or 124th Place SE). As noted in Finding of Fact 6.G, shared driveways are proposed for Lots 12-14, Lots 15-17, Lots 38-40 and Lots 79-81. Staff additionally suggests Lot 1 I and Lots 78 take access from the shared driveway. There arc no topographical or critical areas issues to preclude these three lots from having shared access. The shared access would reduce the number of curb cuts at the entrance of the plat at 124th Place SE and along the cul de sac at the end of the same street. Potential vehicle and pedestrian conflicts would be lessened by consolidating driveways. However, the applicant testified use of the shared driveway for Lot 11 is problematic because the driveway would be at an angle to the roadway which would also change the design of the house to allow side loading of the garage. The applicant objected to the inclusion of Lot 78 in a shared driveway. There appear to be no material differences between Lots 78 and 81 in terms of orientation or width. As these lots are very near to the subdivision entrance, limiting potential vehicle and pedestrian conflicts is desirable. Though a change to the design of the house on Lot 11 is not an unreasonable accommodation to allow for vehicular and pedestrian safety at the cul de sac, the driveway for Lot 11 would be at an undesirable angle to the shared driveway. The cul de sac serves a limited number of houses. In this instance, the safety effect of removing one driveway access to a cul de sac docs not outweigh the impact to Lot 11 caused by the creation of off kilter driveway. The approval will be conditioned to require the inclusion of Lots 12-14, Lots 15-17, Lots 38-40 and Lots 78-81 in shared driveways. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5 and 6, 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. 6, the proposal provides for adequate public facilities. PRELIMINARY PLAT -31 2 3 4 5 - requirements and procedures for this mitigation shall be per the City of Renton Parks Mitigation Resolution. 13. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to building permit issuance. See also the discussion on loss of recreational use in Conclusion of Law 3.F above. RMC 4-7-lSO(A): The proposed street system shall extend and create connections between existing s/reets unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. Prior to approving a street 6 system that does not extend or connect, the Reviewing Official shall find that such exception shall 7 8 meet the requirements of subsection £3 of this Section. The roadway classifications shall be as defined and designated by the Department. 14. As sho,vn in Staff Report Ex. 2, the proposed internal roads extend two existing stubs, SE 9 l 8'h Street and l 24'h Place SE. The internal Road A creates a loop connection between the two 10 public streets which did not exist previously. 11 RMC 4-7-lSO(B): All proposed street names shall be approved by the City. As conditioned. 12 15. 13 RMC 4-7-lSO(C): Streets inlersecting wilh existing or proposed public highways, major or 14 secondary ar/erials shall he held to a minimum. 15 16. None of the proposed streets intersect with a public highway or arterial. 16 RMC 4-7-lSO(D): The alignment of all st reels shall he reviewed and approved by the Public Works 17 Department. The street standards set by RMC 4-6-060 shall apply unless otherwise approved. Street alignment offiets of less than one hundred twenty five feet (125') are no/ desirable, but may be approved by the Department upon a showing of need but only after provision of all necessary safety 18 19 measures. 20 21 17. As determined in Finding of Fact 6, the Public Works Department has reviewed and approved the adequacy of streets, which includes compliance with applicable street standards. 22 RMC 4-7-lSO(E): 23 I. Grid: A grid street pallern shall be used to connec/ existing and new development and shall be the 24 predominant street pattern in any subdivision permitted by this Section. 25 2. Linkages: Linkages, including streets, sidewalks, pedestrian or bike paths, shall be provided within and between neighborhoods when they can create a continuous and interconnected network 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT-34 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 a. Flooding/Inundation: If any portion of the land within the boundary of a preliminary plat is subject to flooding or inundation, that portion of the subdivision must have the approval of the State according to chapter 86.16 RCW before the Department and the Hearing Examiner shall consider such subdivision. b. Steep Slopes: A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication which would result in the creation of a lot or lots that primarily have slopes forty percent (10%) or greater as measured per RMC 4-3-050Jla, without adequate area at lesser slopes upon which development may occur, shall not be approved. 3. Land Clearing and Tree Retention: Shall comply with RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations. 4. Streams: a. Preservation: Every reasonable effort shall be made lo preserve existing streams, bodies of water, and wetland areas. b. Method: if a stream passes through any of/he subject property, a plan shall be presented which indicates how the stream will be preserved. The methodologies used should include an overflow area, and an al/empt to minimize the disturbance of the natural channel and stream bed. c. Culverting: The piping or tunneling of water shall be discouraged and allowed only when going under streets. d. Clean Water: Every effort shall be made to keep all streams and bodies of water clear of debris and pollutants. 20 12. The land is suitable for a subdivision. As determined in Finding of Fact 5.B, the stormwater 21 22 23 design assures that it v.ill not contribute to flooding and all critical areas will be protected. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5 .B, no lots with primarily 40% slopes will be created. No piping or tunneling of streams is proposed. Trees will be retained as required by RMC 4-4-130 as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5.A. 24 RMC 4-7-140: Approval of all subdivisions located in either single family residential or multi- 25 26 family residential zones as defined in the Zoning Code shall be contingent upon the subdivider 's dedication of land or providing fees in lieu of dedication to the City, all as necessary lo mitigate the adverse effects of development upon the existing park and recreation service levels. The PRELIMINARY PLAT -33 2 3 4 5 - 19. As proposed all roads will meet City street profile standards for road with and frontage improvements. RMC 4-7-150(G): Streets that may he extended in the event offuture adjacent platting shall be required to he dedicated to the plat boundary line. Extensions ofgreater depth than an average lot shall be improved with temporary turnarounds. Dedication of a fidl-width boundary street shall he required in cer/ain in.,tances to facilitate future development. 6 20. As shown in Ex. 2 to the Staff Report, the proposed roads may not be extended due to the presence of pipeline easements. The subject is surrounded on all sides by existing residential 7 development. 8 RMC 4-7-170(A): Insofar as practical, side lot lines shall he at right angles to street lines or radial 9 to curved street lines. IO 11 12 13 21. As depicted in Staff Report Ex. 2, the side lines are in conformance with the requirement quoted above. RMC 4-7-170(8): Each lo/ must have access to a public street or road. Access may he by private access easement .1"/reet per the requirements of the street standard,. 14 22. As previously determined and conditioned, each lot has access to a public street. 15 RMC 4-7-170(C): The size, shape, and orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area and width 16 requirements of the applicable zoning classification and shall be appropriate ji,r the type of development and use contemplated. Further subdivision of lots within a plat approved through the 17 provisions of this Chapter must be consistent with the then-current applicable maximum density 18 requirement as measured within the plat as a whole. 19 23. As previously determined and as conditioned, the proposed lots comply with the zoning 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 standards of the R-8 zone, which includes area, width and density. RMC 4-7-170(0): Width between side lot lines at their foremost points (i.e, the points where the side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way line) shall no/ be less than eighty percent (80%) of the required lot width except in the cases of (I) pipes/em lots, which shall have a minimum width of twenty feet (20') and (2) lots on a street curve or the turning circle of cul-de-sac (radial lots), which shall be a minimum of thirty five feet (35'). 24. The applicant has proposed several lots including Lots 14, 15 and 38 which do not meet the minimum frontage width requirement. As discussed below in Conclusion of Law 27, each of these lots must be eliminated or revised to meet the minimum frontage width requirements. Or, as PRELIMINARY PLAT-36 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 of roads and pathways. Implementation of this requirement shall comply with Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Objective T-A and Policies T-9 through T-16 and Community Design Element, Objective CD-Mand Policies CD-50 and CD-60. 3. Exceptions: a. The grid pattern may be adjusted to a "flexible grid" by reducing the number of linkages or the alignment between roads, where the following factors are present on site: i. Infeasible due lo topographical/environmental constraints; and/or ii. Substantial improvements are existing. 4. Connections: Prior to adoption of a complete grid streel plan, reasonable connections thal link existing portions of the grid system shall be made. At a minimum, stub streets shall be required within subdivisions to allow future connectivity. 5. Alley Access: Alley access is the preferred street pattern except for properties in the Residential low Density land me designation The Residential Low Density land use designation includes the RC, R-1, and R-4 zones. Prior to approval of a plat without alley access, the Reviewing Official shall evaluate an alley layout and determine that lhe use of alley(s) is not feasible ... 6. Alternalive Configuralions: Offset or loop roads are the preferred alternative configurations. 7. Cul-de-Sac Streets: Cul-de-sac .,·/reels may only be permitted by the Reviewing Official where due 16 to demonstrable physical conslraints no future connection to a larger street pallern is physically 17 possible. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 18. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 2, the proposed street system contributes to the grid system by creating loop access which did not previously exist. Both of the intersecting public streets are currently stub roads. Alley access is not required because the proposed density docs not meet the 6 dwelling unit/acre threshold. The internal roads are looped as encouraged by the criterion above. The cul de sacs proposed cannot be extended to connect the road network because of the presence of two pipeline easements. The criterion is met. RMC 4-7-150(F): All adjacent rights-of-way and new rights-of-way dedicated as part of the plal, including streets, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their full width and 1he pavement and sidewalks shall be constructed as specified in the slreet standard,· or deferred by the Planning!Buildingll'ublic Works Administrator or his/her designee. PRELIMINARY PLAT -35 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 -- 29. Trees will be retained as required by City code as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5. There are no other natural features that need preservation as contemplated in the criterion quoted above. RMC 4-7-200(A): Unless septic tanks are specifically approved by the Public Works Department and the King County Health Department, sanitary sewers shall be provided by the developer at no cost to the City and designed in accordance with City standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet (8') into each lot ifsanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision development. 30. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-200(8): An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage of all surface water. Cross drains shall be provided ro accommodate all natural water flow and shall be of sufficient length to permit full-width roadway and required slopes. The drainage system shall be designed per the requirements of RMC 4-6-030, Drainage (Surface Water) Standards. The drainage system shall include detention capacity for the new street areas. Residential plats shall also include detention capacity for future development of the lots. Water quality features shall also be designed to 12 provide capacity for the new street paving for the plat. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 33. The proposal provides for adequate drainage that is m conformance with applicable City drainage standards as determined in Findings of Fact No. 5 and 6. The City's storm water standards, which are incorporated into the technical information report and will be further implemented during civil plan review, ensure compliance with all of the standards in the criterion quoted above. RMC 4-7-200(C): The waler distribution sys/em including the locations of fire hydrants shall be designed and installed in accordance with City standards as defined by the Department and Fire Department requirements. 31. Compliance with City water system design standards is assured during final plat review. RMC 4-7-200(D): All utilities designed lo serve the subdivision shall he placed underground. Any utilities installed in lhe parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth lo 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. Such installation shall be completed and approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may he required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department. 32. All utilities including the stormwater vault are proposed to be placed underground. As conditioned, utility installation will be inspected and approved prior to paving of surface materials above the utilities. PRELIMINARY PLAT -38 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 -- discussed in Conclusion of Law 5 above, the applicant may also submit an alternative plat plan which includes a combination of all lots fronting onto a public street meeting minimum lot widths and those portions of the lots now proposed for shared driveway/access casements. RMC 4-7-170(E): No residentially zoned lot shall have a depth-to-width ratio greater thanfour-to- one (4· J). 25. As conditioned, all pipestem lots will be eliminated or revised to meet minimum lot width requirements which will bring all of the lots into compliance with this criterion. RMC 4-7-170(F): All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of way, except alleys, shall have minimum radius offifleen feet (15'). 9 26. As proposed all lots meet this criterion. 10 11 RMC 4-7-170(G): Pipestem lots may be permitted/or new plats to achieve the minimum density within the Zoning Code when there is no other feasible alternative to achieving the minimum density. 12 Minimum Lot Size and Pipestf!m Width and Lengt/J;__ The pipes/em shall not exceed one hundredfifly feet (150') in length and not be less than twentyfeet (20') in width The portion of the lot narrower 13 than eighty percent (80%) of the minimum permilled width shall not be used for lot area calculatiom 14 or for the measurement ofrequiredfront yard setbacks. Land area included in private access 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 easements shall not be included in lot area calculations. Pipestem lots shall not abut one another. 27. The proposal exceeds the minimum density of 4.0 dwelling units per acre by l.7 dwelling units per acre and therefore pipestem lots are prohibited. The applicant bas proposed several pipestem lots including Lots 12, 14, 15, 17, 38, 40 and 79. As a condition of approval, each of these lots must be eliminated or revised to meet the minimum frontage width requirements. As an alternative, the applicant may also submit an alternative plat plan which includes a combination of all lots fronting onto a public street meeting minimum lot widths and those portions of the lots now proposed for shared driveway/access easements as discussed above in Conclusion of Law 5. RMC 4-7-190(A): Easements may be required_ft,r the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department. 28. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-190(B): Due regard shall be shown to all natural features such as large lrees, watercourses, and similar community assets. Such natural features should be preserved, thereby adding a/lractiveness and value to the property. PRELIMINARY PLAT-37 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 I. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated, dated September 22, 2014 except as modified below: a. MONS Condition I shall be revised as follows: All earthwork performed, implemented by the applicant, shall be consistent with the recommendations of the geotechnical report, prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., dated September 28, 2012 or consistent with the recommendatioµs of the final City-approved geotechnical report. b. MONS Condition 6 shall be stricken and replaced with the following: The applicant shall revise its landscaping plan to provide for a IO foot wide on-site landscape strip for all lots and a IO foot wide, site obscuring perimeter landscaping adjacent to areas where the retaining walls are four or more feet in height, specifically in the perimeter areas close to Lots 40, 41, 46, 47, 80, 82, 83-90, 93 and 94. Landscaping at maturity must exceed the height of the adjacent retaining wall. The final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. Such landscaping shall include a mixture of trees, shrubs, and groundcover as approved by the Department of Community and Economic Development. 2. The applicant shall be required to demonstrate compliance with the minimum 50-foot lot width requirement for all lots with less than 50 feet in width at the foremost points (where the side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way line) pursuant to RMC 4-11-120. The average distance between the side lines connecting front and rear lot lines shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 3. The applicant shall be required to submit a revised plat plan and landscaping plan depicting curb bulb-outs where on-street parking is located. The revised plat and landscaping plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 4. The applicant shall be required to submit a revised plat and landscaping plan, which are elements of the City's required construction plan set, depicting curb bulbouts at street intersections where on-street parking is located or calling for no curb bulbouts and installation of "no parking" designations where street parking is prohibited at street intersections. The revised plat and landscaping plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. PRELIMINARY PLAT -40 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 - RMC 4-7-200(E): Any cable TV condui1.1· shall be undergrounded at the same lime as other basic utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid lo each lot line by subdivider as to obviate the 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 and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore required ta bring service la the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land owner. The subdivider shall he responsible only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit end.1· shall be elbowed to final ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to !he subdivider and shall inspect the conduit and certify ta the City that it is properly installed. 33. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-210: A. MONUMEATS: Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established al each and every controlling corner of the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the Department. All surveys shall be per the City of Renton surveying standards. B. SURVEY: All other lot corners shall be marked per the City surveying standards. C. STREET SIGNS· The subdivider shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision. 18 34. 19 As conditioned. 20 VI. DECISION 21 The proposed 96-lot preliminary plat as depicted in Ex. 33 to the staff report, and critical area exemption as described in the findings of this decision, are approved subject to the following 22 conditions: 23 24 25 26 3 All references to the plat map in this decision in the findings and conclusions have been to Exhibit 2 of the staff report. Those references are accurate. However, the plat approved by this decision is depicted in Exhibit 3 of the staff report, which is the 96 lot subdivision as opposed to the 97 lot subdivision. PRELIMINARY PLAT -39 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 - 11. The applicant shall provide a final Tree Retention Plan, complying with the 30% tree retention SEPA mitigation measure while demonstrating proposed retaining walls would not impact trees proposed for retention. The Final Tree Retention Plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 12. The applicant shall submit a revised plat plan, which is an element of the City's required construction plan set, depicting a safe pedestrian crossing, across the 124'h Place SE extension, for the Seattle Waterline Pedestrian Trail. The revised plat plan, as part of the construction plan set, shall be submitted to, and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager, Community Services Department, and the Transportation Department prior to construction permit approval. 13. The applicant shall be required to obtain right-of-way or a public access easement through the Cedar River Pipeline, for the extension of 124th Place SE, to the satisfaction of the Plan Reviewer prior to construction permit approval. 14. Pedestrian lighting shall be depicted on the lighting plan at the entrances of Tracts C and E (from the proposed right-of-way). The lighting plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager and the Plan Reviewer prior to construction permit approval. 15. The Preliminary Plat plan shall be revised so that no more than 4 lots may gain access via a shared driveway and that at least one such lot shall meet minimum lot width requirements along a street frontage pursuant to RMC 4-7-170.D (a minimum of80% of the required lot width/40 feet or 35 feet along a street curve). The lot(s) which provides physical frontage along the street shall only be allowed vehicular access from the shared private driveway. In order to provide shared access, Lots 14, 17 and 38 shall be widened to 35 feet and take primary access from the shared driveway. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 16. The plat plan shall be revised so that all lots have no less than a 40-foot lot width where side lot lines intersect with the street right of way or for radial lots be a minimum of 35 feet in width. Specifically, proposed Lots 14, 17, and 38 would be required to be widened to 35 feet in order to comply with the condition. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 17. The applicant shall submit a revised plat plan depicting the elimination of all pipestem lots (lots which are less than 40 feet in width where the side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way or for radial lots are less than 35 feet) within the subdivision. Specifically, PRELIMINARY PLAT -42 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 - 5. The applicant shall eliminate individual access directly from internal public streets for those lots abutting private streets and/or shared driveway access easements, specifically Lots 12- 14, Lots 15-17, Lots 38-40 and Lots 78-81 in shared driveways. Said lots shall be required to take access from the abutting private street and/or access easement and shall not exceed access thresholds pursuant to RMC 4-6-060.J and K. Lot 11 may access the public street directly. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. Furthermore, the access restriction for such lots is required to be noted on the face of the Final Plat prior to recording. 6. The applicant shall revise the proposed mitigation plan to depict all retaining walls on site, including lock & load walls on the north and east sides of Wetlands B and C. The applicant shall also identify if proposed walls are anticipated to impact critical area buffers and provide appropriate mitigation for such impacts. A Final Mitigation Plan, pursuant to RMC 4-8- 120. W, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 7. The temporary buffer impacts consisting of minor intrusions or disturbance from construction activities shall be restored with appropriate grading, soil amendments, and the planting of native species to the satisfaction of the Current Planning Project Manager. The revised mitigation plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 8. The existing wetland mitigation plan already assures that 1,331 square feet of additional wetland buffer area is being provided to mitigate for both existing buffer impacts to Wetland E that are not associated with the Plat, as well as the loss of 14 square feet of the Wetland E buffer which loss is associated with the extension of SE J g'h Street. To provide an additional offset for the impacts resulting from the requested exemption associated with the fill of 14 square feet of buffer to extend SE 18th Street. The applicant has agreed to provide and shall provide enhancement to the Wetland 'E" buffer immediately abutting SE 18'h Street, as well as enhanced plantings adjoining that buffer area within Tract M. A revised mitigation plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction pcrrnit approval. 9. The applicant shall be required to establish a Native Growth Protection Easement over those parts of the site encompassing wetlands and their associated buffers and place fencing and signage along the outer buffer edge prior to Final Plat approval. 10. The applicant shall be required to submit a fill source statement, if fill materials are brought to the site, in order to the City to ensure only clean fill is imported prior to construction. PRELIMINARY PLAT -41 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 DATED this 81h day of January, 2015. City of Renton Hearing Examiner APPEAL RIGHTS AND VALUATrON NOTICES RMC 4-8-080 provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-! !0(E)(l4) requires appeals of the hearing examiner's decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-1 IO(E)(l3) and RMC 4-8-IOO(G)(9). A new fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall -7th floor, ( 425) 430-6510. Affected property owners may request a change m valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program ofrevaluation. PRELIMINARY PLAT-44 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 - proposed Lots 12, 14, 15, 17, 38, 40, and 79 would be required to be eliminated or revised to meet minimum frontage width requirements. The applicant may also submit an alternative plat plan which includes a combination of all lots fronting onto a public street meeting minimum lot widths and those portions of the lots now proposed for shared driveway/access easements could be placed in Shared Driveway Tracts with casements placed over them pursuant to RMC 4-6-060, Street Standards. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 18. Any proposal to convert the Stormwater vault within Tract A to a Stormwater detention pond be considered a Major Plat Amendment subject to the requirements outlined under RMC 4-7- 080M.2. 19. The applicant shall be required to create a homeowners' association and maintenance agreement(s) for the shared utilities, landscape areas and maintenance and responsibilities for all shared improvements of this development. A draft of the document(s) shall be submitted to Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval by the City Attorney and Property Services section prior to the recording of the final plat. 20. The applicant shall submit the results of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment to the City for review. Appropriate mitigation, if any, shall be completed prior to issuance of building permits. 21. All road names shall be approved by the City. 22. Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department. 23. Sanitary sewers shall be provided by the developer at no cost to the City and designed in accordance with City standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet (8') into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision development. 24. Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded 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. 25. Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling comer of the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the Department. All surveys shall be per the City of Renton surveying standards. All other lot comers shall be marked per the City surveying standards. The subdivider shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision. PRELIMINARY PLAT-43 - allows for replacement of trees through mitigation (RMC 4-4-130(H)(l)(e)). The condition is overreaching and overly burdensome. The City has failed to identify an adverse significant environmental impact related to tree preservation in the applicant's proposal. They are intending to preserve 30% of the trees. The developer needs to be able to replace trees that might be inadvertently damaged during construction rather than complying to a hard set retention percentage. They aren't intending to clear cut. They plan to protect the 30% of the trees. A few extra might come down through inadvertent damage. If so, those will be properly mitigated. With respect to Condition #6, the perimeter buffer, as stated in the original MONS condition it was a "minimum 15 foot buffer" which became 15-50 feet in width around the entire perimeter. There is no significant environmental impact here and the City is not entitled to impose mitigation here. There is no legal authority or justification by the City to require Henley to protect one use from another when the use is the same. The neighboring property owners could plant trees in their own yards. As designed by Henley, the project already minimizes visual impact to neighboring uses in ways that are not required by the code. The code does not impose a perimeter buffer of any sort on a single family project like this. The majority of this site includes a perimeter buffer of 10-15 feet. There is more on critical areas tracts. The average buffer width is 55 feet. In addition, they have the two pipeline rights of ways, which are 60 feet and 100 feet wide. Adding in the pipelines, the average buffer goes up to I 00 feet between homes from this project and adjacent homes. This is well outside of rough proportionality. Mr. Barry Talkington is a civil engineer with Barghausen Consulting Engineers. Mr. Talkington described his education and qualifications. He prepares designs and layouts for single family projects. He designs roads, infrastructure, storm ponds, etc. He's prepared about 50 preliminary plats. It is typical for him to design a preliminary plat and then start into more detailed engineering design. They have prepared preliminary and final grading plans. Ms. Rogers presented Exhibit A-11, the ultimate plat layout. Mr. Talkington described the exhibit, the 96-lot version of the plat. There was an earlier version with more lots but they removed one to meet the 30% tree retention requirement. They eliminated Lot 1 from the original submittal. In response to Ms. Rogers, Mr. Talkington described the various perimeter buffers, ranging including 50 feet in Tracts Band Mand near Lots 13 and 14, the buffer is 15 foot wide. They have a IO foot buffer that increase to nearly 80 feet by Lot 19 by the Mercer Island Pipeline. The minimum proposed buffer is IO feet. By Tract G, the buffer is 100 feet. The Mercer Island Pipeline is 60 feet wide. The minimum setback along this area is 70 feet. Some lots do touch the property boundary, though that is adjacent to the 100 foot wide Cedar River Pipeline. There is additional greenspace in Tract H, G and J. In some places the buffer goes from 15 feet to 200 feet. The average buffer width is approximately 50 feet. With the pipeline areas, the average buffer width is over 100 feet. Only six - ATTACHMENT A The Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeals (LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAE) TESTIMONY SUMMARY SEPA Appeal #1 -Applicants Applicant Testimony Ms. Nancy Rogers, applicant's Attorney, stated the applicant had filed an appeal to the City's SEPA MONS based on three issues. They felt the geotechnical report should be updated to reference the current geotechnical report. They have issues with Conditions #3 and #6. They believe it's better for the project and environment to have Henley comply with a tree protection plan and have Henley's arborist work with the City's arborist to assure that as many trees as possible are preserved. They requested amendments to Condition 3. 1n addition, Condition 6 was imposed in the MONS. It would impose a 15-50 foot perimeter buffer around the entire site. This is overreaching and unduly burdensome. The applicant is going above and beyond to provide buffering, which is not necessary because they are proposing single family uses next to single family uses. There are two rights of ways along substantial portions of the borders, the Mercer Island Water Pipeline and the Cedar River Water Pipeline. One is 60 feet wide; the other is 100 feet wide. There is already substantial buffering between existing uses and the project site. They have an analysis responding to the City staff SEPA analysis filed last Friday (Exhibit K 11 ). Ms. Rogers summarized this analysis. They appealed Condition #1. Staff felt that Condition #I would be acceptable if they amended the condition to include compliance with the revised geotechnical report. The applicant agrees. With respect the appeal to Conditions #3 for tree preservation and #6 for the proposed perimeter buffer, mitigation conditions under SEPA are subject to state and federal law, statutory and case law that establish a nexus of rough proportionality. That nexus is required to be shown by the City prior to imposition of these mitigation conditions. Case law dealing with the imposition of buffers had held that buffers need to be imposed when two very dissimilar uses are proposed adjacent to each other. That is not the case here. With respect to Condition #3, the scope of that condition has morphed from the SEPA MONS to the staffs current opinion. The applicant appealed this condition to require compliance with the applicant's tree protection plan rather than the more general requirement that they comply with relevant City codes. Staff is requiring 30% retention of trees rather than the Code requirement that - Ms. Rogers addressed staff Report (page 21) regarding retaining walls. She stated the staff felt those retaining walls would interfere with tree retention. She asked, in general, does designing a site to include retaining walls help or hinder tree preservation. Mr. Talkington responded it can help by reducing grading requirements along the perimeter of the site and protect trees. When he designs a plat, the cost of construction is considered. Retaining wall construction is more expensive than grading. They were directed to save trees, which meant construction of retaining walls. Ms. Rogers asked who Mr. Talkington turned to when he needed to determine the effects of his design for retaining walls on tree preservation. Mr. Talkington said that's a question for the arborist. Ms. Timmons asked Mr. Talkington to describe his thought process on providing the buffers he provided and their merit. Mr. Talkington stated it started with the road network. They had two locations to tie into for an internal road. In creating the road corridors, they tried to lay out lots that would be evenly distributed on both sides of the road. They looked to use the property most efficiently for the lot layout with respect to the grading. They tried to reduce the overall grading. Ms. Timmons asked if Mr. Talkington saw merit in providing a perimeter buffer. Mr. Talkington stated he didn't show as many buffers initially. They initially looked to retain trees in larger pockets in other areas. As the project evolved to its current configuration, they considered saving trees as part of the buffer. Ms. Timmons asked as a practical matter, how would a 15 foot buffer affect plat design? Mr. Talkington stated that he had considered it. There are many alternative scenarios. They looked at how the buffer would impact their original design. There was a significant change in lot yield. Ms. Timmons asked if Mr. Talkington considered aesthetics in his design. He stated he did because he wanted the project outcome to be pleasing. Mr. Steve Lee, Renton Development Engineering Manager, stated typically the City doesn't see as much of a concise grading plan proposed for preliminary plat. He is glad Mr. Talkington prepared one. He asked Mr. Talkington to describe the setback from the walls. Mr. Talkington stated that is a question for the geotechnical engineer, however there is no need for a setback from the geo-grid. Mr. Lee asked if construction of the geo-grid caused excavation in to natural areas. Mr. Talkington stated it did. Also, cut walls will require a wall drain behind them. Mr. Lee asked if the walls would need to be setback into the lots in order to reduce the impact on the natural areas. Mr. Talkington said they design the walls to be entirely on the subject lot and not within the open space. Mr. Lee asked if a tree is located near a drainage wall, would the tree be impacted. Mr. Talkington stated he didn't know. Mr. Galen Wright, of Washington Forestry Consultants, is an arborist. Mr. Wright described his education and qualifications. He has owned his company for 21 years. Their focus is on urban forestry consulting. He personally has 35 years of experience. He's worked on 1,400 similar projects - lots touch the perimeter of the property, all along the Cedar River Pipeline. In his opinion, the project does not result in a significant adverse aesthetic impact to the neighbors. With respect to retaining walls, Mr. Talkington stated retaining walls are not purely cosmetic, though they can be. The purpose is to shorten the distance needed for a grade transition. There is grading involved in nearly all projects in the Pacific Northwest. Grading is accomplished via slopes or retaining walls. To create a hypothetical lot, either grade more land or build a wall along the edge and grade less. Lots with significant trees were designed with retaining walls to retain more trees. A building permit is required for a wall of 4 feet high or greater. Mr. Talkington has prepared building permit applications for this project and the associated grading plans which will be submitted today. Ms. Rogers asked about Exhibit K6, related to the grading plans. Ms. Rocale Timmons asked if this was the Erosion Control plan set. Mr. Talkington confirmed it is. In response to Ms. Rogers, for Lots I 8-21, Mr. Talkington stated the retaining walls would be rockeries. The lot grade is below the existing grade. He noted the top and bottom of the wall elevations. For example, Lot 19' s wall is 4.5 feet. A cut wall is for when a retaining wall is retaining the existing grade when the pad grade is below the existing grade. For a pad above the existing grade, they would use a fill wall. These walls are constructed differently. Fill walls require extra stabilization. In every place where there is a cut wall, the face of the wall will be to the interior of the project. For the fill walls, the face is to the exterior of the project. Mr. Talkington addressed the staff Report (Page 13) concern about the height and visibility of walls along the Cedar River Pipeline. The wall at Tract A will be visible, though there will be landscaping planted between the walls and the perimeter. For Lots 79 and 81 (Exhibit K6a, Lots 80 and 82), there is a cut rockery wall. This wall will not be visible from outside the project. For Lot 40, there is a retaining wall. It is 4-6 feet to prop up the access drive. This will be visible. There's another wall at 7.5 feet. Lots 45 and 46 have a fill wall at 16 feet tall. In response to the staff Report, Mr. Talkington reviewed the heights of the walls. They prepared an alternative design to reduce the heights of the walls. The wall will now be 6 feet tall (Exhibit K6b, the revised grading plan for Lots 44-47). The portion of Lot 46 that borders the Cedar River Pipeline has a 2 foot wall. The wall at Lot 47 is l.7 feet to 6 feet tall. Henley will be willing to agree to a Plat Condition that will call for the walls to be the revised height. Ms. Timmons asked about the relevancy of this line of questioning to the SEPA Appeal, specifically Conditions #3 and #6. Ms. Rogers stated she understood the staffs buffer requirements to screen the adjacent neighbors from the development, including the impact of retaining walls. Ms. Timmons agreed to relevance. Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Talkington to speak to the walls along Road A near Tract K Mr. Talkington referred to this wall as a fill wall. There is an open space tract, Wetlands B and C, which will provide a screen for the wall. Focusing on this part of the plat, Mr. Talkington stated there was no significant adverse environmental impact with respect to the aesthetics. Ms. Rogers asked if this process is described in the tree protection plan. Mr. Wright said it is. He stated he has no doubt this project will retain more than 30% of trees even accounting for field adjustments for hazardous trees or others that can't or shouldn't be saved. Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Wright about the perimeter buffer. She said the City is concerned about a 50% sight obscuring buffer. She asked about the 10 foot buffer specifically. Mr. Wright stated he understood the buffer and the tree retention within the buffer. He stated he also is familiar with Henley's plan to provide 6 foot fences along the backyards. With the 10 foot buffer and fences, the 50% screening requirement will be met. New trees can also be planted in any gaps. In his opinion, a 15 foot buffer would add a few more trees, but not a huge amount. Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Wright thought there was a significant adverse environmental impact from the project. The City Attorney objected. The Examiner stated the question limited to aesthetic impacts is allowed. Mr. Wright stated the 6 foot fence is sight obscuring. There are trees everywhere but the stormwater facility and a few in the pipelines. There are several layers of buffering. There will be places where you can see new houses better than others, but there will be a fence and trees. Within a few years trees will fill the gaps. Ms. Rocale Timmons asked Mr. Wright if he knew how many trees exist on the site. He stated there were 1,305 trees on-site. This is a contiguous canopy cover. The canopy is viewed by surrounding property owners. They are proposing to keep 181 trees plus the trees in the critical areas and buffers. There are 626 significant trees in the buildable areas. There are many other poor quality trees. They will remove over 400 significant trees. Ms. Timmons asked how the removal of so many trees would impact the surrounding property owners. Mr. Wright said it's aesthetic. There is no other impact. Ms. Timmons asked about the revised tree retention plan. She asked if the new plan is approvable as is. Mr. Wright stated it was and they will exceed the minimum 30% requirement. He stated it is a valuable contribution to the environment. In response to Ms. Timmons, he stated an adequate width for a natural vegetated buffer depends on the type of trees, the age of the trees and the how they are growing. There are places on site where the screen is dense and others that are thinner. They didn't map alders and cottonwoods. They didn't include those in the survey. Ms. Timmons asked what buffer width is necessary to provide screening in a natural vegetated state. Mr. Wright stated it depends on site conditions. Mr. Wright stated if they plant in a 10 foot buffer with a double staggered row of conifers, it will create a very dense screen in 10 years. A 15 foot buffer is not adequate to add a third row that would require about 30 feet of buffer. City Testimony Rocale Timmons addressed the applicant's testimony with respect to Conditions #3 and #6. The City's mitigation measure is not intended to preclude replacement of trees damaged during -- of many scales since 1994. He stated in general, his tree protection plans are accurate. The trees he has designated for protection are saved. Though, occasionally, they will find an edge tree that doesn't look as good after the project and before. In that case, they mitigate the tree. The tree protection plan exhibits are Exhibit A4 (June) and Exhibit Al2 (August). The August plan is tied to the most recent layout. Ms. Rogers noted the report concludes this is a "well treed site". By that, Mr. Wright stated means he was able to save two or three clusters to break up the clear cut look. If they supplement with lot trees and street trees, in IO years the property will be well treed. There is a nice low brush community on the site that improves the buffer capacity of the vegetation. The wetlands on site are also well treed. Ms. Rogers stated the 30% tree retention requirement translates to preserving 188 on-site trees. The August tree retention plan proposes to save 181 trees and relocate others. Mr. Wright stated his understanding of the Renton code with respect to construction damage means the tree can be replaced at a ratio of 2:1. He stated he is familiar with SEPA staff Condition #3. He said his understating of the requirement was not to mandate a hard 30% requirement without field judgment. The code allows them to save trees but mitigate those that can't be saved. Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Wright how many trees would be saved. Mr. Wright replied well in excess of 188 trees would be saved. They have re-analyzed the edges and found there were more trees than they had earlier expected before a more formal survey was undertaken. Mr. Wright discussed the relationship between retaining walls and trees. He stated he had the grading plan in hand when he did his follow up evaluation. They had been very hard on the edge trees initially. Later, he was able to perform a tree by tree analysis with the grading plan in hand. Trees respond very differently to walls based on where the majority of their roots are growing. He did a tree by tree analysis to determine how much, if any, intrusion could be done to a tree's root protection zone. This is usually a later stage analysis. He's very confident in his current estimation of the number of tree that will be viably preserved. He knows exactly which trees will be impacted, and how for each edge tree. Mr. Wright said the next step is to have a pre-construction meeting. They always ask to be included in that conference. At that time the clearing limits are staked. He walks those boundaries. If there is anything different from current knowledge, then they will make field adjustments. They mapped tons to trees. Sometimes, they'll find the survey and field location don't quite match. They adjust clearing limits during the field observation. They'll remove hazardous trees if they find them. After that, they put up tree protection fences. If anything changes during construction, then Mr. Wright asks to be included in the decision of how to treat the trees. - condition would be adequate to require a tree protection plan and have it approved by the City. He stated it could. With respect to MDNS Condition #6, the buffer requirement was for sight obscuring and was 15 feet wide. The staff analysis (Exhibit N) increased that buffer from 15 feet to 15-50 feet. Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Flatley had read Exhibit N. He stated he hadn't. Ms. Rogers asked if he was familiar with the City's Comprehensive Plan. He stated he was generally familiar with it. He stated he was not familiar with specific policies. Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Flatley to review a large area photo with respect to his earlier testimony (Exhibit K6c). Mr. Flatley stated he recognized the area and that there are a number of green, treed areas around the subject. He agreed there is a large protected corridor along the Cedar River and at Tiffany Park. He further agreed that with or without Tiffany Park, there will remain treed areas near the project. Mr. Flatley stated the City's landscaping code with respect to screening allows planting and fencing. He agreed the project plan includes fences and vegetation. Mr. Flatley stated he didn't have any knowledge of buffers on adjoining properties but didn't see any in the aerial photo. Ms. Timmons stated that staff is standing by their analysis. For mitigation measure #3 it sounds as if the appellant intends to meet the 30% requirement. That's all the City is requesting. The applicant is failing to consider the City's intend is to protect the existing tree canopy. The mitigation measure is intended to preclude replacement tree. The code is inadequate to do that without the mitigation measure. However, a tree retention plan is amenable to the City. For mitigation measure #6, the staff feels they have proven impact and provided adequate mitigation. Staff feels the public are the appropriate people to provide information on impacts. Applicant Testimony In response to the Examiner, Mr. Talkington stated in the northern portion of the plat, the 15 foot buffer would be preserved but clearing and a wall would be located in the lots themselves (Lots 11- 14). No additional clearing will go into the buffer area. For Lots 15-18, there will be no wall. All other improvements would be within the lot area. There will be no additional clearing. Ms. Rogers asked the Examiner to read the SEPA Appeal argument letter dated November 18, 2014. As stated in that letter, the City staff and the applicant are in agreement to Revised Conditions #I and #3. However, they would argue to keep the existing language in the condition, but add a comma and add a statement that an updated tree protection plan and land clearing plan to be submitted and approved prior to construction. Condition #6 deals with a perimeter buffer. No perimeter buffer is required in this zone and none exist surrounding the subject. The requirement would be unique in this area and they would be buffering their single family uses from surrounding single family uses. - construction. The applicant is citing the wrong code. Condition #3 is solely designed to require a tree retention plan. The applicant has provided a plan that does not meet the requirement. It is not detailed enough to be used during construction. Staff analysis (Exhibit N) goes through the significant adverse impact of removing such a large tree canopy. The staff feels the MONS condition defines a significant impact and provides appropriate mitigation. With respect to Condition #6, Ms. Timmons stated staff has demonstrated a significant impact to surrounding property owners with respect to aesthetics. Staff feels the mitigation measure adequately addresses these impacts. Mr. Terry Flatley, City of Renton Urban Forestry and Natural Resources Manager, described his education and qualifications. He has reviewed at least 50 tree retention plans for the City. Mr. Flatley stated he had not visited the site personally. It is a fully timbered site with !00% canopy cover. He described the site as a large woodland area in the middle of the City in the middle of a subdivision. This is a rare site. He believes it is necessary to protect the tree canopy. The City tries to retain as much canopy as possible. l-!e believes the appropriate amount of trees to protect is a minimum 30%. In response to Ms. Timmons, Mr. Flatley stated a IQ foot buffer is adequate to support a natural vegetated perimeter, depending on the type of vegetation. This strip will retain smaller vegetation, but not large mature trees. He provided a recommendation for a perimeter buffer of 35 to IOO feet. To his knowledge, the City requested a 15 foot buffer. In terrns of accommodating trees, there are some extra trees being protected. Five feet is a very minor increment. It would allow for more planting. Mr. Flatley stated he felt a buffer is needed along the southern perimeter because buffers are to moderate climate and obscure sites from view. It's an aesthetic issue for trail users and adjacent neighbors. The buffer would provide privacy. Mr. Flatley stated without an adequate screen there would be significant adverse aesthetic impacts to trail users and neighbors. A 15 foot buffer would reduce the impacts. In response to the Examiner, Mr. Flatley stated the difference between a 10 foot and a 15 foot buffer is not significant in terrns of mitigating impacts. Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Flatley had reviewed the revised tree protection plan for the project. He stated he had reviewed Exhibit 11 today but his review is based on the 2013 version. Ms. Rogers asked if it was possible Mr. Wright's tree retention plan would assure protection of 30% of the trees on the site. Mr. Flatley stated with oversight it is possible. Ms. Rogers asked if he provided that oversight. He said he didn't. Ms. Rogers asked if the City's MONS Condition #3 was essentially a restatement of City code. Mr. Flatley agreed that is was. Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Flatley had provided SEPA mitigation measures to staff and asked the staff to implement them. He stated he hadn't. Ms. Rogers asked if the had not been released. She had to request it from the director. If there is no notice before the appeal starts, how can the City be trm;ted? On June 14, 2012 the Renton Reporter asked if Renton's tree preservation policy was just for show. Ms. Donnelly presented pictures of Piper's Bluff. Forty-seven trees were supposed to be retained or mitigated. Some of the trees were saved. Many were cleared. The trees being planted are decorative and replacing Douglas Firs and other large trees. Some trees must be saved. She also showed examples of construction dirt on the road in front of her house. The dirt is washing into Green Creek and May Creek. No one at Renton cares about the street or the environment. Ms. Barbara Smith stated considering the greenbelt surrounding the pipelines is not realistic. Those are dirt paths without trees. Ms. Smith stated she should not have to plant trees on her yard, plus the trees are 80-100 feet high. Replanting trees won't compensate. They are losing their quality of life. The wildlife that's there will be removed. The school district shouldn't have sold it. They didn't provide proper notice of sale. They were denied access to do further studies but the developer was allowed on it. She encourages the City to put strict enforceable timelines. She found 97 reviews on this developer online. Only 5 were positive. They are local and speaking to poor construction, leak issues, mold in new homes and poor customer service. People wait years to have construction defects repaired. SEPA Appeal #2 -Project Opponent TPWAG Appellant Testimony Mr. Daniel McMonagle is the attorney for the project opponents, the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group. The opponents have lived in this neighborhood for 34 years and have historically used the woods. Mr. David Beedoo is a member of the TPW AG and has lived in the neighborhood since it was built 34 years ago. He lives at 1725 Pierce Avenue SE in Renton. Mr. Beedon lives directly adjacent to the project. He can walk to the former school property in five minutes. The TPW AG is composed of five persons who hold officer positions in a non-profit corporation formed in March 2014. The purpose of the group is to mitigate as much as possible any environmental or other impacts coming out of this development. He has experience in the woods. He has been walking in these woods since 1982. He exercises there and watches wildlife. The character of the woods has been mostly unchanged for all that time. Some changes there were related to dirt embankments on paths to facilitate mountain biking. There are teepee and treehouses built here. The woods have never been fenced, except along the Cedar River Pipeline. The fence has been there at lea5t 34 years. It has been unmaintained. The fence is along the City of Seattle Watershed property line. It is not a school district fence. The woods property has never been signed no trespassing. - There is no significant impact in terms of aesthetics. They have voluntarily provided I 0-200 feet (50 foot average) buffers and two pipelines of 60 to 100 feet (Mercer Island Trail and Cedar River Trail corridors, respectively). Only six lots touch a property boundary. Some have fill walls, the highest currently proposed is 6 feet high. There is a 100 foot Cedar River Trail buffer adjacent to these properties and between adjacent properties. The City's SEPA analysis cited Comprehensive Plan Objective CDG and Policies 50 and 55 as justification for the perimeter buffer. Those policies do not apply here. The City omitted the citation of the objective, which does not apply here. These uses are not different. The proposed use and adjacent use are the same. The tree canopy is being protected. There is no need for a perimeter buffer of 15 feet, let along 50 feet. Addition of a buffer after the fact will invalidate the proposal and violate state law. Public Testimony Ms. Claudia Donnelly lived in the Renton Potential Annexation Area in Renton Highlands. Ms. Donnelly stated she had submitted questions. In February 2014, in an article in the Renton Reporter, Ms. Timmons stated all 1,300 trees would be coming down. How will the protected trees be protected? This developer will clear cut all of the trees and put in replacement trees. At Ms. Donnelly's subdivision, Windstone, and at Piper's Bluff, this same developer clear cut all of the trees. Who will make sure the trees won't be clear cut? Ms. Donnelly stated she was concerned about the proposed stormwater detention pond failing and impacting the development. At Windstone, the detention pond failed three times spilling water and mud into a wetland and Honey Creek. At Piper's Bluff, the detention pond failed and dumped yellow water into May Creek. Renton officials do not work on the weekend; they will not protect the wetlands. Ms. Donnelly stated Renton allowed Safeway to build on wetlands three summers ago. They started getting water coming up through the floor and had to rope off the area. The hours of construction ordinance must be followed. How will it be? Renton has an ordinance keeping dirt off of the road and protecting streams during construction. The laws are not being enforced. Renton doesn't allow working on Sundays. This developer had contractors working on Sundays in at least Windstone and Piper's Bluff. No staff person will be there to monitor them. The City does not require the contractor to get the necessary NPDES permit from DOE prior to start of work. Additionally, the City doesn't require erosion control fences near wetlands, private property or streams before clearing starts. They don't make the contractors have the necessary permits for clearing before building permits. In the late 1990s a builder cleared without permits and there was no consequence. Ms. Donnelly expressed concern about the Renton appeal process. On November 26, there wa~ a notice in the paper talking about the appeal timeframe for this development, yet the document itself -- school district to allow them to do a third party wetland evaluation. The school district denied the request stating it did not further the interest of the school district or the developer. The Examiner asked Mr. McMonagle to tie the historic use of the property to a SEP A impact, noting the public did not have a right to use this property in the first place. How is there an adverse impact under SEPA? There could be a prescriptive use, but the Examiner does not have the authority to adjudicate prescriptive use or adverse possession. The Examiner noted Halverson v. Bellevue, and the limits on restrictions of Hearing Examiner authority, specifically Legune v. Clallam County, and others. The Examiner's authority is limited to those described specifically in the City code. The Examiner asked Mr. McMonagle to provide a brief on the issue of the authority and relevance of the public prescriptive right to the property by November 28th with applicant and City response by December 5th. Mr. Steven Neugebauer of SNR Company is a licensed hydrogeologist and engineering geologist. He presented a PowerPoint presentation highlighting the relevant issues from his report (Exhibit M49). Mr. Neugebauer described his qualifications. He stated the biggest issue with this project is groundwater and the engineering geology of the site. The big thing is the SEPA document is inadequate. His scope for this project is to assess the applicant's studies and to review the environmental impacts of the project. SEPA should produce information regarding impacts. The SEPA checklist is not designed to gather all the impacts. There should be more intensive studies done here because of the intensity of the development and of the surrounding development. There are only preliminary studies, which are inadequate. Mr. Neugebauer stated the history of the site needs to be reviewed as far back as possible. His presentation will focus on the SEPA issues. Only four studies have been incorporated in the SEPA checklist, there are now 22 studies. Mr. Neugebauer described the wildlife corridor link along the greenbelt from the subject to the Cedar River. This is the only significant open area in the local region. The moor is surrounded by development except for this narrow wildlife corridor on the northeast comer. He showed maps dating back to 1865 to show historical water flows. In 1898 the Black River still flowed, the Green River Valley was the White River Valley and the Duwamish Waterway was still a river. There are wetlands shown on the map in this area as back as 1898. The entire regional drainage system has changed since then. The title report shows in 1936 this subject property had been cleared and was owned by the railroad and in 1945 by a Department of Defense corporation. This is an important issue to SEPA because there might have been wartime activity here with potential contaminants. Mr. Neugebauer states there should have been a Phase I ESA. Mr. Neugebauer showed the development pattern in 1990. It has been forested since the 1940s. The oldest trees are about 65 years old. Mr. Neugebauer showed the geomorphology of the area. The property had been in a melt water channel from the last ice age that became the Cedar River. Drainage goes both to the southwest and northeast. The area has many depositional environments for soils. There are structural anomalies in There is an extensive trail system in the woods that were there when he moved in. There are nine separate access points along the two pipeline rights of way and other at the end of 18th Street. These are trailheads. The trails are a large loop with several connector trails. The outer loop is about a 15 minute walk. Mr. Beedon has personally been pruning and trimming trails to keep them open. He believes the school district performed maintenance there four times in the last three decades including cutting down dangerous trees and removing trash or yard waste. He is aware of no other activity from the school district on the property. The school district performed maintenance there in 2000, 2010, and twice in 2011. Each of these incidents was related to a request for action to the school district by a member of the public. Mr. Beedon spoke to the school district in 2000 about illegal activity on the property. That prompted the 2000 maintenance and the placement of signage discouraging dumping. In 2010, Mr. Beedon called the school district to ask why some trees had been removed. The school district stated there were dangerous trees. In 2011 he spoke with the school district about illegal trash and a fire pit on the property. The school district responded by cleaning up the trash and removing the fire pit. Mr. Beedon quoted an email sent to him by Mr. Mike Rouch of the school district. The email stated, "I got the sense this is an important asset to your neighborhood and I wanted our folks to do what we could to restore the beauty there." Mr. Beedoo stated the school district had essentially left the property alone. Mr. Beedoo stated the trails have been used for recreational walking, running, dog walking, bicycling, socializing, wildlife viewing, and inventorying plants. Kids build forts and tree houses. This area is used extensively for recreation, on a daily basis there are at least a dozen people in there. Over the years, thousands of people have used it. Use of the area has increased due to the informal maintenance of the paths. Aesthetically, the woods are beautiful. It's a wild area with a variety of vegetation and wetlands. The topography is interesting. There are seasonal creeks. It reminds him of the foothills of the Cascades, though with less dramatic topography. Mr. Beedon described wildlife he has seen on the property including bobcat, piieated woodpecker, red headed sapsuckers, ducks, crows, other types of birds, deer, and owls. Mr. Beedoo stated there are a rich variety of plants on the property. There are also at least two geocaches on the property. Mr. Beedon showed pictures of stormwater accumulated on the two pipelines on the property. The pipelines drain onto the school district property. Recently, the City of Renton cleaned out drain pipes to improve the drainage and reduce flooding. In response to Mr. McMonagle, Mr. Beedon stated he had hired Mr. Neugebauer in September 2014 to perform studies on the property and review the applicant's studies. The TPW AG had asked the - inches below ground level. Groundwater is a flat line, it is not contoured. This site needs additional study to determine how it can be developed. An EIS should be required. Mr. Neugebauer read definitions for various types of groundwater and hydric soils from the USGS. The applicant's report shows so much water there that development without pumps may not be feasible. Groundwater is also protected from pollutants. It's illegal to discharge pollutants into groundwater. Water from the homes cannot be discharged into the wetlands. Mr. Neugebauer stated the AES geotechnical report is not adequate to satisfy SEPA requirements. It stated that in the report. There have not been the extensive studies that should have been prepared. There were inadequate numbers of test pits. Though they acknowledge groundwater will be near the surface in winter (8" from surface), but don't describe how they plan to deal with it. The report was paid for by the school district and was inadequate in scope. The report shows the site has geotechnical critical areas, specifically erosion, site stability and other indicators of shallow ground creep or slumping. The site will need deep infiltration strategies to get the stormwater down below the high water table and into a more permeable layer. There is no capacity for stormwater infiltration on this site. This may be why the developer has chosen a stormwater vault because a pond won't infiltrate. Anything excavated below the surface will have groundwater issues. Drainage ditches will be full of water. If you put a vault where groundwater is at the surface, the vault will have to be tied down to bedrock or it will float out of the ground. There need to be much more detailed studies. The geotechnical report says the slope angles are for areas where groundwater seepage is not present at the face of the slope. There will need to be some sort of temporary de-watering. Mr. Neugebauer stated the water will come back and flood basements and keep stormwater from flowing. Based on our review, the deposits are not the type the report suggests. This soil is impermeable. The AES report assumes the soil is permeable. The soils promote shallow ground creep and slumping. Mr. Neugebauer reviewed the Environmental Review Committee report. He believes it is inadequate and an EIS should have been prepared. This project was done in too many disjointed steps. On page 8 of AES, the report says the wetlands may be groundwater influenced. However, there is no further study to determine what to do. Having groundwater within 8" of the surface is a major issue. There is a 12" culvert discharging stormwater into the wetland. That's illegal under the Clean Water Act. They cannot discharge to a point source. There need to be better studies. The Environmental Review Committee report states the project will result in minimal loss of vegetation to the site. That's impossible given the current proposal. According to the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, there is priority habitat here. The removal of existing vegetation will remove a great deal of the evapotranspiration on this site. The trees may remove as much as 75% of the water from the site. The ERC is more worried about views than the more critical water issues. - the area. There are no geological reports performed by the applicant and they couldn't perform their own. He stated there should have been more soils tests, percolation tests, more test pits and borings. There is neither engineering geology nor hydrogeological studies. He showed a geologic map of the area and pointed to geologic issues from the confluence of two seismic faults. This might influence landslide activities. The USGS maps show that the closest fault zone is 3.9 miles, though there may be others nearby that haven't yet been mapped. Geologists look for bend trees and uneven surfaces. There are many bent trees here. That indicates ground movement. The ground is moving slowly and the trees are bending with it. There might be shallow or slightly deeper ground movement. He walked the site, but didn't perform studies because the school district wouldn't allow it. The SEPA documents say there are no structures on the site, but there are treehouses and forts. The site is vacant but not unused. The Opponents state there is no SEPA document, only a report from the City's Environmental Review Committee. Mr. Steven Neugebauer discussed the title report's historical accounts of ownership of the project site (Page 12). There is an easement for a natural gas pipeline. There are several other easements for various purposes. Ms. Rogers asked about the relevance of this testimony. Mr. McMonagle asked Mr. Neugebauer to describe the relevance of this testimony in terms of SEPA. Mr. Neugebauer stated the SEPA checklist asks about potential hazardous wastes on the property. No studies were conducted. The title report shows potential hazardous uses in the past. A phase I environmental site assessment should have been conducted. Mr. Neugebauer stated the applicant hadn't shown how they were dealing with the City's drainage easement, which is part of the City's drainage system. Ms. Rogers noted that the drainage easement was released. Mr. Neugebauer stated his concern from a geologic perspective is that there were no geologic or hydrogeologist studies performed for this site. There isn't enough information. This site could have fault zones. Also, there is potential evidence of ground creep or slumps. His specific concern is that these mobile soils must be dealt with, which would require further study. He also stated the SEPA Checklist is wrong because the studies came later. He stated the Checklist was wrong because it ignored recreational activities and recreational structures on the property. Mr. Neugebauer stated 14 days is insufficient to review the many studies that were performed as part of this application. He stated he had reviewed all of the documents and believes an Environmental Impact Statement should have been required. The SEPA Checklist was the only document presented. The SEPA document should show what the conditions are in a summary format. Another issue is the hydrology and geology of the site. The wetland determination by Gary Shultz and the Technical Information Report from Barghausen and the Otak report show groundwater saturation levels that make this site undevelopable. The groundwater will be too high in the rainy season. Mr. Neugebauer referred to the Shultz report. He stated the depth to the water table is zero Mr. Neugebauer stated stormwater is being directed to a vault but it will not treat the stormwater for heavy metals. Ms. Rogers referred to the 2012 AES report. The top of page 2 states the site is suitable for buried utilities, paving and structures. Mr. Neugebauer stated they also said additional studies would be conducted. Ms. Rogers asked if he understood that detailed construction and engineering review and much more intensive studies will be conducted before final plat. Mr. Neugebauer reiterated he felt the cart was being placed before the horse in that the SEPA review is now for a reason. It allows for adequate public comment. Later phases do not. Ms. Rogers referred to the aerial photo (Exhibit K6c) and asked Mr. Neugebauer if the project site isn't completely surrounded by similar residential developments. He stated there is forested land around here and existing development is less dense. He did agree there are existing houses and roads surrounding the project. He doesn't know if there are existing geological or hydrological issues affecting the existing homes, however he speculates that may be why the areas to the northeast and east are not developed. Applicant Response Mr. Kevin Jones, Transportation Engineer, Transpo Group, prepared the traffic report for this project. He also reviewed the public comments and will respond to them. He's responding specifically to letters from Mr. Roenicke and Ms. Garlough. Mr. Roenicke was concerned that the traffic counts were conducted in June 2013, a time period when the adjacent elementary school is out for summer. Mr. Jones responded by noting that they acknowledged school was out of session. As such, they added to their counts school traffic based on the enrollment of school at the time, which is within eight students of the current student count. They looked at average trip rates for elementary schools and inflated the counts by 210 AM Peak and 70 PM Peak hour trips. Ms. Garlough claimed to have taken counts themselves and compared them to the Transpo report. Ms. Garlough stated the traffic volume was 30% higher than Transpo's measurements. Mr. Jones agreed that traffic volumes fluctuate day to day; however, the traffic volume in the neighborhood is low. The volumes are low enough that you could double traffic and still have Level of Service (LOS) A or B at all of the surrounding intersections. The intersection operation will stay high and not fall below an acceptable LOS that would require mitigation. Mr. Jones responded to another comment about the impact of new residential traffic on school pedestrian traffic by stating that the overlap in traffic conditions would be in the morning. The residence peak happens after school is out. The projected increase in volumes on Lake Youngs Way is 10-45 +/-trips in the AM Peak hour. This increase, on average, is one vehicle or less per minute during that time period. Traffic volumes fluctuate and there may be an extra car or two in that time period. The school traffic tends to be concentrated in 30 minute intervals. Most of the project traffic won't mix with school traffic volumes. ·- Mr. Neugebauer stated the ERC is basing its opinions on studies that are too preliminary. The issue of liquefaction isn't addressed at all. There is no study as to how the displaced groundwater will affect neighbors. Mr. Neugebauer's final point is that there is no cohesive and conclusive SEPA document. You can't make a final environmental determination on a document that doesn't exist. Ms. Timmons asked Mr. Neugebauer if he'd read the drainage report in the application packet. Mr. Neugebauer stated he had. Ms. Timmons asked Mr. Neugebauer to relate his testimony to the drainage report. Mr. Neugebauer stated the applicant put the cart before the horse because there are no studies for groundwater hydrology. There isn't enough information to form a drainage report. In response to the Examiner, Mr. Neugebauer stated he would have done test pits and boring, piezometer studies and look for the groundwater. If the wetlands are there, the groundwater is there. We need additional studies to determine where the water really is. If it's at the surface, the drainage report is incorrect. The Examiner asked if they know the groundwater is, why does there need to be additional study. Mr. Neugebauer stated the drainage plan isn't taking into account the groundwater. A building pad cannot be placed where the groundwater at the surface. Utilities cannot be placed within the groundwater, particularly sewer which would be continuously draining groundwater. Ms. Rogers asked if he was familiar with the 1995 Local Project Review Act (RCW 36.70B). Mr. Neugebauer stated he wasn't. Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Neugebauer was aware of the SEPA provisions that provide that city regulations can be sufficient to mitigate environmental impacts. Mr. Neugebauer stated he had looked at it and at the requirements for an EIS. Ms. Rogers asked if he had worked with real estate developers who are speculatively buying property. He stated he did and that developers did feasibility studies. He stated phase 1 environmental site assessments (ESA) were common. He had not seen the applicant's Phase I ESA and couldn't speak to whether one existed. It is a typical procedure. Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Neugebauer was familiar with the City's preliminary plat procedures. He responded he was slightly familiar with them. Mr. Neugebauer stated a project of this size would typically have an EIS. He had never seen a development of this size with this much contention without an EIS. Ms. Rogers stated the applicant had prepared a SEPA Checklist June 2014. Mr. Neugebauer was not aware of the newer checklist. In response to Ms. Rogers, Mr. Neugebauer stated the test pits from Mr. Shultz's report were taken throughout the project site, though most are in the wetland areas. He stated there are high levels of water throughout the site because water tables are flat. He stated he was not aware of a 303D listing for any water on the site, though all wetlands are expected to be so listed to allow discharge. Youngs Way. Some would go to SE 16th Street; others would go to Royal Hills. Other traffic would go to Beacon, Ferndale or other routes to SE 16th Street and Edmonds Avenue. He stated SE 16th Street had more grade than SE 18th Street; otherwise the roadway geometry was comparable. Mr. McMonagle asked Mr. Jones about the development's proposed roads. Mr. Jones stated the development will have roads designed to the current standards. Ms. Racheal Villa, of Soundview Consultants, described her experience and qualifications. Her company conducted the fish and wildlife habitat assessment for the property (Exhibit K, page 40). Together, all the scientists who worked on this report have about 80 years of experience. She is a qualified senior author for biological assessments under WSDOT, which is fairly unique. Ms. Villa stated she had visited the project site. She was hired to perform supplementary wetlands review for fish and wildlife habitat. They reviewed the wetlands assessment. They reviewed lists of species from the USFW and the WA DFW for priority habitats and species offsite associated with the Cedar River corridor. There was nothing specifically mapped on site, so they looked to see what was on-site. In their normal critical areas assessment, they would usually incorporate wetlands and habitat scientists. They found nothing specifically listed for priority protection. They reviewed a wider area for noise and stormwater impacts (Exhibit A, Attachment 16). Ms. Villa noted the habitat here is fairly disturbed on a large scale basis. There is a lot of human intrusion. It's not directly connected to the Cedar River corridor. There are trees, but the wildlife has to cross the 60 foot wide water easement, cross a residential road, cross residential yards, cross a 40% slope and then the Bonneville Power Administration's easement to the Cedar River corridor. It's discontinuous, isolated and highly disturbed. The prior testimony documents that by mentioning the extensive use practiced here. Ms. Villa stated they looked at all potentially regulated species on site including all state and federal listed species and habitat. They found habitat potentially associated with pileated woodpeckers and Townsend's bat, both Washington State listed species. Ms. Villa stated there is a great deal of woodpecker activity. She didn't see nests, but she did see snags. Pileated woodpeckers utilize 1,480 acres, which would include the whole Cedar River corridor. It is possible the woodpeckers are foraging on site. Woodpeckers are a residential, non-migratory species. Ms. Villa stated Townsend's bats might use the site seasonally during the summer for foraging for insects. The DFW would require protecting wetlands, associated buffers and large trees. Ms. Villa stated the plat will not result in a loss of significant, protected habitat for these two list~d species. Ms. Villa stated the bobcat is not a listed species. It's a hunted species that doesn't have specific requirements for habitat protection. Ms. Rogers asked Ms. Villa her opinion of the impact of the proposed project. Ms. Villa stated if the wetlands and buffers are protected and off-leash dogs and people on bikes were kept out, the - Mr. Jones spoke to potential safety issues for school pedestrian traffic. He stated there won't be much impact because the volumes are low. Also, they are providing a pedestrian crosswalk at 18th and Lake Youngs Way. Given the speed limits, the pedestrian crossing and relatively small increase in volumes, there do not anticipate a safety hazard. There is concern about visibility on 16th Street and there was a suggestion this is an accident prone area. They review the accident logs from the City for this location. Specifically, they reviewed collision records for SE 16th Street between Beacon Way SE and Lake Youngs Way SE. For a four year period, there were no collisions reported in this area. There is a grade difference between Beacon and Ferndale. They looked at the collision records and measured daily traffic volumes over a seven day period. 16th Street serves about 3,300 vehicles per day. 4.8 million vehicles traveled along that section in four years without a single reported collision. There was one in February of this year, though that was related to icy conditions. Mr. Jones stated the data does not support the assertion this location is a collision prone location. They will also add additional signage on the north side of 16th Street indicating there is an intersection approaching. The geometrics of the road make it difficult to see the intersection. There is a sign now recommending speed limits of 15 mph in this area. There are sidewalks along the route to the school (Exhibit A9, Figure 1). Mr. Jones responded to a comment from Ponderosa Estates. Residents in this subdivision are concerned about long waits nearby intersections, specifically the intersection labelled Intersection 13 in the Transpo report. They evaluated the intersection from a delay standpoint in the AM and PM Peak. The intersection was not originally reviewed, but was added at the City's request. The review of this intersection was this year while school was in session. Based on the data and the stop control of this intersection, they found this intersection has 15 seconds of average delay or less. The delay will not significantly increase with this development looking out to 2018. It's currently 13 seconds in both the AM and PM Peak. The LOS is B now and will stay that way. This is an acceptable delay under the City's standards. No change in traffic control is necessary. Another issue with respect to school traffic is whether there will need to be extra traffic control personnel from the school. Mr. Jones stated he didn't know, but that the use of traffic crossing guards is a typical occurrence in this area. He doesn't anticipate the school district will need to hire traffic control personnel they don't already have. Mr. McMonagle asked Mr. Jones about the changes from the original to the revised traffic study. Mr. Jones stated that in both cases, there were the two proposed entrances there are right now. Mr. McMonagle asked Mr. Jones to explain the route persons in the subdivision would use to get out to a minor arterial. Mr. Jones stated that 60% of the Tiffany Park traffic was assumed to go to the west and the remainder would go south. Of the westbound traffic, they assumed the majority of it would go to SE 16th Street via some route. They would then access Edmonds A venue. They revised the study because there was a lot of public comment about the absence of that intersection in the study. For the southbound traffic, they assumed the traffic would mostly go to SE 18th Street to Lake -- Perched, seasonal high water is common. Mr. Schultz stated the areas that will be wet in the winter will be protected. In June 2013, there was no water at all on site. Mr. McMonagle asked Mr. Schultz whether he's a hydrogeologist. Mr. Schultz stated he wasn't. He is a wetland ecologist. Mr. McMonagle asked if Mr. Schultz can interpret hydrology. Mr. Schultz stated delineating wetlands requires an understanding of wetland hydrology, though he didn't provide either a hydrology report or a geologic report. Mr. Ray Coglas, of Earth Solutions NW, described his education and qualifications. He is a licensed geotechnical engineer. He's been a registered geoengineer since 1998. He is the president of Earth Solutions NW. Mr. Coglas stated he had been present for the TPW AG testimony and had visited the project site. He submitted a letter as part of the exhibit package (Exhibit K, page 33). Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Coglas to discuss his letter and his response to Mr. Neugebauer. Ms. Rogers asked to discuss the soil and groundwater characteristics on the site, specifically as they related to the ability to develop the project. Mr. Cogla~ stated his role was initially to review the AES report. His portion was review of prior reports, field surveys and review of public comments. With respect to the AES report and some of the testimony he'd heard, the AEA report is standard practice. The site is fairly to moderately sloping site, mainly glacial till though there may be some outwash. The level of investigation that was done as part of the AES report was similar to what his firm would have done. A lot of time geotechnical reports are driven by the proposed use. Kurt Merryman authored the AES report. He is reputable. The report was valid. They adequately characterized on site conditions. The one thing that stood out to Mr. Coglas is that AES didn't throw up any red flags. There's nothing in the report that would suggest major problems. AES was working for the school district and would have been required to tell the district if they thought there would be issues for development. All sites are unique, however this is a typical glacial till site. The level of investigation was appropriate with test pits. If it had been him, he'd done the same type of review for the intended use. If this was proposed to be a 25 story office building with three levels of underground parking, then far more intensive study would have been needed. The analysis that was done was appropriate for the scale of the site and proposed type and intensity of use. In preparing his summary, he looked at all that. He agrees with the AES conclusions. A lot of what a geotechnical engineer does is determining the scope of analysis needed. They could have done a lot more, but the budget and type of project didn't require it. Most of the activity will be near surface and low intensity. Ms. Rogers asked if there would be additional geotechnical analysis to support construction and engineering design at the permit stage. Mr. Coglas stated as far as the actual engineering of the project when it comes to assigning actual values for designer, his firm will prepare a geotechnical report that may or may not include more information. The final design isn't finished, so they don't know yet where they' II need more specific information. - wetlands would be better protected than they are now. A typical buffer around a critical area is split rail, which does not keep wildlife out. They function to keep humans and their pets out. Ms. Rogers asked Ms. Villa to summarize her November 18, 2014 memo. Ms. Villa summarized the letter by saying they reviewed for potentially regulated species and habitats in accordance with the City of Renton's codes. They concluded the proposal will not likely cause adverse impact on listed species or critical habitats with implementation of best management practices. Protection of wetlands, buffers and significant trees are proposed. She also mentioned the current condition with anthropogenic structures, unleashed pets and many other disturbances to wildlife currently occurring on the site. With respect to non-game species, they were surveyed in the review. She reiterated this is a highly disturbed, isolated patch. Ms. Villa discussed the stormwater filtration system which will remove many pollutants. There is no direct downstream connection to Ginger Creek, which is a tributary to Cedar River. The plan as proposed will protect the downstream areas. Mr. McMonagle stated he didn't understand the description of the critical areas fence. Ms. Villa described what a wooden, split rail fence looks like. Mr. Gary Schulz is a wetlands ecologist. Mr. Schultz described his education and qualifications. He is a sole proprietor who does habitat assessments, mitigation planning, and wetland and stream studies. He is a water and sewer district commissioner. Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Schultz if he had visited the project site. He stated he had, many times. His work was focused on wetland delineation and stream identification. He used the ACOE, the DOE Wetlands Manual. He put transects on the property and walked the site in a pattern to determine the location of wetlands. He delineated the wetlands. His delineation wa\ reviewed by Otak, the City's peer reviewer. Mr. Schultz concluded the wetlands are isolated and separated from downstream habitats and water. The southern pipeline dams the site and prevents the flow of surface water off site. They are pocket depressions that are influenced by perched groundwater on a seasonal basis. He visited the site during March and June to view where the water was by season. Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Schultz tracks weather patterns. He stated he used the SeaTac rainfall record. His review was conducted in March 2014, when the rainfall was 5-6 inches above normal for that time of year. According to the news, it was record breaking month, though he couldn't quote the record. Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Schultz about shallow groundwater and the data plots described by Mr. Neugebauer. Mr. Schultz stated they were all near wetlands boundaries. Mr. Schultz reviewed these extra data points at the request of Otak. Mr. Schultz stated Mr. Neugebauer used the term 'aquake regime'. This term means hydric soils. A lot of these plots were outside the wetland boundaries and didn't have hydric soils. They aren't part of the wetland, though it was a wet time of year. Mr. Schultz stated the soils on site are Alderwood, which typically overlay an impervious till layer. -- Erosion is something to be managed. They derive the characterization of erosion from the USDA (now NRCS) soil characterization. These soil types were derived for agriculture. When working fields, it was good to know which soils had high erosion qualities. In development, the type of erosion hazard is not significant. Tiffany Park has some slight to moderate erosion areas. However, they control erosion through many different methodologies. The final product is stabilized. Erosion is managed through engineering solutions. Mr. Coglas stated there are no seismic hazards on this property. The Seattle fault is 3.7 miles north. We live in a tectonically active environment. There might be a splay or other features under Tiffany Park, but none are known. It's important to know that the residential building code for this area is sufficient to offset seismic risk in this region. A more intense structure or development would require more studies, but low density residential development does not. There is a low seismic hazard here, according to the City. With respect to coal mine hazards, Mr. Coglas stated they had reviewed the coal mine maps. AES also addressed this. They are outside the boundary where further study is needed for coal mine hazards. Mr. Coglas stated there are no potential adverse environmental impacts in relation to geotechnical issues. In response to the Examiner, Mr. Coglas stated he was hired as peer review for the AES report. He was also hired to respond to public comments. Mr. Coglas stated he disagreed with Mr. Neugebauer's conclusions the entire site is somehow going to be underwater or flooded. The groundwater is perched on glacial till that undulates and is uneven. Mr. Coglas said in these environments, based on studies and his experience, it's likely there will be some groundwater seepage when they do utility excavations or cuts/fills. This is not a site that will require dewatering or extensive pumping. The groundwater table is perched with various, isolated seams. In the Kent Valley, pulling water out would draw the whole water table down. This isn't the case here. The water table will be shallow near the wetlands. The AES report, except for the narrative, doesn't document any observed groundwater in the test pits. In exploration pit #6, they noted weak groundwater seepage below 8 feet. It was the dry season. The Examiner asked if Mr. Neugebauer is correct in his conclusion the groundwater level is at zero elevation, would that cause a problem for construction. Mr. Coglas said that would be a problem, but that is not the case. However, if it was at zero elevation, they could manage it. The stormwater system might need to change, but it could be feasibility changed. Mr. Coglas stated the notion that the groundwater is right at the surface everywhere on the project is absurd. Mr. McMonagle asked Mr. Coglas about the test logs in the back of the AES report. Mr. Coglas stated the pits were all test excavations, rather than borings. He agreed there were 12 test pits on the 22 acres dug on September 6, 2012. He agreed all of the pits were done on the same day (Exhibit - With respect to shallow groundwater, Mr. Coglas stated there is groundwater in the northwest. He stated the various depths of groundwater testified to before (6", 8", or 2'), AES characterizes the water table at 8' in depth during the summer. It fluctuates seasonally. There's nothing in the AES report suggesting 2' in the summer. It reports 8' in depth. The thing he wants to point out is this site is a perched groundwater condition. Glacial till is dense and cemented and does not allow vertical penetration of surface water to depth. That's common. He is not surprised that during wetland studies they encountered shallow or ponding waler in the depressional wetland areas. To suggest the whole site will be underwater is not consistent with a perched groundwater table. There are recessional sands at the surface that allow water to pass through. That water then gets trapped in the impervious layer. He deals with groundwater on all of his projects. It is not a condition that precludes development. There's nothing unique to the plot of Tiffany Park or its surrounds geologically speaking. The Kent Valley is a flat, deep alluvial deposit with a level groundwater table that fluctuates evenly across the valley floor. The Kent Valley is like a deep bathtub. That's not the case here. The till layer is shallow and undulating in Tiffany Park. The elevation change across Tiffany Park is 40'. For example, if the groundwater table were level here, a change in 40' in elevation across the site would cause most of it to be underwater. That's not the case. There are seep environments that are seasonally wet, but they are localized based on the topography and glacial till layer. Groundwater seepage is managed during construction; it doesn't preclude construction. Mr. Rogers asked Mr. Coglas to discuss managing stromwater during construction, specifically, will the stormwater vault float? Mr. Coglas stated that almost every single project he's on has stormwater facilities, many of them are vaults. He's done hundreds of vaults. They look at excavation, the base, storage capacity, stability of the side slopes, and backfill. Tiffany Park is not an environment where he would be concerned with buoyancy of his vault structure. There might be a large seep at the beginning of the cut because of built up water pressure. This usually attenuates over time as the trapped water is drained. They always put a footing drain around the vault if they are concerned the groundwater seam might create excess hydrostatic pressure on the concrete walls. They aren't concerned about buoyancy here. He has done projects that do have buoyancy issues. In that case, there are many best management practices to prevent the vault from being displaced. Ms. Rogers asked to turn back to the AES report. She asked Mr. Coglas to discuss the log reports for the test pits. Mr. Coglas stated geolechnical engineers dig test pits to evaluate soil profiles. Notes suggesting no caving or seepage are very useful because it speaks to the strength of the soil. Groundwater seepage is different from the groundwater table. In the Kent Valley, they would call any water they found the groundwater table, rather than seepage. In this case, there is a difference. Mr. Rogers noted Mr. Neugebauer asked for additional studies. Mr. Coglas described his report and its detail of the geological hazards on site. Mr. Coglas stated there were no slopes that met the City's criteria for sensitive or protected areas. There are some local, isolated areas that may meet the 40% criteria, but as a geotechnical engineer, he looks at stability. The code specifies the boundaries. Mr. Coglas stated there are no landslide hazards or high erosion hazards on the project site. -- Mr. Talkington stated the preliminaty plat process statts with city approval. The next step is prepatation of full construction plans and drainage reports. Additional information will be requested from sub-consultants. They prepared a preliminary drainage report for the general storm drainage design. They will do a final, more specific drainage report next. The final drainage report is usually a fine tuning, though there may be changes that require more extensive revisions. Mr. McMonagle asked if Barghausen Consulting is an engineering firm. Mr. McMonagle asked whether Barghausen was paid hourly from the consultant or as a contingent fee. Mr. Talkington stated it wasn't contingent. Staff Response Mr. Steve Lee, City of Renton Development Engineering Manager, described his position with the City and his relevant work experience and qualifications. Mr. Lee he had reviewed the project files and performed a site visit. He has experience in the Cedar River area for the last ten yeats. Mr. Lee responded to Mr. Neugebauer's testimony. He stated Mr. Neugebauer's points were very general. Most of the issues Mr. Neugebauer raises were dealt with well by Mr. Coglas. Mr. Lee stated the Cedar River issues will always be present. The river system is young and new. There have been sloughing issues, but they were caused by deforestation in the eatly 20th century, eatthquakes and other acts of nature. The Cedar River is now controlled by the US Army Corp of Engineers (ACOE). There is a bit of control in the form of two upstream dams. Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) has the capability of metering the flow of the Cedar River. Within the last five years, there was an 80 year event of I O,OOOcfs. In the past, that would have causes landslides and flooding at Boeing. That didn't occur because of the controls in place by the ACOE and SPU. Mr. Lee stated Mr. Coglas has performed at least 20 projects in the City of Renton. He is correct in his review of the geotechnical study by AES. The site is very similat to other sites in the city. The steep areas are very small ( 15-20' feet long) and do not warrant slope stability analysis. Overall on the project site, the approximate slope is 10% or so. The City does not require additional slope stability analysis. With respect to the number of test pits in the AES study, Mr. Lee stated there were sufficient numbers of test pits to gauge impacts of potential groundwater on site. He would have preferred to see a few more, especially in the vault area. However, as Mr. Coglas testified, the City may require extra analysis. He stated he does not typically require additional geotechnical analysis at this stage of the process. They may ask for deeper borings or excavation pits. The residential nature of this proposal wouldn't usually require it. They will look at this again to determine if more geotechnical information is needed for the walls, cuts, grading and the stromwater vault. Mr. Lee felt the inforrnation provided was adequate to allow for a deterrnination of impact on the site. The AES didn't mention issues of groundwater on the site. Therefore, they didn't feel the need to require secondary review. The City determined the AES report was adequate. -- A 7, Figure 2). Mr. Coglas stated he is a licensed civil engineer, not a licensed geologist or hydrogeologist. They have them on staff. He reviews those reports and has studied these specialties. He's familiar with the two basic groundwater environments at this site. Mr. McMonagle referred to Page I of the AES report that there is a caution the report should be reviewed and revised to support a specific development proposal. Mr. Coglas stated he was retained in October 2014. He was hired to provide peer review of the AES report, prepare a site evaluation, review the plat proposal and provide feedback on community comments. Mr. McMonagle asked if Mr. Coglas had done physical investigation of the site. Mr. Coglas said he had not and was unsure of whether he would be asked to going forward. He anticipates what he would do on a follow up report which would include further review of plat plans. Mr. Coglas stated construction is done year round right now. He prepares different recommendations to deal with groundwater, depending on the season. With respect to the vault, the physical dimension for this vault is very large, but he doesn't know exactly how big. His role is to help the contractor to install the vault and deal with any groundwater or geotechnical issues to ensure the vault is installed correctly and will function. The vault will probably be 12-18' deep. They will have 100 times more bearing capacity than is needed. There will be a soil cap. He'll look at the stability of the excavation to ensure the walls hold. Mr. Coglas showed where the stormwater vault will be located on the plat. Mr. Coglas agreed the deepest test pit was !0.5', though he's gone deeper on other projects. The shallowest test pit was 8'. He agreed the only test pit in the vicinity of the vault was Test Pit #11, to a depth of 8.5'. Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Coglas to clarify his role in the project going forward. He stated his firm is the geotechnical engineer of record and will assume that role going forward. Mr. Barry Talkington, of Barghausen Consulting Engineers, is the civil engineer for the project and designed the plat. Mr. Talkington spoke of the drainage release on the title. A drainage release states there is storrnwater leaving a property and draining on another property. It is not an easement with an exact location. His design of the plat addressed the release by looking at upstream drainage basins around the property. The drainage release in the title is for the Ponderosa subdivision, at least a half mile from the property. It is uphill, but there is no physical way water can drain from that property on to the project property. The drainage release was executed in 1965, before much of the present development was constructed. The drainage release described the entire section (640 acres). It's just an historical remainder. Mr. Talkington stated discharging clean storrnwater into wetlands is a common practice. The drainage is discharged into the buffer to recharge the hydrology of the wetland. With respect to street widths, the streets inside the project are narrower than in the surrounding communities, in conformance with current city code. - constraints. Mr. Lee stated he was not aware of this. With respect to the stormwater, Mr. Lee stated the initial design was for a pond but changed to a vault sometime this year. Mr. McMonagle asked if the vault addition would typically trigger the need for additional review. Mr. Lee stated they would typically ask for more information but they haven't yet requested more geotechnical information from the applicant. Ms. Timmons asked if the City can get the extra information in an engineering packet. Mr. Lee stated it could. Ms. Rocale Timmons stated the studies provided by the applicant; especially the technical studies will be fine-tuned in detail at the time of construction permit submittal. These studies are used to determine if there are probably adverse impacts from the development. The appellant has asserted there hasn't been adequate time to review the proposal and the attendant studies. This project has been in review for nine months. The file has been available. The appellant has been provided with these studies, including the revised studies from June 2013. There were two Notices of Application released. Ms. Timmons entered Exhibit AK. The September 2014 notice included the revised SEPA checklist. With respect to wetlands, the City asked for a third party study. That study was completed by Otak. Otak provided two separate memos in response to revised studies from Mr. Schultz. Otak affirmed the final wetland determination (Exhibit A5). Otak determined there was a wetland missed by the applicant. The studies were revised to acknowledge the fifth wetland on-site. Otak then affirmed all of the revisions made by Mr. Schultz. Staff agrees with the TPW AG appellant regarding tree preservation for wildlife on site. With respect to transportation, staff agrees with testimony provided by Mr. Jones of Transpo Group. Perteet, the City's consultant, concurred with the Transpo study. They feel all potential impacts are mitigated. Staff agrees with the testimony provided by Ms. Villa with respect to critical areas and buffers. Applicant Rebuttal Ms. Rogers stated the applicant agrees with staff on every issue with the exception of the requirement of a 15 foot buffer. Appellant Rebuttal Mr. Neugebauer stated he was concerned about the stormwater vault filter. There are no specifications on this. He has never seen a filter that can remove dissolved metals. He is concerned about the maintenance of the filter. Who will change it or maintain it? -- Mr. Lee spoke to the stormwater drainage issues. The only concern the City may have is the placement of the vault. They may require additional and deeper test pits to determine if there is groundwater that would have a detrimental effect on the vault structure. In that instance, they will do a buoyancy calculation to determine the static water volume. A certain amount of water will hold the vault down. They need to know how much water that is and when it will be in the vault. In response to Ms. Timmons, Mr. Lee stated the storm drainage water will be pre-treated and will prevent polluted water from running off into the wetlands. The vault will treat all PGIS run off and discharge to a closed conveyance system. None of the pollution generating systems will discharge into a wetland. Mr. Lee stated the City of Renton will require a Level 2 downstream analysis to describe the downstream conveyance after leaving the site. They are uncertain of a segment of the pipeline that takes the water. They want to make sure there is no downstream flooding. An NPDES permit will be required for the project. The permit stipulates allowable discharge into a conveyance system. That will include background monitoring as well as discharge monitoring. All of the requirements must be met before a building permit or construction permits are issued. Mr. Lee summarized the local, state and federal code requirements. The applicant has complied with all code requirements. He stated these codes are sufficient to address all probable stormwater impacts. He said the Seattle pipeline is monitored by SPU. If they see even a fraction of a movement in that hillside, they'll know. This is the drinking water in the City of Seattle. In response to the Examiner, Mr. Lee stated the deep, static groundwater level was uniformly along the wetland level at the project, it could affect the development. They would discover this instance during construction. If grades are lower than the wetland level, they will require more borings and test pits. The Examiner asked if the code regulations would allow the City to ask for more borings. Mr. Lee stated it comes down to professional liability as defined in the RCW. The person stamping the plans is responsible. The City is responsible for life safety only. The engineering staff can require more borings if they think there might be an issue. If there are groundwater issues present, the proposed vault is the best solution. In response to Ms. Rogers, Mr. Lee stated there is a difference between the perched groundwater table and the static, deeper groundwater level. There are no indications of the static groundwater level above 8'. Mr. Lee agreed with Mr. Coglas' assertion that the surface groundwater could he addressed during construction. Mr. McMonagle asked if Mr. Lee was aware the geotechnical report was prepared for the school district rather than the applicant. Mr. Lee stated he was. Mr. McMonagle asked if there shouldn't have been at least one test pit per acre. Mr. Lee stated the geotechnical engineering consultant will get a representative sampling of the site. They add more bores if they see dissimilarities in the site. Mr. McMonaglc asked if Mr. Lee was aware AES limited its number of test pits based on budgetary - The proposal meets most bulk and dimensional standards if all conditions of approval are met. The only issue is Lot 19. This lot may not meet minimum Jot width standards, but will be conditioned to meet the standard. The applicant has provided a landscape plan. This plan does not comply with the code, but could with minor modifications. Per the development standards, there are several proposed walls ranging from 4' to 21' on-site. These walls are outside the height limit. Staff has requested a height limit on walls. Staff would be open to terracing of walls to reduce the overall height. With respect to critical areas, most requirements are met with conditions. The applicant has asked for modifications to wetland buffers. There are impacts from walls that must be revised. There were public comments related to habitat. The site provides habitat for non-listed species. The tree preservation plan is sufficient to provide habitat. Based on the provided tree inventory, approximately 679 trees were excluded from retention calculations. At least 188 trees must be preserved on site or replaced at a mitigation ratio to allow 30% tree retention. The applicant proposes to protect 181 trees and mitigate seven others. In terms of the analysis from subdivision regulations, the proposal complies if all conditions of approval are met. The applicant must provide a safe crossing for the trail. In response to the Examiner, Ms. Timmons stated there is no applicable street plan in the area. There were several comments regarding transportation issues. The proposed development would generate 1,000 weekday trips. Intersections near the project would remain at acceptable levels of service. A SEPA mitigation measure requires a new stop sign at Monroe Avenue. Staff has included an additional condition of approval to address sight distance, concerns. Staff has also recommended additional signage. Staff feels as conditioned, all impacts for transportation are mitigated. With respect to residential lots, there are several pipe stem Jots. Staff would like to see the applicant revise these Jots to comply with code or provide for shared driveways. Shared driveways are preferred to reduce curb cuts. Parks, police and fire staff indicate there are sufficient resources to support the development if all fees are paid. Adequate provisions for safe walking conditions for students are provided. Sidewalks will be constructed to connect to the existing sidewalk system. Staff has recommended a SEPA mitigation measure to include a crosswalk improvement at Lake Youngs Way at SE 18th Street. Adequate provision for water and sewer are provided. The drainage report complies with the 2009 Stormwater Manual. There will be a vault within Tract A. The applicant will need to provide a downstream analysis for stormwater conveyance. - Mr. Neugebauer said he's been practicing hydrogeology for 33 years. He stated perched· groundwater doesn't occur on slopes. The water drains through. The groundwater follows the contour of the land. He stated the unsaturated zone flow is at negative pressure. Groundwater is at atmospheric pressure. The applicant is describing an impossible scenario. They can see the groundwater through pressure gradients. He stated the water table at an elevation is a water table. He stated they are using the applicant's information which is incomplete. The groundwater will go with the slope of the ground. Either the water's at the surface and there is a wetland or it's not. In the upper 30", the bioturbation zone, the ground is unsaturated. The water flows through the pore space and creates a vacuum behind it. There is just not enough information to really say where the groundwater is and where it's going. Finally, Mr. Neugebauer stated groundwater is regulated under the Clean Water Act. Point sources cannot be wetland hydrology. Preliminary Plat Staff Testimony Ms. Rocale Timmons gave a PowerPoint presentation (Exhibit AL). The site is located in the Benson Hill community planning area in the Tiffany Park neighborhood. It is 22 acres located in the RB zone. It is bordered by the Cedar River Pipeline and the Mercer Island Pipeline. There arc 1,300 trees on this vacant site. It is owned by the Renton School District. It is surrounded by existing single family residences. It ties into two existing street stubs which will be extended into the site. The applicant is requesting critical areas exemptions and preliminary plat approval. The City has received 72 comment letters. Staff was present at a community meeting held by TPW AG and conducted a separate meeting in September 2014. On September 22, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued a MONS decision with 11 mitigation measures. Two appeals were filed. The environmental determination did not include new issues related to zoning, permitted uses, density, construction mitigation, and others. The applicant is proposing 97 lots. There is a 96 lot proposal to allow 30% retention of trees. There will be a 5.7 du/acre density. Average lot size is 5,400sf. The site has five wetlands (three Category II and two Category Ill). The applicant is proposing buffer reductions with mitigation in the form of buffer extensions. The applicant is asking for a critical areas exemption for the extension of SE 18th Street to allow for a small buffer impact. Staff supports the requested exemption. Staff relied heavily on the Comprehensive Plan. There are many significant trees, critical areas, wildlife and an established density and use pattern that are unique. Ms. Timmons described the Comprehensive Plan policies the staff relied on in their analysis. The staff attempted to provide harmony and balance between existing and new neighborhoods. The proposal complies with the Comprehensive Plan as conditioned. - Condition 9 is the wetland mitigation associated with Wetland E, at the southeast section of the site. The wetland mitigation plans show they have already exceeded the required buffer. They have to extend the street. The critical areas exemption is for 14sf of impact from the required sidewalk. The City has asked for additional buffer area. They disagree but will agree to provide enhanced plantings. Condition 17 is a typographical error. Condition 18 is related to pipe stem lots which are really about the shared driveway issue. Mr. Gary Schultz, the wetland ecologist, described the mitigation impacts the applicant 1s providing. His testimony is specifically related to Condition 9. Mr. Schultz described the 1,33 !sf of additional buffer the applicant is proposing. Ms. Rogers stated Ms. Timmons agreed to the revised Conditions I, 4, 9, 13 and 17. Ms. Timmons stated they disagree with applicant revised Conditions 3, 5, 6, and 16. In response to the Examiner, Ms. Vanessa Dolby, stated she would not be opposed to changing Condition 5 to allow them to request a variance. She could not comment on whether staff would support a variance. These would be administrative variances. Ms. Rogers stated that they did not apply for a variance because they were told they didn't need to. Mr. Barry Talkington spoke to the difference between cut and fill walls. A cut is needed when the finished lot grade is below the existing grade. The wall stabilizes the grade. A fill wall includes fill on top of existing grade. The finished lot is above existing grade. This is and engineered wall with reinforcing fabric. Mr. Talkington stated the revised plan reduces the 21' high wall above Tract A and the 18' high wall along the Cedar River Pipeline. That wall will come down to 6'. The height from the high side of the walls is zero if they apply the code in effect when they submitted. In their case, the finished grade is the top of the wall. Mr. Talkington described the limits on site grading imposed by two entrances, ADA standards, etc. The overall objective is to balance cut/fill on site. They are limited by the road access and ADA standards for road slopes through intersections. They can only change grades on site so much. As the plan is laid out there are grade differences from lot to lot that requires walls. They attempt to maximize lot areas and reduce impacts to surrounding buffers. If they meet the City's conditions, they will lose lots, reduce lot sizes and impact the buffers. Use of walls allows them to decrease impacts. For Conditions 6 and 16, Mr. Talkington spoke to a set of maps (Exhibit AO) depicting the shared driveway plans. He prepared the plans. For lots 9-14, the shared driveway easement will be used Lots 12-14. Lot 14 has direct access to the cul-de-sac but there will be no driveway there. The City would also require Lot 11 to use this driveway. This is not desirable because the driveway would be at an angle to the roadway which would also change the design of the house to allow side loading of - In response to the Examiner, Ms. Timmons stated there will be no alley access. This proposal does not meet the threshold. There are two zones on the property. Applicant Testimony Ms. Rogers presented a letter describing the applicant's rationale for revised conditions of approval along with a set of revised conditions for the plat (Exhibits AM and AN, respectively). Ms. Rogers asked for approval of the plat subject to revised conditions. They are generally supportive of the staff report. They have a few areas of disagreement. Ms. Rogers wanted to emphasize a point that the client is under contract to purchase the project from the Renton School District. This is surplus land the district cannot use. Ms. Rogers noted they are asking for revisions to Conditions 4, 5, 6, 9, and 16-18. They are requesting additional changes to conditions to fix typographical errors, repetition, and non-contested issues. The City has recently changed its justification for Condition 3 for the 15 foot buffer. The City had originally erroneously relied on incorrect Comprehensive Plan policies. They are now turning to policies that also don't support the need for a buffer. Aesthetics are not an adequate basis to impose a perimeter buffer. There is already an average 50 foot perimeter buffer proposed along with two pipelines. There is no need for an additional buffer. With respect to Condition 4, they have proposed a modification to the location of curb bulb outs. They feel the City will agree with this revision. Condition 5 is the biggest issue. This is the condition that City is asserting that retaining walls must be limited to 4 feet in the front yard and 6 feet in the back yard. The City is referencing a condition related to aesthetic dividers, not retaining walls. None of the retaining walls concepts are referenced in this condition. Even if this particular code were to apply, the measurement of height does not apply. The walls they have designed are essential to the design of the plat. Exhibit AM, Attachment B, are two staff reports for current amendments to the walls and hedges section of the code. Title 4 does not have standards for retaining walls. Exhibit AM, Attachment C is a city handout that establishes a difference between fences, hedges and walls and engineered retaining walls. Exhibit AM, Attachment D is the pre-application memo for the original meeting Henley had with the City. You never get a written report again until you see the Hearing Examiner. The City stated the proposed retaining walls are not subject to the fences portion of the code. Even if the code has recently changed, they are vested to the old code. If the retaining walls are reduced or eliminated, we'll end up doing more grading. That will result in impact to trees and increased construction impacts. They have submitted a grading plan with reduced retaining wall heights. Conditions 6 and 16 are about shared private driveways. They are concerned the City is demanding an extra lot use the shared private driveways. There is a specific instance when this will not work. - Ms. Barbara Smith stated she didn't realize she needed to submit the reviews for Henley Homes (Exhibit AQ). Ms. Rogers noted they were not a comprehensive review. Staff Rebuttal Ms. Timmons stated for the driveway portion of the code, please review RMC 4-4-080. This code allows discretionary authority in the code to limit the number of driveways accessing the street. staff does not agree with the proposed revisions to Conditions 6 and 16. They want to see Lots 11 and 78 to access abutting shared driveways. - the garage. The City is attempting to apply the amended code to the plot rather than the code under which the project vested. The staff Report stated Lot 14 had inadequate frontage. This has been corrected. For Lots 15-17, they had originally designed the shared driveway to service Lots 15 and 16. They have now included Lot 17 on the shared easement. They have also corrected the frontage of Lot 17 to comply with code. Next to Lots 15-17, there is a pedestrian tract. For Lots 38-40, the issue is the same as for Lots 15-17. They have revised the lots to allow Lot 38 to comp! y with the width requirement and access the shared easement. For Lots 79-81, Lot 81 was added to allow access to the shared right of way. Lot 78 will not access the shared driveway. With the applicant's revised condition language, they are willing to ensure access to shared driveways for three lots rather than the City's suggested four. Public Testimony Ms. Jill Jones is a Renton resident. She's heard experts testifying and noted that many of these people testifying have not walked the roads. She has lived there and walked therefor years. This is a valuable resource. The Cedar River corridor cannot be walked by residents. There is no access here because it is steep. The woods are fully canopied, with easy trails. Henley says because the development is single family residences, they shouldn't have to provide a buffer. The development is much denser than the existing neighborhoods. The trees are mature and were pre-existing 30 years ago. The road is wide. There are many trees. Grass planting strips absorb the rain. Ms. Jones showed an example of other Henley developments that have no trees and narrow parking strips. The homes will be taller and larger than the existing houses on much smaller lots. There will be no stormwater areas. Currently Tiffany Park floods in heavy storms. She has serious doubts about the ability to provide adequate stormwater drainage. She also observed a pileated woodpecker in the woods on April 14, 2014. Ms. Beedon would like to ask the Examiner to walk the woods before he makes a decision. This is important. She has listened to all of the testimony. The experts seem to care but they have shown no concern about what they are tearing down. This piece of wood should be preserved. They are taking away something irreplaceable. She feels this piece of property should be preserved for future generations and all of us. She asked the Examiner to walk this area. Also, she has observed pileated woodpecker nests in these woods. They don't migrate. This is not about not wanting development. This is about preserving a precious piece of woods. She wouldn't care if they built a prison there is it was cleared. This is about nature and the trees. She can't imagine all these trees being tom down. If the citizens hadn't become active, the forest would be clear cut. They have a right as citizens to be heard and care about the environment. Exhibit N: Exhibit 0: Exhibit P: Exhibit Q: Exhibit R: Exhibit S: Exhibit T: Exhibit U: Exhibit V: Exhibit X: Exhibit Y: Exhibit Z: Exhibit AA: Exhibit AB: Exhibit AC: Exhibit AD: Exhibit AE: Exhibit AF: Exhibit AG: Exhibit AH: Exhibit AI: Exhibit AJ: Exhibit AK: - 21. TIA Report (November 2013) 23. Tree Protection Report (November 13, 2013) 24. SEPA Checklist (November 13, 2013) 39. Miscellaneous Photographs of Surrounding Site 40. Professional Qualifications -Steven Neugebauer 41. Neugebauer Expert Report (November 17, 2014) 47. Pre-Hearing Statement regarding Prescriptive Easement (November 18, 2014) 48. TPW AG Correspondence with Renton School District Staff Appeal Analysis (November 18, 2014) Henley Pre-Hearing Order Request Hearing Examiner Order Requesting Reply to Pre-Hearing Order Request TPW AG Response to Pre-Hearing Order Request City Response to Pre-Hearing Order Request Henley Response to Pre-Hearing Order Request Pre-Hearing Order McMonagle Notice of Appearance Flatley Resume Lee Resume Declaration of Timmons Not Used Renton Reporter Article (Donnelly) Letter to Editor (Donnelly) 5 Photographs (Donnelly) TPW AG Memo on HEX Authority and Halverson v. Bellevue (November 28, 2014) City of Renton Response to TPWAG Memo of I 1/28/14 (December 5, 2014) Henley Response to TPWAG Memo of I 1/28/14 (December 5, 2014) Hearing Examiner Ruling on Examiner Authority and Halverson v. Bellevue (December 7, 2014) Title Report/Chain of Title (TPW AG) Roenicke TPW AG Summary Testimony Garlough TPW AG Summary Testimony Timeline Preliminary Plat Exhibits Exhibit I: Exhibit 2: Exhibit 3: Exhibit 4: Exhibit 5: Exhibit 6: Exhibit 7: Exhibit 8: Exhibit 9: HEX Report Preliminary Plat Plan (July 16, 2014) Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan (July 16, 2014) Tree Protection Report (June 6, 2014) Revised Wetland Determination and Response Letter (June 3, 2014) Habitat Assessment (January 16, 2014) Geotechnical Report (September 28, 2012) Drainage Report (February 24, 2014) Traffic Impact Analysis (April 23, 2014) - ATTACHMENT B The Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeals (LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAE) EXHIBITS ADMITTED DURING HEARING SEPA Appeal Exhibits Exhibit A: Exhibit B: Exhibit C: Exhibit D: Exhibit E: Exhibit F: Exhibit G: Exhibit H: Exhibit I: ExhibitJ: Exhibit K: Exhibit L: Exhibit M: City of Renton Environmental Analysis (Attachments 1-18 are listed as Preliminary Plat Exhibits 1-18 below) Environmental (SEPA) Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated (Preliminary Plat Exhibit 22 below) Environmental Checklist (June 10, 2014) Comprehensive Plan (Land Use, Transportation and Community Design Elements) Acceptance and Notice of Application Affidavit Service by Mailing (November 24, 2014) Notice of Application and Off Hold Notice Affidavit Service by Mailing (July 25, 2014) Commitment for Title Insurance TPWAG Letter to Renton School District (September 10, 2014) Renton School District Letter of Denial to TPWAG (September 16, 2014) Henley Appeal Henley SEPA Appeal Exhibits I. a. HEX Staff Recommendation Report b. Pre-Application Notes c. Wetland Determination (October 30, 2013) d. Wetland Determination (February 28, 2014) 2. Letter Report from Ray Coglas 3. RSD Resolution No. 0312/13 4. SPU Letter (November 4, 2014) 5. Drainage Release 6. Site Maps and Aerial Photos 7. Airsoti Guns Documentation 8. Revised Plans, Alternate Layouts 9. COR COW Meeting (September 9, 2013) 10. Area Water Well Logs 11. Legal Analysis and Argument (November 18, 2014) 12. Soundview Consultants Letter, Racheal Villa 13. Grete Associates Report, 2008 TPW AG Appeal TWPAG SEPA Appeal Exhibits 19. TIR Report (November 12, 2013) Exhibit 10: Exhibit 11: Exhibit 12: Exhibit 13: Exhibit 14: Exhibit 15: Exhibit 16: Exhibit 17: Exhibit 18: Exhibit 19: Exhibit 20: Exhibit 21: Exhibit 22: Exhibit 23: Exhibit 24: Exhibit AL: Exhibit AM: Exhibit AO: Exhibit AP: Exhibit AQ: - Public Comment Letters: l0.1-10.70 Alternative Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan (August 29, 2014) Alternative Tree Protection Report (August 27, 2014) Independent Secondary Review -Traffic Independent Secondary Review -Wetland (April 3, 2014) Supplemental Independent Secondary Review -Wetland (July 9, 2014) Habitat Assessment Technical Memorandum (February 11, 2014) Habitat Assessment Technical Memorandum (June 12, 2014) Landscape Plan (July 16, 2014) Transportation Concurrency Approval Renton Trails and Bikeways Map Environment Review Committee (ERC) Staff report SEPA Determination and Mitigation Measures (September 22, 2014) Public Meeting Notice Notice of Application Affidavits Staff PowerPoint Presentation Applicant Letter of Revised Plat Conditions (December 8, 2014) Shared Driveway Jones, Photographs Henley Homes Reviews from Internet March 23, 2015 Monday, 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL OF COUNCILMEMBERS CITY STAFF IN ATIENDANCE SPECIAL PRESENTATION Fire: Employee Recognition APPEAL • Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat, LUA-13-000642 AUDIENCE COMMENT Citizen Comment: Martin - ADA Curb Cuts and Renton Transit Center RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting MINUTES Council Chambers Renton City Hall Mayor Pro Tern Ed Prince called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. RANDY CORMAN, Council President Pro Tern; RUTH PEREZ; ARMON DO PAVONE; MARCIE PALMER. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL EXCUSE ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS GREG TAYLOR AND DON PERSSON. CARRIED. JAY COVINGTON, Chief Administrative Officer; GARMON NEWSOM II, Senior Assistant City Attorney; JASON SETH, City Clerk; MEGAN GREGOR, Deputy City Clerk; GREGG ZIMMERMAN, Public Works Administrator; FIRE & EMERGENCY SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR MARK PETERSON, DEPUTY CHIEF ERIK WALLGREN and DEPUTY CHIEF CHAD MICHAEL, Fire & Emergency Services Department; COMMANDER CHARLES KARLEWICZ, Police Department Fire & Emergency Services Administrator Mark Peterson recognized the following individuals for their achievements, and expressed appreciation for their outstanding contributions to the department: • Cory Cappelletti, Fire Inspector Ill -Civilian Member of the Year • Marc Donnell, Firefighter-EMT of the Year • Chris Krystofiak, Firefighter -Firefighter of the Year • Roy Gunsolus, Battalion Chief/Safety Officer-Officer of the Year Planning and Development Committee Chair Corman presented a report recommending that Council adopt an amended Condition 13 to the appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision regarding the Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat (LUA-13-000642) to read as follows: 13. Prior to the recording of the final plat, a secondary fire access shall be constructed providing a second means of access from Main Ave S (102nd Ave. SE) to the plat by fire trucks and emergency vehicles. The extent of street improvements necessary to effectuate this connection shall be determined by the City of Renton Fire Department in accordance with opplicoble fire code standards and shall be the minimum necessary to provide for safe and effective secondary access for fire trucks and emergency vehicles. The Committee further recommended that in all other respects the Hearing Examiner's decision be affirmed. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY PAVONE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITIEE RECOMMENDATION. CARRIED. Thomas Martin (Renton) expressed appreciation to Council and administrative personnel for a quick response in making appropriate corrections to the curb cut as he had requested at the March 2, 2015 Council Meeting. He also mentioned that he would be in contact with King County Metro to discuss possible improvements for the Transit Center. - PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT March 23, 2015 APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL Date 3 /1_,,'3/; 'J r t Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat (LUA-13-000642) Appeal (January 5, 2015) The Planning and Development Committee recommends that the Council find that the Hearing Examiner made a substantial error in fact in Condition 13 in that the condition is ambiguous as to how the secondary fire access may be provided. The Committee recommends that the Council adopt an amended Condition 13 to read as follows: 13. Prior to the recording of the final plat, a secondary fire access shall be constructed providing o second means of access from Main Ave 5 (102nd Ave. SE) to the plat by fire trucks and emergency vehicles. The extent of street improvements necessary to effectuate this connection shall be determined by the City of Renton Fire Department in accordance with applicable fire code standards and shall be the minimum necessary to provide for safe ond effective secondary access for fire trucks and emergency vehicles. The Committee further recommends that in all other respects the Hearing Examiner's decision be affirmed. 1ZcL 1andy Corman, Chair Marcie Palmer, Member cc: Larry Warren SETILEMENT AGREEMENT This SETILEMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made as of this _f:/_ day of N\1l(Qb 2015, between the City of Renton, a Washington municipal corporation ("Renton") and Harbour Homes, LLC, a Washington limited liability company ("Harbour"). RECITALS A. Renton is a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, organized under the Optional Municipal Code, Title 35A RCW, located in King County, Washington. B. Harbour is the applicant for the preliminary plat known as Vuecrest Estates, Renton File Number LUAB-000642 ("Vuecrest Estates"). C. Vuecrest Estates is located west of Main Ave. S, which is also known as and hereinafter referred to as 102nd Ave. SE, and is separated from 102nd Ave. SE by two parcels of property: King County Parcel No. 3223059171, owned by Joseph and Martha Mackenzie (the "Mackenzie Parcel") and King County Parcel No. 3223059097, owned by KBS Ill LLC (the "KBS Ill Parcel"). The Mackenzie Parcel is located immediately north of the KBS Ill Parcel. D. In its application for preliminary plat approval for Vuecrest Estates, Harbour proposed that the public road to be extended from the north through Vuecrest Estates, known as Smithers Ave. 5., be terminated with a temporary cul-de-sac at the boundary of the Mackenzie Parcel, because the owners of the Mackenzie Parcel had no interest in developing the Mackenzie Parcel and no interest in granting an easement through the Mackenzie Parcel for access to 102nd Ave. SE. E. The Renton Hearing Examiner issued a Final Decision Upon Reconsideration concerning Vuecrest Estates (the "Hearing Examiner Decision") that included Condition 13 which read: 13. Prior to the recording of the final plat, a secondary fire access shall be constructed that extends Smithers Ave S to the east to directly connect to Main Ave S (102nd Ave SE}. The extent of street improvements necessary to effectuate this connection shall be determined by the City of Renton Fire Department in accordance with applicable fire code standards and shall be the minimum necessary to provide for safe and effective secondary access for fire trucks and emergency vehicles. F. Harbour appealed the Hearing Examiner Decision to the Renton City Council. G. Subsequent to Harbour filing its appeal, the owner of the KBS Ill Parcel applied to Renton for short plat approval for a project known as Vuecrest II ("Vuecrest II"). The proposed layout of Vuecrest II includes a public road identified as Road A between the eastern boundary of Vuecrest Estates and 102"' Ave. SE. 1 H. Harbour believes that it could construct a secondary fire access between Smithers Ave.Sand Road A, crossing Tract Band Tract D ofVuecrest Estates, and could construct a temporary secondary fire access within the alignment of Road A to 102 Ave. SE, prior to the construction of Road A by KBS Ill (the "Proposed Secondary Fire Access"), all as illustrated in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. I. Harbour believes that it would prevail in its appeal of the Hearing Examiner Decision before the City Council or in further judicial appeals. Nonetheless, Harbour is willing to agree not to pursue further appeals and to waive damages it may have against Renton for past actions concerning the City's review and conditional approval ofVuecrest Estates if the City Council approves modifications to Condition 13 as set forth below and if the Renton Staff, including the Renton Fire Chief, agree that the Proposed Secondary Fire Access can be approved based upon the design, process and conditions set forth below. J. Renton believes that it would prevail in Harbour's appeal of the Hearing Examiner Decision before the City Council or in further judicial appeals but is willing to enter into this Agreement on the terms and conditions set forth below. NOW THEREFORE in consideration of the mutual promises made herein and the mutual benefits to be derived by the Parties therefrom, the Parties agree as follows: I. AGREEMENT 1. Recitals. The recitals set forth above are incorporated by reference into and made part of this Agreement. 2. Revisions to Condition 13. 2.1. In order for the Proposed Secondary Fire Access Easement (hereinafter the "Access") to satisfy conditions of the Preliminary Plat for Vuecrest Estates, Renton Staff agrees to recommend that the City Council revise Condition 13 to read as follows ("Revised Condition 13"): Prior to the recording of the final plat, a secondary fire access shall be construcled providing a second means of access from Main Ave S (102"d Ave. SE) to the plat by.fire trucks and emergency vehicles. The extent of street improvements necessary to effectuate this connection shall be determined by the City of Renton Fire Department in accordance with applicable fire code standards and shall be the minimum necessary lo provide for safe and effective secondary access for fire lrucks and emergency vehicles. 2.2. Harbour will support this revision and make no further oral arguments before the City Council or its committees on its appeal. 2.3. If the City Council approves Revised Condition 13,makes no further revisions to the Hearing Examiner Decision on the Vuecrest Estates, and the City Council's final decision on Vuecrest 2 Estate's is not judicially appealed by any third party, the Parties shall proceed with all other terms of this Agreement. If the City Council does not approve Revised Condition 13, revises the Hearing Examiner Decision or imposes other condition on the Vuecrest Estates plat not acceptable to Harbour, or if a third party appeals the City Council's final decision on Vuecrest Estate's then Harbour shall have the right to terminate this Agreement. 3. Proposed Secondary Fire Access 3.1. Design. The Parties agree to the following design of the Access to comply with Revised Condition 13: 3.1.1.The alignment of the Access shall be as generally shown in Exhibit A. Harbour may make minor revisions to the alignment shown in Exhibit A at its discretion and with the approval of the City, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. Minor revisions shall include a shift in the alignment up to thirty feet. Major revisions to the alignment (any revision not considered Minor) may be mutually agreed upon by Harbour and Renton without requiring a revision to this Agreement. 3.1.2.No wetlands shall be filled to construct the Access. A bridge or culvert shall be installed in the wetland buffer to cross the wetland. 3.1.3.The Access shall be 20 feet wide and shall have an inside radius of 25 feet at its intersection with Smithers Ave. S. as per the requirements of the Emergency Vehicle Turning Radii Detail dated 06/17 /96, attached as Exhibit B. 3.1.4.The Access surface shall be paved to meet IC 43 and IFC 503. 3.1.5.The Access shall be constructed by Harbour within the alignment of Road A. If Road A is constructed by the developer of Vue crest II prior to construction of the Access, Harbour shall only construct that portion of the Access required to connect Smithers Ave. S to Road A. 3.1.6.Stormwater management for the Access may be provided by directing stormwater flow off of the Access to the side of the Access and allowing the water to infiltrate. 3.1. 7 .Areas within Tract B outside of the Access alignment disturbed during construction of the Access shall be reasonably restored to pre-construction condition. 3.1.8.No additional mitigation shall be imposed by Renton for impacts to the wetland buffer in Tract Bas a result of the construction and establishment of the Access. 3.1.9.No additional tree replacement shall be required for trees removed as necessary for the construction and establishment of the Access. Harbour shall be permitted to use replanting as a means of meeting City of Renton tree retention standards. 3 3.1.10. Additional design requirements may be established by Renton as so long as they are not inconsistent with the other previsions in this subsection. 3.2. Permitting Process 3.2.1.Renton authorization to construct the Access shall be provided as part of the engineering review for Vuecrest Estates. 3.2.2.lf the Access is constructed as set forth herein, the Staff agrees to confirm during Final Plat review that the Access satisfies Revised Condition 13. · 4. Plat Design 4.1.1.Access. Any changes to the Plat design to accommodate the Access as set forth herein shall be considered a Minor Plat Amendment that can be reviewed and permitted as part of the Final Plat. 4.1.2.Alley. As a result of Harbour providing the Access, the alley shown behind lots 12 through 16 in the Preliminary Plat and any conditions associated with the alley may be eliminated by Harbour as a Minor Plat Amendment that can be reviewed as part of the Final Plat design, except that curb cuts for those lots shall be constructed as shown on Exhibit C. 4.1.3.Garages. If the alley is eliminated, Harbour agrees to reduce the visual impact of garages by meeting one of the design standards set forth in RMC 4-2-115.E for R-4, R-6 and R-8; painting the garage within the color scheme of the home; and utilizing windows in the upper portion of the garage door. 4.1.4.Smithers Ave. s. Prior to final plat approval, Harbour shall construct Smithers Ave. S. to the property line bordering the Mackenzie Parcel. 4.1.5.Renton agrees that implementation of this Agreement shall not require a Major Plat Amendment. 5. Fire Sprinklers. Fire sprinklers shall be installed in all homes in Vuecrest Estates unless and until a public road connection is established through the Mackenzie Parcel or the KBS Ill LLC Parcel to 102nd Ave. SE. 6. General Provisions 6.1. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the Parties regarding the subject matter hereof and may be modified only by a written document signed by all Parties. 4 6.2. Binding Effect. The Parties recognize that this is a binding settlement agreement made by the Parties, any and all of their respective employees, affiliates, subsidiaries or related entities. This Agreement is binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the Parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns. 6.3. Governing Law. This Agreement has been made in the State of Washington and shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. Venue for any action arising out of this Agreement shall lie in King County Superior Court. 6.4. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which shall constitute one and the same agreement. 6.5. Authority to Execute. Each of the Parties and their representatives executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they are authorized to execute this Agreement. 6.6. Specific Performance. The Parties acknowledge that money damages and remedies at law generally are inadequate to compensate any party for the unique benefits available through this Agreement and specific performance and other non-monetary relief are particularly appropriate remedies for the enforcement of this Agreement and should be available to all Parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties execute this Agreement as of the date set forth above. CITY OF RENTON By: ' Penis L4w Its: YYla.lf~ Dated:1"1 /1 'i . ;_ \ I , /'• 4f ~ trcf· VL-« ' > 1,(G 0-/"K'. ' , . ··--li!Wrence J. Warren ( ·· City Attorney 5 HARBOUR HOMES LLC Byl .)!'Pl~ H~ g "'SIY Its: \/t.£ ~E'lWf"'c Dated: , . ,~. 1:r EXHIBIT A :j iii '1 i~ >:~ ~~ ( iID t: II i ;;~ §~ ~ ~ IX /, / I I ~ / S3!Y1$31S31:l!>3rlll i• I '''1' I ,,1 t ··,!J I - ' EXHIBIT B FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROA __ RENTON FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU .............. ·········-···· 45' :-:f:·::::::·:·:,·:·: ::-::·:,·:,::-:·:·} . . :::::.. ....... .. . ::: .. ·.·: ...... ·. -::::::::::i::::~::} .... .r.r::~:j::::~:~ \:)Jli?.'.f.:: i)JO!< ..................... ::::::::::::::. ::::::::::::::. EMERGENCY VEHICLE TURNING RADII DETAIL DATE: 06/17/96 SHEET: 1.0 EXHIBIT C r- 1 ~II I\:, -1 c.,- 1 I I J l I I I I Cl Cl c:i l() -t.., i- Cl Cl 7.5' 27.5 _35.82' _ 15' SIDE YARD_ STREET s:_TB~K (TYP.)] -- ~ 82.58' r-:.,~'/ ---16 T --~ :Ur-\ 6,283 S.F. I ~--1~i I I ~~ I I i1---:,+-12 L ____ = ___ _J 106.00 ,--------, : 15 : J 5,JOO S.F. / I I L ____ = ___ _J 106.00 ,--------, : 14 : I 5,300 S.F. I I I L ____ = ___ _J 106.00 ,--------, : 13 J I 5,300 S.F. I I I L ____ = ___ _J 106.00 ,--------, I I I 1~ I I 6,198 S.F. / "" \ I " "'-~~ --------_J \:,&0( I {~ \ ~ \ Cl Cl c:i l() 3.14-r- \ "" \ Cl ~ \ l() \ 78.06' 50.00' Cl Cl ,----, ~ I I I L I 11 I~ ./ 1 SF. I~ I 5, 29 . . 1 - c:i I I c:i I I c:5 <o I I L ____ _J \ 98.50' 50.00' ~j_ __ ___..·----~---------~ --- I ,_. Tfi SE/\ 2 28.G .. ~- ' ' I I I I 4,9; I I I L __ 50 Denis Law Mayor March 24, 2015 Brent Carson Van Ness Feldman 719 Second Avenue, Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 Re: Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat LUA-13-000642, ECF, PP, MOD Dear Mr. Carson: City Clerk -Jason A. Seth, CMC At the regular Council meeting of March 23, 2015, the Renton City Council adopted the recommendation of the Planning and Development Committee to amend Condition 13 of the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision. A copy of the approved Committee report is enclosed. If you have any questions, please contact Jason Seth, City Clerk, at 425-430-6502. egan Gregor Deputy City Clerk Enc: P&D Committee Report cc: Mayor Denis Law Council President Ed Prince Julia Medzegian, City Council Liaison Hearing Examiner Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner Jennifer Henning, Planning Director Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Steve Lee, Development Engineering Manager Craig Burnell, Building Official Sabrina Mirante, Development Services Garmon Newson II, Senior Assistant City Attorney Larry Warren, City Attorney Maher Joudi, DR Strong Consulting Eng. Parties of Record (46) 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • (425) 430-6510 / Fax (425) 430-6516 • rentonwa.gov PLA NG AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITIL COMMITIEE REPORT March 23, 2015 APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL Data 3 /1,3/; ~ I I Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat (LUA-13-000642) Appeal (January 5, 2015) The Planning and Development Committee recommends that the Council find that the Hearing Examiner made a substantial error in fact in Condition 13 in that the condition is ambiguous as to how the secondary fire access may be provided. The Committee recommends that the Council adopt an amended Condition 13 to read as follows: 13. Prior to the recording of the final plat, a secondary fire access shall be constructed providing a second means of access/ram Main Ave S {102nd Ave. SE) to the plat by fire trucks and emergency vehicles. The extent af street improvements necessary to effectuate this connection shall be determined by the City of Renton Fire Department in accordance with opplicoble fire code standards and shall be the minimum necessary to provide for safe and effective secondary access for fire trucks and emergency vehicles. The Committee further recommends that in all other respects the Hearing Examiner's decision be affirmed. U(L 7andy Corman, Chair Marcie Palmer,Member cc: Larry Warren ' March 24, 2015 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING ) ) § ) Megan Gregor, Deputy City Clerk for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter. That on the 24th day of March, 2015, at the hour of 4:30 p.m. your affiant duly mailed and placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail to all parties of record, the March 23, 2015, Planning and Development Committee Report regarding the Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat (File No. LUA-13-000642). Megan Gregor, Deputy City Clerk SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 24th day of March, 2015. Cynthia R. Moy Notary Pu lie in and for the State of Washington, residing in Renton My Commission expires: 8/27/2018 . ' Rebecca Evers 706 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055 Henry Cooks 712 S 50th St Renton, WA 98055 Nancy Osborn 4635 Morris Ave S, #F Renton, WA 98055 Steve Yantorni 718 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055 John Sperber 735 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055-6272 LUE PESTL 4726 Burnett Ct S Renton, WA 98055-7328 Carl Anderson 4706 Snowgrass Dr Olympia, WA 98516 Darshan Malhi 4712 Burnett Ct S Renton, WA 98055-7328 John Basinger 1441 N 34th St Seattle, WA 98103 Thu Bui 4709 Burnett Ct S Renton, WA 98055-7328 Tasnim Khalil 1003 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055-7325 Philip Davis 4767 Whitworth Pl S, LlOl Renton, WA 98055 Annie Lee 867 S 48th St Renton, WA 98055-7337 Chinh Pham 4703 Burnett Ct S Renton, WA 98055-7328 Kolin Taylor KBS Ill, LLC 12320 NE 8th St, #100 Bellevue, WA 98005 Ellen Breiten 4612 Morris Ave S Renton, WA 98056-6373 William & Stephanie Struyk 4707 Smithers Ave S Renton, WA 98055-6399 Michael & Brittnee Martinez 901 S 48th St Renton, WA 98055-7338 Janet Alabado 911 S 47th St Renton. WA 98055-7319 Pak Ming Chiu 902 S 48th St Renton, WA 98055-7338 Gloria Hunter 4727 Burnett Ct S Renton, WA 98055-7328 Brent Carson Van Ness Feldmen 719 Second Ave, Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98092 Jamie Waltier Harbour Homes, LLC 1441 N 34th St, 200 Seattle, WA 98103 Ron Hansen 4717 Smithers Ave S Renton, WA 98055 David Rasmussen -f. -Y Sundance at Talbot Ridge -HOA 723 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055-6272 Jason Murrav Mosaic Homes 2505 3rd Ave, Ste. 300 Seattle, WA 98121 Henry Cooks 712 S 50th St Renton, WA 98055-6342 Borgata Apartments & Townhomes 2505 3rd Ave S, #300 Seattle, WA 98121 Phong Tran 1011 S 48th St Renton. WA 98055-7352 Eric & Cheryl Hanson 4711 Smithers Ave S Renton, WA 98055-6399 Sandeep Mangla 724 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055 Roger Jaques 4762 Whitworth Pl S Renton, WA 98055-8359 Johnny Cheng 4739 Burnett Ct S Renton, WA 98055-7328 Ginny Knox 4901 Morris Aves, #55202 Renton, WA 98055-8398 Owen Reese 3421 62nd Ave SW Seattle, WA 98116 Jim Condelles 855 S 48th St Renton, WA 98055 Ellen Breiten 4612 Morris Ave S Renton. WA 98056-6373 Phillip Davis 4767 Whitworth Pl S Renton. WA 98055-8355 Ltanva Terrell Jones 5527 Charlotte Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092 Maher Joudi D.R. Strong Consulting Eng. 620 7th Ave Kirkland, WA 98033 Joseph & Martha Mackenzie 4835 Main Ave S Renton, WA 98055-6309 Pawandeep & Kuldeep Natt 866 S 48th St Renton. WA 98055-7337 Sanh & Chi Le 903 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055-7319 Tammy & Travis Martinez 4619 Morris Ave S Renton. WA 98055 Schneider Homes I LLC 6510 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 1 Tukwila, WA 98188 Hanh Tran 861 S 48th St Renton. WA 98055-7337 Roger Banks 4763 Morris Ave S Renton, WA 98055-6374 William & Lynn Sebring 4706 Burnett Ct S Renton, WA 98055-7328 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made as of this ....!.ru day of M ActL4 2015, between the City of Renton, a Washington municipal corporation ("Renton") and Harbour Homes, LLC, a Washington limited liability company ("Harbour"). RECITALS A. Renton is a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, organiied under the Optional Municipal Code, Title 35A RCW, located in King County, Washington. B. Harbour is the applicant for the preliminary plat known as Vuecrest Estates, Renton File Number LUAB-000642 ("Vuecrest Estates"). C. Vuecrest Estates Is located west of Main Ave. S, which is also known as and hereinafter referred to as 102nd Ave. SE, and is separated from 102nd Ave. SE by two parcels of property: King County Parcel No. 3223059171, owned by Joseph and Martha Mackenzie (the "Mackenzie Parcel") and King County Parcel No. 3223059097, owned by KBS III LLC (the "KBS Ill Parcel"). The Mackenzie Parcel is located immediately north of the KBS Ill Parcel. D. In its appllcation for preliminary plat approval for Vuecrest Estates, Harbour proposed that the public road to be extended from the north through Vuecrest Estates, known as Smithers Ave. s., be terminated with a temporary cul-de-sac at the boundary of the Mackenzie Parcel, because the owners of the Mackenzie Parcel had no interest In developing the Mackenzie Parcel and no interest in granting an easement through the Mackenzie Parcel for access to 102nd Ave. SE. E. The Renton Hearing Examiner issued a Final Decision Upon Reconsideration concerning Vuecrest Estates (the "Hearing Examiner Decision") that included Condition 13 which read: 13. Prior to the recording of the final plot, a secondary fire access shall be constructed that extends Smithers Ave S to the east to directly connect to Main Aves {102nd Ave SE). The extent of street improvements necessary to effectuate this connection shall be determined by the City of Renton Fire Deportment in accordance with opplicoble fire code standards and shall be the minimum necessary to provide for safe and effective secondary access for fire trucks and emergency vehicles. F. Harbour appealed the Hearing Examiner Decision to the Renton City Council. G. Subsequent to Harbour filing its appeal, the owner of the KBS Ill Parcel applied to Renton for short plat approval for a project known as Vuecrest II ("Vuecrest II"). The proposed layout of Vuecrest II includes a public road identified as Road A between the eastern boundary of Vuecrest Estates and 102"" Ave. SE. 1 H. Harbour believes that it could construct a secondary fire access between Smithers Ave.Sand Road A, crossing Tract Band Tract D of Vuecrest Estates, and could construct a temporary secondary fire access within the alignment of Road A to 102 Ave. SE, prior to the construction of Road A by KBS Ill (the "Proposed Secondary Fire Access"), all as illustrated in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. I. Harbour believes that it would prevail in its appeal of the Hearing Examiner Decision before the City Council or in further judicial appeals. Nonetheless, Harbour is willing to agree not to pursue further appeals and to waive damages it may have against Renton for past actions concerning the City's review and conditional approval of Vuecrest Estates if the City Council approves modifications to Condition 13 as set forth below and if the Renton Staff, including the Renton Fire Chief, agree that the Proposed Secondary Fire Access can be approved based upon the design, process and conditions set forth below. J. Renton believes that it would prevail in Harbour's appeal of the Hearing Examiner Decision before the City Council or in further judicial appeals but Is willing to enter into this Agreement on the terms and conditions set forth below. NOW THEREFORE in consideration of the mutual promises made herein and the mutual benefits to be derived by the Parties therefrom, the Parties agree as follows: I. AGREEMENT 1. Recitals. The recitals set forth above are incorporated by reference into and made part of this Agreement. 2. Revisions to Condition 13. 2.1. In order for the Proposed Secondary Fire Access Easement (hereinafter the "Access") to satisfy conditions of the Preliminary Plat for Vuecrest Estates, Renton Staff agrees to recommend that the City Council revise Condition 13 to read as follows ("Revised Condition 13"): Prior to the recording of the final plat, a secondary fire access shall be constructed providing a second means of access from Main Ave S (1 or Ave. SE) to the plat by fire trucks and emergency vehicles. The extent of street improvements necessary to effectuate this connection shall be determined by the City af Renton Fire Department in accordance with applicable fire code standards and shall be the minimum necessary to provide for safe and effective secondary access for fire trucks and emergency vehicles. 2.2. Harbour will support this revision and make no further oral arguments before the City Council or its committees on its appeal. 2.3. If the City Council approves Revised Condition 13,makes no further revisions to the Hearing Examiner Decision on the Vuecrest Estates, and the City Council's final decision on Vuecrest 2 Estate's is not judicially appealed by any third party, the Parties shall proceed with all other terms of this Agreement. If the City Council does not approve Revised Condition 13, revises the Hearing Examiner Decision or imposes other condition on the Vuecrest Estates plat not acceptable to Harbour, or if a third party appeals the City Council's final decision on Vuecrest Estate's then Harbour shall have the right to terminate this Agreement. 3. Proposed Secondary Fire Access 3.1. Design. The Parties agree to the following design of the Access to comply with Revised Condition 13: 3.1.l.The alignment of the Access shall be as generally shown in Exhibit A. Harbour may make minor revisions to the alignment shown in Exhibit A at its discretion and with the approval of the City, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. Minor revisions shall include a shift in the alignment up to thirty feet. Major revisions to the alignment (any revision not considered Minor) may be mutually agreed upon by Harbour and Renton without requiring a revision to this Agreement. 3.1.2.No wetlands shall be filled to construct the Access. A bridge or culvert shall be installed in the wetland buffer to cross the wetland. 3.1.3.The Access shall be 20 feet wide and shall have an inside radius of 25 feet at its intersection with Smithers Ave. S. as per the requirements of the Emergency Vehicle Turning Radii Detail dated 06/17 /96, attached as Exhibit B, 3.1.4.The Access surface shall be paved to meet IC 43 and IFC 503. 3.1.5.The Access shall be constructed by Harbour within the alignment of Road A. If Road A is constructed by the developer of Vuecrest II prior to construction of the Access, Harbour shall only construct that portion of the Access required to connect Smithers Ave. S to Road A. 3.1.6.Stormwater management for the Access may be provided by directing stormwater flow off of the Access to the side of the Access and allowing the water to infiltrate. 3.1.7.Areas within Tract B outside of the Access alignment disturbed during construction of the Access shall be reasonably restored to pre-construction condition. 3.1.8.No additional mitigation shall be imposed by Renton for impacts to the wetland buffer in Tract Bas a result of the construction and establishment of the Access. 3.1.9.No additional tree replacement shall be required for trees removed as necessary for the construction and establishment of the Access. Harbour shall be permitted to use replanting as a means of meeting City of Renton tree retention standards. 3 3.1.10. Additional design requirements may be established by Renton as so Jong as they are not inconsistent with the other previsions in this subsection. 3.2. Permitting Process 3.2.1.Renton authorization to construct the Access shall be provided as part of the engineering review for Vuecrest Estates. 3.2.2.lf the Access is constructed as set forth herein, the Staff agrees to confirm during Final Plat review that the Access satisfies Revised Condition 13. 4. Plat Design 4.1.1.Access. Any changes to the Plat design to accommodate the Access as set forth herein shall be considered a Minor Plat Amendment that can be reviewed and permitted as part of the Final Plat. 4.1.2.Alley. As a result of Harbour providing the Access, the alley shown behind lots 12 through 16 in the Preliminary Plat and any conditions associated with the alley may be eliminated by Harbour as a Minor Plat Amendment that can be reviewed as part of the Final Plat design, except that curb cuts for those lots shall be constructed as shown on Exhibit C. 4.1.3.Garages. If the alley is eliminated, Harbour agrees to reduce the visual impact of garages by meeting one of the design standards set forth in RMC 4-2-115.E for R-4, R-6 and R-8; painting the garage within the color scheme of the home; and utilizing windows in the upper portion of the garage door. 4.1.4.Smithers Ave. S. Prior to final plat approval, Harbour shall construct Smithers Ave. S. to the property line bordering the Mackenzie Parcel. 4.1.5.Renton agrees that implementation of this Agreement shall not require a Major Plat Amendment. 5. Fire Sprinklers. Fire sprlnklers shall be installed in all homes in Vue crest Estates unless and until a public road connection is established through the Mackenzie Parcel or the KBS Iii LLC Parcel to 102nd Ave. SE. 6. General Provisions 6.1. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the Parties regarding the subject matter hereof and may be modified only by a written document signed by all Parties. 4 6.2. Binding Effect. The Parties recognize that this is a binding settlement agreement made by the Parties, any and all of their respective employees, affiliates, subsidiaries or related entities. This Agreement is binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the Parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns. 6.3. Governing Law. This Agreement has been made in the State of Washington and shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. Venue for any action arising out of this Agreement shall lie in King County Superior Court. 6.4. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which shall constitute one and the same agreement. 6.5. Authority to Execute. Each of the Parties and their representatives executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they are authorized to execute this Agreement. 6.6. Specific Performance. The Parties acknowledge that money damages and remedies at law generally are inadequate to compensate any party for the unique benefits available through this Agreement and specific performance and other non-monetary relief are particularly appropriate remedies for the enforcement of this Agreement and should be available to all Parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties execute this Agreement as of the date set forth above. CITY OF RENTON /~,~ By: }C:n.!) ( 4,., Its: {Yl.()._y Or Dated: 'S Jf/ I>" j Attest and approved: {/P By: I ,\ L . ,.~ City Clerk / UrJ, (,~ '---l'i (---~ :' (j/] ·1 7 ( ,X {<JV\.f'V.U l0{ '<;_ V 'v'f!:Ht,'• ·-t~wrence J. Warren,/ City Attorney HARBOUR HOMES LLC Vf' s EXHIBIT A ----~-----~-----------------------------·-------· -------- I ~ ~ ::i ~ r ::i "' 1;J s //~1J- :11 • \. ~~~- ~ ""'~----... _ _.!!I __ --- ,. ~ 9' 1/ 4 9'vriEcRESr fsrAr'fs £. W..11 •• : i I 1 I ~1 ' ~ EXHIBIT A 1 ~.~'".911" lr 1 .r. r·-·· , ... '!' i I \ , , .. ~ .. _., I ,\. ,, :l' ' • ,.. u 1 ,/ . I •• r1··,· 1 , ''"'!'' _,,,...,. ,._,_,. @ NOkYH Ii I ' ,, -~""i J i!I 11 / : ,_r, I I ---I I I I --. /""'=---: --I I --..:..__ ' I I . : -........_ :.--:....-:::-I ·f II ---..._ ~-, ~~= ) , ,, ~-I ----j '-.:·~----x-" ---·-------~-=----=-. ~'11:' ,.).,, ' --------==-----~-----c;= . .• • ~I ,, ----" ., " •/ ""--· STATES/I) --·--,\ s; . ~~~-/~·. 7,/% • . -RCWJ,!',JVUEC!!'i.5TT5 ----,--l ~· _/ ·@/J' --~--1 I I ,:!1 ~ •· ~.1.w----1-·· l C:}~ I : I I -. ~ , , ,f , I / -· r--·· , , . ..:rik~ I I / --~·, I o' ~ / [ [ sY!s-1 ' I ,f\-1-" : ' I 1 / : q-1-0.i>f_J J ~ --nv.cr-c:" 'I"" ----,---___L_ . ' ~ ! . I [ rDRS B ===--==-------(j-Am CllY or ~ Rt ~J10N ···~-"<--.......... ~ •.. -- @ NORTH --~'!' VIJECffl;:ST ESTA'TeS PFCEUMIHAR'I' Pl.AT """""""'"'"" IR!I PfflETN'J, \tltrz EXHIBIT B (~ FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS RENTON FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU 45• EMERGENCY VEHICLE TURNING RADII DETAIL DATE: SHEET: 08/17/98 1.0 ) EXHIBIT C ----------- r- 1 ,!!, II I\:) -"'I t., - I I I J l I I I I I . _35.82' 2§.2=5-' __ I _30.:§.7' L---~ ~-----15' SIDE YARD_ - \....'±.---\\"-----i;-STREET SETBACK (TYP.) --/ ~ 31 _39' 7.5' 27.5 -----...L , 82.58' ;I,>.) r/ ___ 16 T--~ ::0 r-\ 6,283 S.F. I 1i..-:si~,!!,.,!!, I l '-I co co ' I I L----=---..J 1 6.00 ,--------! l 15 i I 5,300 S.F. J I I L --706.075' ---..J ,--------! l 14 : I 5,Joo s.F. I I I L -_. 706.075' ---..J ,--------! \ g c:i IC) ' 3.14-,- \ "' \ g \ ~ \ ( 13 l , I 5,300 S.F. I 8 , ____ , I I ~ I I ~-L-~~~1~0~~~@~~~-~-..J--~l ~ 1--1 ,--------, 11 ~ .) S le I I I s, 129 .F. i"° I 12 I I I \ 6,198 S.F. I ~ J \ " \ I <o I I ;~ '---------_J L----....J ~d''!< \ -L .. -- -------------------· 98.50' 50.00' S£1\ 2 28.C .