The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutReport 1g 9811 i p p A a a w T yA-i 1� ''.N999^Tm vi �b�x��4`d rv�i� �}p�g m=: m m oD ::momj� ti 6� gg}amp m 31 En t `i�q� t� � �� C � �ma T� �~V-�.�\S.l� i �m� liryi �i� � �Q ��Ng ��♦+yam �,Il�yy,1 �y�j� cmiry rx k�'�i rp� T6 0� yT �Ig11~' 6 L��aGIL4 �jL� coo # €€41 warn Vch y ;m gill; a o r '�m fix❑ x x xm� i H I?� yA8mM �A��$ � A9m.;, mm m c ',R�gLlq mE �312 a � i f'n � a p ti rra � R= Ij s m'� y ms ; yy Q71�g �ry ti N =N a rym� pp' p N i S '�i'xry Ls ry v ; n HIP " d� � i�+ �m � �� ; �aRRa�� ! m�u tr g � e q I -PLOLrCLY IlE➢IWFD- � ^ hy+ 2S52, 23' AS. NOD -31'oo'w f237.63' WAS. ` 1523]_63, 6HPL-06o-871 a' �" 30f.40' CALC'Q- b a: b gN b LD. 1HLLN1r5N5 LAKL' NW5FI1N6T1N Q.AIFD64 GF EDQ'f D1VI°J1DN NO. 4 VOL, fl, PA62 a7 R-O-w B > RAM w m —A�� 0 Q $� A2 4ry.� �~cz qe� 5 ra� � tiMy ,.0 = � k� 2zx v 0 0 �am22 p e i1 u� � 'AA9Y_74Y f407C�IFD" Npp •31'op'N 123]. 63' IEAS. �v � ,Ff237. fi3' SNRj760 301-IpCALC'0 w W w rill �-o-N 2 OyyRMOO WAS' T Ng, 662 NF��m nz i HMO.M.. 1N' 2i�IG_ NN -_ 'JONE8 AVE N.F. _�' yq 07fCN n, As 1 ..Naa'33 -N no, I o =� m o .e G xpa •3s3S'N z��mnmmiz a b g `RiwM1M1ZIIlFm IT 91WdjN9 v_a mr -. 936. 23: CdLC'a 0 �`�� afasLmroearcAr�o N a JOWSRVEME z YY T� NOd'3f 'dd•k f237.83' 110=AS- � , 1123], 63' Sl/PL -P6d 71 ', �3 R o-r hod 31 o'x 7 do $ Rio I m cy it fm'~ s y� L2 6 gmti P m Ip IT `a,O mm Ko.ao t pP q W till g m0 m N -9�9m G xna •3H'3a-K � 1Q5.H+ A.: rwa SIS•s2•1 — 2? 70. M 1"S "ate xE�`^mmm:z a Alai L71LY=RT .. m ` sitT g� �P ~"l nrn. rn. h >m0 f3. f'Gn Qi lw�., 2 2� �2ad� m1^ vital: �A 84, m W o 7 � z 0 a ftA DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON JUL 2 8 2008 ,p2Kig - a- RECEIVED pq7 �b Nab a 2 I � x �yny� O ��gyyg ��28 R-aW I 0y�j4nd5 4 30. 0 GL sG�YOfi u� Z : YA V { r n ^ o 0 mp c I m = §§ ro w� iclr lYE. DeDtcnreo' x,�OME.SAS� assz. a2' JJEas, %0'3J'00-- 1237,63' WJ L f1237. 63- ^a.M1 L-060-8]1 O Q-?-"-r -3 m _ - 64 i m� I400'30'34'M r9a-34 I I G.D. FHLLY'A 'D LA &AA17EN OF MEN VOL. Ji. N1 '3S'32'M ]0. IX r � 1 mr j �36-23' GLC'D i 444l4��» G I 6� � O z� N 'm Ln z� :� �pp m 111www r� H bOA �� Z41 u' yn$o RnR� !a m T T- a :1( A L n Z 3 �i ti o j jr i,V U � x? g17 r rlk--J f31 'h/ jD — ` majE HAI. Z [S z � PROw' WO I 31 OG"A `MCn�. oy 1 W !'j' Sw V60)911 —. �— .... -. �- 3nt..+a cn�c,�� ... _ It -_J-�36 cerc u ill y r❑ � �h ,n c� Y p T�T r�i iPi rF. e I �' z n• � b n f = t. ll�� w as Run " �s "� � Qi (7 <8! m �' a look! O_ br At _ call �n�. ta',a € ' { y a °� "�L9�—��°s - -�%� '�" 4 ��-'�� ' •' r- u �s - \V m ",a f � �, �,' .n �i '3 �� I Y ° �a "s a {asMIT �w •N � �o- 3 �Orr �Vm +, c,.�s ' c y y ° b U j c r-y a `s . fi i - " .. , � , m nut CaC.� _ F s �+ c ❑ ' +ids s --- / ncn •3� 3a-a ;:t< c3' - - e--�• a - `S y, xo O ; - o r, i tip{\. / 1 •� �5a e �' ' Y T ��r- S 2r� �z�'zo�'x Hui 1m i it v' � 90G 3 n EPA!i$n{ < k s a`y3 �•S3 $ `'3a •'S'r T•.) s b Y � { 141 - a y. `6-.s rTl "- x a ❑ � i 1i1 � '.? s � � °r�J' "mod i m w .\, �Ai fn 1 Q° '4✓ �1b I "Ins rn t6 2 I y BLUEBERRY HAVEN SHORT PLAT RENTON, WA 98055 \\ d. �! a � � romvcvRtl I � � w'zo n o E T W _ IJ/y._ kla cusEnoaRE-any _-- _.F ore _ - r�r - oRsn�. cxlro, LEGEND Po�r.D uaxuusxi ..+ xoRo — — - - Pxsrx: cu 41 unE RQ PI Nu a, wA42R rS N5rE0 �++. �+• ER�si vD BCwORIG ukE O %p-1—ol PIK PS urrho —�� alsrwC Rm uwxE iz IXlsrwf..i�wrc vIX£ PRppps[o R6Rp :Ex'ER ixE � Eww:iw0 GTEM1 2PRiN - (1 IXaTlxp SAxnRav wfwEx uanxCrF - PROPOSE w6nT Cw nR' ♦ rwmwu rvrtxEo r�y;� E[cwnox ---- Ex[cavc eouno.ar �uE � F451nPG E[ECrP[: uA:x PPOPOR£p RCuxu�wr uxC Y Cvlsrvx: R90i FifVa;� - -- rY snx6 L,Sry�EM uue LPJ [RISTIUG vNIEx u[rtx —.----- PROPOSED e�s[u[x� �.nE RJ PgsnxO [v5 u[rER - — xR,siix0 p"CN ".ExrEP,wF ER511NC vurw vuvE � - ER'SIiNC W[muin VOViER W-- v,wo BCRI[0 w,ex [viSPrvG OECiDWVS TREE — urE ExSiWC pQxIER$ IR[E ��`VVV ��"— u61wG w[C] FLNCfR 'NIriG RRn6m Exmwu 'SPH.u'S,lavrce �� R,clspxu cRArE� ww.GE — PRDPps[o Asrxir SVRf.REE VIc, R MAP PRELIMINARY sE Ea nuw uy Sm.P, (,�„ 9E 01 k11pm .. MU JONES AVE NE CRY OF REMON RENTON, WA 98056 1.11 BLUEBERRY HAVEN SHORT PLAT P' PLAT MAP °L BLUEBERRY }IAVEN SHORT PLAT ixa +Pao s�rm+n 80000 OCR-1D6 /fV � PLANNING/BUILDINGI /*= �- ♦ PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: January 28, 2008 TO: Jennifer Henning i r FROM: Karen McFarland, x7209, " SUBJECT: Gordley (aka Blueberry Haven) Short Plat, LUA-07-131-SHPL Format and Legal Description Review Technical Services staff have reviewed the above referenced short plat submittal and have the following comments: Comments for the Applicant: The indexing information noted at the top of the preliminary drawing, is incorrect. The subject property falls within the SW 1/4 of the NE t/4 of Section 5, not the SE %a of the NE '/4. Note the addresses for the two lots as follows: Lot A is 2010 Jones Ave