-"'-I ' I I l l 4,9; I I I L-- 50. City Council February 13, 2015 APPEAL FILED BY: Brent Carson, Van Ness Feldman -RE-SCHEDULED RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Final Decision upon Reconsideration dated November 15, 2014 regarding the Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat located at the 4800 Block of Smithers Ave. South (File No. LUA-13-000642) To Parties of Record: The Renton City Council's Planning & Development Committee will meet to deliberate the above- referenced item on the following date: Monday, March 23, 2015 3:00 p.m. 7'h Floor/Council Chambers City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington This Council Committee meeting is open to the public, but is not a public hearing. It is a working session of the Planning & Development Committee. No new testimony or evidence will be taken. The parties are, however, expected to attend and be prepared to explain why the Council Committee should uphold or overturn the decision of the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions regarding these meetings, please phone Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison, at 425-430-6555. ::~ Planning & Development Committee Renton City Council Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Cynthia Moya From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Julia Medzegian Friday, February 13, 2015 2:55 PM Jason Seth; Larry Warren; 'Mike@KenyonDisend.com'; Cynthia Moya; "Phil Olbrechts' (olbrechtslaw@gmail.com)'; Elizabeth Higgins; Jennifer T. Henning; Vanessa Dolbee; Steve Lee; Craig Burnell; Sabrina Mirante; Ed Prince; Randy Corman Vuecrest Appeal Notice of P&D Meeting -Re-scheduled Vuecrest Appeal Reschedule.pd! The attached letter was mailed to all parties of record today. Julia Julia Medzegian City Council Liaison City of Renton 425.430.6555 imeq1_~,5j_~1.r\@ . .cg n tonw a .gov Denis Law Mayor r ..! City of l ;.i.jj!J)J.l City Council February 13, 2015 APPEAL FILED BY: Brent Carson, Van Ness Feldman -RE-SCHEDULED RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Final Decision upon Reconsideration dated November 15, 2014 regarding the Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat located at the 4800 Block of Smithers Ave. South (File No. LUA-13-000642) To Parties of Record: The Renton City Council's Planning & Development Committee will meet to deliberate the above- referenced item on the following date: Monday, March 23, 2015 3:00 p.m. ,'h Floor/Council Chambers City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington This Council Committee meeting is open to the public, but is not a public hearing. It is a working session of the Planning & Development Committee. No new testimony or evidence will be taken. The parties are, however, expected to attend and be prepared to explain why the Council Committee should uphold or overturn the decision of the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions regarding these meetings, please phone Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison, at 425-430-6555. ::::73!1L- Planning & Development Committee Renton City Council Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov f~~ CITY OF RENTON 6,~<. ,~ 10 ~ ~ f F 'f if -/"~lo;~~ I L\t~~it cf1 \ j) -. . -J +-- '/ ~ cf, ( -6 ~1 t ,._ ~ ~ TL ,rnett Ct S WA 98055-7328 62 LRSPNMP 96 ; £ t:l' 5 7 \J.j ::. 5 ~ ---.-~ ~~ -·~ R':;T.JRN TD S2ND~F'. -~ 7~~~-2~ ;y07 ~\G~~ ....-f,_ .... :; __ :. ""'C -o;=. ·.,;;.:.,,;:. ~. C_. ~>::f2,-'":,.f3 ~~~ ~-s--~'S Q)?.:r-r~ -_;__ -4-f~ qp;] ·jj;'1 1 1!\,)i1°L q;a;:(1·:·'.;\;p:;\1'H 1 1 :,i1L:f!'' Denis La.w Mayor February 3, 2015 APPEAL FILED BY: City Council Brent Carson, Van Ness Feldman RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Final Decision upon Reconsideration dated November 15, 2014 regarding the Vuecrest Estates Pretimifla.1:¥ Plat located at the 4800 Block of ' Smithers Ave. South (File No. LUA-13-000642) To Parties of Record: The Renton City Council's Planning & Development Committee will meet to deliberate the above- referenced item on the following date: Monday, February 23, 2015 3:00 p.m. 7'h Floor/Council Chambers City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington This Council Committee meeting is open to the public, but is not a public hearing. It is a working session of the Planning & Development Committee. No new testimony or evidence will be taken. The parties are, however, expected to attend and be prepared to explain why the Council Committee should uphold or overturn the decision of the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions regarding these meetings, please phone Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison, at 425-430-6555. s;~JdL__ ,.L, co,maa, Cha;, Planning & Development Committee Renton City Council Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov • ... January 5, 2015 CONSENT AGENDA Council: 12/8/2014 Council Meeting Minutes Appeal: Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat, LUA-13- 000642 ._. Attorney: Memorandum of Agreement, PSERN CED: Review Structural Plans, Reid Middleton Appointment: Lodging Tax Advisory Committee CED: Amend RMC 4-1-210.C., Rental Housing Incentive CED: Declare Sunset Area as Redevelopment & Investment Priority Area CED: HUD Choice Neighborhoods Initiative Implementation Grant :enton City Council Minutes Page 9 Councilmember Taylor agreed with this assertion. He emphasized that he wanted to make his feelings known that he appreciates all of the work that has been done by staff, the commission and the committee on this issue. He added that he still believes the outcome will result in some residents losing out and he would hope that the City could have created a different outcome. Councilmember Corman, current Planning and Development Committee Chair, stated that he would be looking to further refine these regulations this year. He remarked that he would be looking to match zoning to fit the character of each neighborhood, and at the same time find solutions for property owners with unique situations. Additionally, he outlined several scenarios that he believed would warrant how property development could be prioritized. Items listed on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Upon the request of Councilmember Persson, Item 7.i. was removed for separate consideration. Approval of Council meeting minutes of 12/8/2014. Council concur. City Clerk reported appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon reconsideration regarding the Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat (LUA-13- 000642) by Brent Carson, Van Ness Feldman, accompanied by required fee. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. City Attorney recommended adoption of a resolution authorizing a Memorandum of Agreement regarding future operation of the Puget Sound Emergency Radio Network (PSERN). Council concur. (See page 11 for resolution.) Community and Economic Development Department recommended approval of a contract in an amount not to exceed $100,000 with Reid Middleton, Inc. to review structural plans through 12/31/2015. Council concur. Community and Economic Development Department recommended appointing Michael Schabbing, General Manager of Marriott Renton and Southcenter Hotels, and Brent Camann, Senior Asset Manager at SECO Development, Inc., to the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee. Mr. Schabbing fills the vacancy left by Brad Knutson, and Mr. Camann has made a change in employer. Council concur. Community and Economic Development Department recommended adoption of an ordinance amending RMC 4-1-210.C., Rental Housing Incentive, to help leverage additional public and private funds to support affordable multi-family rental housing development in the Sunset Area. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. Community and Economic Development Department recommended adopting a resolution declaring the Sunset Area as a "Redevelopment Area" and an "Investment Priority Area." Refer to Planning and Development Committee. Community and Economic Development Department recommended adopting a resolution to authorize application for a HUD Choice Neighborhoods Initiative Implementation grant for up to $30 million for the Sunset Area Transformation Plan. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. City Clerk -Jason A. Seth, CMC December 5, 2014 APPEAL FILED BY: Brent Carson, Van Ness Feldman RE: · Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Final Decision upon Reconsideration dated November 15, 2014, regarding the Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat located at the 4800 Block of Smithers Ave. South (File No. LUA-13-000642) To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title N, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the hearing examiner's final decision upon reconsideration on Vuecrest Estates land use application has been filed with the City Clerk_ In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 OF, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. Other parties ofrecord ma:y submit letters limited to support of their positions within ten (I 0) days of the date of mailing of the notification of the filing of the appeal. The deadline for submission of additional letters is 5:00 pm, Friday, December 19, 2014. NOTICE IS HEREBY GNEN that the written appeal and other pertinent docmnents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee. The Council Llaison will notify all parties of record of the date and time of the Planning and Development Committee meeting. If you are not listed in local telephone directories and wish to attend the meeting, please call the Council Liaison at 425-430-650 I for information_ The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for consideration by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting. Enclosed you will find a copy of the appeal and a copy of the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeals of Hearing Examiner decisions or recommendations. Please note that the City Council will be considering the merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established_ Unless a showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available at the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, no further evidence or testimony on this matter will be accepted by the City Council. For additional information or assistance, please feel free to call me at 425-430-6502_ Enclosures cc: Council Liaison 1055 South Grady Way• Renton,Washington 98057 • (425143o-6510 /Fax (425) 430-5516 • rentonwa.gov ; .. ' • CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Subject/Title: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Final Decision upon Reconsideration dated 12/5/2014 regarding the Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat. (File No. LUA- 13-000642) Exhibits: *City Clerk's letter (12/5/2014) * Appeal -Van Ness Feldman (11/26/2014) *HEX's Final Decision upon Reconsideration (11/15/2014) *Reply to Order Authorizing Recon. -Van Ness Feldman (11/5/2014) Recommended Action: Refer to Planning and Development Committee. Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required: $ Amount Budgeted:$ Total Project Budget:$ SUMMARY OF ACTION: EXHIBITS CONTINUED: N/A N/A N/A *City's Answer on Reconsideration (10/22/2014) Meeting: REGULAR COUNCIL -05 Jan 2015 Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board: City Clerk Staff Contact: Jason Seth, City Clerk Transfer Amendment: $ Revenue Generated: $ City Share Total Project:$ *HEX's Order Authorizing Reconsideration (10/21/2014) *Request for Reconsideration by Van Ness Feldman (10/16/2014) *HEX's Final Decision (10/3/2014) 7b N/A N/A NIA Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision upon Reconsideration on the Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat was filed on 12/5/2014 by Brent Carson, Van Ness Feldman, accompanied by the required $250.00 fee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Council to take action on the Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat appeal. I I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 CITY OF RENTON NOV 2 6 2014 0-::. ?., RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE u,,,: o.izx. ~.s... ~c,.,~, BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL FOR TIIE CITY OF RENTON 9 RE: Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Preliminary Plat LUAB-000642 APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDSERATION The Applicant for Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat, by and through its counsel of record, Brent Carson and Van Ness Feldman LLP, files this appeal of the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision Upon Reconsideration dated November 15, 2014 (the "Decision") and asks the City Council to eliminate or modify Condition 13 of the Decision for the reasons set forth below. I. Standing Pursuant to Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-8-l lO(F), the Applicant has standing to appeal the Hearing Examiner's Decision. APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 1 I Van Ness Feldmanm 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 , ' --------------------- ' City of Renton Municipal Code; Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110-Appeals 4-8-110(4 Filing of Appeal and Fee: The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 5- 1-2, the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982; Ord. 5660, 5-14-2012; Ord. 5688, 5-13-2013) 4-8-llOF: Appeals to City Council -Procedures 1. Standing: Unless otherwise provided by State law or exempted by a State or federal agency, only the applicant, City or a party of record who has been aggrieved or affected by the Hearing Examiner's decision and who participated in the Hearing Examiner's public hearing may appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision. A person(s) will be deemed to have participated in the public hearing process if that person(s): a. Testified or gave oral comments at the public hearing; or b. Submitted any written comments to City staff or the Hearing Examiner regarding the matter prior to the close of the hearing; or c. Has been granted status as or has requested to be made a party of record prior to the close of the public hearing. 2. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. 3. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. 4. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the applicant. If a transcript is made, the applicant is required to provide a copy to the City Clerk and the Renton City Attorney at no cost. It shall be presumed that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 5675, 12-3-2012) 5. Burden: The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. 6. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional arguments based on the record by parties. 7. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-8-070H1, as it exists or may be amended, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may modify or reverse the decision of the Hearing Examiner accordingly. (Ord. 5675, 12-3- 2012) 8. Decision Documentation: The decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. 9. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejecting a decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames established under subsection GS of this Section. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982; Ord. 4389, 1-25-1993; Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997; Ord. 5558, 10-25-2010) I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ------------. -· ,/11. that a temporary cul-de-sac would be approved. At the very start of the process, the Fire Department's representative stated in writing to the Applicant that: "A proposed temporary cul-de-sac would be acceptable if it meets all required dimensions and construction requirements." Exbroit 35, Att. B. The City's senior planner also confirmed the City's position on the acceptance of a temporary cul-de-sac: "The City is asking that you provide stub to the property to the ·east but are not asking you to make the improvements to provide secondary access as part of the proposed development. However, without the secondary access · a cul-de-sac would be required for fire turn around .... " Ex. 35, Att. C. When the City Staff proposed that the Applicant apply for a variance in order to approve a temporary cul-de-sac, Staff wrote: "it will be supported by the City." Ex. 35, Att. H. Based on the Staff's clear representations to the Applicant on the acceptability of a temporary cul-de-sac, the Applicant invested hundreds of thousands of dollars to process this preliminary plat and address all issues raised by the City. If a secondary access were going to be required, the Applicant would not have a proceeded with this project. Yet, when the staff report was issued weeks before the Preliminary Plat public hearing, the Staff reversed course, rejecting the previously accepted. temporary cul-de-sac design, and demanding extension of Smithers Ave. S. to 102 Ave. SE. The Staff's behavior in this matter and their last-minute reversal justifies the City Council to question the credibility of the City's testimony and to strike or revise Condition 13. APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 3 I Van Ness Feldman"' 719 Second Avenue Suite 11 SO Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 > ' I II. Substantial Errors Justifying Elimination or Modification of Condition 13 2 A. Introduction 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 This Appeal is focused entirely on the requirement of Condition 13 in the Decision. Condition 13 forces the Applicant to extend a public road, Smithers Ave. S., over adjoining private property that the Applicant does not own or control. Toe record demonstrates that the owner of that adjoining private property refused to grant the Applicant any rights of access. With the condition, as imposed, the Applicant has no ability to develop the Vuecrest Estate's plat. No other subdivision previously approved in this area under the same conditions has been placed in this unfair, unreasonable and illegal predicament. These prior subdivisions each extended Smithers Ave. S. through their properties and ended that public road with a temporary cul-de-sac. Toe Applicant for Vuecrest Estates likewise proposed to extend Smithers Ave. S. through its property and build a temporary cul-de-sac at the end of its property. When the adjoining property to the east develops, Smithers Ave. S. will be extended by that owner to Main Ave. S. (I 0200 Ave. SE) providing a secondary access route for this neighborhood. Unfortunately, unlike each of the prior subdivision approvals, the Hearing Examiner in this case rejected a temporary cul-de-sac and imposed Condition 13, which requires the Applicant, prior to final plat approval, to extend Smithers Ave. S. to the east, across another owner's private property, to connect to Main Ave. S. In addition to the disparate treatment ofVuecrest Estates, as compared with other subdivisions in this neighborhood, the Staff in this case misrepresented to the Applicant APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 2 I Van Ness Feldmanw 719 Second Avenue 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 I. The Hearing Examiner Applied the Wrong Variance Criteria The Hearing Examiner mistakenly applied the street improvement modification provisions set forth in RMC 4-9-250(C) rather than the variance provisions in RMC 4-9- 250(B). Had the correct variance provisions been applied, the unrefuted evidence presented by the Applicant and its experts should have led the Hearing Examiner to grant the variance from the secondary access requirements. The subject application was for a Preliminary Plat. Preliminary Plats are regulated under Title IV, Chapter 7 of the Municipal Code. RMC 4-7-150 establishes the general and minimum street requirements for plats. RMC 4-7-150(0), which imposes the requirements for streets in subdivisions, states that; "The street standards set by RMC 4- 6-060 shall apply unless otherwise approved." (Emphasis Added). The street standards in RMC 4-6-060 include those provisions in RMC 4-6-060(H) Dead End Streets. Thus, in a plat application, the street standards in RMC 4-6-060 are applied through the minimum street requirements as set forth in Chapter 7, Section 4-7-150 and may be varied in the preliminary plat approval. The Hearing Examiner is given express authority to grant variances from the requirements for subdivisions, as set forth in Chapter 7, including variances from the street standards. See RMC 4-7-240(1). The Hearing Examiner may grant such a variance by following the variance procedures set forth in RMC 4-9-250(B). RMC 4-7-240(A) states: "A variance from the requirements of this Chapter may be approved by the Hearing Examiner, pursuant to RMC 4-9-250(B)". APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 5 I Van Ness Feldman"' 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 /' ... , 1 B. A Temporary Cul-De-Sac Complies with RMC 4-6-060.H. l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 The Hearing Examiner erred by finding that a temporary cul-de-sac, as proposed by the Applicant, and as originally accepted by Staff, failed to meet the requirements of RMC 4-6-060.H. l. The City's dead end street standards prohibit permanent dead end streets unless a future connection is physically impossible. RMC 4-6-060.H.1. However, this code provision, as previously interpreted by City Staff, allows a temporary cul-de-sac to be built if, in the future, that road can be extended when the adjoining property is developed. The Applicant did not propose a permanent dead end street. Instead, it proposed a temporary cul-de-sac. To mitigate impacts, the Applicant proposed to install sprinkler systems on every home in the development and to provide an internal circulation road within the plat. Moreover, development ofVuecrest Estates would bring this neighborhood one step closer to having a completed secondary access. With Condition 13, the plat cannot develop and the opportunity to extend Smithers Ave. S. closer to I 02nd Ave. SE is lost. 18 c. 19 If Required, a Variance from the Secondary Access Requirement Should have been Granted As presented above, the temporary cul-de-sac should have been approved without 20 21 22 23 24 25 the need for a variance. However, if a variance is required, it should have been granted by the Hearing Examiner. Council should reverse the Hearing Examiner and grant the variance. APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 4 IVanNess Feldman"' 719 Second Avenue 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 Mr. Maher Joudi, a civil engineer with D R Strong Consulting Engineers Inc., testified that the wide roadways (32.5' of pavement) and adjacent sidewalks ( 4.5' each side) provide a total width of over 40 feet for an emergency vehicle to travel from the intersection of 102 Ave. SE and SE 186th Street to the proposed development. He noted the minima] on-street parking on these streets, given that each home along this roadway has a garage and off-street parking in their driveway. Mr. Carl Anderson, a registered Fire Protection Engineer with The Fire Protection International Consortium, Inc., presented expert testimony regarding the minimal risks to life and safety posed by this development without having a secondary access and the significant reduction in risk by the Applicant agreeing to install sprinklers in every home. His unrefuted testimony was that the addition of 20 lots "would not be a significant detriment to public safety based on what's already in the area." The allegation by Stafl; that this project would create a dead end street being 2400 feet Jong with 99 homes ori it was fully refuted by Mr. Carl Anderson who demonstrated that only 800 feet of the roadway would have a single access because of internal secondary access loops that are provided off this street along its length. Mr. Anderson also confirmed that, of the 99 homes that Staff alleged to be on this street, 42 of those are on two different streets, S. 47th PL and SE 185th PL, that have no impact on access to and from Vuecrest Estates. Furthermore, of the existing 57 homes not on those two streets, 36 are within the Stonehaven Plat that has a looped road, which allows for two ways of access or egress within that plat. APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 7 I Van Ness Feldman"' 7i9 Second Avenue Suite 11SO Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623·9372 . ·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 The Applicant applied for a variance under RMC 4-9-250(B), seeking a variance from the secondary access standards in RMC 4-6-060, which were being imposed on this subdivision through R..\.fC 4-7-150. Exhibit 35, All I. The variance application provided an analysis showing compliance with each of the four criteria under RMC 4-9-250(B) including, in particular, criteria R..\.fC 4-9-250(B)( 5)(b) which states that "the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated." The Applicant never asked for a street improvement modification under section RMC 4-9-250(C). It was an error for the Hearing Examiner to apply the street improvement modification provisions, under RMC 4-9-250(C), when a variance was sought under RMC 4-7 -240(A). 2. The Evidence Supports the Granting ofa Variance Witnesses for the Applicant presented unrefuted evidence that the variance criteria had been met and that the variance should have been granted. See Testimony of Mr. Maher Joudi; Testimony of Mr. Carl Anderson; and written testimony of Vincent J. Geglia, Exhibit 35, Att. K. Mr. Vince Geglia, a traffic engineer with TraffEX, provided a report demonstrating that the surrounding streets in this neighborhood carry low volumes of traffic at relatively low speeds and concluding that the risk of traffic accidents that would block access to emergency vehicles is very low. Exhibit 35, Att. K. His report also confirms that the looped road proposed for Vuecrest Estates will provide opportunities for circulation of emergency vehicles within the plat. APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 6 I Van Ness Feldmanw 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 11 12 13 14 15 . ·-------·--·····--------·-·-·· , ....... ·---·-·-·-----------···-·· .... ,, .. ·-·-.. · ....... _,...,,...,__ informed the Applicant that the application would be processed for approval without a secondary access. According to the testimony of Ms. Higgins, withdrawal of the Fire Chiefs earlier letter was done specifically to induce the Applicant to continue processing its plat application. In January 2014, when the City informed the applicant that a formal variance application was required, it was made clear in Ms. Higgins' email that the City supported this variance request. Ex. 35, Att. H. In light of these representations, Condition 13 should be eliminated and a temporary cul-de-sac authorized. E. Condition 13 Violates RCW 82.02.020 RCW 82.02.020 restricts the City from imposing conditions on a plat where there is no nexus and rough proportionality between the condition imposed and the alleged impacts. See City of Federal Way v. Town & Country Real Estate, !LC, 161 Wn.App. 17, 45 (2011). Here, the roads serving this plat are adequate. There is no permanent dead end 16 . street proposed, merely a temporary cul-de-sac. This project is providing its fair share 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 contribution to a future secondary access by extending Smithers Ave. S. through its property. This is consistent with the City's approval of the prior plats in the neighborhood that were approved under similar circumstances without requiring a seeondary access. The obligation in Condition 13 to extend Smithers Ave. S. to the east, across property that the Applicant does not own or control is a heavy burden that far exceeds the impacts caused by the project. The added risk to public safety from approval of these 20 homes is negligible. Toe Applicant attempted, in good faith, to acquire rights from the adjoining owner to extend the road to the east, and that owner would not agree to grant APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 9 IVanNess Feldman UP 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (208) 623-9372 ' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 These facts, coupled with the significant mitigation of sprinklering these homes, led Mr. Anderson to his expert opinion that there would be no material detriment to public safety by granting the requested variance. That testimony is unrefuted. If the City Council determines that a variance was required, based upon this testimony, the City Council should grant that variance and strike Condition 13 from the Decision. 8 D. Condition 13 is Arbitrary and Capricious 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Requiring Vuecrest Estates to provide secondary access in this case, as imposed by Condition 13, is arbitrary and capricious. The prior subdivisions in this neighborhood were authorized to extend Smithers Ave. S. through their properties to a temporary cul-de- sac. No secondary access was required for these other projects. Vuecrest Estates merely sought to be treated like all other applicants under similar conditions. There is no basis to impose on secondary access requirement on this applicant. It is also arbitrary and capricious to require secondary access given the City Staff's express representations to the Applicant that a secondary access would not be required. Those representations were made four separate times. In the second Pre-Application meeting, the City's Fire Department representative stated the Fire Department's position clearly: "A proposed temporary cul-de-sac would be acceptable ... " Ex. 35, Att. B. This was reconfirmed in the Fire Department's email: "the actual [secondary access] connection does not have to be achieved at this time." Ex. 35, Att. C. After the project was put on hold, and there were further discussions with City Staff and the Mayor and the City attorney's office, the Fire Chief elected to withdraw an earlier letter, and the City APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 8 I Van Ness Feldman"' 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206} 623-9372 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 secondary access. Expert testimony from the Applicant's witnesses demonstrated that there is no significant increase in risk from the addition of twenty new homes. Regarding the third factor, courts consider the (a) nature of the harm to be avoided; (b) the availability and effectiveness ofless drastic measures; and (c) the economic loss suffered by the property owner. Presbytery of Seattle v. King Cy., 114 Wn.2d 320, 331, (1990). Other nonexclusive factors that may be helpful in the balancing required under tbe third factor include the seriousness of the public problem, the extent to which the landowner's property contributes to the problem, the degree to which the regulation solves the problem, and the feasibility ofless burdensome solutions. Id. Here, imposition of Condition 13 effectively results in denial of the project, the loss of over hundreds of thousands of dollars invested to date in the Project and the loss of millions of dollars in lost profit. The City already approved neigbboring plats on this same road without requiring a secondary access, so tbe determination was already made by tbe City that this is not a serious problem. Moreover, the repeated position of City Staff that a secondary access connection would not be required for Vuecrest Estates confirms that City Staff did not observe this to be a serious issue. The Applicant made a good faitb effort to either acquire the adjoining property. to tbe east or. acquire a rigbt-of- way througb that property, but the adjacent owner would not agree to sell or grant such a rigbt-of-way. There are far less burdensome solutions to address tbe City's concerns and tbese have been agreed upon. Every home will have a fire sprinkler. An alley has been APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 11 I Van Ness Feldman"' 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 ··.;·· I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 such access rights. Condition 13 is therefore impossible to meet and effectively results in denial of this project. With Condition 13, as written, until the property to the east develops or agrees to dedicate a right-of-way to the City, no reasonable use can be made of the subject property. This raises the potential of a uncompensated talcing. F. Condition 13 Violates the Applicant's Substantive Due Process Rights Condition 13 also violates the Applicant's substantive due process rights. A land use regulation violates substantive due process where (1) the regulation fails to achieve a legitimate public purpose; (2) the means adopted are not reasonably necessary to achieve that purpose; or (3) the regulations are unduly burdensome on the property owner. Robinson v. City a/Seattle, 119 Wn.2d 34 (1992). While the City's proposed secondary access requirement may meet the first prong, it fails the second two. A secondary access is not reasonably necessary. The roads serving this plat meet or exceed City standards. There is ample width for emergency vehicles to access this plat. The total road and sidewalk width of over forty feet ( 40'), the low traffic volumes, the low speeds through this neighborhood, and low probability of blocking accidents and the internal circulation demonstrate that the risk of a fire truck or ambulance failing to gain access to this plat through existing access roads is negligible. To mitigate impacts, every home in this development will have a sprinkler system, designed to quickly and effectively respond to a fire emergency. Smithers Ave. S. will be extended through Vuecrest Estates eastward to the adjoining property that fronts on 102nd Ave. SE. Vuecrest Estates moves this neighborhood one step closer to achieving the desire for secondary access. The other plats in this neighborhood were approved without a APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 10 I Van Ness Feldmanw 719 Second A¥enue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 As written, it appears that this condition can only be satisfied by acquiring a public access easement through the Easterly Parcel and providing a fire access road to the specified intersection. Even if a secondary access could be established between the plat to a location on I 02n,1 Ave. SE through the Southeasterly Parcel, or through some other parcel, it would appear that this would not meet the specific terms of Condition 13. If the City Council does not strike Condition 13, which it should do, Condition 13 should, at a minimum, be revised to read as follows: Prior to the recording of the final plat, a secondary fire access shall be constructed providing a second means of access from Main Ave S (J o:znd Ave. SE) to the plat by fire trucks and emergency vehicles. The extent of street improvements necessary to effectuate this connection shall be determined by the City of Renton Fire Department in accordance with applicable fire· code standards and shall be the minimum necessary to provide for safe and effective secondary access for fire trucks and emergency vehicles At least this revised condition will provide the Applicant with some flexibility to seek a secondary fire access route. Dated this 26th day of November, 2014. APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 13 IVanNess Feldman"' 719 Second Avenue 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 designed to provide a looped system through this plat to provide enhanced maneuverability around the homes. The internal roads have been designed 4 feet wider than the City minimwn standards. All of these measures address the City's concern with far Jess impact on the Applicant. III. Relief Requested For all of the reasons noted above, we urge the City Council to strike Condition 13 from the Decision. In the alternative, we ask the City Council to revise Condition 13 to allow the Applicant to provide secondary access in ways other than extending Smithers Ave. S. immediately to the east and to the specified intersection. As shown in Exhibit 37, on sheet 1 of 1, there is one parcel ofland (the "Easterly Parcel") immediately east of the easterly end of Smithers Ave. S. as proposed to be built by the Applicant. Mr. Jamie Waltier testified that the owner of this Easterly Parcel will not sell his property or provide an easement for secondary access. Exhibit 37 shows on Sheet I of 1 another parcel ofland (the "Southeasterly Parcel") located between Tract "B" and Tract "C" on the Proposed Vuecrest Estates plat and I 0200 Ave. SE. Secondary access might be available through that parcel. Condition 13, as currently written, reads: Prior to the recording of the final plat, a secondary fire access shall be constructed that extends Smithers Ave S to the east to directly connect to Main Ave S (I 02nd Ave SE). The extent of street improvements necessary to effectuate this connection shall be determined by the City of Renton Fire Department in accordance with applicable fire code standards and shall be the minimum necessary to provide for safe and effective secondary access for fire trucks and emergency vehicles. APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 12 I Van Ness Feldman .. 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 {206) 623-9372 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat Preliminary Plat LUAl3-000642 ) ) ) FINAL DECISION UPON ) RECONSIDERATION ) ) ) ) SUMMARY The applicant of the above-captioned matter has requested reconsideration by letter dated October 17 16, 2014. The reconsideration request is limited to eliminating or modifying Condition No 13 and also to admitting an exhibit that was erroneously excluded from the administrative record. Condition 18 No. 13 will not be eliminated, but v.ill be modified largely as requested by the applicant. The 19 resume of Carl Anderson is admitted as Exhibit No. 38. 20 EXHIBITS 21 In addition to the addition of Exhibit No. 38, the following exhibits are admitted as part of the reconsideration process: 22 23 Exhibit 39: Exhibit 40: 24 Exhibit 41 : 25 26 Exhibit 42: Order Authorizing Reconsideration, dated October 21, 104. City's Answer on Reconsideration Request, dated October 22, 2014 Sundance response to Reconsideration, dated October 31, 2014. Reply to Order Authorizing Reconsideration, dated November 5, 2014. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND FINDINGS OF FACT PRELIMINARY PLAT RECONSIDERATION-1 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, Jennifer Sower, declare as follows: That I am over the age of 18 years, not a party to this action, and competent to be a witness herein; That I, as a legal assistant in the office of Van Ness Feldman, LLP, caused true and correct copies of the following documents to be delivered as set forth below: I. Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Final Decision Upon Reconsideration; and 2. Exhibits 35 and 37 entered into the record in September 16, 2014 bearing; and 3. This Certificate of Service and that cin November 26, 2014, I addressed said documents and deposited them for delivery as follows: Mr. Jason Seth Acting Deputy Clerk City of Renton Clerk's Office 1055 S. Grady Way Seventh Floor Renton, WA 98057 Larry Warren Renton City Attorney Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 [ x] Via band delivery [ x J Via email [x] Via U.S. mail lwarren@rentonwa.gov I certify under penalty of perjury under the Jaws of the State of W asbington that the foregoing is true and correct. EXECUTED at Seattle, Washington on this 26th day ofNovember, 2014. APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 14 I Van Ness Feldman"' 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 2 3 4 5 response. 3. Unsafe Fire Response is Materially Detrimental to Public; Unsafe Access Not Consistent with Waiver, Modification or Variance Criteria. Unsafe fire access is unquestionably counter to the public welfare. The applicant takes the remarkable position that unsafe fire access is not materially detrimental to the public welfare, and therefore there is no consistency issue with the materially detrimental criterion for variances, RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(b). The applicant asserts that the examiner erred by requiring the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed single access was safe under the 6 materially detrimental standard. See Ex. 39, p. 5. Under the applicant's reasoning, the public welfare is not adversely affected if the residents ofVuecrest are left with a street system that prevents 7 frre apparatus from reaching them within the time necessary to safely respond to emergencies. The applicants are essentially arguing that variances to fire access standards should be approved even when such variances would endanger City residents. lbis is a patently absurd construction of the 9 "public welfare" term and the City's variance standards. If the single access does not provide for safe fire access as determined by the hearing examiner, there is no question under any reasonable 8 10 interpretation that as a conclusion of!aw the applicant's proposal fails to qualify for a variance under the material detrimental criterion ofRMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(b), fails to qualify for a street waiver under the "no detrimental effect" standard ofRMC 4-9-250(C)(5)(e) and fails to qualify for a modification 11 under the "safety" criterion (the most obvious, other criteria are unmet as well) of RMC 4-9- 12 250(D)(2)(b). 13 14 15 4. Record Does not Establish that Improved Secondary Access Necessary for Resident Egress. The applicant correctly argues that it shouldn't be responsible for providing for a fully developed secondary access route and that there should be some flexibility in where the route is located. lbis position is reasonable. The City's fire chief did not focus his testimony on problems associated with 16 resident egress from the subdivision during emergencies. It is determined as a finding of fact that there is nothing in the record to suggest that pavement and curb, gutter and sidewalk is necessary to 17 provide safe egress to residents during times of emergency. If the primary access route becomes unusable during an emergency and residents must leave to protect themselves, it doesn't appear that 18 that they will hesitate to use a dirt road to do so. Given the nexus/proportionality issues associated 19 with requiring the applicant to provide for secondary access beyond its subdivision borders, any secondary access requirement should be designed to be the minimum necessary to assure for public safety. 20 21 DECISION 22 The Final Decision of the above-captioned matter dated 10/13/14 is supplemented with the 23 additional findings of fact and conclusions of law made above. Condition No. 13 is also revised to provide as follows: 24 25 26 13. Prior to the recording of the final plat, a secondary frre access shall be constructed that extends Smithers Ave S to the east to directly connect to Main Ave S (102nd Ave SE). The extent of street improvements necessary to effectuate this connection shall be determined by PRELIMINARY PLAT RECONSIDERATION-3 > ' 2 3 The issues raised in the applicant's reconsideration request are individually addressed below: 1. Applicable Variance/Waiver Criteria. The street waiver standards of RMC 4-9-250(C) apply to the applicant's request to waive the secondary access requirement of RMC 4-6-060(H)(2). The applicant argues that the variance criteria of RMC 4-9-250(8)(5) apply because RMC 4-7-240(A) 4 provides that RMC 4-9-250(8) applies to the requirements "of this Chapter". The applicant argues that since RMC 4-7-150(D) requires compliance with RMC 4-7-060, that this transforms RMC 4-7- 060 into a part "of this Chapter", specifically Chapter 4-7 Rc\1C. Reasonable minds could certainly 5 6 disagree as to whether the RMC 4-7-150(D) mandate for compliance with RMC 4-7-060 makes that provision a part "of this Chapter". Indeed, the fact that RMC 4-7-0-060 is not expressly incorporated by reference into Chapter 4-7 RMC would lead most people to conclude that RMC 4-7-060 is not a part of Chapter 4-7 RMC and is simply a requirement in another chapter of the RMC that applies to subdivisions. For the reasons identified in the Order Authorizing Reconsideration, Ex. 39, it is concluded as a matter of law that the street waiver criteria of RMC 4-9-250(C) apply to the applicant's request to waive the secondary access requirement ofRMC 4-6-060(H)(2). 7 8 9 IO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2. Failure to Provide Secondary Access Significantly Unsafe. As a finding of fact, it is determined that the failure to provide secondary access to the proposed subdivision creates a significantly unsafe condition. The applicant focuses upon the inconsistencies in the City staff position to argue that the secondary access is unnecessary. As noted in the Final Decision on this matter, the inconsistencies in the staff position are troubling. However, there is nothing in the record to suggest or explain why City fire personnel had any reason to overstate the dangers of waiving secondary fire access. In several prior examiner decisions, City staff have often taken highly unpopular positions counter to extensive public opposition in order provide objective recommendations on the application of development standards. There is nothing to suggest in this administrative record that City staff have succumbed to public pressure to require a secondary access. Despite the odd sounding comments made by Ms. Higgins, it appears likely that staff's vacillation on the secondary road issue arises from the difficulties of balancing past permitting decisions, public safety, recent safety problems (e.g. the wildfires identified by the fire chief) and the applicant's constitutional nexus/proportionality rights. All these factors pose very complex and challenging legal and policy issues. Given these multiple factors, it is not surprising that staff remained open minded about the secondary access issue until late in the permitting process. In focusing all of its reconsideration attention on the testimony of City staff, the applicant glosses over the fact that its own fire expert was unable to opine that there would be no safety problems with waiver of the secondary access requirement. As discussed in the Final Decision of this case, Mr. Anderson was unable to provide any assurance that a secondary fire access was unnecessary for safe and adequate frre response, despite a direct request from the Examiner to provide that assurance. If the City's fire chief takes the position that secondary access is necessary for safe frre response and the applicant's own fire expert can't dispute that position, it is difficult to see how the applicant can seriously question why a finding is ultimately made that secondary access is necessary for safe fire PRELIMINARY PLAT RECONSIDERATION-2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 CITY OF RENTON NOV 05 2014 I' Ir. I -, f ,rl RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE I BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON 9 RE: Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Preliminary Plat LUA 13-000642 REPLY TO ORDER AUTHORIZING RECONSIDERATION AND RESPONSES THERETO This Memorandum replies to the Hearing Examiner's Order Authorizing Reconsideration and demonstrates why the variance requested under Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-7-240 should be granted. This Memorandum also replies to the two responses to the Applicant's Request for Reconsideration received by October 31, 2014.1 I. THE PLAIN MEANING OF THE CITY CODE CONFIRMS THAT THE VARIAN CE PROVISIONS IN RMC 4-7-240 AND THE VARIANCE CRITERIA IN RMC 4-9-250.B.5 APPLY The Order Authorizing Reconsideration raises questions about the City Council's intent in passing RMC 4-7-240 and whether the City Council intended another code provision, such as the street waiver provision in RMC 4-9-250.C, to be the only means by 1 These two responses are the October 31, 2014 Memorandum from David N. Rasmussen, President, Sundance at Talbot Ridge HOA and the City ofRenton's October 22, 2014 City's Answer on Reconsideration Request by Applicant REPLY TO ORDER AUTHORIZING RECONSIDERATION AND RESPONSESTHERETO I I Van Ness Feldman u, 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 , • • I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 the City of Renton Fire Department in accordance with applicable fire code standards and shall be the minimum necessary to provide for safe and effective secondary access for fire trucks and emergency vehicles. DATED this 15th day of November, 2014. . ") . ' " ·. <r-;} ':..{ ,:c-e-~~. l'h,r ,\. rnhr«h1, City of Renton Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-080 provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-l lO(E)(l4) requires appeals of the hearing examiner's decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall -7'1' floor, ( 425) 430-6510. 13 Affected property owners may request a change m valuation for property tax purposes nom~thstanding any program of revaluation. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT RECONSIDERATION-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 offers the opportunity to vary the requirements ofRMC 4-6-060 when approving a subdivision. The phrase "unless otherwise approved" cannot be ignored or deemed superfluous. State v. Bunker, 144 Wn.App. 407,418 (2008). Rather, it demonstrates that approval of a subdivision under Chapter 7 may vary these street standards. The mechanism provided to vary any requirement in Chapter 7 is through a variance, as noted in RMC 4-7-240. The fact that alternative means may be provided under the City Code to modify a City standard is not unusual, nor does it cause the City Code to be ambiguous. For example, the City's critical area regulations provide multiple options for modifying those requirements. See RMC 4-3-050.N -Alternatives, Modifications and Variances. The fact that the City Code provides a subdivision applicant a means to seek a variance from the street standards through a variance under RMC 4-7-240 must be accepted by the Hearing Examiner as an unambiguous requirement to consider and rule on such a request. There is no ambiguity that the Applicant requested a variance under RMC 4-7-240. Exhibit 35, Attachment I is the letter submitted by Maher Joudi entitled "Vuecrest Estates -Variance Request." That Jetter sets forth the four criteria for a Variance under RMC 4- 9-250.B.5. The Applicant demonstrated that these four variance criteria in RMC 4-9-250.8.5 were met. We again ask the Hearing Examiner to apply the correct criteria, grant the variance, and strike Condition 13. REPLY TO ORDER AUTHORIZING RECONSIDERATION AND RESPONSES THERETO 3 I Van Ness Feldman w 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 96104 (206) 623-9372 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 which relief from the dead-end street standard in RMC 4-6-060 may be granted. The City Council's intent, however, is irrelevant. Rules of statutory construction used by courts in interpreting state law apply in the context of interpreting City ordinances. Griffin v. Thurston County, 165 Wn.2d 50, 55 (2008). If statutory language is unambiguous, the canons of statutory construction are not to be used. Id. The meaning of an unambiguous statute must be derived from the code language. The Hearing Examiner is not permitted to look for the City Council's intent that might be imputed to the Council or to construe the code in a way that the Hearing Examiner believes will best accomplish some legislative purpose. See State v. Tvedt, 153, Wn.2d 705, 732 (2005). RMC 4-7-240 plainly and unambiguously provides that "A variance from the requirements of this Chapter may be approved by the Hearing Examiner pursuant to RMC 4-9-250B." The phrase "This Chapter" used in RMC 4-7-240 clearly refers to Chapter 7 Subdivision Regulations, codified in Title IV Development Regulations of the Renton Municipal Code. When the City reviews a proposed subdivision of real property, the application must meet specific requirements for streets as set forth in RMC 4-7-150 Streets -General Requirements and Minimum Standards. RMC 4-7-150.D expressly states: "The street. standards set by RMC 4-6-060 shall apply unless otherwise approved." This language in RMC 4-7-150.D unambiguously incorporates the street standards of RMC 4-6-060 into the provision of Chapter 7. Moreover, by expressly stating that the street standards in RMC 4-6-060 apply "unless otherwise approved," this code provision REPLY TO ORDER AUTHORIZING RECONSIDERATION AND RESPONSESTHERETO 2 I Van Ness Feldman"' 719 Second AYenue 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 requirements."); Exhibit 35, Attachment C ("The road section can be 28-feet if you provide the stub road only for future connection, the actual connection does not have to be achieved at this time."). Chief Peterson reversed these written representations by Fire Department representative Corey Thomas when Chief Peterson wrote in his August 15, 2013 letter that "any request for a secondary access variance will be denied." (Exhibit 35, Attachment E). Chief Peterson reversed himself two months later when, on October 7, 2013, he wrote: "I am withdrawing my letter dated August 15, 2013, regarding Vuecrest Preliminary Plat. Please understand that I reserve the right to reissue the letter based on the final plat design." Exhibit 35, Attachment G. Then, in testimony before the Hearing Examiner, Chief Peterson reversed the Fire Department's position yet again, opposing the requested variance. Chief Peterson never acknowledged his October 7 letter and the fact that there was no change in the plat design justifying reversal of his October 7, 2013 decision. The inconsistent statements by Chief Peterson and other Fire Department representatives present the fundamental issue of witness credibility. As courts have noted: "a person who speaks inconsistently is thought to be less credible than a person who does not." State v. Allen S. 98 Wn.App. 452,467 (1999). The record also demonstrates that the October 7, 2013 letter was written explicitly for the Applicant to believe that a temporary cul-de-sac would be approved and to induce the Applicant to continue processing its preliminary plat application. Testimony of Elizabeth Higgins. Past misrepresentations of a witness provide further means to judge a REPLY TO ORDER AUTHORIZING RECONSIDERATION AND RESPONSESTHERETO 5 I Van Ness Feldman'" 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 II. Response to Sundance at Talbot Ridge HOA The October 31, 2014 Memorandum from David N. Rasmussen, President of the Sundance at Talbot Ridge HOA, fails to address any of the arguments presented in Applicant's Request for Reconsideration pertaining to the requested variance, other than a conclusory statement that the request should be rejected. The Talbot Ridge HOA has apparently failed to understand the Applicant's request-that the Hearing Examiner (and the City Staff) applied the wrong standard in reviewing the variance request, and that based upon the record before the Hearing Examiner, the variance should have been granted. No further response is needed. III. Response to City's Answer on Reconsideration Request by Applicant The first issue presented in the City's Answer on Reconsideration Request by Applicant ("City's Answer") concerns whether the variance provisions should apply. The Applicant has already adequately addressed this issue in its Request for Reconsideration and in the reply above to the Hearing Examiner's Order on Reconsideration. The City's second issue, concerning the weight of testimony, deserves a response. In particular, the Applicant strongly disagrees with the City's statement that the Applicant provided no reason to examine the credibility of Chief Peterson. See City's Answer at 3. As borne out by the record, Corey Thomas, the Plan Review Inspector for the City of Renton Fire Department, expressly informed the Applicant that a temporary cul-de-sac was an acceptable street design. Exhibit 35, Attachment B (" A proposed temporary cul- de-sac would be acceptable if it meets all required dimensions and construction REPLY TO ORDER AUTHORIZING RECONSIDERATION AND RESPONSES THERETO 4 I Van Ness Feldman'" 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Condition 13 reads "Smithers Ave. S shall ... be extended to the east ... " The record demonstrates that the owner of Parcel A is unwilling to sell or grant an easement. Testimony of Jamie Waltier. Hypothetically, a temporary alternative secondary fire access might be able to be established through Parcel B to I 02nd Ave. SE or through some other route. Such a secondary fire access might provide access to fire and emergency vehicles until a full public roadway is established through Parcel A when Parcel A is developed. The City's argwnent against allowing a temporary fire access and requiring a "fully improved road section" is based on an unsupported claim that the "road will never be. built to standards." In fact, under the linkage and connection requirements in RMC 4-7- 150(E)(2) and (4), whenever Parcel A develops, the full road section established for Smithers Ave.Swill need to be continued from the eastern boundary ofVuecrest Estates to I 02 Ave. SE. That is a burden rightfully imposed on the owner of Parcel A. If the variance is denied because of concerns for fire access, then Condition 13 should address fire access only and provide Vuecrest Estates with flexibility on achieving that objective. IV. Conclusion We urge the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his Final Decision, grant the requested variance and strike Condition 13. If the Hearing Examiner denies the variance, we ask the Hearing Examiner to revise Condition 13 to allow a temporary fire access lane to be established, prior to final plat approval, across any parcel that could provide a secondary means of access for fire and emergency vehicles. REPLY TO ORDER AUTHORIZING RECONSIDERATION AND RESPONSESTHERETO 7 I Van Ness Feldman"' 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Sl!!attle, 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 witness's credibility. In the Matter of the Disciplinary Proceedings Against Marshall, 160 Wn.2d 317 (2007). Given the inconsistent positions taken by the Fire Department over the history of this preliminary plat application, and the Fire Chiefs October 7, 2013 letter, the Hearing Examiner should question the credibility of Chief Pederson's testimony. Moreover, the Hearing Examiner heard from three separate experts, Registered Fire Protection Engineer Carl Anderson, Civil Engineer Maher Joudi, and Traffic Engineer Vince Geglia on why the variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare. The third issue presented in the City's Answer concerns the Applicant's request, in the alternative, to modify Condition 13 to provide greater flexibility. While the Applicant appreciates the City's support for greater flexibility in Condition 13, the Applicant disagrees with the City's demand that a fully improved road section be built by Vuecrest Estates on property it does not own or control. To illustrate the importance of greater flexibility in Condition 13, and to address the City's position on the extent of road improvements for a secondary fire access, page one from Exhibit 3 7 is attached to this Reply Memorandum and marked as "Attachment A". Attachment A shows the two separate parcels ofland between the Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat and 102nd Ave. SE. For illustrative and argument purposes, these two parcels have been marked on Attachment A as Parcel A and Parcel B. To implement the specific language of Condition 13, as imposed in the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision, access would be required through Parcel A. That is because REPLY TO ORDER AUTHORIZING RECONSIDERATION AND RESPONSESTHERETO 6 I Van Ness Feldmanw 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 I I, Jennifer Sower, declare as follows: 2 That I am over the age of 18 years, not a party to this action, and competent to be a 3 witness herein; 4 That I, as a legal assistant in the office of Van Ness Feldman, LLP, caused true and 5 correct copies of the following docwnents to be delivered as set forth below: 6 I. Reply on Order on Reconsideration; 7 2. This Certificate of Service; and 8 3. Attachment A 9 and that on November 5, 2014, I addressed said documents and deposited them for 10 delivery as follows: 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Mr. Jason Seth Acting Deputy Clerk City of Renton Clerk's Office 1055 S. Grady Way Seventh Floor Renton, WA 98057 Mr. Phil A. Olbrechts City of Renton Hearing Examiner Larry Warren Renton City Attorney Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 [x] Via hand delivery [x] Via email polbrechts@omwlaw.com [x] Via email [x] Via U.S. mail lwarren@rentonwa.gov I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. EXECUTED at Seattle, Washington on this 5th day of November, 2014. REPLY TO ORDER AUTHORIZING RECONSIDERATION AND RESPONSESTHERETO 9 I Van Ness Feldman"' 719 Second Avenue Suit~ 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Dated this 5th day of November, 2014. REPLY TO ORDER AUTHORIZING RECONSIDERATION AND RESPONSES THERETO 8 I Van Ness Feldman"' 719 St!cond Avenue Suite 1~50 Seattle, WA 981D4 (206) 623-9372 I • • • ! ' I ! I I ~ l!illl !; I' 3 I· i ! -u :l> :;:o (") m r CJJ ~-~ • I • l ' I I! ~ I - •I' II •,j I ---U41N#Diff.Nrea» N1H!!NA"41!"