NE, and Lot B is 1712 NE 20th Street. Note both addresses on the final short plat drawing. Ties to two City of Renton Survey Control Network horizontal control monuments are needed. Monument #334 is a benchmark only. Make a tie to a second City of Renton Survey Control Network horizontal monument. When said tie(s) is provided, the city will check the geometry. Information needed for final short plat approval includes the following: Note the City of Renton land use action number and land record umber, LUA-07-131-SHPL and LND-20-0509, respectively, on the drawing. The type size used for the land record number should be smaller than that used for the land use action number. Indicate what has been, or is to be, set at the corners of the proposed lots. Note discrepancies between bearings and distances of record and those measured or calculated, if any. Item No. 2, under the "SURVEYOR'S NOTES" block, states that no current title report was used in preparing the subject short plat submittal., and further, any easements may not be shown on said submittal. Do use a current title report and show all pertinent easements, agreements, covenants, conditions, restrictions, etc. on said short plat. Remove said Item No. 2 from the short plat submittal. LAND-20 - Shart Plats10509aV0$0122.doc Addressee Name Page 2 of 2 January 28, 2008 Include a dedication/certification block on the drawing. Note all easements, covenants and agreements of record on the drawing, if any. Note the plat name and tract numbers of the properties surrounding the subject short plat parcel. On the final short plat submittal, remove all references (including in the "LEGEND") to utilities facilities, gravel, rockery, topog lines, asphalt, concrete, stairs, trees and other items not directly impacting the subdivision. These items are provided only for preliminary short plat approval. Remove the building setback lines noted on the final short plat lots. Setbacks will be determined at the time that building permits are issued. Because the subject property falls within Zone 2 of the City of Renton Aquifer Protection Area, the Aquifer Protection Notice needs to be noted on the drawing. See the attachment. Required City of Renton signatures, on the final plat drawing, include the Administrator of Planning/Building/Public Works, the Mayor and the City Clerk. In addition, an approval block for the city's Finance Director is required. The appropriate King County approvals need to be provided for also. All vested owner(s) of the subject final short plat need to sign the final short plat drawing_ Include notary blocks as needed. Note that if there are easements, restrictive covenants or agreements to others (City of Renton, etc.) as part of this subdivision, they can be recorded concurrently with the final short plat. The short plat drawing and the associated document(s) are to be given to the Project Manager as a package. The short plat will be recorded first (by King County). The recording number(s) for the associated document(s) are to be referenced on the short plat drawing. Provide spaces for the recording numbers thereof. It appears that the title report provided with this submittal is out of date. Please provide the City with a current title report. The legal description is missing and needs to be noted on the drawing. LALND-20 - Short P1ats105091RV080122.doc City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: NOVEMBER 21, 2007 APPLICATION NO: LUA07-131, SHPL-A, E F DATE CIRCULATED: NOVEMBER 7, 2007 APPLICANT: Richard & Lauralee Gardley PROJECT MANAGER: Jill Din PROJECT TITLE: Blueberry Haven Short Plat PLAN REVIEW: Jan Illian SITE AREA: 37,714 square feet BUILDING AREA (gross): NIA b LOCATION: 2010 Jones Avenue NE WORK ORDER NO: 77838 CITY OFRENTON ii,„._ SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Short Plat approval and Environmental (SEPA) Review or theEsAdivision of a 37,714 square foot site into two lots in the Residential - 4 dwelling unit per acre (R-4) zone. An existing single family residence is proposed to remain on Lot A. Lot A is proposed at 17,930 square feet and Lot B is proposed at 19,784 square feet in area. Access to Lot A would be provided off of Jones Avenue NE and access to Lot B would be provided off of NE 20th Street, A 9,601 square foot category 3 wetland and a class 4 stream have been identified on the project site. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Housing Aesthetics Li hUGiare Recreation Utilities Transportation Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10 000 Feet 14,000 Feet We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date BEARING MERIDIAN: PER CITY OF RENTON SHORT PLAT NO.SHPL-060 -87, RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 8805099006, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. A BEARING OF N00'31'00"W ON MONUMENTED CENTERLINE OF JONES AVE N. E. . GRAPHIC SCALE 1"= 30' 0 30 60 GORDLEY SHORT PLAT SE 114 OF THE NE 114 OF SEC. 5, TWP . 