• -..nu; 11111-IDl1HOF•4ml.mla'?° ,-,J1UfJ/1 ~~ :l> ~ :l> (") I ~ m z -l :l> i~ t--- I I I,, ~I f 1li "' ' ' ·-~- -< ~ .... ATTACHMENT A 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 RMC 4-9-250.B. However, variances are applicable to oniy certain land use regulations 4-9-250 B-1, none of which are street standards. This point was made in the Examiner's decision footnote 3 ot page 27. But even if there was a variance available both waiver and variance criteria require a finding that there will be no detriment to the public welfare, 4-9-250.B.5.b for variances and 4-9-250.C.5.e for waiver, a fact that was not established by the Applicant. The Reconsideration also refers to the "modification provisions "(page 4 at line 3 citing to 4-9-250.C.) but modification is dealt with in subsection 4-8-250.D, again noted in Examiner decision in footnote 3 at page 27, as unavailing and requires a finding that public safety is met. 2. The Examiner Should Not Give Greater Weight to Testimony of the Applicant's Expert than that of the Fire Chief. The Reconsideration incorrectly states, in several spots, that there is unrefuted testimony that the variance criteria had been met, (page 2, line 2; page 5, line 21). These assertions, of necessity, emphasize testimony about lack of detriment to public welfare. They were, of course, refuted by the testimony of Chief Peterson about concerns of greater response time and potentially blocked access in case of fire or natural disaster, summarized in the Examiner's decision at page 8. In fact, Chief Peterson's early opposition to this plat was recently reinforced by a wildfire, in the city, that blocked egress for citizens from their homes down a long, dead end access road. (Examiner's decision pg. 8} Further, the City has a strongly stated policy against long, dead end roads expressed in RMC 4-6-060.H. The policy is clear under RMC 4-6-060.H.2 that any dead end street over 700 feet in length requires two mean ¥C and fire sprinklers for all City's Answerto Applicant's 0~~ Renton City Attorney . . 6 1055 South Grady Way Request for Recons1derat1on -2 + ~ + Renton, WA 98057 -3 232 ~ -~ Phone: (425) 430-64l!O a,N'to Fax: (425) 430-6498 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 ----------------------CITY OF RENTON OCT 2 2 2014 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat Preliminary Plat LUAB-000642 ) ) ) ) ) CITY'S ANSWER ON RECONSIDERATION REQUEST BY APPLICANT _____________ ) INTRODUCTION This Vuecrest Plat application primarily revolves around a dispute as to whether on extra·long, dead end street should be allowed. The Examiner decided that it should not be allowed. The Request for Reconsideration (Reconsideration) raises three basic points, each of which is without merit. The Examiner should refuse to reconsider his decision, except to rephrase Condition 13. ARGUMENT 1. The three points will be rephrased as responses to the Reconsideration. The Examiner used the Correct Criteria in Denying the Waiver. The Reconsideration argues that the Examiner erred in denying a Waiver under RMC 4-9·250.C.5, and that the Examiner should have used the variance procedure under City's Answer to Applicant's Request for Reconsideration -1 ORIGINAL Renton City Attorney 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057-3232 Phone: (425) 430-6480 Fax: (425) 430-6498 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 subdivisions, such as the City. Estate af Hambelton v. Deportment af Revenue_ Wn.2d. __ (October, 2014). Estoppel is even more inappropriate if public safety is clearly implicated, as in this case. Applicant can hardly act surprised by Chief Peterson's position. He opposed the plat by letter dated August 15, 2013, and only conditionally withdrew it by letter dated October 7, 2013. He did not state that he would approve the road length if the plat stayed the same. And, subsequently, the Chiefs fears were vindicated not only by a wildfire incident in the City but undoubtedly by the OSO landslide. And, applicant knew by State law and City code that approval of the extra length dead end road was not within the power of the mid-level staff. The ultimate approval had to come from the Exar;,iner and the Examiner's authority could not be fettered by staff statements. And Applicant should have been aware that any variance, waiver or modification of the road length had to be granted by the CED Administrator in consultation with the Fire and Emergency Services or the Examiner, as the case may be. No statement of mid-level staff can remove the authority of the Examiner and City Administrators to make decisions about this dead end road and the plat itself. The Reconsideration does acknowledge that the applicant was on notice of Chief Peterson's opposition to the extra-long, dead end street. But it does not acknowledge that the platting process often involves opposition on one or more aspects of the plat that are ultimately resolved. And such was the case here. Concerns about drainage and set-backs from steep slopes were resolved. The applicant doesn't claim to be na"ive about the give and take of the process. This preliminary plat has been City's Answer to Applicant's Request for Reconsideration -4 ~y 0 ()~~ Renton City Attorney A 1055 South Grady Way + ~ + Renton, WA 98057-3232 :1J-~ Phone: (425) 430-6480 ,01\T'fO Fax: (425) 430-6498 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 houses beyond 500 feet. The only exception to that policy is for waiver of the turnaround to be granted by the CED Administrator with approval of the Fire & Emergency Services. There is no provision for waiver of the limitations of the length of the dead end street. There is also no room for an expert witness to argue that the policy, so clearly enunciated, can be ignored because in the expert's opinion "there would be no material detriment to public safety." (Reconsiderotion, pg. 6, fines 6, 7). That opinion not only contradicts City policy but also recent experience from the wildfire. It is-also refuted by the testimony of Chief Peterson, one of the City Administrators charged with enforcing and interpreting the code section in question. There is also no reason shown in the Reconsideration why the Examiner should change his opinion that Chief Peterson's testimony was more persuasive than the expert, Mr. Anderson. The failure to state a reason to re-examine credibility alone, should be enough to carry the day for the City. 3. Public Safety Should Not be Compromised by Changing Staff Positions. The essence of this dead end road conflict is public safety. The Examiner is asked, because of conflicting staff messages, to ignore public safety, City policy and State policy and grant a waiver of code that limits the length ofthe dead end street. The Examiner is asked to ignore by implication, RCW 58.17.110(1) (a) that each plat to be approved, must provide appropriate streets and RCW 58.17.110(1) (b) that the plat would be in the public interest. The Examiner is without jurisdiction to do. The Reconsideration advances an estoppel argument without so stating. That is unsurprising because estoppel generally does not run against the State or its City's Answer to Applicant's Request for Reconsideration · 3 <i:Y 0 0@;,;; Renton City Attorney .!.I'!!) + 1055 South Grady Way + ~ Renton, WA 98057-3232 ~ -~ Phone: (425) 430-6480 ~N'fo Fax: (425) 430-6498 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: Vuecrest Preliminary Plat LUAI3-000642 ) ) ) ORDER AUTHORIZING ) RECONSIDERATION ) ) ) ) The Applicant has requested reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's decision on the above-captioned matter. Since the reconsideration request affect parties of record and the interests of the City, the parties of record who testified at the hearing and City staff will be given an opportunity to respond to the request for reconsideration before a decision on the reconsideration request is issued Any responses must be based upon evidence that is already in the record. No evidence that has not been recorded at the hearing or entered as an exhibit at the hearing will be considered in the reconsideration request. The Applicant seeks reconsideration of its denial of a variance request to the requirements of RMC 4-6- 060, which prohibits the Applicant's proposed dead end street. The Applicant raises a challenging reconsideration issue, because there are three different sets of variance/modification/waiver1 criteria that each arguably apply to the proposed dead end street. The Applicant argues that the variance criteria of RMC 4-9-250(C) apply. City staff; in the staff report, asserts that the request is a "modification", which would require application of the RMC 4-9-250(D) criteria. The final decision employed the street "waiver" criteria ofRMC 4-9-250(C). 1 For those not familiar with Renton's variance/modificationlwai\eT standards, RMC 4-9·250(BX5) allows for the 24 "variance" of zoning standards identified in RMC 4-9-250(BX1) and other standards in the RMC that expressly authorize application of RMC 4-9-250(C). RMC 4-9-250(C) allows for the "wai\t:I'' of street impro""1!ellts. RMC 4-9-250(0) allows for "modification" of"standards", apparently those standards not subject to the variance or street wai"'r process. The Applicant's reconsideration request presents the issue of which of these three types of review 25 26 processes apply-variance, wai= or modification? Reconsideration -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 approved in all respects, with conditions. Once the condition of providing a secondary means of access has been met the plat may proceed. It may not be timely today, but may be tomorrow. MODIFIED CONDITION 13 The City agrees that Condition 13 can be modified to provide the applicant with more flexibility in providing a secondary means of access. But, that condition should not be limited to access by fire and emergency services vehicles only; it should also state that the secondary access must be a fully improved road section so that it would provide an acceptable road surface for egress for citizens in an emergency. Otherwise, the road will never be built to standards as the "final link" development will have legal access to developed City streets that are nearby and will not trigger the City's dead end road limitations and thus would not require the later developer to bring Applicants secondary means of access to City standards. There would remain, only an emergency access road, not a completed standard street section. Alternatively, if the Examiner is not willing to modify the conditions as proposed, then the original condition should remain. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated, the Reconsideration should be denied, but Condition 13 modified as stated above. J DATED THIS~ day of October, 2014. City's Answer to Applicant's Request for Reconsideration· 5 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 I. Persons who testified at the hearing on the above-captioned matter and City staff shall have until 5:00 pm, October 31, 2014 to provide written comments in response to the request for reconsideratioo submitted by the Applicant, dated October 16, 2014. The Applicant shall have until November 5, 2014 at 5:00 pm to provide a written reply to the responses authorized in the prececling paragraph. 3. All written comments authorized above may be emailed to the Examiner at olbrechtslaw@grnail.com and Elizabeth Higgins at EHiggins@Rentonwa.gov. In the alternative written comments may be mailed or delivered to Elizabeth Higgins, City of Renton Senior Planner, at I 055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Mailed or delivered comments must be received by the City by the deadlines specified in this Order. 4. No new evidence may be presented in the replies or responses. All information presented must be drawn from documents and testimony admitted into the public hearing of this proceeding, held on September 11, 2014. Applicable laws, court opinions and hearing examiner decisions are not considered new evidence and may be submitted ifrelevant to a response or reply to the Applicant's request for reconsideration. DATED this 21st day of October, 2014. City of Renton Hearing Examiner Reconsideration -3 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The weak point in the Applicant's position is that the RMC 4-9-250(C) criteria only applies ifRMC 4-6- 060 is considered a requirement of Chapter 4-7 RMC. RMC 4-7-240(A) provides that the criteria of RMC 4-9-250(C) apply to "the requirements of this Chapter [Chapter 4.7 RMC]". Of course, RMC 4- 6-060 is a part of Chapter 4-6 RMC. The Applicant notes that RMC 4-7-150(D) requires compliance with RMC 4-6-060. Through this cross-reference, the Applicant argues that RMC 4-6-060 should be considered a part of Chapter 4-7 RMC. The Applicant's interpretation raises some troubling issues, notably: 1. For the reasons outlined in Footnote 3 of the Final Decision, the variance criteria advocated by the Applicant would not apply if RMC 4-6-060 were not considered a part of Chapter 4.7 RMC. This means that a dead end road built as part of a subdivision would be subject to variance criteria while the waiver criteria would apply for the same dead end street proposed as part of another type of development proposal. For example, under the Applicant's interpretation the RMC 4-9-250(C) variance criteria would apply to its proposed dead end since it's part of a subdivision, but if the exact same street configuration were proposed as part of a college campus or apartment complex, the modification criteria ofRMC 4-9-250(C) would apply instead. Why would the City Council intend that a different safety standard (as applied in the variance/waiver criteria) apply to the same dead end street simply because it's part of a subdivision as opposed to another type of development project? 2. Street waiver criteria, RMC 4-9-250(C), are precisely designed to address the unique circumstances applicable to street improvements. Why would the City Council intend to forego these specifically applicable waiver standards for the generic variance standards of RMC 4-9-250(B) because a street was proposed as part ofa subdivision? 3. Subdivision review is subject to numerous development standards that are not cross- referenced in Chapter 4.7 RMC, such as zoning bulk and dimensional standards2 and drainage standards. Why would the City Council intend applicable variance criteria to differ depending on whether or not a development standard is cross-referenced in Chapter 4-7 RMC? A response from the City on the issues raised above would be of particular value, due to the City's extensive experience in the adoption and application of the numerous variance/waiver/modification criteria in RMC 4-9-250. The City is also requested to explain why it chose to apply the modification criteria as opposed to the waiver criteria. The applicability of the modification criteria as opposed to the waiver criteria is already addressed to some extent in Footnote 3 of the Final Decision. Further, if the issue of which variance/modification/wavier criteria applies has been contested in past examiner proceedings, it would be useful for staff to submit copies of the examiner decisions resolving those issues. ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION 2 Some, but not all, bulk and dimensional standards are expressly subject to RMC 4-9.250(B) criteria and therefore don't ha\S: to be cross-referenced in Chapter 4-7 RMC for RMC 4-9-250(B) to apply. See RMC 4-9-250(BXI ). Reconsideration -2 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 JO 11 12 The Hearing Examiner should also reconsider his decision to accurately apply the unrefuted testimony by the Applicant's expert, Mr. Carl Anderson1, demonstrating that the variance criteria was met, and in particular, that granting the variance would not be materially detrimental to public welfare. The Hearing Examiner also should grant the variance and remove Condition 13 to remedy the fraudulent or negligent misrepresentations by City staff that secondary access would not be required. Finally, in the alternative, the Hearing Examiner should revise the language in Condition 13 to provide greater flexibility to achieving secondary access in the future. II. ARGUMENT 13 A. The Hearing Examiner Should Reconsider the Decision, Apply the Correct Variance Criteria, Grant the Variance and Eliminate Condition 13. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The Hearing Examiner Decision mistakenly applied the street improvement modification provisions set forth in RMC 4-9-250(C) rather than the variance provisions in RMC 4-9-250(B). Had the correct variance provisions been applied, the unrefuted evidence presented by the Applicant and its experts should have led the Hearing Examiner to grant the variance from the secondary access requirements. We ask the Hearing Examiner on reconsideration to grant the requested variance and strike Condition 13. The approval considered by the Hearing Examiner, in the matter, is for a Preliminary Plat Preliminary Plats are regulated by the City of Renton under Title N, 1 The Examiner also erred by failing to include as an Exlulrit in the Decision, Exhibit 38, the resume of Mr. Andenon, which was offered and admitted (a copy of Exhibit 38 as submitted at the hearing is attached). REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION~ 2 I Van Ness Feldman .. 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 1200) 02,-e,12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 CITY OF RENTON OCT 1 6 2014 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFIC ;/ft, /-Efq/ Cc,0 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR TIIE CITY OF RENTON 9 RE: Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Preliminary Plat LUA13-000642 REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION I. INTRODUCTION Pmsuant to Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-8-1 OO(G)(9) and RMC 4-8- 1 JO(E)(l3), the Applicant for the Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat requests that the Hearing Examiner reconsider his Final Decision dated October 3, 2014 (the "Decision") with respect to the issue of secondary access. The Hearing Examiner failed to apply the correct criteria to consider the variance, which was sought under RMC 4-9-250(8). By applying the wrong criteria under RMC 4-9-250(C)(5), the Hearing Examiner reached an erroneous conclusion in his Decision and in the imposition of Condition 13. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION -1 S7722-7 I Van Ness Feldman"' 719 Second Avenue Su'_te 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (20 6) 623-9372 /:Lf-. t,111, 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 property is situated." The Applicant never asked for a street improvement modification under section RMC 4-9-250(C). It was an error for the Hearing Examiner to apply the street improvement modification provisions under RMC 4-9-250(C) when a variance was sought under RMC 4-7-240(A). At the plat hearing, the witnesses for the Applicant presented unrefuted evidence that the variance criteria had been met and that the variance should have been granted. In particular, these witnesses established that approval of the variance would "not be materially detrimental" as provided in RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(b). See Testimony of Mr. Maher Joudi; Testimony of Mr. Carl Anderson; and written testimony ofVin=t J. Geglia, Exhibit 35, Att. K. The Hearing Examiner erred by applying the street improvement modification standards in RMC 4-9-250(C). By applying the wrong criteria, the Hearing Examiner mistakenly applied a "no detrimental effect" standard from RMC 4-9-250(C)(5)(e) to the facts in the case. See Decision at 27. The Decision acknowledges that the unrefuted testimony from the Applicant's fire expert, Mr. Carl Anderson, was that the addition of20 lots "would not be a significant detriment to public safety based on what's already in the area." This expert testimony confirms compliance with criteria RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(b) that the variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare. By applying the improper "no detrimental" standard from RMC 4-9-250(C)(5)(e), the Hearing Examiner mistakenly concluded that Mr. Anderson's testimony was not persuasive. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION -4 S7i12-7 I Van Ness Feldman,,, 719 Seeond Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (20_6) 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 Chapter 7 of the Municipal Code. RMC 4-7-150 establishes the general and minimum street requirements for plats. R.1\1C 4-7-150(D), which imposes the requirements for streets in subdivisions, states that: "The street standards set by RMC 4-6-060 shall apply unless otherwise approved." The street standards in RMC 4-6-060 include those provisions in RMC 4-6-060(H) Dead End Streets, which were the topic of much discussion at the public hearing and are at the crux of the secondary access issue. Thus, in a plat application, the street standards in RMC 4-6-060 are applied through the minimum street requirements as set forth in Chapter 7, Section 4-7-150. The Hearing Examiner is given express authority to grant variances from the requirements for subdivisions, as set forth in Chapter 7, including variances from the street standards. See R.1\1C 4-7-240(1 ). The Hearing Examiner may grant such a variance by following the variance procedures set forth in RMC 4-9-250(B). RMC 4-7-240(A) states: "A variance from the requirements of this Chapter may be approved by the Hearing Examiner, pursuant to RMC 4-9-250(B)". The Applicant applied for a variance under RMC 4-9-250(B), seeking a variance from the secondary access standards in RMC 4-6-060, which were being imposed on this subdivision through RMC 4-7-150. See Exhibit 35, Att. l. Tue variance application provided an analysis showing compliance with each of the four criteria under RMC 4-9- 250(B) including, in particular, criteria RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(b) which states that "the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and wne in which the subject REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION -3 IVanNess Feldman"' 719 ·second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattre, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 PL and SE 185th PL, that have no impact on access to and from Vuecrest, and of the existing 57 homes not on those two streets, 36 are within the Stonehaven Plat that has a looped road which allows for two ways of access or egress within that plat. These facts, coupled with the siguificant mitigation of sprinklering these homes, led Mr. Anderson to his expert opinion that there would be no material detriment to public safety by granting the requested variance. That testimony is unrefuted. In his October 7, 2013 letter, Fire Chief Mark Peterson went on record withdrawing his August 15, 2013 Jetter and thereby confirming that a secondary access would not be required for this plat There have been no changes in the plat design since the time of that October 7th letter that would provide Mr. Peterson with a basis to "reissue" his August 15th letter. In fact, Mr. Peterson has never reissued that letter. Instead, Mr. Peterson testified at the plat hearing as if his October 7, 2013 letter never existed and that he had never given his authorization on October 7ili for the plat review to continue without providing a secondary access. Given Mr. Anderson's unrefuted testimony and the lack of credible testimony by staff, the Hearing Examiner should, on reconsideration, grant the variance, as requested, and strike Condition 13. 20 C. The Hearing Examiner Should Grant the Variance and Remove Condition 13 to Remedy the City Staff's Fraudulent or Negligent Misrepresentations that a Secondary Access would not be Required. 21 22 23 24 25 The record in this case establishes that the City staff expressly represented to the Applicant that a secondary access would not be required. Those representations induced the Applicant to process this preliminary plat through the preliminary plat hearing. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION -6 STTZJ.-1 I Van Ness Feldman"' 719 Second Avenue 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 Repeatedly, the Decision, as written, demonstrates that by applying the wrong criteria the Hearing Examiner reached the wrong conclusions in response to the Applicant's variance request. For example, the Decision states that the burden was on the Applicant to demonstrate that the single access "would be safe." Decision at 15. There is no such criterion w:tthin the context of the requested variance. The Decision likewise asserts that the burden was on the Applicant that sprinklers would reduce the fire hazard "to insignificant levels." Again, these conclusions may be appropriate under the modification criteria of"no detriment," but these conclusions are erroneous under the applicable variance criteria The Examiner should apply the correct variance criteria and, based on the evidence in trns record, grant the variance as requested and strike Condition 13. B. On Reconsideration, the Hearing Examiner Should Give Proper Weight to the Applicant's Experts who Established that Granting the Variance Would not be Materially Detrimental to Public Welfare. On reconsideration, the Hearing Examiner should give proper weight to the testimony of the Applicant's experts and should discount the exaggerated and questionable testimony presented by staff. The allegation by staff of a dead end street being 2400 feet long with 99 homes on it failed to accurately describe the "on-the ground" conditions. Mr. Carl Anderson's unrefuted testimony demonstrated that only 800 feet of the roadway will have a single access because of the internal secondary access loops that are provided off of this street along its length. Mr. Anderson's testimony confirmed that, of the 99 homes that staff alleged to be on this street, 42 of those are on two streets, S 47th REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION -5 H722-7 lvanNess Feldman .. 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 9B104 [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 After submitting the application, and after receiving the August 15, 2013 letter from Fire Chief Peterson, which indicated that a secondary access would be required, there were detailed discussions with the City. These discussions led to the Fire Chief's Jetter of October 7, 2013; a Jetter that withdrew his August i5th letter. The Applicant accepted the Fire Chief at his written word that, so long as the final plat design did not change, a secondary access would not be required. The Applicant relied on that letter and continued a lengthy and expensive process to answer all staff issues to bring the preliminary plat to hearing, including paying for an additional geotechnical report. Ms. Higgins testified at the hearing that the October 7th letter, informing the Applicant that a secondary access was not going to be required, was solicited by Ms. Higgins in order to induce the Applicant to continue processing the preliminary plat application. Fire Chief Peterson's testimony at the hearing indicates that he had no intention of allowing the preliminary plat to proceed without requiring a secondary access. Tragically, this was never disclosed to the Applicant until the staff report was issued in September 2014 proposing Condition 13 to require a secondary access. The Hearing Examiner should be deeply troubled by the actions of City staff in this matter and by Ms. Higgins' testimony about her soliciting Fire Chief Peterson's October 7th letter to induce the Applicant to support a secondary geotechnical study. The behavior of Ms. Higgins and the prior representations of City staff that no secondary access would be required may ultimately support a damages claim against the City by the Applicant for fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation. By confirming that the Fire Chief REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION -8 57122-1 I Van Ness Feldman"' 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 9B104 (206) 623-9372 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 JO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The first representations on this issue occurred during the second pre-application conference. Mr. Corey Thomas, on behalf of the Fire Department, prepared a detailed written memo dated November 13, 2012 confirming that a temporary cul-de-sac would be acceptable to the Fire Department. He wrote: "Street system shall be designed to be extended to adjoining underdeveloped properties for future extension. It was previously decided to require a 32-foot wide street if the street grid could not be extended. If this future extension can be achieved, the required 32-foot paved street may be reduced to 28-feet of pavement A proposed temporary cul-de-sac would be acceptable if it meets all required dimensions and construction requirements." Exhibit 35, At!. B. (Emphasis added) Prior to formally submitting the preliminary plat application, the Applicant sought confirmation of the Fire Department's position that a temporary cul-de-sac would be acceptable. For the second time, the Fire Department expressly represented in a January 23, 2013 email to the Applicant that a secondary access would not be required: "The road section can be 28-fect if you provide the stub road only for future connection, the actual connection does not have to be achieved at this time. A temporary 90-foot diameter cul-de-sac is acceptable also .... All homes require fire sprinkler systems .... The only way to eliminate the fire sprinklers is to complete the road connection to 102nd right away (sic]." Ex. 35, At!. C. (Emphasis added) The City's senior planner, Vanessa Dolbee crystalized the City's position that a cul-de-sac would be authorized: "The City is asking that you provide stub to the property to the east but are not asking you to make the improvements to provide secondary access as part of the proposed development However, without the secondary access a cul-de-sac would be required for fire turn around . . . " Id. (Emphasis added) REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION -7 57721-7 IVanNess Feldman"' 719 Second Aven...1e Suite 1151'.l 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 As shown in Exhibit 37, on sheet 1 of I, there is one parcel ofland (the "Easterly Parcel") immediately east of the easterly end of Smithers Ave. S as proposed to be built by the Applicant. Mr. Jamie Waltier testified that the owner of this Easterly Parcel will not sell his property or provide an easement for secondary access. Exhibit 37 shows on Sheet I of 1 another parcel ofland (the "Southeasterly Parcel") located between Tract "B" and Tract "C" on the Proposed Vuecrest Estates plat and I 02nd Ave. SE. Secondary access might be available through that parcel. Condition 13, as C\llTently written, reads: Smithers Ave. S. shall connect to S. 48'" Pl and be extended to the east to provide a secondary access from Main Ave. S (102"d Ave. SE) at its intersection with SE I 8ft' St. As written, it appears that this condition can only be satisfied by acquiring a public access easement through the Easterly Parcel and providing a fire access road to the specified intersection. Even if a secondary access could be established between the plat to a location on 102nd Ave. SE through the Southeasterly Parcel, or through some other parcel, it would appear that this would not meet the specific terms of Condition 13. On reconsideration, if Condition 13 is not deleted based upon the granting of Applicant's variance request, Condition 13 should be revised to read as follows: Prior to recording the.final plat, a secondary fire access shall be constructed providing a second means of access from Main Ave S (I 02'"1 Ave. SE) to the plat by fire trucks and emergency vehicles. The extent of improvements for this secondary fire truck access shall be determined by the City of Renton Fire Department in accordance with applicable fire code standards and shall be the minimum necessary to provide for safe and effective secondary fire access. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION -10 I Van Ness Feldman"' STTl2-7 719 Second Avenue 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 was withdrawing his prior letter, Ms. Higgins and Chief Peterson intended for the Applicant to believe that no secondary access would be required. Yet, apparently, this was all a hoax, and Chief Peterson never intended to allow this plat to be approved without a secondary access. This hoax only came to light weeks before the preliminary plat hearing after the Applicant spent tens of thousands of dollars to reach the preliminary plat hearing. The Applicant would have ended this application a year ago had the October 15th letter not been issued. The Examiner correctly notes in the Decision at 16 that these actions by staff strain the credibility of the City's testimony. While the Hearing Examiner may not have the authority to find fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation in this matter, the Hearing Examiner has the opportunity to avoid such future claims by the Applicant and to remedy the outrageous behavior of City staff by granting the requested variance and striking Condition 13. D. If the Variance is not Granted, The Hearing Examiner on Reconsideration should, in the Alternative, Revise Condition 13 to Provide Greater Flexibility for Secondary Access. In the event the Hearing Examiner does not agree to reconsider the standards applied to the requested variance, or applies the variance criteria but concludes that the variance should not be granted, the Applicant asks the Hearing Examiner to revise Condition 13 to allow the Applicant to provide secondary access in ways other than extending Smithers Ave. S. immediately to the east and to the specified intersection. REQlJEST FOR RECONSIDERATION -9 sm,.7 I Van Ness Feldman"' 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle. WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 BEFORE TilE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON 9 RE: Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat 10 11 12 Preliminary Plat LUAB-000642 J3 I, Jennifer Sower, declare as follows; REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION 14 That I am over the age of 18 years, not a party to this action, and competent to be a 15 witness herein; 16 That I, as a legal assistant in the office of Van Ness Feldman, LLP, caused true and 17 correct copies of the following documents to be delivered as set forth below: 18 1. Applicant's Request for Reconsideration; and 19 2. This Certificate of Service 20 and that on October 16, 2014, I addressed said documents and deposited them for delivery 21 as follows: 22 23 24 25 Mr. Jason Seth Acting Deputy Clerk City of Renton Clerk's Office 1055 S. Grady Way Seventh Floor Renton, WA 98057 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE -1 [x] Via hand delivery Ivan Ness Feldman"' 719 Second Avenue Suite 11 ;;o Seattle, WA 98104 (206J-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 III. CONCLUSION The Applicant was induced into proceeding with this plat application by repeated representatiorn by City staff that no secondary access would be required. The Applicant has met its burden to obtain a variance from the secondary access standard. On remand, the Hearing Examiner should apply the variance criteria in RMC 4-9-205(BX5), not the modification provisions in RMC 4-9-250(C), give proper weight to the Applicant's expert testimony that established compliance with these criteria, approve the variance and strike Condition 13. Dated this 16th day of October, 2014 By.~-A.,__;.~1--~~~~~~- Brent REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION -11 S7T22-1 I Van Ness Feldman"' 719 Second A.venue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 JO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat Preliminary Plat LUAI3-000642 ) ) ) FlNAL DECISION ) ) ) ) ) _______________ ) SUMMARY The applicant requests preliminary plat approval, street improvement waiver and possibly a critical area exemption for a 20-lot residential subdivision. The street wavier is to allow a dead-end road in excess of 700 feet. The critical area exemption is for placing a drainage line across the face of a steep slope. The preliminary plat is approved. The street improvement waiver is not approved. The applicant was unable to establish that the street waiver would not result in an unsafe fire response condition for residents of the proposed subdivision. 20 The critical area exemption is not considered to be consolidated with the preliminary plat and street modifications of this proposal. The staff report at no point identifies the exemption as consolidated with the preliminary plat application. The proposal summary makes no mention of the critical area exemption. However, Page 17 of the staff report recommends approval of a critical areas exemption, suggesting that consolidation was intended. If the exemption was intended to be consolidated with the preliminary plat application, there is insufficient information in the record to assess its merits. RMC 4-3-050(C)(5)(d)(iv) requires a geotechnical report to be prepared that assesses compliance 21 22 23 25 24 with the exemption criteria and to also propose mitigation. No reference to any such report is made in the staff report and no such geotechnical report could be found in the administrative record. Impacts of the proposed stormwater vault and retaining walls are assessed in the geotechnical 26 reports, but nothing else in the geotechnical reports could be found that specifically addressed the drainage line or the exemption criteria. Given the absence of this needed information and the fact PRELIMINARY PLAT -I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 JO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Mr. Phil A. Olbrechts City of Renton Hearing Examiner Larry Warren Renton City Attorney Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 [x] Via email polbrechts@omwlaw.com [x] Via email [x] Via U.S. mail lwarren@rentonwa.gov I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. EXECUTED at Seattle, Washington on this 16th day of October, 2014. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE-2 I Van Ness Feldman"' 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98,04 (206) 623-9372 replacement plan. There are I 01 significant trees on the property. These are trees measuring 6" in diameter. 54 trees will be removed for streets and alleys. There are be 120 trees in critical areas 2 buffers, all will be retained. 42 of the significant trees will be retained. 23 significant trees must be 3 replaced v.ith 140 2" trees. All of the new trees ml! be planted in Tract C. 4 The site has three different zoning classifications. They are R-14, a medium density residential development near the condos, an R-1 zone, a low density designation in the sloped area, and 6.06 5 acres of R-8 in the upper portion. The 20 lots are in the R-6 zone. After deduction for critical areas 6 and roadways there are 4.57 developable acres. With 20 lots the resultant density is 4.23 du/acre, which is above the 4 du/acre minimum. 7 There will be 20 single family residential lots of 4,500sf to 8,000sf. Tract A is a stormwater tract. Tracts B and E are wetlands tracts. Tract C is the tree replacement area. Tract D is an open space 8 tract. Tract F is a Native Growth Protection Area on the slope. There will be an alley to provide rear 9 access to abutting lots. 1 o Staff recommends formation of a homeowners association to have equal undivided ownership of the tracts, alley and private road. Another recommended condition of approval (Staff Report #9) lots 17- 20 would provide easements to other lots to allow alley to provide through access. With respect to 11 12 13 access, Applicant has requested a modification to street standards. Renton requires a secondary access when primary access is a dead end street over 700 feet in length. Staff does not support the modification request because it does not meet the test that there is no physical way a second access can be achieved. There are no physical constraints that cannot be overcome. They believe the second 14 access is possible. They recommend a condition of approval requiring construction of a second access prior to recording of the final plat. 15 16 A portion of the project is included in the Talbot Urban Separator which imposes requirements for development. With a single exception, these requirements don't apply because the project does not propose development within the Urban Separator. This exception is the drainage facility which mil extend from the top of the slope through the Urban Separator. Vegetation removed during installation of the stormwater conveyance system must be replaced. 17 18 19 With respect to drainage, the stormwater system has been revised from the original plan to minimize 20 the impact to the critical slope. Discharge from the stormwater vault will be mthin a closed 12" pipe down the slope. Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring a storm water easement. 21 22 23 The project meets compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan and development regulations, if the required conditions of approval are met. Staff recommends the Applicant submit a detailed landscape plan. The project complies with the critical areas regulations if the conditions of approval from Environmental Review Committee are met. With the exception of the street requirement, the 24 project meets the requirements of the subdivision code and the Talbot Urban Separator. In terms of public services (police, fire, parks, schools), resources are available to provide services to the 25 property. Students would need to be bussed to school. There are sidewalks available for safe walking routes to bus stops. A certificate of water availability would be required by the Soos Creek 26 PRELIMINARYPLAT-3 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 that the staff report does not clearly identify the administrative exemption decision as consolidated for hearing examiner re\iew, the exemption decision will not be considered as consolidated with the preliminary plat and street improvement modification request. TESTIMONY Staff Testimony Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner, City of Renton Ms. Higgins described the project as a proposed 20 lot single family development in South Renton. The original application had 21 lots, but was subsequently revised to 20 lots. The proposal as 10 submitted generally meets the Renton municipal code with the exception of street standards relating to access. The applicant has submitted a request for a street modification. There are environmentally sensitive areas on or near the property and critical areas regulations apply. The project conforms to the critical areas code. 11 12 13 The 9.3 acre site is south of Carr Road and east of Talbot Road in south Renton. The project is in an area of residential development with various densities. To the cast are condos at higher density. To 14 the south and southeast are lower density residential developments. Densities to the north and northeast are consistent with the project. 15 The project was originally an undeveloped portion of an existing condo development. The site is isolated from the condos by a steep slope. The project was submitted in 2013 but was placed on 17 hold for additional geotechnical reports due to concerns about the slope. Three separate geotechnical reports were submitted by three individual firms. New notification was sent out. The Environmental Review Committee added six additional conditions of approval. No appeals were filed. 16 18 19 The site has protected slopes on the west side. Slopes arc 45 degrees or more. The site plan was 20 revised to eliminate a rockery retaining wall on the top of the slope and stormwater facilities were moved farther away from the slope. The project will have a I 0-foot No Disturb area on the top of 21 the slope. 22 23 24 There are wetlands on site. The depression wetlands are Category II wetlands. These require a 50 foot buffer. The project proposes to do buffer averaging. Properties adjacent to the project will be included in the buffer. Up to 50% of the buffer width will be reduced in places. The north wetland abuts a portion of the wetland that is part of the Stonehaven wetland reserve. Stream studies indicate there is a stream that is nearby, but not within the project site. The water collects across the subject 25 property but the stream is not on it. The property was vacant except for a temporary cul de sac. 26 The property has a mix of deciduous and evergreen trees. The Applicant submitted a tree PRELIMINARY PLAT-2 I with high density plastic. The Condo Association is requesting anchors along only the top and bottom of the pipe rather than along the whole length as the City recommended. 1bis will keep the 2 pipe in place even if the slope moves. The anchors should be designed to allow for tree fall and soil 3 movement. The water should be slowed down before entering the Condo Association property. The pipeline should be constructed at the top and pulled down the slope rather than moving it up hill. 4 An engineering geologist from Aspect Consulting reviewed the site. With respect to the ephemeral 5 stream, the stream is in a well-defined channel outside the wetlands and then disperses down the slope, depositing sediment on the downhill side in an alluvial fan. 1bis stream is prone to movement. The concern is that if the stream changes its channel, it may deliver sediment downstream and overwhelm the Campen Springs stormwater system. The Condo Association is asking Harbor Homes to monitor the stream and create a more defined channel. In response to questioning from the examiner, Mr. Reese responded that the proposal will not exacerbate the condition of the stream. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Eric Hanson Mr. Hanson testified he understands Vuecrest will be developed. He believes the existing proposal is not consistent with the character of the area or Renton. He stated this proposal should be denied for two reasons. The first reason is because of the variance to extend Smithers Road to another dead end. The second reason is he feels the proposal gives only meager concessions to critical areas. 14 Mr. Hanson noted the Renton municipal code requiring a secondary access. He stated the road is needed for emergency services and traffic flow. He supports the Staff requirement for secondary access. He does not feel mitigation is adequate because the road is 2,400 feet from the main arterial, 15 16 more than three times farther than code requirements. He stated the deviation is major. He is not surprised the Renton Fire Department and Community Development staff does not support the deviation. He stated the traffic will double or triple on local streets due to the proposed development. He is concerned about pedestrian safety. There are no engineering or geographical reasons for the variance. The only reason is that the Applicant does not own the adjacent property. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Mr. Hanson's second concern is environmental sensitivity. The project has steep slopes, a wetland and a stream. He stated the environmental review identified 40 I significant trees. Removal of the trees would create erosion and slide risks. The existing vegetation also sustains deer in the area. The proposed mitigation for the trees is not sufficient. Only 65 trees would be replaced or retained. The emphasis should be on retaining the trees rather than replacing them with less robust trees. He acknowledges 140 additional 2" diameter trees will be planted. Immature trees are a poor substitute for existing trees and vegetation. They won't effectively prevent erosion. 24 David Rasmussen 25 Mr. Rasmussen is the president of the Sundance Talbot Ridge Homeowners Association. He 26 concurs with Mr. Hanson's comments and believes they represent those of the HOA. He is PRELIMINARY PLAT-5 1 Water District. A storrnwater easement is required to demonstrate that downstream systems would be available. Staff recommends approval ofthc project with conditions. 2 3 In response to a question by the Hearing Examiner, Ms. Higgins stated the Applicant would have to negotiate an agreement with adjacent property owners to acquire an access easement or purchase 4 land. The Applicant does not own the property the City will require for secondary access. Staff stated they would not allow the Applicant to record the final plat without this secondary access, in 5 the event the Applicant was unable to purchase the adjacent property or acquire an easement. 6 Applicant Testimony 7 8 Maher Jouei, ER Strong Consulting Engineers, Applicant's Agent 9 Mr. Jouei thanked Staff for the thorough review of the project. The Applicant concurs with the majority of the report with the exception of the secondary access. 10 11 12 Public Testimony Owen Reese Mr. Reese is a civil engineer with Aspect Consulting. He is representing the Campen Springs Condo Association. He was hired to review the proposed development. Harbor homes approached the 14 Condo Association with respect to the storm water lines. The Condo Association is on the downside of the steep slope to west of the proposed development. The Condo Association had questions about storrnwater management and protection of the steep slope. Harbor Homes and their agents have 16 been very open and helpful. The Condo Association issued a letter of intent to allow an easement for 13 15 17 18 19 storm water lines. The Condo Association and Harbor Homes are working together cooperatively. The Condo Association has identified several minor issues along the western line of lots. Harbor Homes has been very responsive. The Condo Association is providing testimony today to allow Staff and the Hearing Examiner to hear their issues. 20 There are no current retaining walls proposed. The Condo Association is requesting the City to allow only engineered retaining walls to be constructed on the proposed development, rather than just erosion control structures. They further request any new fill should be free draining structural fill and not native soils. The native soils will not provide the needed results with respect to drainage. 21 22 23 24 25 26 The back yards of western Jots slope towards the steep slope. At one point there was a proposed interceptor trench. The Condo Association requests the City require Harbor Homes to minimize the extent of the western lot that drains to the slope. Whatever does drain there, please make sure it does so in a dispersed manner. The stormwater tight line should be designed using sound engineering practices in a straight line PRELIMINARYPLAT-4 2 3 There is an unnoted existing drainage out of the wetlands. There used to be another smaller stream that was obliterated by the traffic circle. The stream can be observed about 8-9 months of the year. During rain events, the system is overwhelmed and water overtops into the stormwater drainage system. There is a subsurface hydrologic connection that connects the wetlands. Proposed Lot 17 is a seep that will not support a residential development. He is in support of a stormwater system that 4 proactively drains this development and future developments. 