23N . , RGE . 5E . , W. M . CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY WASHINGTON SURVEYORS NOTES: REFERENCES USED: O 1E 24" GONG N 265-65' CITY OF RENTON LUA-95-093-LLA, V.106. PAGE 179. CITY OF RENTON SHORT PLAT NO.SHPL-050-87, V. 60, PAGE 270. KCAS MAP N.E. 1/4 SEC. 05-23-05 ROLLED ALL RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WA. ASPHALT 10/09/2005 CURB FND. REBAR 6 CAP AREA = 105 SL?.FT.+/- AT CALC'D POSITION SHECJ IS p. 00 ' "HELD" ELEV - =267- I' m 5H 'A ' D S. 5OF LINE 3 8' ROCKERY — J EWV b 6� AV F.F. ELEV. I CONC 268.5 ' PA TI o CONC I -Q } HOUSE NO.2010 1, 765 SO. FT. +/- I�y� : G �nrnr� Sd ..l •• - . l� N89 '29 TO "E 1 255, 50 ' EA ELL-V_ 276'+ TOE to)F. F. EL 7-SLOPE 259. 6 'a r-Tv A i Ln \ N89 '29 ' 00 "E 155, 00 ' SAVE ELEV m \\ YARD DRAIN RIM ELEV, 266.67' ASPHALT CURB 888 255.60 ' NOTE' WETLAND FLAGS WERE FIELD LOCATED BY GEDDIMENSIONS INC. ON JUNE 7, 2007. EDGE OF WETLAND AREA VERTICAL DA71J . {VISITED 10-os-2o06) CITY OF RENTON BENCH MARK NO. RENT1839 (NAVD 1988) "SEE MAP FOR DETAILED INFORMATION" 1) THE TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY SHOWN HEREON WAS PERFORMED IN OCTOBER OF 2006. THE FIELD DATA WAS COLLECTED AND RECORDED ON MAGNETIC MEDIA THROUGH AN ELECTRIC THEODOLITE. THE DATA FILE IS ARCHIVED ON DISC OR CD. WRITTEN FIELD NOTES MAY NOT EXIST.CONTOURS ARE SHOWN FOR CONVENIENCE ONLY. DESIGN SHOULD RELY ^__QN_SPOT__ELEVAT-IONS - 2) A TITLE REPORT WAS NOT FURNISHED AND THEREFOR, E64EMENT.5-_-IF.- ANY.-_ NOT SHOWN_ ON THIS MAP. 3) SUBJECT PROPERTY TAX PARCEL NO. 277160-4655. 4) SUBJECT PROPERTY AREA PER THIS SURVEY IS 37,572 SOFT.+/- 5) THE BURIED UTILITY LINES SHOWN ON THIS MAP ARE PER LOCATOR MARKS FOUND IN THE FIELD. 6) WETLAND AREA PER THIS SURVEY = 9, 601 SO. FT. +/- WHICH COVERS 15% OF PROPERTY. 2.2 2-5541-1 WWI "I F4 ; CENTERLINE of WF5".rI'.'• : DRAINAGE DITC I ............ a ..... ...•---....... iv ITEM 4: ry INGRESS. EGRESS AND F3:::.: .:.:::::::::.. �. ...' TOP ;.:. UTILITIES ESM' T'.'.•.•.'.'.'.'. ' _: DITCH o LEGE REC . NO. 950 72B 1245 .' ....... o WOOD {iVF2: z .,BRIDGE FOUND MONUMENT AS NOTED .. ... 10 ....... :,oa:►:gib' �.'..:n::sn : VOL (PAGE 0 0 r \\ WETLAND WTI . AREA 9. 601 SO. FT. +/- ................. 4 ............................ .. ... .. _ Elul 7 ; ; ' 1B" 10' WIDE DRAIN E ESM'T ::....{e`)44'�■yam:. REC. NO.8 099006 ra'c •-�Y••••�W.J ................. ....... . .. ��• :�• WF12:.. TOP �• DITCH 14• . 2r� 1 LOT B P1 A i—r 6• 3 0 0 a BUILDING BUILDING 1010912006 FND. REBAR C CAP 0.2' W. OF PROPERTY -TOP CORNER "HELD" DITCH ELEV. =252. 4'r 10 FIRE HYDRANT ® FOUND REBAR C CAP AS NOTE FOUND IRON PIPE AS NOTED UTILITY POLE ® YARD DRAIN OO SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION � ELECTRIC METER X SPOT ELEVATION 0 WA TER METER © GAS METER ►� WATER VAL VE' i WET LAND FLAGS ASPHALT SURFACE GRAVEL SURFACE WE TL AND AREA HATCH ONG SHO, NO. _ LND NO. LUA NO. - _ = GULVERT LI! BUILDING L. D CENTERLINE a: OVERHEAD W. ROCKERY — --- WOOD FENCE W BURIED WA Ti S BURIED SEh ® RET. WALL CONC CONCRETE R-O-W RIGHT-OF-WAY { ) RECORD 0 DECIDUOUS TREE (NOT S) TRUNK DIA SHOWN IN INI CONIFIR TREE (NOT SHO) TRUNK DIA SHOWN IN IN1 Denise Biackmau 2100 Jones Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 tel: (425) 917-1100 (party of record) Susan Rider 1835 NE 20th Street Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Richard & Lauralee Gordley 2010 Jones Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 tel: (425) 228-9937 eml: gordleyl@comcast.net (owner / applicant / contact) PARTIES OF RECORD BLUEBERRY HAVEN LUA07-131, SHPL-A, ECF Sue Larson -Kinzer 1733 NE 20th Street Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Barbara Hicks 10402 151st Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) ;�ZIG, �0�7 � Ave I�� Robert Cave 12518 E 17th Street Bellevue, WA 98005 (party of record) William O'Connor 10402�151sne SE Ren,� arty of record) Updated: 12/05/07 (Page 1 of 1) C) LU W t� �i Q orf � � Q Q W � o�..�..I 0 0 J o Z � w N w a tD LA��_ b vq3 N' aaeoaes� 9mi ;t � asmc i�• �i 4j6g.� s''.� o KID `oorf �u�: Z `i.Y rA >ik U. I L,e V- 6Z4, f-I -e— r(.- � ( a k--) 2Z-O 9 dt, /I e- /4"e- � E lze,4, - (AA q�o,SXl i6 WL,,&U-yt 4AAJ-� ky v 11 m1�� .x, mmz2 n .Nm-• "f0 ma ry1 an� �zcp pn rb 1 sm v aucLr �epir.ATeo JONESAN.E ` ,7s�l f� ttJrr ❑. ^-� 1 ►le 'n-'omz�a`t�z,z mres `O !rE �aq P Igor °z a': a'mr,onz bg�$I7}�$ Fi c�, AXao nM1�,nv, 6�z BF mq. G ��✓Rb v m �u DN 1 19]. 49' 0 GAG � q5r �� m'•- o' b" d xioA I _ sz ,� A 3 p O •`U A��F"`i�'1'�0 Ot"s`)I�n rv°G '3c N2'w f34.73' bra oz= ]51�_ m m n am np P�1+ NCV '7�32'w ]00.03- c APPOw mzy wo^ mR »Abc< aNmj� m `Y_RT i Ale ` — V36 23� CA! C'L' �nm � tiT ;�a »� m °Yssrrn Az Zx $ ! mb F'',Pm T Q R W � m - •- a z � km 0 2 nA A T j m Z l N00 '35 32-w o a y o � V me A � y _ a{ C. mn� � �N �VV" Or xV •„ ba ��, aA 41, rn onA vA yN� v �z czi� vN O b 9;6 '�'^^ xmco m �p '�Aamb` ar' �ti6bo L�LG�'1 j bm I i—, cn C4 • 32 T24N R5E E 1/2 8 hl �NRE o - R 8 co1-- iNE 27th�t.� 1 I r — z T'-'N ICI_ S �R-8_E_.mod� � �'' . � _c 6. I d� NE — 1Bt St. -� iIx cl- 4t [St.- �� I IR 8=- -�. NE VIM St.- -a-.8- -=R-8 ...__ R-10 E4 - 8 T23N ME E 1/2 �o L 4 ZO1vING SMVWD 5 T23N R5E E 1/2 N T 0 ZONING MAP BOOK r • }�� a ` AAJ 4 r+7�k ";SST' � 'N��!lFE�.i��,�;�I•fq! r _, }7� t f �i�,�! i }'s e1�1� � '�I - [� l ;� L,�� • �' r� a 0 F oil �'i � •. �� JJ�� p �� , k.7/Ci .,�. ii r+n. 'fir I' '�9i- t k"'iJT•. ! � w`- �I� 94 %' r' l." t � 7 l'' "• � . KROLL RC Resource Conservation PAGE# a I Residential 1 du/•c R-5 Re,,dentiaL 5 du/at R-a Residential 0 du/ac $(:CT/TOWNlRANGE snrt Residential Manufactured Homes a-lo Residential 10 du/ac R-la Reaidenii a] 14 du/ac n tie-i Residential Multi -Family Ln(ill Rn-M Residential Multi -Family Neighborhood Center Rr+� Residential Multi -Family Suburban Center Ian-i Reaiden Lial Multi -Family Urban Center CL Convenience Commerci4 WP Publicly Owned [r+ Center Neighborhood Rent,, City LiI. Ls LS Center Suburban —"" AdjacenL City Limits [� Center ❑ownLown {Grey TeiL) Preaonca LLR Center Office Residential Avtomall Dietricl A Ca Cum.narcial Arterial Aulomall Oi.Lriet R [a Commercial Ar Lertal Au lomall PAGE CO Commercial Office iN Induetrial - Heavy I� Induetrial - Medium INDEX I�DIw� h- 1� Jndua trial - L+ght — Pubhc Gse 21823.TXT 1 1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 2 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING 3 4 5 6 KENNYDALE CRITICAL AREAS ) Cause No. 08-2-21823-6-KNT ALLIANCE, ) 7 ) Petitioners, ) 8 ) VS. ) 9 ) CITY OF RENTON, ) 10 ) Respondents. ) 11 ) 12 13 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS 14 Before the HONORABLE JAY WHITE, Presiding, on Tuesday, January 6, 2009. 15 16 COURT'S ORAL RULING 17 APPEARANCES: 18 For the Petitioner: BRENDON DONCKERS 19 20 For the Respondents: ANN NIELSON KEVIN STEINACKER 21 22 REPORTED BY: 23 RHONDA K. SALVESEN, RPR, CSR, RMR 24 STATE OF WASHINGTON 25 0 2 I THE COURT: I think everyone is agreed as 2 to the applicable law in terms of this court's Page 1 21823.TXT 3 responsibility on review of the city Council's decision 4 under the Land use Act, Rcw 36.70C.130. And in this case 5 the petitioners are seeking review of the City Council's 6 decision under either subsections b, c or d contending the 7 land use decision is an erroneous interpretation of the law 8 after allowing for such deference as is due the 9 construction of the law by a local jurisdiction with 10 expertise. or, c, the land use decision is not supported 11 by evidence that a substantial -- in view in light of the 12 whole record before the court, indeed that the land use 13 decision is a clear and erroneous application of the law to 14 the facts. 15 The Court understands that the context here 16 is a little bit complicated in the sense that strictly 17 speaking, the court is reviewing the decision of the city 18 council, and the city council's decision in turn was a 19 review of a decision of the hearing examiner. 20 The council's finding basically or legal 21 conclusion was that the city council finds that the hearing 22 examiner made a substantial error of fact in finding that 23 the city staff did not follow the applicable city codes by 24 waiving the stream study and not requiring an independent 25 wetland analysis, and the substantial error of law in that Q 3 1 it found city staff's decision to be clearly erroneous and 2 arbitrary and capricious. 3 although the hearing examiner's decision 4 may be a bit of a mix of findings of fact and conclusions 5 of law, it appears to the Court that the principal issue 6 before the city council in turn before this court is 7 whether or not the hearing examiner was correct as a matter Page 2 21823.TxT 8 of law in ruling that the city staff was arbitrary and 9 capricious in declining to order an additional study of the 10 characteristics of the stream which the staff had concluded 11 based on prior studies to be a class 4 stream. 12 The petitioners in this case argue that 13 based upon significant testimony from people living in the 14 area, that there is a conflict between what is called the 15 Q-Map, the Renton water class map, and the conditions on 16 the ground, I guess to use the court's words on this. And 17 it's basically undisputed that class 3 waters are perennial 18 waters during the years of normal rainfall, whereas class 4 19 waters are intermittent waters during the years of normal 20 rainfall. 