5 6 7 Mr. Hensen also described abundant wildlife in the area. Staff Response Larry Warren, Renton City Attorney 8 The Hearing Examiner asked the City Attorney if there is a proportionality problem in that the 9 Applicant is being asked to provide secondary access now when it should have been provided by past developments for developments farther down the road. Are the Applicants being asked to create 1 o an improvement that mitigates more than their own impact? I I 12 13 In response, Mr. Warren stated he had not considered the question in that framework. He stated he did not feel there was a proportionality problem because each future development along the line would be required to do their part. The Hearing Examiner asked if the City was considering a latecomers agreement to allow the I 4 Applicant to be reimbursed for a portion of the costs when later development took place. Mr. Warren stated the Applicant must request a latecomers agreement. He stated there was only one lot l 5 between the proposal site and the connection point. The expense should not be huge. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Elizabeth Higgins Ms. Higgins addressed the request by Mr. Reese related to retaining walls. She stated mitigation measure #4 from the Environmental Review Committee requires a building permit for retaining walls for any proposed wall, regardless of location or size. Steven Lee, City of Renton Engineer Mr. Lee responded to Mr. Reese's recommendations. He stated he concurred with Mr. Reese. He agreed that all of Mr. Reese's suggestions should be implemented as conditions of approval. He wanted to add one further condition. With respect to the stormwater pipe on the slope, he suggests the addition of a slip joint at the base of the hill to allow for movement. Mr. Lee stated he felt the project will not affect downstream stormwater. He noted other projects have been installed on steeper slopes than this. These prior projects have been successful in avoiding erosion. The closed tight line stormwater pipe will eliminate erosion impacts. PRELIMINARYPLAT-7 concerned about water access during an emergency situation. Sundance abuts green lands on three sides. There are plans to develop one of these sides. His concern with water flow is the chance of a 2 wild fire on the greenbelt. He's concerned there will be insufficient access for emergency fue 3 protection. Additionally, there must be secondary access. 4 Jim Condelles 5 Mr. Condelles represents the Reserve at Stonehaven Homeowners Association which is adjacent to 6 the Sundance association. Mr. Condelles objects for the same reasons as Mr. Rasmussen and Mr. Hanson. Secondary access should be required. There is a bottleneck on a dead end road. 7 He urges the development be scaled back. He stated he doesn't feel the wetlands buffer averaging is 8 effective. He wants to see full 50 foot setbacks adjacent to all parts of the wetlands. He notes the 9 varying seasonal character of the wetlands. He stated the small change to the project from the original proposal is insufficient to protect the critical areas. The character of the northwest is being Jo eroded by piecemeal development. He noted all the types of wildlife he's seen on this property. He also noted the old growth evergreen trees. This is a virtual rainforest in an urban area that serves as a 11 wildlife corridor. He wants to see a rethinking of the scope. 12 13 Ellen Brighten Ms. Brighten owns two adjacent properties. She owns property in Campen Springs. She has not 14 been notified of the project. She also owns at Talbot Park. She regularly sees deer. She also stated there are water problems. The springs at Campen Springs move. She is concerned about drainage issues. Ms. Brighten displayed several pictures of the area (Ex. 34). 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Travis Martinez Ms. Martinez is the president of the HOA for Talbot Park due north of Campen Springs. They have a water problem that results in $50,000 worth of damage per year due to the springs. They are very concerned stormwater issues will increase. They have received no guarantee that they will not be adversely affected or reimbursed when they are affected by project related stormwater. Ron Hensen Mr. Hensen lives on Smithers A venue. Smithers Road is adjacent to the proposed development. He has owned the property for 12 years. He has maintained the property for years. He recounted the development history of the area. He knew development would happen on this property eventually. He is concerned about his property values and safety. There is a 50 acre Department of Natural Resources property to the north that is currently for sale. Altogether, there was a single point of 24 access for a couple dozen homes. In the near future, that number could be 150 homes on the same single point of access. This will result in more traffic and a reduced quality of life for existing residents. 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT-6 1 2 3 preliminary comments with an email note that said the situation regarding the second access had changed. They subsequently were told they could not construct the project as proposed because the Fire Department would not support the project without secondary access. That letter was rescinded in October 2013. In February 2014, they received a letter from Ms. Higgins that stated the City would support a street modification to permit the project to go forward without secondary access. 4 The City did not mention they would not support the modification until August 2014. There has been no material change to the layout since October 2013. Mr. Jouei stated the project is a part of 5 the solution by construction a stub for future access. There is one undeveloped property left before 6 the grid system is completed. 7 8 9 Mr. Jouei stated the project complies with the road dimension requirements in the code. He stated emergency vehicles can access the project even in worst case scenarios with cars parked on both sides. The road curvatures meet the requirements. There is a loop road in Stonehaven that provides secondary access. Jo Mr. Jouei reviewed the variance criteria in the street modification. He stated the project suffers from unique circumstances because Talbot Ridge and the Reserve at Stonehaven were approved with the same variance the current Applicant proposes. He stated the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare because the roads meet the dimensional requirements. He noted the additional trips from Vuecrest would result in 1.6 additional vehicles per minute in the PM Peak Hour. These roads are all LOS A with no accident history. He stated the project benefits the welfare of the public by connecting the grid system. The project has an internal loop system with the alley. 11 12 13 14 The alley will be designed to accommodate emergency vehicles. The project will not ask for any special considerations beyond those already granted to existing developments. The proposal is the minimum requested by the City by providing a stub road. The project provides what the City asked for initially. Nothing has changed since then. 15 16 17 Mr. J ouei noted there are not many on-street parked cars. All area homes include two car garages for every lot to accommodate parking. 18 19 Jamie Waltier, Hansen Homes 20 21 22 23 Mr. W altier thanked Staff for their efforts on the project. He stated the neighbor to the east is not interested in selling his property. They will not be able to purchase a right of way or easement. Mr. Waltier stated the City had supported the stub road without a secondary access. They've incurred significant costs in designing this project they would not otherwise have spent if the City has been consistent on their requirement for a secondary access. As is, the project is not financially viable with the requirement for a secondary access. 24 Carl Anderson, Fire Protection Engineer, Applicant's Agent 25 26 Mr. Anderson discussed the second access issue from an emergency access perspective. He also suggested mitigation measures. With respect to the public welfare, the proposal is at the end of a PRELIMINARY PLAT -9 1 2 3 In response to the Hearing Examiner, Mr. Lee stated he was unaware of the small stream that used to be in the location of the temporary cul de sac. The post project result will be a reduction in surface run off from the project than current conditions. He stated slope stability will be improved post project. 4 Mark Peterson. Chief, Renton Fire Department 5 6 In response to the Hearing Examiner, Mr. Peterson stated the fire department is opposed to the street modification. He feels the length of the street is too challenging to service to the area by fire apparatus. He stated last year there was a wildfire traveling along the electric easement in a nearby 8 7 neighborhood. This neighborhood had one access point that was cut off by the fire. The fire department could not get in to help residents and residents could not evacuate. Mr. Peterson is also concerned about the neighborhood being cut off in a seismic event. City code requires a secondary 9 access in roads over 700 feet. The fire department cannot maintain adequate response times to the neighborhood. Without secondary access, an additional minute is added to the response time to this Io neighborhood. 11 Applicant Response 12 Brent Carson, Van Ness Feldman, Applicant's Agent 13 The Applicant disagrees with the Staff with respect to the street modification. In response to Mr. 14 Peterson, Mr. Carson noted the Renton Fire Department has sent the Applicant a letter stating they would not support the project without a secondary access. He further noted the Fire Department had 15 rescinded that letter, with the condition that they could reinstate the letter at any time based on final 16 plat design. He noted that the fire department reinstated the letter even though there had been no change in fire access since the time the letter had been rescinded. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Mr. Carson introduced a letter into the record (Ex. 35) with attachments addressed to the Examiner. This packet included a letter from the Applicant's traffic consultant. Mr. Carson called several witnesses. Mr. Carson introduced two further exhibits (Ex. 36 and Ex. 37), the resume of Mr. Jouei Maher and a set of site plans. Maher Jouei, ER Strong Consulting Encineers, Applicant's Agent Mr. Jouei stated the Vuecrest Estates project drainage is tight lined to Campen Springs. Talbot Park drainage goes a different direction than the project drainage. The Vuecrest system will collect all impervious surface drainage and send it to Campen Springs. 25 24 Mr. Jouei stated the City sent them a letter stating a proposed temporary cul de sac might be acceptable under certain conditions including a stub road for future connections. They would not be asked to construct the actual connection. The pre-application meetings did not suggest they would 26 be required to provide a completed secondary access. On July 3, 2014 the Applicant received PRELIMINARY PLAT -8 I proceed in concert with the City's advice. The Applicant has done that. 2 3 With respect to Mr. Peterson's withdrawal of his letter, this is no minor thing. Mr. Peterson stated in August 2013 that a secondary access would be required for approval. Mr. Carson was hired at this point. He spoke to the City Staff and the Mayor which led to Mr. Peterson's withdrawal of the Jetter. 4 Mr. Peterson stated he could reissue the letter based on the final design. The design was not changed and Mr. Peterson did not reissue the letter. Mr. Peterson desires to have a secondary access but has not proven the need. Mr. Carson noted Ms. Vanessa Dolby of the City of Renton stated they would 5 6 not need to provide secondary access. Ms. Higgins also provided a letter that stated the City would approve a street modification to allow the project to move forward without a secondary access. The Applicant contends a variance is not required because they are not proposing a permanent dead end, but are instead providing a temporary cul de sac. However, to the extent a variance is required; the Examiner has the authority to grant the variance. The Applicant supports approval of the variance 7 8 9 request (street modification). Jo Mr. Carson notes Stonehaven was approved with a dead end of more than 700 feet because Stonehaven provided a temporary stub to adjacent properties. No variance was required in that plat. 11 All secondary access will be provided in the future as adjacent properties develop. 12 The adjacent property owner in this case refuses to sell the property or grant an access easement The Staff requirement of a secondary access point represents a significant hardship to the Applicant. If this was a significant public interest, they could use their condemnation authority. Otherwise, this 13 14 represents an unnecessary hardship to the Applicant. The Applicant has offered adequate mitigation in the form of sprinklers for every residence. The effect of the City's recommendation is legally arbitrary and capricious. The Applicant asks to remove Condition 5 and grant the variance and the plat request. 15 16 17 Staff Rebuttal 18 Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner, City of Renton 19 Ms. Higgins answered a question from the Hearing Examiner regarding the typical condition of 20 requiring a gravel, gated access road as emergency access. Ms. Higgins stated the secondary access would need to comply with the Fire Code. Ms. Higgins also stated the Fire Department always asks 21 for secondary access. Public Works assumes there will be no dead ends. She stated she doesn't know the history here and cannot discuss the historical interpretation of secondary access. 22 23 Since February, the City has taken a closer look at developments next to slopes. They have studied slope stability on existing slopes with respect to vegetation and storrnwater. 24 She also stated pre-application conferences allow for recommendations with respect to requirements 25 but do not provide enough information to set those requirements. Ms. Higgins stated the letter from 26 Chief Peterson was withdrawn at her request to get the Applicant to support a secondary PRELIMINARYPLAT-11 • I 2 3 dead end. It does not materially affect the existing homes in the area. For the new plat, there are mitigating measures that can be taken. The Applicant is intending to put in a temporary cul de sac to City standards. The internal alley will also provide emergency access, though it is not intended as a primary emergency access. Although not specifically spelled out in the variance request, the intention is to put fire sprinkler systems in each proposed home. In terms of mitigating fire response 4 to the area, a fire sprinkler system reduces the need for fire responses. The homes will not require full structural responses. The Staff Report mentions 99 homes are accessed on the dead end. The dead end will be 2,400 feet. However, the actual road network has internal secondary means that 6 reduces the housing served by only the dead end itself. Stonehaven has an internal looped road that 5 would allow another access into Vuecrest. Only about 800 feet of roadway will be single access. 7 The 2012 International Fire Code Appendix D-107 addresses substitution of fire sprinklers rather than the provision of secondary fire access. This appendix was not adopted in Renton, though it does support the variance. 8 9 In response to Mr. Carson, Mr. Anderson stated he is familiar with the International Fire Code 10 Section 503.1.2 which reads the Fire MarshaJI may require secondary access based on a range of conditions. Mr. Anderson stated the project does not meet any of the conditions in the 11 aforementioned Fire Code Section. This project will eventually result in improved access. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Hearing Examiner asked Mr. Anderson ifhe is testifying that he has no fire safety concerns over the fact that this subdivision only has one access point. Mr. Anderson responded, "I don't believe that the addition of Vuecrest is a significant detriment to public safety based on what's already there in the area." The Hearing Examiner stated, "There are a couple points along that Yi mile dead end route where if the road was blocked there'd be no way for the fire department to get to the subdivision, isn't that correct?" Mr. Anderson responded "That's correct." The Hearing Examiner, "What about the Fire Chief Peterson's concern about if you had people evacuating quickly that would make it more difficult for the Fire Department to get to the site, is that a problem here at all, really?" Mr. Anderson responded "It could be a concern, but in the type of isolated events you'd run into, is the likelihood that these additional 20 homes create a significant additional detriment to public safety? I wouldn't think that number would be 19 detrimental, particularly given that this is another piece toward making an eventual connection, which corrects an existing 1,700 foot dead end." 20 21 Brent Carson. Van Ness Feldman, Applicant's Agent 22 23 Mr. Carson stated his letter goes into detail regarding each of the aforementioned issues. He wanted to highlight a few points. He stated the 11th hour switch in the City's position. The City's code is clear related to pre-application meetings when submitting long plats in order to avoid the 24 circumstance where applicants are not clear about what codes will apply. The first pre-application stated a permanent dead end street is not approvable given the City code. Toe second pre- application meeting allowed a temporary cul de sac with a future stub to allow for eventual completion of a loop system. Toe Code says once the pre-application is done, the applicant should 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT-IO 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ex. 32 Eric Hanson Testimony Summary Ex. 33 Owen Reese Testimony Summary Ex. 34 Ellen Brighten Pictures of Campen Springs and wildlife Ex. 35 Brent Carson Letter to HE (9/15/14) Ex. 36 Resume of Mr. Maher Jouie Ex. 3 7 Set of maps showing subject site and surrounding area FINDINGS OF FACT Pro.cedural: 8 I. Applicant. Harbour Homes. 9 2. Hearing. The Examiner held a hearing on the subject application on September 11, 2014 in 10 the City of Renton Council City Chambers. 11 3. Project Description. The applicant has submitted an application for a 20 lot Preliminary Plat. 12 13 14 15 16 The application includes a request for the waiver of street improvements to allow a dead-end road in excess of 700 feet. Approval of the project would result in the subdivision of a 9.31 acre property, located in the Talbot planning area of the City, into 20 lots suitable for single-family residential use. The proposed density is 4.23 dwelling units per net acre. The project site is currently undeveloped, except for a paved, temporary cul-de-sac. The site contains three land use zones, Residential 1 dwelling unit per net acre (du/ac), Residential 8 (8 du/ac) and Residential 14 (14 du/ac) [Exhibit 3]. Additionally, the area zoned R-1 is located 17 within the Urban Separator overlay. Only the 6.06 acre (263,328 sf) portion that is zoned R-8 is proposed to be developed. The proposed density would be 4.23 du/ac Subdivision into 20 lots would result in a density of 4.05 dwelling units per net acre. Lot sizes would range from 4,500 square feet to 8,134 square feet. In addition to the 20 lots, 6 tracts are proposed for sensitive areas and tree 18 19 retention. 20 The site is proposed to be accessed via an extension of Smithers Ave. S. The requested modification 21 of Renton Municipal Code, if approved, would permit this access although it is considered to be a "dead end" road from the intersection of SE 186th St. The undeveloped site has approximately 400 22 trees that have been deemed to be "significant." Trees will be removed, retained, and replaced as required by Renton Municipal Code. An estimated 3,396 cy of cut and 10,035 cy of fill would be required for site construction. A stormwater detention vault is proposed that would discharge to a closed conveyance system on site and subsequently transported to an area-wide system off site. The applicant has submitted a Critical Areas Report, Supplemental Stream Study, Traffic Impact Analysis, Slope Analysis, Geotechnical Engineering study, and a Drainage Technical Information 23 24 25 Report with the application. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT-13 • • 2 3 geotechnical study. The Applicant suggested they would not invest more money in the geotechnical study if the Chiefs letter remained. Larry Warren. Renton City Attorney 4 Mr. Warren addressed the comment of dead end roads. He stated this project extends the dead end road. There is no way to tell how long before the adjacent property owner will want to develop the 5 property, if ever. The road may exist as a dead end road ad infinitum. This project creates a longer dead end road that could be blocked at some point. There is no solution to the dead end road as currently proposed. 6 7 8 9 10 11 The City Code on dead end roads (RMC 4-6-060(H)) requires two means of access and sprinklers for roads over 700 feet. There is no waiver of secondary means of access. There is only a waiver for methods of turn around. This code was in place before the Application but after the other existing subdivision located along the dead end road. There is no definition of a dead end road in City code. Common definitions would call this road a dead end. This is an infill project on a difficult site. Applicant's Rebuttal 12 Brent Carson. Van Ness Feldman, Applicant's Agent 13 Mr. Carson noted RMC 4-6-060(H)(6) regarding the waiver of a turnaround does not apply. Under 14 certain circumstances is related to the circumstances when a turnaround does not apply. The Code section that does apply is RMC 4-7-240 in the subdivision code. This allows variances to be approved by the Hearing Examiner. 15 16 This is the same situation as Stonehaven. There is no substantial increased to the public welfare but I 7 the Staff recommendation does provide a significant burden to the Applicant. 18 Public Rebuttal 19 David Rasmussen 20 Mr. Rasmussen stated that parking in front of Stonehaven do not represent the true parking 21 situation, especially around the holidays. 22 EXHIBITS 23 24 Exhibits 1-31 listed on page 2 of the September 15, 2014 Staff Report, in addition to the Staff Report itself (Ex. 1 ), were admitted into evidence during the public hearing. Additional exhibits admitted 25 during the hearing are the following: 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT -12 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 JO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 and residents could not evacuate. Mr. Peterson is also concerned about the neighborhood being cut off in a seismic event. City code requires a secondary access in roads over 700 feet. Tue fire department cannot maintain adequate response times to the neighborhood. Without secondary access, an additional minute is added to the response time to this neighborhood. The applicant presented its own fire expert, Carl Anderson, to provide testimony on the safety of fire access. Mr. Anderson's testimony was not persuasive. Tue hearing examiner asked Mr. Anderson if he had any safety concerns over the fact that the proposed subdivision only has one access point. Mr. Anderson did not respond with a simple "yes" or "no". Mr. Anderson did not testify that the subdivision would have safe or adequate fire access with one fire access road. Rather, he concluded that the addition of the proposed 20 lots would not be "a significant detriment to public safety based on what's already in the area". Mr. Anderson's somewhat tortured response leaves the very strong impression that he did not want to opine on the fire safety of a single access point to the subdivision; that instead the most supportive comment he could make for his client was that in the context of the safety problems faced by the 99 other lots in the area, the safety impact to the proposed subdivision was not that significant. The fact that other subdivisions may have similar safety issues has no bearing on whether the single access to the proposed subdivision is safe and adequate. In short, the applicant has not provided any expert testimony to refute the Fire Chiefs testimony that the proposed single access would be safe or adequate for the proposed 20 lots. Mr. Anderson noted that the applicant would be willing to provide sprinkler systems to mitigate against the single access. He did not testify that this would completely mitigate against the dangers of single access. Mr. Anderson noted that Appendix D to the. International Fire Code addresses the use of fire sprinklers to substitute for secondary access roads. Appendix D was not offered into evidence and the examiner cannot take judicial notice of it because it has not been adopted by the City of Renton. More determinative is that the Renton Municipal Code does not expressly authorize a substitution of secondary access roads with fire sprinklers. In fact, RMC 4-6-060(H)(2) already requires sprinklers in addition to two access roads for streets longer than 700 feet in length. Clearly, fire sprinklers are not considered an adequate substitute for secondary access under city standards if they are already required in addition to secondary access for dead end roads such as the one serving the proposed development. If the applicant wishes to use fire sprinklers as a substitute for secondary access, it has the burden of establishing that the sprinklers will reduce the fire hazard to insignificant levels. The PRELIMINARY PLAT-15 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 4. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. As conditioned, the project will be served by adequate/appropriate infrastructure and public services as follows: A. Water and Sewer Service. Although the project site lies within the boundaries of the Renton Water Service Area, the City does not have water service mains near the project site. Water service would be provided by the Soos Creek Water and Sewer District from an existing water main located at the Smithers Ave S street end at the north portion of the property. A certificate of water availability from SCWSD must be provided prior to issuance of construction permits. The site is provided sanitary sewer service by the City of Renton. There is a sewer main and a manhole at the south end of Smithers Ave S. B. Police and Fire Protection. Police service would be provided by the Renton Fire Department. The Renton Police Department has commented that there would be minimal impacts from the project. Fire service would be provided by the Renton Fire Department. Fire Prevention staff indicate that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; subject to the condition that the applicant provides Code required improvements and fees (presumably including fire impact fees) and that a second access be provided to the site in accordance with RMC 4-6-060H, which prohibits dead end streets longer than 700 feet in length. The need for a second access is the most significant factual issues presented in this hearing. The applicant disputes the need for the secondary access. It is determined that the secondary access is necessary to provide adequate/appropriate fire protection service. The proposed project site is located at the end of an existing dead end street in excess of 700 feet. The proposal asks for approval of a temporary cul-de-sac on an extension of this street. The length of the extended dead-end street would be approximately 2,364 feet, from the point at which it becomes a dead end at Main Avenue South (SE I 02nd St) and SE 186th St to the new street end within the proposed project. Currently, there are 99 lots that are accessed by this dead end street. As testified by Renton Fire Mark Peterson, the length of the street is too challenging to service to the area by fire apparatus. He stated last year there was a wildfire traveling along the electric easement in a nearby neighborhood. This neighborhood had one access point that was cut off by the fire. The fire department could not get in to help residents PRELIMJNARY PLAT-14 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 existing system at the bottom of the protected slope (Tract F). A recorded easement agreement demonstrating access to the existing system is required by the conditions of approval prior to issuance of construction permits. Owen Reese, a civil engineer retained by the homeowner's association of the neighboring Campen Springs development, made several recommendations on drainage mitigation during the hearing. City engineering staff confirmed that the stormwater suggestions made by Mr. Reese should be added to the conditions of approval. The suggestions reasonably protect against slope stability, are made by qualified experts and there is no evidence to the contrary. The drainage and slope stability recommendations made by Mr. Reese will be made conditions of approval 1. D. Parks/Open Space. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to building permit issuance. RMC 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-lor R-8 district. RMC 4-2-115 does impose open space requirements for the R-14 district based upon the number of dwelling units, but since no dwelling units are proposed for the R-14 portion of the development, no open space is required. RMC 4-3-110 requires that 50% of the portion of the plat within the Urban Separator Overlay shall be designated as a non-revocable open space tract. As determined in the staff report, p. 14, the open space tract proposed by the applicant satisfies this standard (which appears to be accomplished by Tract F, which takes up most if not all of the Urban Separator property, see Ex. 4) . The impact fees in conjunction with the open space tract required by the Talbot Urban Separator provide for adequate parks and open space. E. Streets. The proposal provides for adequate/appropriate streets. Access to the plat is proposed via Smithers Ave and the conditions of approval require the applicant to extend Smithers through the adjoining property to the east to 102"d Ave S. Internal access includes looped alley access. The applicant prepared a traffic impact analysis, admitted as Ex. 30, that was reviewed and approved by City public works staff. The study determined that the proposal would generate 16 am peak hour trips and 21 pm peak hour trips. The study shows that affected intersections would maintain a level of service A with or without the project. There is no concurrency analysis submitted into the record. 25 1 Mr. Reese also recommended that the applicant monitor a migrating stream channel located off-site. Mr. Reese and staff acknowledged that the ·proposal does not adversely affect or exacerbate this condition. Consequently, the 26 project cannot be legally conditioned to address the issue. PRELIMINARY PLAT-17 • • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 C. applicant has only shown that the fire hazard is reduced, but has not established or even asserted that the reduction in hazard would be reduced to acceptable levels. The applicant's arguments are well noted that the single access road was found sufficient for the other 99 lot served by it and that staff has changed its position on the adequacy of the access for the proposed subdivision. The inconsistencies in the staff's position does undermine the credibility of their position. However, the reasoning of the fire chiefs testimony is highly compelling; that testimony is largely left unchallenged by the applicant; and the need for the two access points is clearly laid out in the City's development standards with no express exception for sprinkler systems. Further, it must also be acknowledged that circumstances have changed since the approval of other subdivisions along the dead end road. In prior years development occurred at a much more rapid pace and expectations were high that a looped road would be completed relatively quickly. The length of the dead end road was of course shorter for each preceding subdivision and the amount of road necessary to complete a looped system was correspondingly longer. The applicant presented testimony that accidents were unlikely to prevent fire access given the width of the single access road, but the fire chief was well aware of this condition when he presented his testimony. The preponderance of evidence and substantial evidence in the record establish that two access points are necessary to provide adequate/appropriate and safe fire access to the proposed subdivision. Drainage. The applicant submitted a drainage report and drainage plan on July 15, 2014, Ex. 11. Staff have determined that the report demonstrates compliance with 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and additional requirements, based on specific site conditions, as required by the Department of Community and Economic Development. This proposal is specifically required to comply with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and the 2009 City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapter I and 2. Based on the City's flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Conditions. This means that off-site flow volumes and rates may not be higher than predevelopment levels. The site is subject to full drainage review. The project is required to provide detention and water quality under the current King County Surface Water Manual. The engineer has provided a design for a combined detention and water quality vault to be located on Tract A of the site. A tightlincd stormwatcr conveyance system shall be utilized to transport discharged stormwatcr from a vault to an PRELIMINARY PLAT -16 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 other proposals under the same conditions. As concluded in the conclusions of law, this resulting increase in slope stability serves as the basis for approving the critical area exemption. Several public comment letters expressed concern over the encroachment of the project onto the fifty foot buffer of a Category II wetland and at least one comment letter asserted there are two Category II wetlands on-site as opposed to one. As depicted in a site plan attached to the critical area study, Ex. 17, five 2 lots encroach onto the fifty foot buffer of the wetland as well as Tract A (the storm drainage tract) and portions of the interior road. The applicant has proposed to remove these encroachments through buffer averaging, which is allowed by the code and involves the replacement of buffer reduction area by 1:1 increases in buffer area at other parts of the buffer. A total ofl0,463 square feet of buffer will be reduced and a total of 12, 198 square feet will be added in the buffer averaging proposal. The buffer averaging proposal has been reviewed and approved by qualified third party review, Ex. 16, as well as by staff. The critical area studies provide a compelling and thorough justification for the averaging based upon best available science. There is no evidence in 9 the record that the proposed averaging would adversely affect the wetland or that the wetland delineations are inaccurate. For these reasons, the proposed buffer averaging is determined to be Jo consistent with the City's critical area regulations and will not create any significant adverse impacts to the wetland functions or values. 11 12 13 Erosion and slope stability were also cited in numerous public comment letters as an area of concern. As noted previously, staff have concluded that the proposed drainage line across the steep slope will serve to improve slope stability. The City has detailed erosion control standards applicable to clearing and grading activities that will protect adjoining properties from erosion impacts. As previously noted, the City stormwater regulations require off-site stormwater flow I 4 volumes and velocities to be at or less than pre-development conditions. The proposal has also been subject to extensive geotechnical review coupled with third party review designed to assure that the proposal will not adversely affect slope stability, as shown in Ex. 19-26 and 31. There has been no expert testimony to show that the analysis and mitigation pertaining to erosion and slope stability is deficient, except for some suggestions made by Mr. Reese, all of which have been adopted except a 15 16 I 7 request to monitor stream channel migration that Mr. Reese acknowledged is not affected by the proposal. For all these reasons, it is determined that the proposal will not create any significant slope 18 stability or erosion impacts. 19 20 21 22 23 24 Conclusions of Law I. Authority. RMC 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 4-8-080(0) classifies preliminary plat applications as Type III applications. RMC 4-8-080(0) classifies development standard modifications as Type I applications. RMC 4-8-080(C)(2) requires consolidated permits to 25 2 The site plan actually only shows a buffer reduction in four lots, neglecting to identify a reduction in buffer for Lot 21. The text of the critical areas study, however, identifies at p. 14 that the buffer on Lot 21 wiU be removed through 26 averaging. Consequently, it is understood that the site plan incorrectly fails to identify buffer removal from Lot 21. PRELIMINARY PLAT-19 . I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 However, given the lack of any significant impact on affected intersections it is determined at this time the proposal is consistent with the City level of service standards. 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. Adequate/appropriate provision is made for schools. The proposal is located within the Renton School District. The staff report notes that it is anticipated that the Renton School District can accommodate additional students generated by this proposal at the following schools: Benson Hill Elementary, Nelson Middle School, and Lindbergh Higb School. These schools are not within walking distance of the proposed development. Transportation would be required. A School Impact Fee, based on new single family lots, will also be required in order to mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to the Renton School District. The fee is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. Currently the fee is assessed at $5,455.00 per single family residence. 5. Adverse Impacts. There are no adverse impacts associated with the proposal as conditioned with secondary access. Adequate public facilities and drainage control are provided as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. The proposal involves single-family housing at a density 4.23 dwelling units 15 per acre. which is at the bottom end of the 4-8 units per acre required in the R-8 zone. This is a 16 legislatively set standard of what is considered a compatible density for the area. Consequently, there are no issues of compatibility with surrounding development based on density. 17 18 Many of the public comment letters expressed concern over the loss of trees. There are 401 trees on site with diameters of more than six inches. The applicant proposes to retain 42 of these trees and replace the remaining trees with 140 two-inch diameter trees. Most development of undeveloped areas involves the removal of trees. What constitutes an acceptable level of tree l 9 removal is a highly subjective determination. As with density, the Renton City Council has legislatively determined an acceptable level of tree removal by the adoption of tree retention ordinance codified as RMC 4-4-130. As noted at p. 14 of the staff report, the applicant's tree retention and replacement plan is consistent with RMC 4-4-130. Consequently, the proposed tree removal cannot be considered a significant impact of the proposal. 20 21 22 There are protected slopes, wetlands, and a stream located within proposed sensitive area tracts (Native Growth Protection Areas) on the site. The anticipated impacts of these areas have been addressed in technical reports and studies [Exhibits 16-27] and the Environmental Review 24 Committee Report [Exhibit 31]. The project complies with all critical area regulations provided all mitigation measures are met as identified in the Environmental Review Committee Report. A storm drainage line is proposed across the face of the protected slopes. A critical area exemption is 26 required for placing drainage lines on protected slopes. Staff determined that the proposed drainage line, as conditioned, would improve slope stability. Staff has found slope stability to improve for 23 25 PRELIMINARY PLAT-18 I 7. All of the internal roads of the proposed subdivision eventually connect to Smithers Ave S., 2 3 4 5 6 7 an existing road. RMC 4-7-120(B): The location of all streets shall coriform to any adopted plans for streets in the City. 8. 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 connections that appear possible with the steep slope and open space limitations to the west are those proposed and required by this decision. RMC 4-7-120(C): If a subdivision is located in the area of an officially designed [sic} trail, 8 provisions shall be made for reservation of the right-of-way or for easements to the City for trail 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 purposes. 9. The subdivision is not located in the area of an officially designated trail. RMC 4-7-130(C): A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication shall be prepared in conformance with the following provisions: 1. Land Unsuitable for Subdivision: Land which is found to be unsuitable for subdivision includes land with features likely to be harmfal to the safety and general health of the fature residents (such as lands adversely affected by flooding, steep slopes, or rock formations). Land which the Department or the Hearing Examiner considers inappropriate for subdivision shall not be subdivided unless adequate safeguards are provided against these adverse conditions. a. Flooding/Inundation: If any portion of the land within the boundary of a preliminary plat is 17 subject to flooding or inundation, that portion of the subdivision must have the approval of the State 18 19 according to chapter 86.16 RCW before the Department and the Hearing Examiner shall consider such subdivision. b. Steep Slopes: A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication which would result in the creation of a 20 lot or lots that primarily have slopes forty percent (40%) or greater as measured per RMC 4-3- 21 22 23 24 25 26 050Jla, without adequate area at lesser slopes upon which development may occur, shall not be approved. 3. Land Clearing and Tree Retention: Shall comply with RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations. 4. Streams: PRELIMINARY PLAT-21 , ' I 2 each be processed under "the highest-number procedure", which in this case is Type III review, involving a review and a final decision issued by the hearing examiner. 3 2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The developed portion of the property is zoned R-8. Other portions of the property are zoned R-1, R-1 and the western third is within the Talbot 4 Urban Separator Overlay. The comprehensive plan designations are Residential Low Density 5 (RLD), Residential Single-Family (RSF) and Residential Medium Density (RMD). 6 7 8 9 3. Review Criteria. Chapter 4-7 RMC governs the criteria for subdivision review. Applicable standards are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions oflaw. RMC 4-7-0SO(B): A subdivision shall be consistent with the following principles of acceptability: 1. Legal Lots: Create legal building sites which comply with all provisions of the City Zoning Code. IO 2. Access: Establish access to a public road for each segregated parcel. 11 12 13 3. Physical Characteristics: Have suitable physical characteristics. A proposed plat may be denied because of flood, inundation, or wetland conditions. Construction 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 provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water 14 supplies and sanitary wastes. 15 4. As to compliance with the Zoning Code, Conclusion K(2) of the staff report is adopted by 16 reference as if set forth in full. As depicted in the plat map, Ex. 37, each proposed lot will directly 17 18 19 20 access Smithers Ave S., a public road, or indirectly via a private alley. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4 and 5, the project is adequately designed to prevent any impacts to critical areas. No flooding problems are anticipated because as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4 the proposal is served by adequate/appropriate storrnwater facilities and the project is not located in a floodplain. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the proposal provides for adequate public facilities. 5. RMC 4-7-080(1)(1): ... The Hearing Examiner shall assure conformance with the general 21 purposes of the Comprehensive Plan and adopted standards ... 22 23 6. The proposed preliminary play is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan as outlined in Conclusion K(l) of the staff report, which is incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. 24 RMC 4-7-120(A): No plan for the replatting, subdivision, or dedication of any areas shall be 25 approved by the Hearing Examiner unless the streets shown therein are connected by surfaced road or street (according to City specifications) to an existing street or highway. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT -20 I RMC 4-7-lSO(C): Streets intersecting with existing or proposed public highways, major or 2 secondary arterials shall be held to a minimum. 3 14. There is no intersection with a public highway or major or secondary arterial. 4 RMC 4-7-lSO(D): The alignment of all streets shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. The street standards set by RMC 4-6-060 shall apply unless otherwise approved. Street 5 alignment offsets of less than one hundred twenty five feet (125 ') are not desirable, but may be 6 approved by the Department upon a showing of need but only after provision of all necessary safety measures. 7 8 9 10 11 15. As detemtined 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-lSO(E): 12 1. Grid: A grid street pattern shall be used to connect existing and new development and shall be the predominant street pattern in any subdivision permitted by this Section. 13 2. Linkages: Linkages, including streets, sidewalks, pedestrian or bike paths, shall be provided 14 within and between neighborhoods when they can create a continuous and interconnected network of roads and pathways. Implementation of this requirement shall comply with Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Objective T-A and Policies T-9 through T-16 and Community Design 15 16 Element, Objective CD-Mand Policies CD-50 and CD-60. 17 3. Exceptions: 18 a. The grid pattern may be acijusted to a "flexible grid" by reducing the number of linkages or the 19 alignment between roads, wher.e the following factors are present on site: 20 i. Infeasible due to topographical/environmental constraints; and/or 21 22 23 24 ii. Substantial improvements are existing. 4. Connections: Prior to adoption of a complete grid street plan, reasonable connections that link existing portions of the grid system shall be made. At a minimum, stub streets shall be required within subdivisions to allow future connectivity. 25 5. Alley Access: Alley access is the preferred street pattern except for properties in the Residential Low Density land use designation. The Residential Low Density land use designation includes the 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT -23 •. • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 a. Preservation: Every reasonable effort shall be made to preserve existing streams, bodies of water, and wetland areas. b. Method: If a stream passes through any of the subject property, a plan shall be presented which indicates how the stream will be preserved. The methodologies used should include an ove,jlow area, and an attempt to minimize the disturbance of the natural channel and stream bed. c. Culverting: The piping or tunneling of water shall be discouraged and allowed only when going under streets. d. Clean Water: Every effort shall be made to keep all streams and bodies of water clear of debris and pollutants. 9 10. The criterion is met. The land is suitable for a subdivision as the stormwater design assures 10 11 12 13 that it will not contribute to flooding and that water quality will not be adversely affected. Development will not encroach into critical areas except as authorized by the City's critical area regulations. No piping or tunneling of streams is proposed. Trees will be retained as required by RMC 4-4-130 as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5. The on-site stream will be protected by the critical area ordinance compliant buffer that applies to it. The City's stonnwater regulations provide for adequate protection of water quality for the on-site stream and wetlands. 14 RMC 4-7-140: Approval of all subdivisions located in either single family residential or multi- 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 family residential zones as defined in the Zoning Code shall be contingent upon the subdivider 's dedication of land or providing fees in lieu of dedication to the City, all as necessary to mitigate the adverse effects of developmimt upon the existing park and recreation service levels. The requirements a_nd procedures for this mitigation shall be per the City of Renton Parks Mitigation Resolution. 11. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to building permit issuance. RMC 4-7-150(A): The proposed street system shall extend and create connections between existing streets unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. Prior to approving a street system that does no/ extend or connect, the Reviewing Official shall find that such exception shall meet the requirements of subsection E3 of this Section. The roadway classifications shall be as defined and designated by the Department. 12. As conditioned, the proposed street system connects existing streets. RMC 4-7-150(B): All proposed street names shall be approved by the City. 13. As conditioned. PRELIMINARY PLAT-22 development and use contemplated. Further subdivision of lots within a plat approved through the 2 provisions of this Chapter must be consistent with the then-current applicable maximum density requirement as measured within the plat as a whole. 3 21. As previously determined, the proposed lots comply with the zoning standards of the R-8 4 zone, which includes area, width and density. 5 RMC 4-7-170(0): Width between side lot lines at their foremost points (i.e., the points where the 6 side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way line) shall not be less than eighty percent (80%) of 7 the required lot width except in the cases of (1) pipestem lots, which shall have a minimum width of twenty feet (20') and (2) lots on a street curve or the turning circle of cul-de-sac (radial lots), which 8 shall be a minimum of thirty five feet (35'). 9 22. As shown in Ex. 3 7, the requirement is satisfied. 10 RMC 4-7-170(E): All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys, 11 shall have minimum radius of fifteen feet (15 '). 12 23. As conditioned. 13 RMC 4-7-190(A): Due regard shall be shown to all natural features such as large trees, 14 watercourses, and similar community assets. Such natural features should be preserved, thereby adding attractiveness and value to the property. 15 24. The on-site wetland and stream is set-aside from the developed portion of the subdivision. 16 The criteria above is met. 17 RMC 4-7-200(A): Unless septic tanks are specifically approved by the Public Works Department 18 and the King County Health Department, sanitary sewers shall be provided by the developer at no cost to the City and designed in accordance with City standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed 19 eight feet (8') into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision 20 development. 21 25. As conditioned. 22 RMC 4-7-200(B): An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage of all 23 surface water. Cross drains shall be provided to accommodate all natural water flow and shall be of sufficient length to permit fidl-1vidth roadway and required slopes. The drainage system shall be 24 designed per the requirements of RMC 4-6-030, Drainage (Surface Water) Standards. The drainage 25 system shall include detention capacity for the new street areas. Residential plats shall also include detention capacity for fature development of the lots. Water quality features shall also be designed to 26 provide capacity for the new street paving for the plat. PRELIMINARY PLAT-25 ' . • • . ' • 2 3 RC, R-1, and R-4 zones. Prior to approval of a plat without alley access, the Reviewing Official shall evaluate an alley layout and determine that the use of alley(s) is not feasible ... 6. Alternative Configurations: Off.set or loop roads are the preferred alternative configurations. 4 7. Cul-de-Sac Streets: Cul-de-sac streets may only be permitted by the Reviewing Official where due to demonstrable physical constraints no future connection to a larger street pattern is physically 5 possible. 6 16. The proposed and required connections are the maximum that can be included given the steep 7 slopes to the west, critical areas to the south, existing development and the vacant parcels to the 8 south. Lots I I -I 6 are accessed by an alley. The proposal as conditioned contains a looped road and no cul-de-sac is proposed. The criterion 9 above is met. IO RMC 4-7-lSO(F): All adjacent rights-of-way and new rights-of-way dedicated as part of the plat, I 1 including streets. roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their full width and the pavement and sidewalks shall be constructed as specified in the street standards or deferred by the 12 Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee. 13 14 17. As proposed. RMC 4-7-lSO(G): Streets that may be extended in the event of future adjacent platting shall be 15 required to be dedicated to the plat boundary line. Extensions of greater depth than an average lot 16 shall be improved with temporary turnarounds. Dedication of a fall-width boundary street shall be 17 18 19 20 required in certain instances to facilitate future development. 18. There are no streets that could be extended in the event of future adjacent platting under the approved subdivision design. RMC 4-7-170(A): Insofar as practical, side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial to curved street lines. As depicted in Ex. 3 7, the side lines are in conformance with the requirement quoted above. 21 19. 22 RMC 4-7-l 70(B): Each lot must have access to a public street or road. Access may be by private 23 access easement street per the requirements of the street standards. As previously determined, each lot has access to a public street. 24 20. 25 RMC 4-7-170(C): The size, shape, and orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area and width requirements of the applicable zoning classification and shall be appropriate for the type of 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT -24 1 2 3 4 5 6 All other lot corners shall be marked per the City surveying standards. C. STREET SIGNS: The subdivider shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision. 