21 it doesn't really appear to the Court that 22 there's any specific findings of the hearing examiner that 23 is at issue here. I see it more as just his legal 24 analysis. And I make that reference because my 25 understanding of the clearly erroneous standard relates to 0 4 1 findings of fact, and that the hearing examiner and 2 vis-a-vis the city staff, and to the extent that it can be 3 seen as applicable to this court in relation to the City 4 council, but that's where it's a little bit conceptually 5 difficult because the city council really didn't make any 6 findings. They used the word finding but I don't see them 7 as factual findings. 8 It was basically a determination of whether 9 there was an error by the hearing examiner they said in 10 finding that the staff did not follow the applicable city 11 codes by waiving the stream study and not requiring Page 3 A 21823.TXT 12 independent wetland analysis. But I think in turn is the 13 hearing examiner himself says that he refers to what he 14 calls his conclusion 11. He accurately comments the 15 decision below should be the city's decision in the first 16 place. The staff action should not be reversed without a 17 clear showing that the decision is clearly erroneous or 18 arbitrary and capricious. 19 and I may be getting into too much detail 20 here, but I keep being distracted by the clearly erroneous 21 standard understanding that it has to do with the factual 22 determination, in which case that determination should be 23 set aside only if the reviewing tribunal with good reason 24 has a definite and firm conviction that a mistake of fact 25 has been committed. I have trouble applying that to 5 1 anything that the city Council did or for that matter 2 anything that the hearing examiner did. 3 so I think it really comes down to an issue 4 of whether or not the hearing examiner was -- whether we 5 use the term clearly erroneous or arbitrary and capricious 6 or both. But it appears to this court that the issue just 7 is, was the staff arbitrary and capricious in effect 8 accepting the Cedarock report, C-e-d-a-r-o-c-k, of 9 February 17th, 2006, which the court acknowledges was not a 10 report written in the context of determining whether or not 11 the stream should be elevated from Class 4, which is what's 12 shown on the map to class 3 but whether it should be in 13 effect downgraded to class 5. That report concluded that in 14 the absence of conclusive evidence supporting a change from 15 the existing class 4 water classification, it is my 16 recommendation that this classification stands. Page 4 21823.TXT 17 so in effect cedarock is a fairly recent 18 study that reaffirms and concludes that the stream in 19 question here is a class 4. 20 It does acknowledge and it's pretty candid 21 because it describes, and I think that Mr. Addley 22 (phonetic) acknowledges at one point in the report 23 personally observing -- well, I'm getting into too much 24 detail. He indicates that he observed the property really 25 about the same month we're in now, January 27, 2007, and 6 1 said that the weather was dry and an unusually high amount 2 of rainfall had fallen. It says "I reviewed the cardley 3 property here in question today and said that the water 4 course in question was flowing strongly in all area visited 5 and much of the area adjacent of the water course was 6 saturated." 7 And then he also references the water shed 8 company report which did inspect what it was referred to as 9 a ditch on July 18th, 2005. A normal but very dry year, 10 and indicating the report indicates standing water was 11 present in the pond and in the main ditch stream. 12 The Cedarock report also acknowledges that 13 there had been two recent reports during the years of 14 meeting. The definition of normal rainfall reported 15 observations of water in the ditch during two summers. one 16 was made relatively early in the season, the other 17 relatively late. However, no observations were made during 18 the driest time of the year, and it is possible the stream 19 dried up at some point one or both years. 20 The hearing examiner characterizes this Page 5 21823.TXT 21 report as inconclusive probably because of the language 22 where Mr. Addley indicates in the report that the perennial 23 stream issue Class 3 versus class 4 can only be answered by 24 direct observations of flow characteristics in the channel 25 during the summer. These data could take a few years to 0 7 1 gather if this winter's heavy rainfall pattern continues. 2 I think that the law is clear that action is 3 not arbitrary and capricious as there is room for two 4 opinions. Even if this court were to disagree with the 5 decision reached, arbitrary and capricious action 6 references willful and unreasoning decision -making in 7 disregard of the facts and circumstances. 