30. As conditioned. Street Improvement Waiver 7 31. RMC 4-6-060(H)(2) requires two means of access for homes served by a dead end street 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 longer than 700 feet The applicant wishes to have this secondary access requirement waived for the dead end street that serves it, Smithers Ave. S. The length of Smithers Ave. S. as extended by the proposed subdivision would be 2,364 feet. RMC 4-9-250(C)(2) authorizes the waiver of the installation of street improvements' subject to the determination that there is reasonable justification for such wavier. RMC 4-9-250(5) provides that reasonable justification shall include but not be limited to the following: a. Required street improvements will alter an existing wetlands or stream, or have a negative impact on a shoreline's area. b. Existing steep topography would make required street improvements infeasible. c. Required street improvements would have a negative impact on other properties, such as restricting available access. d. There are no similar improvements in the vicinity and there is little likelihood that the improvements will be needed or required in the next ten (JO) years. e. In no case shall a waiver be granted unless it is shown that there will be no detrimental effect on the public health, safety or welfare if the improvements are not installed, and that the improvements are not needed for current or future development. 22 ' The secondary access required by staff may not have to be "improved" since its sole purpose is to provide for emergency access and no paving or even grading may be necessary. The issue at hand could be characterized as 23 more of a street grid issue than a street improvement issue. Consequently, it is debatable whether the RMC 4-9- 250(C)(2) waiver process applies in this instance. The alternative modification process would be RMC 4-9-250(0), 24 which applies to those standards not covered by RMC 4-9-250(B) or (C). The proposal would also fail to meet the RMC 4-9-250(D), since authorizing one access point would not meet the intent or safety objectives of the Code. 25 The applicant used the criteria of RMC 4-9-250(8)(5) in its briefing, which clearly does not apply to the requested modification. The RCW 4-9-250(BX5) criteria only apply to the development standards expressly identified in 26 RCW 4-9-250(B)(l). RMC 4-6-060(H)(2) is not listed amongst those standards. PRELIMINARY PLAT-27 • •. J • ·' ' I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 26. The proposal provides for adequate drainage that is in conformance with applicable City drainage standards as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. The City's stormwater standards, which are incorporated into the technical information report and will be further implemented during civil plan review, ensure compliance with all of the standards in the criterion quoted above. RMC 4-7-200(C): The water distribution system including the locations of fire hydrants shall be designed and installed in accordance with City standards as defined by the Department and Fire Department requirements. 27. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-200(0): 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 9 planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all I O service connections, as approved by the Department. Such installation shall be completed and 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department. 28. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-200(E): Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded 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 subdivider as to obviate the 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 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 18 final ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to 19 the subdivider and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed. 20 29. As conditioned. 21 22 23 24 25 26 RMC 4-7-210: A. MONUMENTS: Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling corner of the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the Department. All surveys shall be per the City of Renton surveying standards. B. SURVEY: PRELIMINARY PLAT -26 2 connection could take decades to complete, it is doubtful that the Council would have intended a road stub to remain in place for decades without the mitigation required by RMC 4-6-060(H)(2). The most difficult issue raised by the applicant is the potential violation of its constitutional property 3 rights. It is logical to presume that the Council does not intend its development regulations to be 4 interpreted in a manner that is inconsistent with the constitutional rights of property applicants. At the least, violation of those rights is counter to the financial interests of the City since property rights 5 violation easily translate into damages claims. An exaction that exceeds the proportional responsibility of an applicant for a development impact is a violation of the takings clause. See, e.g. 6 Burton v. Clark County, 91 Wn. App. 505, 516-17 (1998). A strictly proportionate requirement from the applicant for a looped fire access road system would arguably just be requiring the construction of 7 that portion of the loop located on the preliminary plat property. However, even if this were 8 technically correct for strict proportionality, only rough proportionality is required in exactions cases. See, Sparks v. Douglas County, 127 Wn.2d 901, 918 (1995)("il is not necessary for the government to show a 9 "precise mathematical calculation" of the connection between the exaction and the impact of the proposed development.") It is also of high relevance that the public interest at stake is at the high end of the range of IO compelling government interests, namely public safety. Requiring the applicant to acquire access rights across private property to mitigate against congestion or aesthetic impacts may be questionable under a I I proportionality analysis. However, the City is in a very good position to argue that requiring the acquisition of access rights across one adjoining lot is entirely proportionate to avoiding the dangers identified by the I 2 Renton Fire Chief as attendant to placing an additional 20 homes near the end of a half mile dead end road. 13 Ultimately, the merits of the applicant's constitutional arguments do not have to be addressed. As previously discussed, the constitutional issues are relevant to the interpretation of City development 14 standards. Beyond this, the examiner has no authority to waive City development standards if they 15 violate the constitutional property rights of an applicant. RMC 4-9-250(C)(5)(e) strictly provides that "in no case" shall a waiver be granted unless it is shown that there will be no detrimental effect on the. 16 public health, safety or welfare. There may be some room to allow constitutional restrictions to influence what level of risk of harm should be considered "detrimental" under the standard, but that 17 only goes so far. The Renton Fire Chief testified that in case of emergency there was a danger that he may be prevented from dispatching his fire trucks to the proposed subdivision because of the half 18 mile long dead end road. As determined in the findings of fact, the applicant did not provide any 19 convincing evidence to the contrary. No matter how liberally construed to achieve consistency with constitutional requirements, there is no way to reach a conclusion of "no detrimental" effect on 20 public safety given the testimony of the fire chief. 21 22 23 24 25 26 DECISION The proposed preliminary plat and street improvement waiver is approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with mitigation measures issued as part of the Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance for the proposal. PRELIMJNARY PLAT -29 •. The requested waiver cannot be approved because it fails to meet RM.C 4-4-080(C)(5}(e}. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, waiver of the proposed secondary access requirement would 2 prevent the provision of safe and appropriate/adequate fire response. Consequently, the proposal will have a detrimental effect on public safety. As testified by the Fire Chief, one access point can prevent fire apparatus from reaching the subdivision in case of emergency due to large numbers of persons leaving the emergency scene or damage caused by the emergency (such as seismic events and wildfires). 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The applicant asserts that the proposed stub ending for Smithers Road does not qualify as a "dead end" under RMC 4-6-060(H), and hence the two access requirement does not apply. The applicant argues that a stub road should not be considered a dead end because it is only a temporary situation that will be removed upon development of the adjoining subdivision to the east. It is concluded that the proposed stub road qualifies as a dead end. This interpretation is supported by both the plain meaning and the intent of the ordinance. The Meriam Webster definition of "dead end" is "a street that ends instead of joining with another street so that there is only one way in and out of it". The proposed stub road clearly meets this definition. The idea that a stub road is not a "dead end" road IO does not meet the intent of the two access requirement, which is to prevent a dangerous situation. I I 12 13 14 15 The "temporary" road stub could be in place for years and even decades before the adjoining property to the east is developed. The risk of preventing fire access, which is what the two access requirement is designed to minimize, is not materially reduced by a stub road that could remain in place for this period of time. It is also noteworthy that the "dead end" situation for development along Smithers Ave. S. could have always been considered temporary, since Smithers will eventually form a looped system. Despite this "temporary" situation, staff in the Stonehaven development, located along S. 47th St. (which is an extension of the Smithers dead end street) still required a modification to the two access requirement ofRM.C 4-6-060(H)(2)4. See Ex. 37, att. J, Finding of Fact No. 14. 16 The applicant points out in its briefing that RMC 4-6-060(H)(I) provides that cul-de-sacs and dead ends should only be authorized in circumstances where no "future connection" to a road grid is physically possible. If "road stub" qualifies as a cul-de-sac or dead end, then RMC 4-6-060 would have to be read as only authorizing road stubs if no "future connection" to a road grid is possible, which of course makes no sense. The conclusion to be drawn from this language is either that (I) a cul-de-sac or dead end does not include a road stub; or (2) RMC 4-6-060(H)(l) impliedly only applies to permanent cul-de-sacs or dead ends (i.e. not road stubs). Given the plain meaning of the "cul-de- sac" and "dead end" terms and the fire safety objectives of RMC 4-6-060(H)(2), the latter interpretation is determinative. The City Council likely intended that RMC 4-6-060(H)(l) would require staff to only authorize permanent dead ends when it was physically not feasible to require a connection and if any dead ends had to be allowed, the fire safety impacts would be mitigated by the secondary access and sprinkler standards imposed by RMC 4-6-060(H)(2). Given that a "future" 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ' At the hearing the City Attorney noted that RMC 4-6-060 has been amended several times over the years and its unclear whether the same two access requirement applied to other subdivisions along the Smithers Ave S dead end 25 road system. A look at the legislative history available to the examiner reveals that RMC 4-6-060(H) has remained the same since at least 1995, when RMC 4-6-060 was first adopted. The Stonehaven preliminary plat was approved 26 in2004. PRELIMINARY PLAT-28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 trees shall not include Callery Pear and trees on S. 48th Pl shall be a different type from those on Smithers Ave S. 11. The Replacement Tree Plan shall be revised to show the proposed locations for replanting 140 two-inch diameter replacement trees. 12. Vegetation (trees, shrubs, and ground cover) shall be planted to replace vegetation (trees, shrubs, and ground cover) removed for installation of the stormwater conveyance between the stormwater vault and the west property boundary of the property. Type and quantities shall be sufficient to ensure erosion control in the protected slope area. 13. The primary access road, Smithers Ave S, shall connect to S 48th Pl and be extended to the east to provide a second access from Main Ave S (102nd Ave SE) at its intersection with SE 186th St. The completion of this street and its connection to Main Ave S shall be a condition of project approval. The extent of street improvements necessary to effectuate this connection shall be determined by the City of Renton Fire Department in accordance with applicable fire code standards and shall be the minimum necessary to provide for safe and effective secondary fire access. The extended street, providing a second access to the proposed development, shall have construction completed prior to recording the final plat. 14. A recorded easement agreement demonstrating access to the existing downslope stormwater control system shall be submitted prior to issuance of construction permits. 15. A Homeowners' Association shall be incorporated for maintenance and equal and undivided ownership of the tracts, the private access road, and the alley. 16. An easement shall be recorded along the east property boundary for future extension of the sanitary sewer system. The easement shall be at the time of recording the final plat. 17. All new fill shall be composed of free draining structural fill and not native soils. 18. Drainage from western lots into the steep slopes shall be minimized and all such drainage shall be dispersed. 19. Anchors for the stormwater tight line shall only be placed on the top and bottom of the pipe. The anchors should be designed to withstand tree fall and soil movement. The pipeline should be constructed at the top and pulled down the slope rather than moving it up the hill. PRELIMINARY PLAT-31 .. -, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2. All proposed street names shall be approved by the City. 3. All lot comers at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys, shall have minimum radius of fifteen feet (15'). 4. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet (8') into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision development. 5. 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 of Public Works. Such installation shall be completed and approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements 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 undergrounded 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 the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley improvement.~ when such 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 service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land owner. The applicant shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit ends shall be elbowed to final 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. The applicant shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision prior to final plat approval. 8. The easements for the alley shall authorize access to all lots of the proposed subdivision. 9. The applicant shall comply with nine the mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination ofNon-Significance Mitigated, dated August 26, 2014 [Exhibit 14]. 10. The applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan, meeting all landscape plan submittal requirements of RMC 4-8-120L. The detailed landscape shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of construction permits. Street PRELIMINARY PLAT-30 • • 2 3 4 5 6 DATED this 3rd day of October, 2014. City of Renton Hearing Exarniner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices 7 RMC 4-8-080 provides that the final decision of the bearing examiner is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-l 10(E)(l4) requires appeals of the hearing examiner's decision 8 to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision. 9 A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-l 10(E)(l3) and RMC 4-8-100(G)(9). A new fourteen (14) day IO appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall - 7th floor, (425) 430-6510. 11 12 Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes 13 notwithstanding any program of revaluation. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT-32 .. ' Denis Law ·r ----~M:•:yo:, ________ .... _. .! City of 1 ~t!.tOJ:l City Council February 3, 2015 APPEAL FILED BY: Brent Carson, Van Ness Feldman RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Final Decision upon Reconsideration dated November 15, 2014 regarding the Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat located at the 4800 Block of Smithers Ave. South (File No. LUA-13-000642) To Parties of Record: The Renton City Council's Planning & Development Committee will meet to deliberate the above- referenced item on the following date: Monday, February 23, 2015 3:00 p.m. 7'h Floor/Council Chambers City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington This Council Committee meeting is open to the public, but is not a public hearing. It is a working session of the Planning & Development Committee. No new testimony or evidence will be taken. The parties are, however, expected to attend and be prepared to explain why the Council Committee should uphold or overturn the decision of the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions regarding these meetings, please phone Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison, at 425-430-6555. Si~fdL__ ,1, Co,maa, Chai, Planning & Development Committee Renton City Council Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton,Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov ' , Cynthia Moya From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Julia Medzegian Wednesday, February 04, 2015 8:58 AM Jason Seth; Larry Warren; Mike@KenyonDisend.com; Cynthia Moya; 'Phil Olbrechts' (olbrechtslaw@gmail.com); Elizabeth Higgins; Jennifer T. Henning; Vanessa Dolbee; Steve Lee; Craig Burnell; Sabrina Mirante; Ed Prince; Randy Corman Vuecrest Appeal Notice of P&D Meeting Vuecrest Appeal Notice.pd/ The attached letter was mailed to all parties of record yesterday. Julia Julia Medzegian City Council Liaison City of Renton 425.430.6555 i medzegia n (al re n to nwa zov 1 Office of the City Clerk b~®Thi~@Iffi 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98057-3232 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED ~ Q \ Q__)J , . G~u~. n,,\ -I )-\ if' l ( IC J ceo\.~) Roger Banks cn"i OF REt,iTOli \\[Ii \l 'J., '/[]14 f\EcCtciVEl> err< CLERK'S oFflCE \J\}.. Q_ ~ / \77/ v-,\ -v \__,, . . . \::> 4763 Morris Ave S 'ileot9,o. WA 98055-63 7 ' (_/ NIXIE cc,· ::= ~2 n-:-' OU V) f- :.u U) "'"' o..U: 980 DE 1036 1)2 H/ $ 00.46° 'L?855~'C 1·;:,·,; 1 E' },~' , MAil ED FROM ZIPGODE 92,C,?.,1 0011/2<;/14 RETURN TO SENDER INSU=~ICIENT ADDRESS UNABLE TO ;QRWARD Ei:;;?. ,R.i Fi! L=::i t:J l"··f MF::: ':1 Ei (.i 5 3C: 98057323255 *2589-06661-29-3L 98 0 5 7 @3 2 3 2 I! j, i1 •i 1;,, 1,,, 111 !, II 111 I I 11 !\ ! ! , 11 ! ii! I\ 11 I{ I ld\11111 ;II, !.i, Office of the City Clerk '1.PrrsIID~@IID. s 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98057-3232 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED -1 o\\-. v(\-:r \ !' l \ \ ~_/ \J \j\___J-!--( l> 'v\_,\" /; ~ 0 \_; , v C}j.p Office of the City Clerk 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98057~}232 t:~ ..... CITY OF RENTON [)[! 02 201,'/ RECEIVED f:ITY CLERK'S OFFICE LUE PESTL 4726 BURNETI Ct S RENTON, WA 98055-7328 N1XI0: ,-- [l'...., :J '11!<! \ 1,,,., .... ' '' / '.!1 $ 00.46° ''·:!,~~.:ss:1·., •::-:· ,,.2 =~- 00 "',-w"' Cl'. er o..U:: r,·...--"':t,·:,;;;1(± M!'.\ILEDFRotvl ZlPCODE 9?1:1:,-;: 980 F:: l.035 0011/2.9/14 RETUPf~ TO SENDER Ar1·~~?TeD -~OT ~NQrii~ Lli4A~~E TO ~ORWARD 'H,iRi:if~iJ~ir\a3~j~;?SE: s c; 980573232SS ~2SB9-06997-29-3? rl1J;j!1l1\!ll)i11j11)i'l·Jl,!Jl_11_JJ_i!J;11i!11!1)1i1l1_1,!11l11;.111J ,--g;d U) ,- UJ"' "'"' Q_ u:: i~.:\:?~dr~};_·~ • .;.;.:. :, '""" """'' ·•·? 1 $ 00.46° • ,-•• ~ C, '-. • 0 ·r:1\i"L~L;;l~OM z1PZ(;0 1 [u s;::::,,_ ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED 'J- \:--\,\ / C ' c_;,V \ Q,· ',0U Q cj . '\'0-_/ '77 \) /\ '~ ~ ,,,. 'Jo v\y Gv ' C' ~ / // E=;.:: ./_,.,-- / wDliam & Stephanie Struyk ./ 4707 Smithers Ave S Renton, WA 98055-6399 i·~Il~LC Sf 8 l1 \)~·: .Ll:1j.b Ou.l.L/2.i/ .t~t ._Ji;' "3J1!HJi1 @?~"fl'"' s c: RETURN TO SENDER ATTEM?TED -NOT KNOWN JN~5LE TO FORWARD 98~573.232SS *258~-02 S4-23-3i I I\ 11 i I'! ! I • ! 111 i' ! 'I!! I l i" I I I 11 I I 11 i I i ' ' ' I t I'• 11 • ! 1 l i l 111 I I I Ii Office of the City Clerk ., r:JT c_~: ra -----lr\\®JJui@rm ~ 1055 South Grady Way-Renton WA 98057-3232 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED cc> . _/",-/ c-,1,_,'<Y IA. 'J- c .(,V . ,)YJJ .. V .,.._~/ . C) ·:'"J ,J ,sJU '\' / \ v\J--' S':if:::iO!":::E,::9-:8.iif:Sf:'1 @:i? :h i;n;i,i .. ,)/. I ;,;-:,,:, .. ,~;-;;:+B)' - ~ . ,,._,., ., . ' ,,· ·1'. ~-' \L:, f~-• ... 'llf_·_ I ' f'f ~ ..;l ·~-r~. '°. ) ,. l_, .......... ~-,-'r'f : ·· .. i_i: ·,"' -. , _.~·-L ,'._ .. ru:V,---: U0,.1~,._o':,'.:,.'.':: ,.-~ . #-; -.~-,JI·. --. ,- 1 . .l.2'... -~--~ Mt.dl[DrlU.'l'vl .iH·-'\, .[:, 1·11r.r," $ 00.69° 21:, 1 LUE PESTL CITY OF RE:NTON 4726 BURNETT Ct S RENTON, WA 98055-7328 DEC 12 20i4 REce,veo CITY CLERK'S OFFICE: ~v rJIX!E 9$U DE i009 a~12/10;'l4 RETURN TO ~ENDER VACANT UNABLE TO FORWARD BC: 98057323255 *0626-DS238-06-03 1\l1l\,•1\1111lll1il1l\11l,,j,ll1i•1•1\l1l111ll,!,,ljl,1llll1ll1I I' I' ' Denis Law · --· $ City of. _ _:May:..or. ------~.l~s· rrtu· r l December 5, 2014 City Clerk -Jason A. Seth, CMC APPEAL FILED BY: Brent Carson, Van Ness Feldman RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Final Decision upon Reconsideration dated November 15, 2014, regarding the Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat located at the 4800 Block of Smithers Ave. South (File No. LUA-13-000642) To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the hearing examiner's final decision upon reconsideration on Vuecrest Estates land use application has been filed with the City Clerk. In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 OF, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. Other parties of record may submit letters limited to support of their positions within ten (10) days of the date of mailing of the notification of the filing of the appeal. The deadline for submission of additional letters is 5:00 pm, Friday, December 19, 2014. NOTICE IS HEREBY GNEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee. The Council Liaison will notify all parties of record of the date and time of the Planning and Development Committee meeting. If you are not listed in local telephone directories and wish to attend the meeting, please call the Council Liaison at 425-430-6501 for information. The reco=endation of the Committee will be presented for consideration by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting. Enclosed you will find a copy of the appeal and a copy of the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeals of Hearing Examiner decisions or reco=endations. Please note that the City Council will be considering the merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. Unless a showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available at the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, no further evidence or testimony on this matter will be accepted by the City Council. For additional information or assistance, please feel free to call me at 425-430-6502. Enclosures cc: Council Liaison 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • (425) 430-6510 / Fax (425) 430-6516 • rentonwa.gov City of Renton Municipal Code; Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110 -Appeals 4-8-110C4 Filing of Appeal and Fee: The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 5- 1-2, the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982; Ord. 5660, 5-14-2012; Ord. 5688, 5-13-2013) 4-8-llOF: Appeals to City Council -Procedures 1. Standing: Unless otherwise provided by State law or exempted by a State or federal agency, only the applicant, City or a party of record who has been aggrieved or affected by the Hearing Examiner's decision and who participated in the Hearing Examiner's public hearing may appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision. A person(s) will be deemed to have participated in the public hearing process if that person(s): a. Testified or gave oral comments at the public hearing; or b. Submitted any written comments to City staff or the Hearing Examiner regarding the matter prior to the close of the hearing; or c. Has been granted status as or has requested to be made a party of record prior to the close of the public hearing. 2. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. 3. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. 4. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the applicant. If a transcript is made, the applicant is required to provide a copy to the City Clerk and the Renton City Attorney at no cost. It shall be presumed that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 5675, 12-3-2012) 5. Burden: The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. 6. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional arguments based on the record by parties. 7. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-8-070Hl, as it exists or may be amended, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may modify or reverse the decision of the Hearing Examiner accordingly. (Ord. 5675, 12-3- 2012} 8. Decision Documentation: The decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. 9. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejecting a decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames established under subsection GS of this Section. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982; Ord. 4389, 1-25-1993; Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997; Ord. 5558, 10-25-2010) I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 CITY OF qENTON ·,fl\ NOV 2 6 2014 C .,., ·:, \v RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF RENTON 9 RE: Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Preliminary Plat LUA13-000642 APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDSERATION The Applicant for Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat, by and through its counsel of record, Brent Carson and Van Ness Feldman LLP, files this appeal of the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision Upon Reconsideration dated November 15, 2014 (the "Decision") and asks the City Council to eliminate or modify Condition 13 of the Decision for the reasons set forth below. I. Standing Pursuant to Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-8-11 O(F), the Applicant has standing to appeal the Hearing Examiner's Decision. APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION I I Van Ness Feldman"' 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 1 II. Substantial Errors Justifying Elimination or Modification of Condition 13 2 A. Introduction 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 This Appeal is focused entirely on the requirement of Condition 13 in the Decision. Condition 13 forces the Applicant to extend a public road, Smithers Ave. S., over adjoining private property that the Applicant does not own or control. The record demonstrates that the owner of that adjoining private property refused to grant the Applicant any rights of access. With the condition, as imposed, the Applicant has no ability to develop the Vuecrest Estate's plat. No other subdivision previously approved in this area under the same conditions has been placed in this unfair, unreasonable and illegal predicament. These prior subdivisions each extended Smithers Ave. S. through their properties and ended that public road with a temporary cul-de-sac. The Applicant for Vuecrest Estates likewise proposed to extend Smithers Ave. S. through its property and build a temporary cul-de-sac at the end of its property. When the adjoining property to the east develops, Smithers Ave. S. will be extended by that owner to Main Ave. S. (102"d Ave. SE) providing a secondary access route for this neighborhood. Unfortunately, unlike each of the prior subdivision approvals, the Hearing Examiner in this case rejected a temporary cul-de-sac and imposed Condition 13, which requires the Applicant, prior to final plat approval, to extend Smithers Ave. S. to the east, across another owner's private property, to connect to Main Ave. S. In addition to the disparate treatment ofVuecrest Estates, as compared with other subdivisions in this neighborhood, the Staff in this case misrepresented to the Applicant APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 2 I Van Ness Feldman~, 719 Second Avenue 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 that a temporary cul-de-sac would be approved. At the very start of the process, the Fire Department's representative stated in writing to the Applicant that: "A proposed temporary cul-de-sac would be acceptable if it meets all required dimensions and construction requirements." Exhibit 35, Att. B. The City's senior planner also confirmed the City's position on the acceptance of a temporary cul-de-sac: "The City is asking that you provide stub to the property to the east but are not asking you to make the improvements to provide secondary access as part of the proposed development. However, without the secondary access a cul-de-sac would be required for fire tum around . . . ." Ex. 35, Att. C. When the City Staff proposed that the Applicant apply for a variance in order to approve a temporary cul-de-sac, Staff wrote: "it will be supported by the City." Ex. 35, Att. H. Based on the Staffs clear representations to the Applicant on the acceptability of a temporary cul-de-sac, the Applicant invested hundreds of thousands of dollars to process this preliminary plat and address all issues raised by the City. If a secondary access were going to be required, the Applicant would not have a proceeded with this project. Yet, when the staff report was issued weeks before the Preliminary Plat public hearing, the Staff reversed course, rejecting the previously accepted temporary cul-de-sac design, and demanding extension of Smithers Ave. S. to 102 Ave. SE. The Staffs behavior in this matter and their last-minute reversal justifies the City Council to question the credibility of the City's testimony and to strike or revise Condition 13. APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 3 I Van Ness Feldman,., 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 981 04 (206) 623-9372 1 B. A Temporary Cul-De-Sac Complies with RMC 4-6-060.H.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 The Hearing Examiner erred by finding that a temporary cul-de-sac, as proposed by the Applicant, and as originally accepted by Staff, failed to meet the requirements of RMC 4-6-060.H.1. The City's dead end street standards prohibit permanent dead end streets unless a future connection is physically impossible. RMC 4-6-060.H.1. However, this code provision, as previously interpreted by City Staff, allows a temporary cul-de-sac to be built if, in the future, that road can be extended when the adjoining property is developed. The Applicant did not propose a permanent dead end street. Instead, it proposed a temporary cul-de-sac. To mitigate impacts, the Applicant proposed to install sprinkler systems on every home in the development and to provide an internal circulation road within the plat. Moreover, development ofVuecrest Estates would bring this neighborhood one step closer to having a completed secondary access. With Condition 13, the plat cannot develop and the opportunity to extend Smithers Ave. S. closer to 102"d Ave. SE is lost. 18 C. 19 If Required, a Variance from the Secondary Access Requirement Should have been Granted 20 21 22 23 24 25 As presented above, the temporary cul-de-sac should have been approved without the need for a variance. However, if a variance is required, it should have been granted by the Hearing Examiner. Council should reverse the Hearing Examiner and grant the vanance. APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 4 I Van Ness Feldman,~ 719 Second Avenue 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 1. The Hearing Examiner Applied the Wrong Variance Criteria. The Hearing Examiner mistakenly applied the street improvement modification provisions set forth in RMC 4-9-250(C) rather than the variance provisions in RMC 4-9- 250(B). Had the correct variance provisions been applied, the unrefuted evidence presented by the Applicant and its experts should have led the Hearing Examiner to grant the variance from the secondary access requirements. The subject application was for a Preliminary Plat. Preliminary Plats are regulated under Title IV, Chapter 7 of the Municipal Code. RMC 4-7-150 establishes the general and minimum street requirements for plats. RMC 4-7-l 50(D), which imposes the requirements for streets in subdivisions, states that: "The street standards set by RMC 4- 6-060 shall apply unless otherwise approved." (Emphasis Added). The street standards in RMC 4-6-060 include those provisions in RMC 4-6-060(H) Dead End Streets. Thus, in a plat application, the street standards in RMC 4-6-060 are applied through the minimum street requirements as set forth in Chapter 7, Section 4-7-150 and may be varied in the preliminary plat approval. The Hearing Examiner is given express authority to grant variances from the requirements for subdivisions, as set forth in Chapter 7, including variances from the street standards. See RMC 4-7-240(1 ). The Hearing Examiner may grant such a variance by following the variance procedures set forth in RMC 4-9-250(B). RMC 4-7-240(A) states: "A variance from the requirements of this Chapter may be approved by the Hearing Examiner, pursuant to RMC 4-9-250(B)". APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 5 I Van Ness Feldman , 719 Second Avenue 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 The Applicant applied for a variance under RMC 4-9-250(8), seeking a variance from the secondary access standards in RMC 4-6-060, which were being imposed on this subdivision through RMC 4-7-150. Exhibit 35, Art. I. The variance application provided an analysis showing compliance with each of the four criteria under RMC 4-9-250(8) including, in particular, criteria RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(b) which states that "the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated." The Applicant never asked for a street improvement modification under section RMC 4-9-250(C). It was an error for the Hearing Examiner to apply the street improvement modification provisions, under RMC 4-9-250(C), when a variance was sought under RMC 4-7-240(A). 2. The Evidence Supports the Granting of a Variance Witnesses for the Applicant presented unrefuted evidence that the variance criteria had been met and that the variance should have been granted. See Testimony of Mr. Maher Joudi; Testimony of Mr. Carl Anderson; and written testimony of Vincent J. Geglia, Exhibit 35, Att. K. Mr. Vince Geglia, a traffic engineer with TraffEX, provided a report demonstrating that the surrounding streets in this neighborhood carry low volumes of traffic at relatively low speeds and concluding that the risk of traffic accidents that would block access to emergency vehicles is very low. Exhibit 35, Att. K. His report also confirms that the looped road proposed for Vuecrest Estates will provide opportunities for circulation of emergency vehicles within the plat. APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 6 I Van Ness Feldman ue 719 Second Avenue 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 Mr. Maher Joudi, a civil engineer with D R Strong Consulting Engineers Inc., testified that the wide roadways (32.5' of pavement) and adjacent sidewalks ( 4.5' each side) provide a total width of over 40 feet for an emergency vehicle to travel from the intersection of I 02 Ave. SE and SE 186th Street to the proposed development. He noted the minimal on-street parking on these streets, given that each home along this roadway has a garage and off-street parking in their driveway. Mr. Carl Anderson, a registered Fire Protection Engineer with The Fire Protection International Consortium, Inc., presented expert testimony regarding the minimal risks to life and safety posed by this development without having a secondary access and the significant reduction in risk by the Applicant agreeing to install sprinklers in every home. His unrefuted testimony was that the addition of 20 lots "would not be a significant detriment to public safety based on what's already in the area." The allegation by Staff, that this project would create a dead end street being 2400 feet long with 99 homes on it was fully refuted by Mr. Carl Anderson who demonstrated that only 800 feet of the roadway would have a single access because of internal secondary access loops that are provided off this street along its length. Mr. Anderson also confirmed that, of the 99 homes that Staff alleged to be on this street, 42 of those are on two different streets, S. 47th PL and SE 185th PL, that have no impact on access to and from Vuecrest Estates. Furthermore, of the existing 57 homes not on those two streets, 36 are within the Stonehaven Plat that has a looped road, which allows for two ways of access or egress within that plat. APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 7 I Van Ness Feldman'" 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 These facts, coupled with the significant mitigation of sprinklering these homes, led Mr. Anderson to his expert opinion that there would be no material detriment to public safety by granting the requested variance. That testimony is unrefuted. If the City Council determines that a variance was required, based upon this testimony, the City Council should grant that variance and strike Condition 13 from the Decision. 8 D. Condition 13 is Arbitrary and Capricious 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Requiring Vuecrest Estates to provide secondary access in this case, as imposed by Condition 13, is arbitrary and capricious. The prior subdivisions in this neighborhood were authorized to extend Smithers Ave. S. through their properties to a temporary cul-de- sac. No secondary access was required for these other projects. Vuecrest Estates merely sought to be treated like all other applicants under similar conditions. There is no basis to impose on secondary access requirement on this applicant. It is also arbitrary and capricious to require secondary access given the City Staffs express representations to the Applicant that a secondary access would not be required. Those representations were made four separate times. In the second Pre-Application meeting, the City's Fire Department representative stated the Fire Department's position clearly: "A proposed temporary cul-de-sac would be acceptable ... " Ex. 35, Att. 8. This was reconfirmed in the Fire Department's email: "the actual [secondary access] connection does not have to be achieved at this time." Ex. 35, Att. C. After the project was put on hold, and there were further discussions with City Staff and the Mayor and the City attorney's office, the Fire Chief elected to withdraw an earlier letter, and the City APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 8 I Van Ness Feldman'" 719 Second Avenue 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 informed the Applicant that the application would be processed for approval without a secondary access. According to the testimony of Ms. Higgins, withdrawal of the Fire Chiefs earlier letter was done specifically to induce the Applicant to continue processing its plat application. In January 2014, when the City informed the applicant that a formal variance application was required, it was made clear in Ms. Higgins' email that the City supported this variance request. Ex. 35, Att. H. In light of these representations, Condition 13 should be eliminated and a temporary cul-de-sac authorized. E. Condition 13 Violates RCW 82.02.020 RCW 82.02.020 restricts the City from imposing conditions on a plat where there is no nexus and rough proportionality between the condition imposed and the alleged impacts. See City of Federal Way v. Town & Country Real Estate, LLC, 161 Wn.App. 17, 45 (2011). Here, the roads serving this plat are adequate. There is no permanent dead end street proposed, merely a temporary cul-de-sac. This project is providing its fair share contribution to a future secondary access by extending Smithers Ave. S. through its property. This is consistent with the City's approval of the prior plats in the neighborhood that were approved under similar circumstances without requiring a secondary access. The obligation in Condition 13 to extend Smithers Ave. S. to the east, across property that the Applicant does not own or control is a heavy burden that far exceeds the impacts caused by the project. The added risk to public safety from approval of these 20 homes is negligible. The Applicant attempted, in good faith, to acquire rights from the adjoining owner to extend the road to the east, and that owner would not agree to grant APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 9 I Van Ness Feldmanm 719 Second Avenue 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 such access rights. Condition 13 is therefore impossible to meet and effectively results in denial of this project. With Condition 13, as written, until the property to the east develops or agrees to dedicate a right-of-way to the City, no reasonable use can be made of the subject property. This raises the potential of a uncompensated taking. F. Condition 13 Violates the Applicant's Substantive Due Process Rights Condition 13 also violates the Applicant's substantive due process rights. A land use regulation violates substantive due process where (I) the regulation fails to achieve a legitimate public purpose; (2) the means adopted are not reasonably necessary to achieve that purpose; or (3) the regulations are unduly burdensome on the property owner. Robinson v. City of Seattle, 119 Wn.2d 34 (1992). While the City's proposed secondary access requirement may meet the first prong, it fails the second two. A secondary access is not reasonably necessary. The roads serving this plat meet or exceed City standards. There is ample width for emergency vehicles to access this plat. The total road and sidewalk width of over forty feet ( 40'), the low traffic volumes, the low speeds through this neighborhood, and low probability of blocking accidents and the internal circulation demonstrate that the risk of a fire truck or ambulance failing to gain access to this plat through existing access roads is negligible. To mitigate impacts, every home in this development will have a sprinkler system, designed to quickly and effectively respond to a fire emergency. Smithers Ave. S. will be extended through Vuecrest Estates eastward to the adjoining property that fronts on I 02"d Ave. SE. Vuecrest Estates moves this neighborhood one step closer to achieving the desire for secondary access. The other plats in this neighborhood were approved without a APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 10 I Van Ness Feldman'" 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 secondary access. Expert testimony from the Applicant's witnesses demonstrated that there is no significant increase in risk from the addition of twenty new homes. Regarding the third factor, courts consider the (a) nature of the harm to be avoided; (b) the availability and effectiveness of less drastic measures; and (c) the economic loss suffered by the property owner. Presbytery of Seattle v. King Cy., 114 Wn.2d 320,331, (1990). Other nonexclusive factors that may be helpful in the balancing required under the third factor include the seriousness of the public problem, the extent to which the landowner's property contributes to the problem, the degree to which the regulation solves the problem, and the feasibility ofless burdensome solutions. Id. Here, imposition of Condition 13 effectively results in denial of the project, the loss of over hundreds of thousands of dollars invested to date in the Project and the loss of millions of dollars in lost profit. The City already approved neighboring plats on this same road without requiring a secondary access, so the determination was already made by the City that this is not a serious problem. Moreover, the repeated position of City Staff that a secondary access connection would not be required for Vuecrest Estates confirms that City Staff did not observe this to be a serious issue. The Applicant made a good faith effort to either acquire the adjoining property.to the east or acquire a right-of- way through that property, but the adjacent owner would not agree to sell or grant such a right-of-way. There are far less burdensome solutions to address the City's concerns and these have been agreed upon. Every home will have a fire sprinkler. An alley has been APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 11 I Van Ness Feldman'" 719 Second Avenue 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 designed to provide a looped system through this plat to provide enhanced maneuverability around the homes. The internal roads have been designed 4 feet wider than the City minimum standards. All of these measures address the City's concern with far less impact on the Applicant. III. Relief Requested For all of the reasons noted above, we urge the City Council to strike Condition 13 from the Decision. In the alternative, we ask the City Council to revise Condition 13 to allow the Applicant to provide secondary access in ways other than extending Smithers Ave. S. immediately to the east and to the specified intersection. As shown in Exhibit 37, on sheet 1 of 1, there is one parcel ofland (the "Easterly Parcel") immediately east of the easterly end of Smithers Ave. S. as proposed to be built by the Applicant. Mr. Jamie Waltier testified that the owner of this Easterly Parcel will not sell his property or provide an easement for secondary access. Exhibit 37 shows on Sheet 1 of 1 another parcel ofland (the "Southeasterly Parcel") located between Tract "B" and Tract "C" on the Proposed Vuecrest Estates plat and 102nd Ave. SE. Secondary access might be available through that parcel. Condition 13, as currently written, reads: Prior to the recording of the final plat, a secondary fire access shall be constructed that extends Smithers Ave S to the east to directly connect to Main Ave S (102nd Ave SE). The extent of street improvements necessary to effectuate this connection shall be determined by the City of Renton Fire Department in accordance with applicable fire code standards and shall be the minimum necessary to provide for safe and effective secondary access for fire trucks and emergency vehicles. APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 12 I Van Ness Feldman"' 719 Second Avenue 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 As written, it appears that this condition can only be satisfied by acquiring a public access easement through the Easter] y Parcel and providing a fire access road to the specified intersection. Even if a secondary access could be established between the plat to a location on I oznd Ave. SE through the Southeasterly Parcel, or through some other parcel, it would appear that this would not meet the specific terms of Condition 13. If the City Council does not strike Condition 13, which it should do, Condition 13 should, at a minimum, be revised to read as follows: Prior to the recording of the final plat. a secondary fire access shall be constructed providing a second means of access from Main Ave S (I 02nd Ave. SE) to the plat by fire trucks and emergency vehicles. The extent of street improvements necessary to effectuate this connection shall be determined by the City of Renton Fire Department in accordance with applicable fire code standards and shall be the minimum necessary to provide for safe and effective secondary access for fire trucks and emergency vehicles At least this revised condition will provide the Applicant with some flexibility to seek a secondary fire access route. Dated this 26th day of November, 2014. APPEAL OF HEARING E~MINER'S FINAL DECISION UPON RE CONSIDERATION 13 I Van Ness Feldman'" 719 Second Avenue 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 I, Jennifer Sower, declare as follows: That I am over the age of 18 years, not a party to this action, and competent to be a witness herein; That I, as a legal assistant in the office of Van Ness Feldman, LLP, caused true and correct copies of the following documents to be delivered as set forth below: I. Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Final Decision Upon Reconsideration; and 2. Exhibits 35 and 37 entered into the record in September 16, 2014 hearing; and 3. This Certificate of Service and that on November 26, 2014, I addressed said documents and deposited them for delivery as follows: Mr. Jason Seth Acting Deputy Clerk City of Renton Clerk's Office 1055 S. Grady Way Seventh Floor Renton, WA 98057 Larry Warren Renton City Attorney Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 [ x] Via hand delivery [x] Via email [x] Via U.S. mail lwarren@rentonwa.gov I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. EXECUTED at Seattle, Washington on this 261h day of November, 2014. APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 14 I Van Ness Feldman"' 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 December 5, 2014 STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING CERTIFICATE OF MAILING ) ) § ) Jason A. Seth, Acting City Clerk for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter. That on the 5th day of December, 2014, at the hour of 4:30 p.m. your affiant duly mailed and placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail to all parties of record, notice of appeal filed by Brent Carson, Van Ness Feldman of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon reconsideration regarding the Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat (File No. LUA-13-000642). SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 5th day of December, 2014. Btsy Peel® ~tl.~:,-vu~-· ~se Avery® 'l"empi'.:te ~r Rebecca Evers 706 S 47th St Rent-0n, WA 98055 Henry Cooks 712 S 50th St Renton, WA 98055 Nancv Osborn 4635 Morris Ave 5, #F Renton, WA 98055 Steve Yantorni 718 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055 John Sperber 735 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055-6272 LUE PESTL 4726 BURNETT Ct 5 RENTON, WA 98055-7328 Carl Anderson 4706 Snowgrass Dr Olympia, WA 98516 Darshan Malhi 4712 Burnett Ct S Renton, WA 98055-7328 John Basinger 1441 N 34th St Seattle, WA 98103 ·-···· ·-· ... ·-------. ...,. ----·------- Thu Bui 4709 Burnett Ct s Renton, WA 98055-7328 :~BHtC!!i.MIWC r ~ Utilisez le gabarit AVE 5160® I I I , I I I • ! -T''-wu~ ... ··:'ieoaiilong iil'flPl'WJ.as ·: Jiee8~~r -•1 \tfM~''l>op-Up Edgy"M J asnim Khalil 1003 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055-7325 Philip Davis 4767 Whitworth Pl 5, LlOl Renton, WA 98055 . -·. -·--------- Annie Lee 867 5 48th St Renton, WA 98055-7337 ---··"· - Chinh Pham 4703 Burnett Ct 5 Renton, WA 98055-7328 Kolin Taylor KBS 111, LLC 12320 NE 8th St, #100 Bellevue, WA 98005 Ellen Breiten 4612 MORRIS Ave S RENTON, WA 98056-6373 - William & Stephanie Struyk 4707 Smithers Ave S Renton, WA 98055-6399 Michael & Brittnee Martinez 901 S 48th St Renton, WA 98055-7338 Janet Alabado 911 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055-7319 ------,-·-··- Pak Ming Chiu 902 S 48th St Renton, WA 98055-7338 r n,8fip3 dn-dod 85~XO -Jad~ I i siWrlYU fiuo1e p nez a ,a nacnu~ :,:tJo™ : chargement velor I@ iJ&lb Pop-p J oria Hunter 4 727 Burnett Ct S Renton, WA 98055-7328 Brent Carson Van Ness Feldmen 719 Second Ave, Suite 1150 Seattle, WA. qir/Olf Jamie Waltier Harbour Homes, LLC 1441 N 34th St, 200 Seattle, WA 98103 Ron Hansen 4717 Smithers Ave S Renton, WA 98055 David Rasmussen Sundance at Talbot Ridge -HOA 723 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055-6272 Jason Murray Mosaic Homes 2505 3rd Ave, Ste. 300 Seattle, WA 98121 Henry Cooks 712 S 50th St Renton. WA 98055-6342 Borgata Apartments & Townhomes 2505 3rd Ave 5, #300 Seattle, WA 98121 Phong Tran 1011 S 48th St Renton, WA 98055-7352 Eric & Cheryl Hanson 4711 Smithers Ave S Renton, WA 98055-6399 r I I I ;E.,sy PseeJ®~o:i·oos-~ luseAvery®-~ Sandeep Mangla 724 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055 Roger Jaques 4762 Whitworth Pl S Renton, WA 98055-8359 Johnny Cheng 4739 Burnett Ct S Renton, WA 98055-7328 Ginny Knox 4901 Morris Ave 5, #SS202 Renton. WA 98055-8398 Owen Reese 3421 62nd Ave SW Seattle, WA 98116 Jim Condelles 855 S 48th St Renton, WA 98055 I I J I I I J len Breiten 4612 MORRIS Ave S RENTON, WA 98056-6373 Phillip Davis 4767 Whitworth Pl S Renton, WA 98055-8355 Ltanva Terrell Jones 5527 Charlotte Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092 -·" . ---- Maher Joudi D.R. Strong Consulting Eng. 620 NE 7th Ave Kirkland, WA 98033 -- Joseph & Martha Mackenzie 4835 Main Ave S Renton, WA 98055-6309 Pawandeeo & Kuldeeo Natt 866 5 48th St Renton, WA 98055-7337 r .~Mn-dOd OSll@llllez ... Ill .... ohliilll!'!lflli'ill! I I "sllfll 6uo1• pu?llveler PopllJp'" ,' 1 chargem nt ' @09~ 3~@1~~: 1ad ~ ••IP•J. sa»anb!+;i.l. •• nh & Chi Le 903 S 47th St Renton. WA 98055-7319 Tammy & Travis Martinez 4619 Morris Ave S Renton, WA 98055 Schneider Homes I LLC 6510 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 1 Tukwila, WA 98188 Hanh Tran 861 S 48th St Renton. WA 98055-7337 Roger Banks 4763 Morris Ave S Renton, WA 98055-6374 William & Lynn Sebring 4706 Burnett Ct S Renton, WA 98055-7328 r ' ' ' '\'.Y ~~~ City Clerk's Office Distribution List I·~. Appeal to Council, Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat :1:~N'l'O~ LUA-13-000642 -Date: 12/5/2014 1 City Attorney Larry Warren 1 City Council * Julia Medzegian 7 Community and Economic Chip Vincent, CED Administrator Development Jennifer Henning, Planning Director Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Mgr Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner Steve Lee, Development Engineering Mgr Craig Burnell, Building Official Sabrina Mirante, Secretary, Planning Division 1 Fire Marshall 1 Fire & Emergency Services Mark Peterson 9 Planning Commission Judith Subia 1 Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman 1 PW/Transportation Services Doug Jacobson 1 PW/Utilities & Tech Services Lys Hornsby 1 LUA-13-000642 48 Parties of Record (see attached list) *City Clerk's Letter & POR List only 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 CITY OF RENTON iW V 2 6 2014 ( /.