8 This court determines as a matter of law 9 that the hearing examiner misapplied the law in concluding 10 that it was -- that the City acted arbitrarily and 11 capriciously in deciding that no additional reports were 12 necessary. The Cedarock report and, as the court 13 understands it, of the several studies that have been done 14 relating to this stream, none has ever classified it as a 15 Class 3 stream. All have said 4 or S. There was one 16 report done before the LUPA law was passed that indicated 17 it was a 3, but my understanding was that it was 18 subsequently corrected to be a 5. 19 The court can't say it's unreasoning or in 20 disregard to the circumstances where the city decides to 21 tell the Gardleys that we will accept this cedarock report 22 and treat this stream as a Class 4 stream rather than going 23 to the expense and time delays of the additional studies 24 which the hearing examiner candidly basically says may not 25 necessarily solve the problem anywhere. The hearing Page 6 9 X 21823.TXT 0 1 examiner just says the city inappropriately waived the 2 study that might have helped in finally deciding the issue 3 that has been raised by the stream flows perennially -- 4 excuse me -- that has been raised by the appellant and 5 neighbors for a number of years. 6 and later on he talks about in his 7 conclusion seven that perhaps an independent review could 8 have established what happens out of view, basically 9 referring to the conditions on the stream where it flows 10 over the Gardley property as opposed to going in and coming 11 out where many of the observations have been made. 12 The court accepts the fact that there is 13 evidence that people did see year-round presence of water 14 inasmuch as the cardley property as they were able to 15 observe. But there is conflicting evidence on that, and 16 the fact that there is a conflict of evidence on whether or 17 not it's a perennial stream or not does not constitute a 18 conflict between the stream's conditions, its 19 characteristics and the map itself. 20 So I think we're in a situation where we've 21 got the map it controls absent a conflict. There's 22 conflicting evidence about the conflict, but it's not 23 arbitrary and capricious under the circumstances here where 24 no studies have rendered the stream a class 3. And the 25 more recent study, the Cedarock study does retain the 9 1 classification of 4. 2 Even though the court understands that the Page 7 C 21823.TxT 3 issue there was whether to downgrade rather than upgrade, 4 the fact of the matter is that I think the city is not 5 arbitrary and capricious in accepting that report in terms 6 of the appropriate classification for the stream. 7 The other thing that in terms of looking at 8 what the city actually did here, if r can get it in front 9 of me, but I have the note. 10 In any event, that the City did not act 11 willfully and unreasonably in disregard -- in a willful and 12 unreasoning manner in disregard to the facts and 13 circumstances because it did acknowledge the dispute over 14 whether or not the stream was misclassified. and did not 15 totally disregard it because it did seek to provide some 16 mitigation by providing for a native growth protection 17 easement with fencing, with signage in an attempt to make a 18 reasonable effort to preserve whatever the nature of the 19 stream may be. 20 That's the more difficult issue, but 21 that's -- r just don't think that the hearing examiner was 22 correct as a matter of law in characterizing the city's 23 actions arbitrary and capricious. 24 t think the issue with the wetlands itself 25 is an easier one. There were prior studies in the record 10 1 indicating that the wetlands were category 2. That perhaps 2 they should be seen as category 2 because of an indication 3 that the area in question was head waters of the stream 4 system. That itself is in some controversy, but z do not 5 believe the City is arbitrary and capricious in accepting 6 the report of Steward and Associates, which was the report 7 that the city required the Gardleys to get in order to Page 8 21823.TXT 8 determine what the wetlands were specific to their property 9 and is the most recent report, although other reports were 10 pretty -- the last one rather was pretty close in time as 11 well. But z think it's not arbitrary and capricious for 12 the City to accept that. 13 so even though r guess the counsel for the 14 petitioners and to extent the court has to attempt to 15 discuss the evidence, I don't believe the Court's 16 undertaking an evidentiary ruling, but the Court is trying 17 to provide the framework for these various levels of 18 decision -making, where as z understand it, the City staff 19 decision is where the area of expertise lies. 20 The hearing examiner is a fact finder. The 21 hearing examiner did not enter any findings of fact that 22 would be inconsistent with the decision made by the city. 23 The hearing examiner's call was with whether or not there 24 was arbitrary and capricious action or clearly erroneous 25 action if you want to characterize it as an action rather 0 11 1 than some sort of a finding of fact. But as the hearing 2 examiner said, that would not be a basis to reverse what 3 the city did without a clear showing that the decision is 4 clearly erroneous or arbitrary and capricious. 