-'\\\ ·.1. ' 11, 7 RECEIVED CITY CLEHK'S CFFICE 1/,L'-IJ'W{,, \..cc\ •. ~ ,,~"-, .. , .. '<'{ ,,:. BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF RENTON 9 RE: Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Preliminary Plat LUAJ 3-000642 APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDSERA TION The Applicant for Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat, by and through its counsel of record, Brent Carson and Van Ness Feldman LLP, files this appeal of the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision Upon Reconsideration dated November 15, 2014 (the "Decision") and asks the City Council to eliminate or modify Condition 13 of the Decision for the reasons set forth below. I. Standing Pursuant to Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-8-11 O(F), the Applicant has standing to appeal the Hearing Examiner's Decision. APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION I Van Ness Feldman'" 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 II. Substantial Errors Justifying Elimination or Modification of Condition 13 2 A. Introduction 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 This Appeal is focused entirely on the requirement of Condition 13 in the Decision. Condition 13 forces the Applicant to extend a public road, Smithers Ave. S., over adjoining private property that the Applicant does not own or control. The record demonstrates that the owner of that adjoining private property refused to grant the Applicant any rights of access. With the condition, as imposed, the Applicant has no ability to develop the Vuecrest Estate's plat. No other subdivision previously approved in this area under the same conditions has been placed in this unfair, unreasonable and illegal predicament. These prior subdivisions each extended Smithers Ave. S. through their properties and ended that public road with a temporary cul-de-sac. The Applicant for Vuecrest Estates likewise proposed to extend Smithers Ave. S. through its property and build a temporary cul-de-sac at the end of its property. When the adjoining property to the east develops, Smithers A vc. S. will be extended by that owner to Main Ave. S. ( 102"d Ave. SE) providing a secondary access route for this neighborhood. Unfortunately, unlike each of the prior subdivision approvals, the Hearing Examiner in this case rejected a temporary cul-de-sac and imposed Condition 13, which requires the Applicant, prior to final plat approval, to extend Smithers Ave. S. to the east, across another owner's private property, to connect to Main Ave. S. In addition to the disparate treatment ofVuecrest Estates, as compared with other subdivisions in this neighborhood, the Staff in this case misrepresented to the Applicant APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 2 I Van Ness Feldman''" 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that a temporary cul-de-sac would be approved. At the very start of the process, the Fire Department's representative stated in writing to the Applicant that: "A proposed temporary cul-de-sac would be acceptable if it meets all required dimensions and construction requirements." Exhibit 35, Att. B. The City's senior planner also confirmed the City's position on the acceptance of a temporary cul-de-sac: "The City is asking that you provide stub to the property to the cast but are not asking you to make the improvements to provide secondary access as part of the proposed development. However, without the secondary access a cul-de-sac would be required for fire turn around .... " Ex. 35, Att. C. When the City Staff proposed that the Applicant apply for a variance in order to approve a temporary cul-de-sac, Staff wrote: "it will be supported hy the City." Ex. 35, Att. H. Based on the Staffs clear representations to the Applicant on the acceptability of a temporary cul-de-sac, the Applicant invested hundreds of thousands of dollars to process this preliminary plat and address all issues raised by the City. If a secondary access were going to be required, the Applicant would not have a proceeded with this project. Yet, when the staff report was issued weeks before the Preliminary Plat public hearing, the Staff reversed course, rejecting the previously accepted temporary cul-de-sac design, and demanding extension of Smithers Ave. S. to 102 Ave. SE. The Staff's behavior in this matter and their last-minute reversal justifies the City Council to question the credibility of the City's testimony and to strike or revise Condition 13. APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 3 I Van Ness Feldman"' 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 I 12 13 14 15 16 17 8. A Temporary Cul-De-Sac Complies with RMC 4-6-060.H. l The Hearing Examiner erred by finding that a temporary cul-de-sac, as proposed by the Applicant, and as originally accepted by Staff, failed to meet the requirements of RMC 4-6-060.H. l. The City's dead end street standards prohibit permanent dead end streets unless a future connection is physically impossible. RMC 4-6-060.H. l. However, this code provision, as previously interpreted by City Staff, allows a temporary cul-de-sac to be built if, in the future, that road can be extended when the adjoining property is developed. The Applicant did not propose a permanent dead end street. Instead, it proposed a temporary cul-de-sac. To mitigate impacts, the Applicant proposed to install sprinkler systems on every home in the development and to provide an internal circulation road within the plat. Moreover, development ofVuecrest Estates would bring this neighborhood one step closer to having a completed secondary access. With Condition 13, the plat cannot develop and the opportunity to extend Smithers Ave. S. closer to 102"<l Ave. SE is lost. 18 c. 19 If Required, a Variance from the Secondary Access Requirement Should have been Granted 20 21 22 23 24 25 As presented above, the temporary cul-de-sac should have been approved without the need for a variance. However, if a variance is required, it should have been granted by the Hearing Examiner. Council should reverse the Hearing Examiner and grant the vanance. APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 4 I Van Ness Feldman"' 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1. The Hearing Examiner Applied the Wrong Variance Criteria. The Hearing Examiner mistakenly applied the street improvement modification provisions set forth in RMC 4-9-250(C) rather than the variance provisions in RMC 4-9- 250(8). Had the correct variance provisions been applied, the unrefuted evidence presented by the Applicant and its experts should have led the Hearing Examiner to grant the variance from the secondary access requirements. The subject application was for a Preliminary Plat. Preliminary Plats are regulated under Title IV, Chapter 7 of the Municipal Code. RMC 4-7-150 establishes the general and minimum street requirements for plats. RMC 4-7-1 SO(D), which imposes the requirements for streets in subdivisions, states that: "The street standards set by RMC 4- 6-060 shall apply unless otherwise approved." (Emphasis Added). The street standards in RMC 4-6-060 include those provisions in RMC 4-6-060(H) Dead End Streets. Thus, in a plat application, the street standards in RMC 4-6-060 are applied through the minimum street requirements as set forth in Chapter 7, Section 4-7-150 and may be varied in the preliminary plat approval. The Hearing Examiner is given express authority to grant variances from the requirements for subdivisions, as set forth in Chapter 7, including variances from the street standards. See RMC 4-7-240(1 ). The Hearing Examiner may grant such a variance by following the variance procedures set forth in RMC 4-9-250(8). RMC 4-7-240(A) states: "A variance from the requirements of this Chapter may be approved by the Hearing Examiner, pursuant to RMC 4-9-250(8)". APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 5 I Van Ness Feldman'" 719 Second Avenue 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 The Applicant applied for a variance under RMC 4-9-250(8), seeking a variance from the secondary access standards in RMC 4-6-060, which were being imposed on this subdivision through RMC 4-7-150. Exhibit 35, Att. I. The variance application provided an analysis showing compliance with each of the four criteria under RMC 4-9-250(8) including, in particular, criteria RMC 4-9-250(8)(5)(b) which states that "the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated." The Applicant never asked for a street improvement modification under section RMC 4-9-250(C). It was an error for the Hearing Examiner to apply the street improvement modification provisions, under RMC 4-9-250(C), when a variance was sought under RMC 4-7-240(A). 2. The Evidence Supports the Granting of a Variance Witnesses for the Applicant presented unrefuted evidence that the variance criteria had been met and that the variance should have been granted. See Testimony of Mr. Maher Joudi; Testimony of Mr. Carl Anderson; and written testimony of Vincent J. Geglia, Exhibit 35, Att. K. Mr. Vince Geglia, a traffic engineer with TraffEX, provided a report demonstrating that the surrounding streets in this neighborhood carry low volumes of traffic at relatively low speeds and concluding that the risk of traffic accidents that would block access to emergency vehicles is very low. Exhibit 35, Att. K. His report also confirms that the looped road proposed for Vuecrest Estates will provide opportunities for circulation of emergency vehicles within the plat. APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 6 I Van Ness Feldmanu 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Mr. Maher Joudi, a civil engineer with DR Strong Consulting Engineers Inc., testified that the wide roadways (32.5' of pavement) and adjacent sidewalks (4.5' each side) provide a total width of over 40 feet for an emergency vehicle to travel from the intersection of 102 Ave. SE and SE 186th Street to the proposed development. He noted the minimal on-street parking on these streets, given that each home along this roadway has a garage and off-street parking in their driveway. Mr. Carl Anderson, a registered Fire Protection Engineer with The Fire Protection International Consortium, Inc., presented expert testimony regarding the minimal risks to life and safety posed by this development without having a secondary access and the significant reduction in risk by the Applicant agreeing to install sprinklers in every home. His unrefuted testimony was that the addition of20 lots "would not be a significant detriment to public safety based on what's already in the area." The allegation by Staff, that this project would create a dead end street being 2400 feet long with 99 homes on it was fully refuted by Mr. Carl Anderson who demonstrated that only 800 feet of the roadway would have a single access because of internal secondary access loops that are provided off this street along its length. Mr. Anderson also confirmed that, of the 99 homes that Staff alleged to be on this street, 42 of those are on two different streets, S. 47th PL and SE 185th PL, that have no impact on access to and from Vuecrest Estates. Furthermore, of the existing 57 homes not on those two streets, 36 arc within the Stonehaven Plat that has a looped road, which allows for two ways of access or egress within that plat. APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 7 I Van Ness Feldman,., 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206} 623-9372 2 3 4 5 6 7 These facts, coupled with the significant mitigation of sprinklering these homes, led Mr. Anderson to his expert opinion that there would be no material detriment to public safety by granting the requested variance. That testimony is unrefuted. If the City Council determines that a variance was required, based upon this testimony, the City Council should !,>rant that variance and strike Condition 13 from the Decision. 8 D. Condition 13 is Arbitrary and Capricious 9 JO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Requiring Vuecrest Estates to provide secondary access in this case, as imposed by Condition 13, is arbitrary and capricious. The prior subdivisions in this neighborhood were authorized to extend Smithers Ave. S. through their properties to a temporary cul-de- sac. No secondary access was required for these other projects. Vuecrest Estates merely sought to be treated like all other applicants under similar conditions. There is no basis to impose on secondary access requirement on this applicant. It is also arbitrary and capricious to require secondary access given the City Staffs express representations to the Applicant that a secondary access would not be required. Those representations were made four separate times. In the second Pre-Application meeting, the City's Fire Department representative stated the Fire Department's position clearly: "A proposed temporary cul-de-sac would be acceptable ... " Ex. 35, Att. B. This was reconfirmed in the Fire Department's email: "the actual [secondary access] connection does not have to be achieved at this time." Ex. 35, Att. C. After the project was put on hold, and there were further discussions with City Staff and the Mayor and the City attorney's office, the Fire Chief elected to withdraw an earlier letter, and the City APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 8 I Van Ness Feldman'" 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 informed the Applicant that the application would be processed for approval without a secondary access. According to the testimony of Ms. Higgins, withdrawal of the Fire Chiers earlier letter was done specifically to induce the Applicant to continue processing its plat application. In January 2014, when the City informed the applicant that a formal variance application was required, it was made clear in Ms. Higgins' email that the City supported this variance request. Ex. 35, Att. H. In light of these representations, Condition 13 should be eliminated and a temporary cul-de-sac authorized. E. Condition 13 Violates RCW 82.02.020 RCW 82.02.020 restricts the City from imposing conditions on a plat where there is no nexus and rough proportionality between the condition imposed and the alleged impacts. See City of Federal Way v. Town & Country Real Estate, LLC, 161 Wn.App. 17, 45 (2011 ). Herc, the roads serving this plat are adequate. There is no permanent dead end street proposed, merely a temporary cul-de-sac. This project is providing its fair share contribution to a future secondary access by extending Smithers Ave. S. through its property. This is consistent with the City's approval of the prior plats in the neighborhood that were approved under similar circumstances without requiring a secondary access. The obligation in Condition 13 to extend Smithers Ave. S. to the east, across property that the Applicant does not own or control is a heavy burden that far exceeds the impacts caused by the project. The added risk to public safety from approval of these 20 homes is negligible. The Applicant attempted, in good faith, to acquire rights from the adjoining owner to extend the road to the east, and that owner would not agree to grant APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 9 I Van Ness Feldman'" 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 such access rights. Condition 13 is therefore impossible to meet and effectively results in denial of this project. With Condition 13, as written, until the property to the east develops or agrees to dedicate a right-of-way to the City, no reasonable use can be made of the subject property. This raises the potential ofa uncompensated taking. F. Condition 13 Violates the Applicant's Substantive Due Process Rights Condition 13 also violates the Applicant's substantive due process rights. A land use regulation violates substantive due process where ( 1) the regulation fails to achieve a legitimate public purpose; (2) the means adopted arc not reasonably necessary to achieve that purpose; or (3) the regulations are unduly burdensome on the property owner. Robinson v. City of Seattle, 119 Wn.2d 34 (1992). While the City's proposed secondary access requirement may meet the first prong, it fails the second two. A secondary access is not reasonably necessary. The roads serving this plat meet or exceed City standards. There is ample width for emergency vehicles to access this plat. The total road and sidewalk width of over forty feet (40'), the low traffic volumes, the low speeds through this neighborhood, and low probability of blocking accidents and the internal circulation demonstrate that the risk of a fire truck or ambulance failing to gain access to this plat through existing access roads is negligible. To mitigate impacts, every home in this development will have a sprinkler system, designed to quickly and effectively respond to a fire emergency. Smithers Ave. S. will be extended through Vuecrest Estates eastward to the adjoining property that fronts on 102"d Ave. SE. Vuecrest Estates moves this neighborhood one step closer to achieving the desire for secondary access. The other plats in this neighborhood were approved without a APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION I 0 I Van Ness Feldman,,, 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 secondary access. Expert testimony from the Applicant's witnesses demonstrated that there is no significant increase in risk from the addition of twenty new homes. Regarding the third factor, courts consider the (a) nature of the harm to be avoided; (b) the availability and effectiveness of less drastic measures; and (c) the economic loss suffered by the property owner. Presbytery of Seattle v. King Cy., 114 Wn.2d 320, 331, (1990). Other nonexclusive factors that may be helpful in the balancing required under the third factor include the seriousness of the public problem, the extent to which the landowner's property contributes to the problem, the degree to which the regulation solves the problem, and the feasibility ofless burdensome solutions. fd. Herc, imposition of Condition 13 effectively results in denial of the project, the loss of over hundreds of thousands of dollars invested to date in the Project and the loss of millions of dollars in lost profit. The City already approved neighboring plats on this same road without requiring a secondary access, so the determination was already made by the City that this is not a serious problem. Moreover, the repeated position of City Staff that a secondary access connection would not be required for Vuecrest Estates confirms that City Staff did not observe this to be a serious issue. The Applicant made a good faith effort to either acquire the adjoining property to the east or acquire a right-of- way through that property, but the adjacent owner would not agree to sell or grant such a right-of-way. There are far less burdensome solutions to address the City's concerns and these have been agreed upon. Every home will have a fire sprinkler. An alley has been APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 11 I Van Ness Feldman"' 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 designed to provide a looped system through this plat to provide enhanced maneuverability around the homes. The internal roads have been designed 4 feet wider than the City minimum standards. All of these measures address the City's concern with far less impact on the Applicant. III. Relief Requested For all of the reasons noted above, we urge the City Council to strike Condition 13 from the Decision. In the alternative, we ask the City Council to revise Condition 13 to allow the Applicant to provide secondary access in ways other than extending Smithers Ave. S. immediate! y to the east and to the specified intersection. As shown in Exhibit 37, on sheet 1 of 1, there is one parcel of land (the "Easterly Parcel") immediately east of the easterly end of Smithers Ave. S. as proposed to be built by the Applicant. Mr. Jamie Waltier testified that the owner of this Easterly Parcel will not sell his property or provide an easement for secondary access. Exhibit 37 shows on Sheet I of 1 another parcel of land (the "Southeasterly Parcel") located between Tract "B" and Tract "C" on the Proposed Vuecrest Estates plat and 102nd Ave. SE. Secondary access might be available through that parcel. Condition 13, as currently written, reads: Prior to the recording of the final plat, a seconda~y fire access shall be constructed that extends Smithers Ave S to the east to directly connect to Main Ave S (102nd Ave SE). The extent of street improvements necessary to effectuate this connection shall be determined by the City a/Renton Fire Department in accordance with applicable fire code standards and shall be the minimum necessary to provide.for safe and effective secondary access for fire tn1cks and emergency vehicles. APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 12 I Van Ness Feldman"" 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 JO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 As written, it appears that this condition can only be satisfied by acquiring a public access easement through the Easterly Parcel and providing a fire access road to the specified intersection. Even if a secondary access could be established between the plat to a location on 102nd Ave. SE through the Southeasterly Parcel, or through some other parcel, it would appear that this would not meet the specific terms of Condition 13. If the City Council does not strike Condition 13, which it should do, Condition 13 should, at a minimum, be revised to read as follows: Prior to the recording of the final plat, a secondary.fire access shall he constructed providing a second means of access from Main Ave S (102"d Ave. SE) to the plat by fire trucks and emergency vehicles. The extent of street improvements necessary to effectuate this connection shall he determined by the City of Renton Fire Department in accordance with applicable fire code standards and shall he the minimum necessary to provide for safe and effective secondary access for fire trucks and emergency vehicles At least this revised condition will provide the Applicant with some flexibility to seek a secondary fire access route. Dated this 261h day of November, 2014. APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATJO!',; 13 I Van Ness Feldman"" 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 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, Jennifer Sower, declare as follows: That I am over the age of 18 years, not a party to this action, and competent to be a witness herein; That I, as a legal assistant in the office of Van Ness Feldman, LLP, caused true and correct copies of the following documents to be delivered as set forth below: I. Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Final Decision Upon Reconsideration; and 2. Exhibits 35 and 37 entered into the record in September 16, 2014 hearing; and 3. This Certificate of Service and that on November 26, 2014, I addressed said documents and deposited them for delivery as follows: Mr. Jason Seth Acting Deputy Clerk City of Renton Clerk's Office 1055 S. Grady Way Seventh Floor Renton, WA 98057 Larry Warren Renton City Attorney Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 [ x] Via hand delivery [x] Via email [x] Via U.S. mail lwarren(a>rcntonwa.gov I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. EXECUTED at Seattle, Washington on this 26 1h day of November, 2014. APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 14 I Van Ness Feldman,, 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 CITY OF RENTON City Clerk Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425-430-6510 D Cash i;lCheckNo. S / &Lf (2;, Description: Funds Received From: D Copy Fee D Appeal Fee Name \,_) (1.,Y\ \\~ ~ (e_,,\(\13'\cvv'.) Address /0 5c \\:5a:""-0-'.> ~\-\-t_{',,,<SJ- City/Zip \ 1(x,.__'.:b,1r,;:;'-z."'-V)(, aQfJ{f7 ·~ 1 Receipt N~ 2160 Date D Notary Service D _________ _ \~_ w~i CLY\, _ s h~-h,_ -LU. A-\ 3-ll:Cl/t' VJ Amount $ J-c; (_\ - 1··, \ \ ( ! Denis Law Mayor November 17, 2014 Brent Carson Van Ness Feldman 719 Second Avenue, Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 r Cityof , -12rrr9 r1 City Clerk -Jason A. Seth, CMC Re: Final Decision upon Reconsideration for Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat LUA-13-000642, ECF, PP, MOD Dear Mr. Carson: Attached is your copy of the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision upon Reconsideration, dated November 15, 2014, in the above-referenced matter. If I can provide further information, please feel free to contact me. Enc.: Hearing Examiner's Decision cc: Hearing Examiner Elizabeth Higgins, Planner Jennifer Henning, Planning Director Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Steve Lee, Development Engineering Manager Craig Burnell, Building Official Sabrina Mirante, Secretary, Planning Division Ed Prince, City Councilmember Julia Medzegian, City Council Liaison Parties of Record (47) 1055 South Grady Way• Renton, Washington 98057 • (425) 430-6510 / Fax (425) 430-6516 • rentonwa.gov T All31\V·09·D08· l WO>"N811l!"MMM I I I Rebecca Evers 706 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055 Henry Cooks 712 S 50th St Renton. WA 98055 Nancy Osborn 4635 Morris Aves, #F Renton. WA 98055 Steve Yantorni 718 5 47th St Renton, WA 98055 John Sperber 735 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055-6272 LUE PESTL 4726 BURNED Ct 5 RENTON, WA 98055-7328 Carl Anderson 4 706 Snowgrass Dr Olympia. WA 98516 Darshan Malhi 4712 Burnett Ct S Renton, WA 98055-7328 John Basinger 1441 N 34th St Seattle, WA 98103 Thu Bui 4709 Burnett Ct S Renton, WA 98055-7328 r Jwdn-dOd p.mqaJ 81 Jcill~J\~J I ap uue aam.pe4 e1 , zaudaH Tasnim Khalil 1003 S 4 7th St Renton, WA 98055-7325 Philip Davis 4767 Whitworth Pl S, LlOl Renton, WA 98055 Annie Lee 867 S 48th St Renton, WA 98055-7337 Chinh Pham 4703 Burnett Ct 5 Renton, WA 98055-7328 Kolin Taylor KBS Ill, LLC 12320 NE 8th St, #100 Bellevue, WA 98005 Ellen Breiten 4612 MORRIS Ave S RENTON, WA 98056-6373 William & Stephanie Struyk 4707 Smithers Ave S Renton, WA 98055-6399 Michael & Brittnee Martinez 901 S 48th St Renton. WA 98055-7338 Janet Alabado 911 S 47th St Renton. WA 98055-7319 Pak Ming Chiu 902 S 48th St Renton. WA 98055-7338 :a,uawa6Jetp ap suas " r ..,a6p3 dn-dOd asodxa l 01, eun 6uo1e puas -Jadedpaa:1 I -... ( I I I @09l5 @All31\V ,!Jeqe6 a1 zaS!l!ln ,a1ad ~ sa1peJ. sa~anb,,~ Gloria Hunter 4727 Burnett Ct S Renton, WA 98055-7328 Brent Carson Van Ness Feldmen 719 Second Ave, Suite 1150 Seattle. WA <j'ff/0,f Jamie Waltier Harbour Homes, LLC 1441 N 34th St, 200 Seattle, WA 98103 Ron Hansen 4717 Smithers Ave S Renton, WA 98055 David Rasmussen Sundance at Talbot Ridge -HOA 723 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055-6272 Jason Murrav Mosaic Homes 2505 3rd Ave, Ste. 300 Seattle, WA 98121 Henry Cooks 712 S 50th St Renton. WA 98055-6342 Borgata Apartments & Town homes 2505 3rd Ave S, #300 Seattle. WA 98121 Phong Tran 1011 S 48th St Renton, WA 98055-7352 Eric & Cheryl Hanson 4711 Smithers Ave S Renton, WA 98055-6399 r I I ' @091S a1e1dwa1 @f.J•AV asn s1aqe, @l•ad i\se3 T AH3/\'t·O!>-OOB·l WOYNaAe"MMM I I I Sandeeo Mangla 724 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055 Roger Jaaues 4762 Whitworth Pl S Renton, WA 98055-8359 Johnny Cheng 4739 Burnett Ct S Renton, WA 98055-7328 Ginny Knox 4901 Morris Ave S, #SS202 Renton. WA 98055-8398 Owen Reese 3421 62nd Ave SW Seattle. WA 98116 Jim Condelles 855 S 48th St Renton. WA 98055 ! @09lS @AH:IAY ~ f ,wdn-dod pJoqaJ a1 Jilll?A?.& : ap u11• amq,eq •1 ~ zauda11 Ellen Breiten 4612 MORRIS Ave S RENTON, WA 98056-6373 Phillip Davis 4767 Whitworth Pl S Renton. WA 98055-8355 Ltanya Terrell Jones 5527 Charlotte Ave SE Auburn. WA 98092 Maher Joudi D.R. Strong Consulting Eng. 620 NE 7th Ave Kirkland, WA 98033 Joseph & Martha Mackenzie 4835 Main Ave S Renton. WA 98055-6309 Pawandeep & Kuldeep Natt 866 S 48th St Renton, WA 9805S-7337 :a.uawa6.&EHp ap suas ... f w.i.86p3 dn-Cfod asodxa i ouun 6uo1e puaa -Jadedpaa:1 I -"' ( I I I @09lS @All3/\'t l!Jeqe6 a1 zas111rn ,a1ad 11 sa1peJ sattanb!l~ Sanh & Chi Le 903 S 47th St Renton. WA 98055-7319 Tammy & Travis Martinez 4619 Morris Ave S Renton, WA 98055 Schneider Homes I LLC 6510 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 1 Tukwila, WA 98188 Hanh Tran 861 S 48th St Renton, WA 98055-7337 Roger Banks 4763 Morris Aves Renton, WA 98055-6374 William & Lvnn Sebring 4706 Burnett Ct S Renton. WA 98055-7328 r I I I @09l5 aie1dwa1 @fJ••v asn s1aqe, @laild .{se3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat Preliminary Plat LUA 13-000642 ) ) ) FINAL DECISION UPON ) RECONSIDERATION ) ) ) ) _______________ ) SUMMARY The applicant of the above-captioned matter has requested reconsideration by letter dated October 16, 2014. The reconsideration request is limited to eliminating or modifying Condition No 13 and also to admitting an exhibit that was erroneously excluded from the administrative record. Condition No. 13 will not be eliminated, but will be modified largely as requested by the applicant. The resume of Carl Anderson is admitted as Exhibit No. 38. EXHIBITS In addition to the addition of Exhibit No. 38, the following exhibits are admitted as part of the reconsideration process: 23 Exhibit 39: Order Authorizing Reconsideration, dated October 21, 104. Exhibit 40: 24 Exhibit 41: 25 26 Exhibit 42: City's Answer on Reconsideration Request, dated October 22, 2014 Sundance response to Reconsideration, dated October 31, 2014. Reply to Order Authorizing Reconsideration, dated November 5, 2014. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND FINDINGS OF FACT PRELIMINARY PLAT RECONSIDERATION-I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The issues raised in the applicant's reconsideration request are individually addressed below: 1. Applicable Variance/Waiver Criteria. The street waiver standards of RMC 4-9-250(C) apply to the applicant's request to waive the secondary access requirement of RMC 4-6-060(H)(2). The applicant argues that the variance criteria of RMC 4-9-250(B)(5) apply because RMC 4-7-240(A) provides that RMC 4-9-250(B) applies to the requirements "of this Chapter". The applicant argues that since RMC 4-7-150(0) requires compliance with RMC 4-7-060, that this transforms RMC 4-7- 060 into a part "of this Chapter", specifically Chapter 4-7 RMC. Reasonable minds could certainly disagree as to whether the RMC 4-7-150(0) mandate for compliance with RMC 4-7-060 makes that provision a part "of this Chapter". Indeed, the fact that RMC 4-7-0-060 is not expressly incorporated by reference into Chapter 4-7 RMC would lead most people to conclude that RMC 4-7-060 is not a part of Chapter 4-7 RMC and is simply a requirement in another chapter of the RMC that applies to subdivisions. For the reasons identified in the Order Authorizing Reconsideration, Ex. 39, it is concluded as a matter of law that the street waiver criteria of RMC 4-9-250(C) apply to the applicant's request to waive the secondary access requirement ofRMC 4-6-060(H)(2). 2. Failure to Provide Secondary Access Significantly Unsafe. As a finding of fact, it is determined that the failure to provide secondary access to the proposed subdivision creates a significantly unsafe condition. The applicant focuses upon the inconsistencies in the City staff position to argue that the secondary access is unnecessary. As noted in the Final Decision on this matter, the inconsistencies in the staff position are troubling. However, there is nothing in the record to suggest or explain why City fire personnel had any reason to overstate the dangers of waiving secondary fire access. In several prior examiner decisions, City staff have often taken highly unpopular positions counter to extensive public opposition in order provide objective recommendations on the application of development standards. There is nothing to suggest in this administrative record that City staff have succumbed to public pressure to require a secondary access. Despite the odd sounding comments made by Ms. Higgins, it appears likely that staff's vacillation on the secondary road issue arises from the difficulties of balancing past permitting decisions, public safety, recent safety problems (e.g. the wildfires identified by the fire chief) and the applicant's constitutional nexus/proportionality rights. All these factors pose very complex and challenging legal and policy issues. Given these multiple factors, it is not surprising that staff remained open minded about the secondary access issue until late in the permitting process. In focusing all of its reconsideration attention on the testimony of City staff, the applicant glosses over the fact that its own fire expert was unable to opine that there would be no safety problems with waiver of the secondary access requirement. As discussed in the Final Decision of this case, Mr. Anderson was unable to provide any assurance that a secondary fire access was unnecessary for safe and adequate fire response, despite a direct request from the Examiner to provide that assurance. If the City's fire chief takes the position that secondary access is necessary for safe fire response and the applicant's own fire expert can't dispute that position, it is difficult to see how the applicant can seriously question why a finding is ultimately made that secondary access is necessary for safe fire PRELIMINARY PLAT RECONSIDERATION-2 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 response. 3. Unsafe Fire Response is Materially Detrimental to Public; Unsafe Access Not Consistent with Waiver. Modification or Variance Criteria. Unsafe fire access is unquestionably counter to the public welfare. The applicant takes the remarkable position that unsafe fire access is not materially detrimental to the public welfare, and therefore there is no consistency issue with the materially detrimental criterion for variances, RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(b). The applicant asserts that the examiner erred by requiring the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed single access was safe under the materially detrimental standard. See Ex. 39, p. 5. Under the applicant's reasoning, the public welfare is not adversely affected if the residents ofVuecrest are left with a street system that prevents fire apparatus from reaching them within the time necessary to safely respond to emergencies. The applicants are essentially arguing that variances to fire access standards should be approved even when such variances would endanger City residents. This is a patently absurd construction of the "public welfare" term and the City's variance standards. If the single access does not provide for safe fire access as determined by the hearing examiner, there is no question under any reasonable interpretation that as a conclusion of law the applicant's proposal fails to qualify for a variance under the material detrimental criterion ofRMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(b), fails to qualify for a street waiver under the "no detrimental effect" standard of RMC 4-9-250(C)(5)(e) and fails to qualify for a modification under the "safety" criterion (the most obvious, other criteria are unmet as well) of RMC 4-9- 250(D)(2)(b). 4. Record Does not Establish that Improved Secondarv Access Necessary for Resident Egress. The applicant correctly argues that it shouldn't be responsible for providing for a fully developed secondary access route and that there should be some flexibility in where the route is located. This position is reasonable. The City's fire chief did not focus his testimony on problems associated with resident egress from the subdivision during emergencies. It is determined as a finding of fact that there is nothing in the record to suggest that pavement and curb, gutter and sidewalk is necessary to provide safe egress to residents during times of emergency. If the primary access route becomes unusable during an emergency and residents must leave to protect themselves, it doesn't appear that that they will hesitate to use a dirt road to do so. Given the nexus/proportionality issues associated with requiring the applicant to provide for secondary access beyond its subdivision borders, any secondary access requirement should be designed to be the minimum necessary to assure for public safety. DECISION The Final Decision of the above-captioned matter dated I 0/13/14 is supplemented with the additional findings of fact and conclusions of Jaw made above. Condition No. 13 is also revised to provide as follows: 13. Prior to the recording of the final plat, a secondary fire access shall be constructed that extends Smithers Ave S to the east to directly connect to Main Ave S (I 02nd Ave SE). The extent of street improvements necessary to effectuate this connection shall be determined by PRELIMINARY PLAT RECONSIDERATION-3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 the City of Renton Fire Department in accordance with applicable fire code standards and shaJI be the minimum necessary to provide for safe and effective secondary access for fire trucks and emergency vehicles. DATED this 15th day of November, 2014. . ),. ('" _ . .,,. ... l....-· C l'h1fA <)I bred,;, ·· . City of Renton Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-080 provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(l4) requires appeals of the hearing examiner's decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall -7th floor, (425) 430-6510. Affected property owners may request a change m valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. PRELIMINARY PLAT RECONSIDERATION-4 Cynthia Moya From: Cynthia Moya Sent: To: Thursday, November 06, 2014 8:19 AM Larry Warren Cc: Stephanie Rary Subject: Attachments: FW: Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat Reply 20141105163222616.pdf Thank you, Cindy Moya, Records Management Specialist City of Renton -Administrative Services/City Clerk Division cmoya@rentonwa.gov 425-430-6513 -----Original Message----- From: Cynthia Moya Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 4:55 PM To: Elizabeth Higgins; Jennifer T. Henning; Vanessa Dolbee; Steve Lee; Craig Burnell; Sabrina Mirante; Ed Prince; Julia Medzegian Cc: Phil Olbrechts; Jason Seth Subject: Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat Reply We have received the attached Reply to Order Authorizing Reconsideration & Responses Thereto by Brent Carson of Van Ness Feldman today at 1:19 p.m. Thank you, Cindy Moya, Records Management Specialist City of Renton -Administrative Services/City Clerk Division cmoya@rentonwa.gov 425-430-6513 -----Original Message---- From: PDECopy Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 4:32 PM To: Cynthia Moya Subject: Message from "CityClerks" This E-mail was sent from "CityClerks" (Aficio MP 6001). Scan Date: 11.05.2014 16:32:22 (-0800) Queries to: PDECOPY@rentonwa.gov 1 Denis Law · Mayor . f ,. · . -City o .. ·· l~lJtIDll November 5, 2014 Maher Joudi DR Strong Consu !ting Eng. 620 NE y'h Ave Kirkland, WA 98033 City Clerk -Jason A. Seth RE: Reply to Order Authorizing Reconsideration & Responses by Van Ness Feldman Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat -LUA-13-000642, ECF, PP, MOD Dear Mr. Joudi: Attached is your copy of the Reply to Order Authorizing Reconsideration and Reponses Thereto by Brent Carson, Van Ness Feldman dated November 5, 2014, in the above-referenced matter. If I can provide further information, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Enc.: Reply to Order Authorizing Reconsideration & Responses by Van Ness Feldman cc: Hearing Examiner Elizabeth Higgins, Planner Jennifer Henning, Planning Director Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Steve Lee, Development Engine·ering Manager Craig Burnell, Building Official Sabrina Mirante, Secretary, Planning Division Ed Prince, City Councilmember Julia Medzegian, City Council liaison Parties of Record (47) 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • (425) 430-6510 / Fax (425) 430-6516 • rentonwa.gov T I I I All31\V-O!>-OOB-~ WO)'AlaAe'MMM Rebecca Evers 706 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055 Henry Cooks 712 S 50th St Renton, WA 98055 Nancv Osborn 4635 Morris Ave S, #F Renton, WA 98055 Steve Yantorni 718 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055 John Soerber 735 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055-6272 LUE PESTL 4726 BURNED Ct S RENTON, WA 98055-7328 Carl Anderson 4706 Snowgrass Dr Olympia, WA 98516 Darshan Malhi 4712 Burnett Ct S Renton. WA 98055-7328 John Basinger 1441 N 34th St Seattle, WA 98103 Thu Bui 4709 Burnett Ct S Renton, WA 98055-7328 r :iwdn-dOd p.aoqaa a1 Jil~/\VJ I ap uye aampe4 e1 ~ za!1daH asnim Khalil 1003 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055-7325 Philip Davis 4767 Whitworth Pl S, LlOl Renton, WA 98055 Annie Lee 867 S 48th St Renton, WA 98055-7337 Chinh Pham 4703 Burnett Ct S Renton, WA 98055-7328 Kolin Taylor KBS 111, LLC 12320 NE 8th St, #100 Bellevue, WA 98005 Ellen Breiten 4612 MORRIS Ave S RENTON, WA 98056-6373 William & Stephanie Struvk 4707 Smithers Ave S Renton. WA 98055-6399 Michael & Brittnee Martinez 901 S 48th St Renton. WA 98055-7338 Janet Alabado 911 S 47th St Renton. WA 98055-7319 Pak Ming Chiu 902 S 48th St Renton. WA 98055-7338 r w,a6pl dn-dOd asodxa I Ol BU!I 6uo1e puag I iuawa6.1e4l ap suas y ( I I I @09~5 @All3/W weqe6 •1 zas!1!m Ja1ad ~ sa1pe; sai.ianb!•~ aria Hunter 4727 Burnett Ct S Renton. WA 98055-7328 Brent Carson Van Ness Feldmen 719 Second Ave, Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98092 Jamie Waltier Harbour Homes, LLC 1441 N 34th St, 200 Seattle, WA 98103 Ron Hansen 4717 Smithers Ave S Renton, WA 98055 David Rasmussen Sundance at Talbot Ridge -HOA 723 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055-6272 Jason Murrav Mosaic Homes 2505 3rd Ave, Ste. 300 Seattle, WA 98121 Henry Cooks 712 S 50th St Renton, WA 98055-6342 Borgata Apartments & Townhomes 2505 3rd Ave S, #300 Seattle, WA 98121 Phong Tran 1011 S 48th St Renton. WA 98055-7352 Eric & Chervl Hanson 4711 Smithers Ave S Renton, WA 98055-6399 r I I I @091S •1•1dwa1 ®f.JaA'<f asn s1aqe, @l'*'d lise3 T All3/\lf·09·008·~ wo:i·llla11e·MMM I I I Sandeep Mangla 724 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055 Roger Jaques 4762 Whitworth Pl S Renton, WA 98055-8359 Johnny Cheng 4739 Burnett Ct S Renton, WA 98055-7328 Ginnv Knox 4901 Morris Ave S, #SS202 Renton, WA 98055-8398 Owen Reese 3421 62nd Ave SW Seattle. WA 98116 Jim Condelles 855 S 48th St Renton. WA 98055 r JWdn-dOd pJoqaJ 81 JagiA~J I •P u11• a.1n4,e4 •1 ~ zaudau Ellen Breiten 4612 MORRIS Ave S RENTON, WA 98056-6373 Phillip Davis 4767 Whitworth Pl S Renton. WA 98055-8355 Ltanva Terrell Jones 5527 Charlotte Ave SE Auburn. WA 98092 Maher Joudi D.R. Strong Consulting Eng. 620 NE 7th Ave Kirkland, WA 98033 Joseph & Martha Mackenzie 4835 Main Ave S Renton, WA 98055-6309 Pawandeep & Kuldeep Natt 866 S 48th St Renton. WA 98055-7337 f -,a6p3 dn-dod asodxa I 01-eu!l 6uo1e puaa I iuawa6Je4:> ap suas T ( I I I @09~5 @All3/\lf l!Jeqe6 ., ZOS!i!ln ,a1ad ~ sa1p•J sa:i,anbq~ anh & Chi Le 903 S 47th St Renton, WA 98055-7319 Tammy & Travis Martinez 4619 Morris Ave 5 Renton. WA 98055 Schneider Homes I LLC 6510 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 1 Tukwila, WA 98188 Hanh Tran 861 S 48th St Renton. WA 98055-7337 Roger Banks 4763 Morris Ave S Renton. WA 98055-6374 William & Lvnn Sebring 4706 Burnett Ct S Renton, WA 98055-7328 f I I I @09 ( 5 a1e1dwa1 ®~'"'" asn s1aqei @l••d .-\se3 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 CITY 0° RENTON NOV O 5 2014 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON 9 RE: Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Preliminary Plat LUA13-000642 REPLY TO ORDER AUTHORIZING RECONSIDERATION AND RESPONSES THERETO This Memorandum replies to the Hearing Examiner's Order Authorizing Reconsideration and demonstrates why the variance requested under Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-7-240 should be granted. This Memorandum also replies to the two responses to the Applicant's Request for Reconsideration received by October 31, 2014.1 I. THE PLAIN MEANING OF THE CITY CODE CONFIRMS THAT THE VARIANCE PROVISIONS IN RMC 4-7-240 AND THE VARIANCE CRITERIA IN RMC 4-9-250.B.5 APPLY The Order Authorizing Reconsideration raises questions about the City Council's intent in passing RMC 4-7-240 and whether the City Council intended another code provision, such as the street waiver provision in RMC 4-9-250.C, to be the only means by 1 These two responses are the October 31, 2014 Memorandum from David N. Rasmussen, President, Sundance at Talbot Ridge HOA and the City ofRenton's October 22, 2014 City's Answer on Reconsideration Request by Applicant. REPLY TO ORDER AUTHORIZING RECONSIDERATION AND RESPONSES THERETO I Van Ness Feldman"" 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 which relief from the dead-end street standard in RMC 4-6-060 may be granted. The City Council's intent, however, is irrelevant. Rules of statutory construction used by courts in interpreting state law apply in the context of interpreting City ordinances. Griffin v. Thurston County, 165 Wn.2d 50, 55 (2008). If statutory language is unambiguous, the canons of statutory construction are not to be used. Id. The meaning of an unambiguous statute must be derived from the code language. The Hearing Examiner is not permitted to look for the City Council's intent that might be imputed to the Council or to construe the code in a way that the Hearing Examiner believes will best accomplish some legislative purpose. See State v. Tvedt, 153, Wn.2d 705, 732 (2005). RMC 4-7-240 plainly and unambiguously provides that "A variance from the requirements of this Chapter may be approved by the Hearing Examiner pursuant to RMC 4-9-2508." The phrase "'This Chapter" used in RMC 4-7-240 clearly refers to Chapter 7 Subdivision Regulations, codified in Title IV Development Regulations of the Renton Municipal Code. When the City reviews a proposed subdivision ofreal property, the application must meet specific requirements for streets as set forth in RMC 4-7-150 Streets -General Requirements and Minimum Standards. RMC 4-7-150.D expressly states: "The street standards set by RMC 4-6-060 shall apply unless otherwise approved." This language in RMC 4-7-150.D unambiguously incorporates the street standards of RMC 4-6-060 into the provision of Chapter 7. Moreover, by expressly stating that the street standards in RMC 4-6-060 apply "unless otherwise approved," this code provision REPLY TO ORDER AUTHORIZING RECONSIDERATION AND RESPONSESTHERETO 2 I Van Ness Feldman"' 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 offers the opportunity to vary the requirements of RMC 4-6-060 when approving a subdivision. The phrase "unless otherwise approved" cannot be ignored or deemed superfluous. State v. Bunker, 144 Wn.App. 407,418 (2008). Rather, it demonstrates that approval of a subdivision under Chapter 7 may vary these street standards. The mechanism provided to vary any requirement in Chapter 7 is through a variance, as noted in RMC 4-7-240. The fact that altemati ve means may be provided under the City Code to modify a City standard is not unusual, nor does it cause the City Code to be ambiguous. For example, the City's critical area re1,'11lations provide multiple options for modifying those requirements. See RMC 4-3-050.N -Alternatives, Modifications and Variances. The fact that the City Code provides a subdivision applicant a means to seek a variance from the street standards through a variance under RMC 4-7-240 must be accepted by the Hearing Examiner as an unambiguous requirement to consider and rule on such a request. There is no ambi!,'11ity that the Applicant requested a variance under RMC 4-7-240. Exhibit 35, Attachment I is the letter submitted by Maher Joudi entitled "Vuecrest Estates -Variance Request." That letter sets forth the four criteria for a Variance under RMC 4- 9-250.B.5. The Applicant demonstrated that these four variance criteria in RMC 4-9-250.B.5 were met. We again ask the Hearing Examiner to apply the correct criteria, grant the variance, and strike Condition 13. REPLY TO ORDER AUTHORIZING RECONSIDERATION AND RESPONSESTHERETO 3 I Van Ness Feldman,, 719 Second Avenue 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 II. Response to Sundance at Talbot Ridge HOA The October 31, 2014 Memorandum from David N. Rasmussen, President of the Sundance at Talbot Ridge HOA, fails to address any of the arguments presented in Applicant's Request for Reconsideration pertaining to the requested variance, other than a conclusory statement that the request should be rejected. The Talbot Ridge HOA has apparently failed to understand the Applicant's request-that the Hearing Examiner (and the City Staff) applied the wrong standard in reviewing the variance request, and that based upon the record before the Hearing Examiner, the variance should have been granted. No further response is needed. III. Response to City's Answer on Reconsideration Request by Applicant The first issue presented in the City's Answer on Reconsideration Request by Applicant ("City's Answer") concerns whether the variance provisions should apply. The Applicant has already adequately addressed this issue in its Request for Reconsideration and in the reply above to the Hearing Examiner's Order on Reconsideration. The City's second issue, concerning the weight of testimony, deserves a response. In particular, the Applicant strongly disagrees with the City's statement that the Applicant provided no reason to examine the credibility of Chief Peterson. See City's Answer at 3. As borne out by the record, Corey Thomas, the Plan Review Inspector for the City of Renton Fire Department, expressly informed the Applicant that a temporary cul-de-sac was an acceptable street design. Exhibit 35, Attachment B ("A proposed temporary cul- de-sac would be acceptable ifit meets all required dimensions and construction REPLY TO ORDER AUTHORIZING RECONSIDERATION AND RESPONSES THERETO 4 I Van Ness Feldman'" 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 requirements."); Exhibit 35, Attachment C ("The road section can be 28-fcet if you provide the stub road only for future connection, the actual connection does not have to be achieved at this time."). Chief Peterson reversed these written representations by Fire Department representative Corey Thomas when Chief Peterson wrote in his August 15, 2013 letter that "any request for a secondary access variance will be denied." (Exhibit 35, Attachment E). Chief Peterson reversed himself two months later when, on October 7, 2013, he wrote: "I am withdrawing my letter dated August 15, 2013, regarding Vuecrest Preliminary Plat. Please understand that I reserve the right to reissue the letter based on the final plat design." Exhibit 35, Attachment G. Then, in testimony before the Hearing Examiner, Chief Peterson reversed the Fire Department's position yet again, opposing the requested variance. Chief Peterson never acknowledged his October 7 letter and the fact that there was no change in the plat design justifying reversal of his October 7, 2013 decision. The inconsistent statements by Chief Peterson and other Fire Department representatives present the fundamental issue of witness credibility. As courts have noted: "a person who speaks inconsistently is thought to be less credible than a person who does not." State v. Allen S. 98 Wn.App. 452,467 (1999). The record also demonstrates that the October 7, 2013 letter was written explicitly for the Applicant to believe that a temporary cul-de-sac would be approved and to induce the Applicant to continue processing its preliminary plat application. Testimony of Elizabeth Higgins. Past misrepresentations of a witness provide further means to judge a REPLY TO ORDER AUTHORIZING RECONSIDERATION AND RESPONSESTHERETO 5 I Van Ness Feldman". 719 Second Avenue 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 witness's credibility. In the Matter of the Disciplinary Proceedings Against Marshall, 160 Wn.2d 317 (2007). Given the inconsistent positions taken by the Fire Department over the history of this preliminary plat application, and the Fire Chiefs October 7, 2013 letter, the Hearing Examiner should question the credibility of Chief Pederson's testimony. Moreover, the Hearing Examiner heard from three separate experts, Registered Fire Protection Engineer Carl Anderson, Civil Engineer Maher Joudi, and Traffic Engineer Vince Geglia on why the variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare. The third issue presented in the City's Answer concerns the Applicant's request, in the alternative, to modify Condition 13 to provide greater flexibility. While the Applicant appreciates the City's support for greater flexibility in Condition 13, the Applicant disagrees with the City's demand that a fully improved road section be built by Vuecrest Estates on property it does not own or control. To illustrate the importance of greater flexibility in Condition 13, and to address the City's position on the extent of road improvements for a secondary fire access, page one from Exhibit 37 is attached to this Reply Memorandum and marked as "Attachment A". Attachment A shows the two separate parcels ofland between the Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat and 102"d Ave. SE. For illustrative and argument purposes, these two parcels have been marked on Attachment A as Parcel A and Parcel B. To implement the specific language of Condition 13, as imposed in the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision, access would be required through Parcel A. That is because REPLY TO ORDER AUTHORIZING RECONSIDERATION AND RESPONSES THERETO 6 I Van Ness Feldman'" 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 l 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Condition 13 reads "Smithers Ave. S shall ... be extended to the east..." The record demonstrates that the owner of Parcel A is unwilling to sell or grant an easement. Testimony of Jamie Waltier. Hypothetically, a temporary alternative secondary fire access might be able to be established through Parcel B to 102"d Ave. SE or through some other route. Such a secondary fire access might provide access to fire and emergency vehicles until a full public roadway is established through Parcel A when Parcel A is developed. The City's argument against allowing a temporary fire access and requiring a "fully improved road section" is based on an unsupported claim that the "road will never be built to standards." In fact, under the linkage and connection requirements in RMC 4-7- 150(E)(2) and ( 4 ), whenever Parcel A develops, the full road section established for Smithers Ave. Swill need to be continued from the eastern boundary ofVuecrest Estates to 102 Ave. SE. That is a burden rightfully imposed on the owner of Parcel A. lfthe variance is denied because of concerns for fire access, then Condition 13 should address fire access only and provide Vuecrest Estates with flexibility on achieving that objective. IV. Conclusion We urge the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his Final Decision, grant the requested variance and strike Condition 13. If the Hearing Examiner denies the variance, we ask the Hearing Examiner to revise Condition 13 to allow a temporary fire access lane to be established, prior to final plat approval, across any parcel that could provide a secondary means of access for fire and emergency vehicles. REPLY TO ORDER AUTHORIZING RECONSIDERATION AND RESPONSES THERETO 7 I Van Ness Feldman'" 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 JO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Dated this 5th day of November, 20 l 4. REPLY TO ORDER AUTHORIZING RECONSIDERATION AND RESPONSES THERETO 8 I Van Ness Feldman"" 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle. WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 I, Jennifer Sower, declare as follows: 2 That I am over the age of 18 years, not a party to this action, and competent to be a 3 witness herein; 4 That I, as a legal assistant in the office of Van Ness Feldman, LLP, caused true and 5 correct copies of the following documents to be delivered as set forth below: 6 I. Reply on Order on Reconsideration; 7 2. This Certificate of Service; and 8 3. Attachment A 9 and that on November 5, 2014, I addressed said documents and deposited them for IO delivery as follows: 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Mr. Jason Seth Acting Deputy Clerk City of Renton Clerk's Office 1055 S. Grady Way Seventh Floor Renton, WA 98057 Mr. Phil A. Olbrechts City of Renton Hearing Examiner Larry Warren Renton City Attorney Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 [ x] Via hand delivery [ x] Via email polbrechts(ivomwlaw.com [x] Via email [x] Via U.S. mail lwarren(lvrentonwa.gov I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. EXECUTED at Seattle, Washington on this 5th day of November, 2014. REPLY TO ORDER AUTHORIZING RECONSIDERATION AND RESPONSESTHERETO 9 I Van Ness Feldman'" 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 ATTACHMENT A I • ! ''I ill "U )> :::0 () m r OJ "U )> :::0 () m r )> ' ' I . -.---1 1---~----=---1~----1 'I I : : , : ,, '' . ., \,; "========-;,---==""i"===-;.-=====ij====""'ii'""":'f"'=,--: ...I [ P!. 1. fl ~• --HARBOURHOMES.LLC VUECRESTESTATES 1111~10 i ' I ! : : """""""""" !I i al o ~;;, m e I 14"1N!UTHST,SUfTE200 SWTHERBA.VEB I I I h""' ij,._ I< : BEA~WJll#IOJ ~-~~~ ••• ,;;Q t (2Dtl)"1U130 =, ........ ,.....,..... .... , ...... L-----...!