5 The hearing examiner's findings to the 6 extent that he does have findings do not support his legal 7 conclusions. 8 Accordingly, the court is satisfied that the 9 city Council in turn did not violate the applicable 10 standards that I think everyone has agreed are similar to 11 those applied by this court. Page 9 21823.TXT 12 Although, again, I think we all understand I 13 have to necessarily talk about the evidence that was before 14 the hearing examiner. I necessarily have to talk about 15 what the staff did which was a decision before the hearing 16 examiner, but if you reduce it down to strictly asking the 17 question of whether or not the decision that the City 18 council made falls into any of the categories under 19 RCw 36.70C.130 that would require this court to reverse the 20 decision, none of them apply. 21 The Court does not believe that the city 22 council's action is an erroneous interpretation of the law. 23 1 think it's the correct interpretation of the law, 24 particularly allowing for deference that is due to the 25 construction of the law by the City Council itself on its 0 12 1 own code, and in turn as it was applied by city staff. At 2 least in terms of the City Council. 3 what I'm attempting to do here because I've 4 been reminded in argument several times and briefing that 5 I'm to be reviewing the actions of city Council. I guess 6 that's the way to look at it. There's just nothing here 7 that would suggest that they made an erroneous 8 interpretation of the law allowing deference to them in 9 applying the law of their own jurisdiction. 10 There is nothing that suggests that the 11 decision of the city Council is not supported by evidence 12 that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole 13 record. on the contrary, the evidence which the city had 14 the right to rely on and the city staff had the right to 15 rely on does support the decision of the City that there is 16 no reason other than speculation that new evidence would Page 10 21823.TXT 17 result in a more conclusive result that was written 18 necessary to conduct any further studies in this matter. 19 And then, again, these are all somewhat 20 overlapping but just to touch on it. 21 The third one, land use decision. clearly 22 erroneous application of the law to the facts. The Court 23 does not believe that's the case. i think the city council 24 has accurately applied the law to the facts. Most 25 succinctly this court finds that the hearing examiner did 0 13 1 not accurately apply the law to the facts. 2 so with regret but perhaps that may not have 3 been as clear as I might have liked it to be, but that's 4 the way it is. I try to keep in mind simultaneously these 5 four levels; the action by the city, the fact that the 6 highest fact finder is the hearing examiner, then the city 7 council basically sitting in a role similar to this court, 8 and then this court reviewing the city council's action to 9 a determination if there's been any violation of the LUPA 10 requirements. 11 I'm satisfied that the city council's action 12 is supported by the law, is not arbitrary and capricious, 13 and is not clearly erroneous to the extent that there may 14 be some factual determination by the city, and accordingly, 15 the Court would dismiss the LUPA petition. 16 1 will give counsel a chance to just review 17 and agree to a form and order and I will sign it in 18 chambers. 19 (Proceedings concluded.) 20 Page 11 21823.TXT 21 22 23 24 25 14 1 STATE OF WASHINGTON } } ss. 2 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT } 3 4 I, RHONDA K. SALVESEN, RPR, CSR, RMR, An official 5 Court Reporter for King County Superior Court, State of 6 Washington, hereby certify that the foregoing pages, 1 7 through 14, inclusive, comprise a full, true and correct 8 transcript of the proceedings in the above -entitled cause. w 10 Dated this **** day of *******, 2009. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 RHONDA K. SALVESEN, RPR, CSR, RMR official court Reporter Page 12 CITY _ F RENTON ,UDenis Law, Mayor August 12, 2008 Richard and Lauraiee Gordley 12819 SE 38ffi Street. Bellevue, WA 98006 Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator SUBJECT: BLUEBERRY HAVEN SHORT FLAT (FILE NO. LUA07-131, SHPL-A, ECF) Dear Mr. and Mrs. Gordley, This letter is written to document that you have requested that the City continue its review and processing of the Blueberry Haven Short Plat, The two -lot short plat was approved by City Council on June 9, 2008 as the result of the granting of an appeal regarding a Hearing Examiner's decision. However, a Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) appeal has been filed in King County Superior Court, requesting among other relief, that the City Council's decision be reversed. Based on your request the City has continued review and.processing of the Blueberry Haven Short Plat in the normal course of business. On Wednesday, August 6th, the short plat was signed by the Public Works Administrator and is being conveyed to King County for recording. As we have told you in discussions at the City's Land Use Information Counter, the processing and recording of the short plat is being done at your own risk. If the decision of the Superior Court is .to overturn the City's approval of the short plat, you will be responsible with complying with all aspects of the Court's decision. This may include, but not be limited to; elimination of the lot line creating the new lot: Sincerely, Jennifer T. Henning, AICP Planning Manager cc: Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Alex Pietsch, CED Administrator C.E. Vincent, Planning Director Neii Watts, Development Services Director Ann Nielsen, City Attorney Kevin Steinacker, Dickson Steinacker LLP David Mann, Gendler & Mann File 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98057 R E N T O LV AHEAD OF THE CURVE Thispapereontains50%nreaYdedmaterial,30%Pcstconsumer - - - I AFTER RECORDING RETURN TO: Gendler & Mann, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98I01 AUG 0 7 2008 �.. 1VARRE(VSA0.o,, - IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR KING COUNTY KENNYDALE CRITICAL AREAS ALLIANCE, a Washington nonprofit corporation, Petitioners, M CITY OF RENTON, a Washington Municipal Corporation; and RICHARD and LAURALEE GORDLEY, husband and wife, LIS PENDENS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that an action has been commenced in the above - entitled court upon the complaint of the petitioners above -named against the above -named respondents. This action concerns the short plat subdivision of the property and development restrictions that apply to the property. The action affects title to the following described real estate situated in King County, Washington, to wit: HILLMANS LK WN GARDEN OF EDEN #4 LOT 4 TGW PORTION OF LOT 2 OF CITY OF RENTON SHORT PLAT NO 60-87 R)ECORDINGNO 8805099006 LY SLY OF FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE - BEGIN NE CORNER OF LOT 4 SAID SHORT PLAT TH N 89- 2940 E ON ELY PROJECTION OF N LINE OF SAID LOT 4 226.50 FT TAP ON EL'Y BDRY OF SAID LOT 2 BEING S 00-35-32 E 326.88 FT FROM MOST NELY CORNER OF SAID LOT 2 & TERMINUS OF 'Ps ;a. HEREIN DESCRIBED LINE BEING A PORTION OF TRACTS 284 & 293 OF HILLMANS LAKE WASH GARDEN OF EDEN NO 4 -- AKA LOT B OF CITY OF RENTON LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO LUA 95- 093 LLA RECORDING NO 9511299005 Tax Parcel No. 3343903563 Dated this day of rely, 2008. Respectfully submitted, By: Ashley A. Peck WSBA No. 39254 Gendler & Mann, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Attorneys for Petitioners STATE OF WASHINGTON ss COUNTY OF ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that the person appearing before me and making this acknowledgment is the person w e true si a e appears on this document. On this day personally appeared before me , to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she signed the same as his/her free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. 1 ¢ GIVEN under my hand and official seal this ! day of _ 20�. - �A $ z NOTARY IJLIC in and for the A ru State of Residin at _ i A CX S 39 My Commission Expires $ d w %CAA(Den)l CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: August 7, 2008 TO: Bonnie Walton, City Clerk's Office FROM: Carrie K. Olson, Plan Review x723� SUBJECT: BLUEBERRY HAVEN SHORT PLAT LUA07-131-SHPL Attached please find two sets of the above -referenced original mylars and three paper copies of the mylar for recording with King County. The recording instructions in order are as follows: 1. Record the short plat mylars. 2. Request King County to return one of the executed mylars to us for our records. Please have the Courier take these documents via 4-hour service. A check in the amount of $13.81 made out to Champion Couriers is attached. According to Finance, the King County recording fees for this and all subsequent plat recordings should be charged to account#000000-007.5590.0060.49.000014. Please call me if you have any questions. Thank you. Cc: Kayren Kittrick ([Notice of Recording) Jan Conklin (Please provide PID/recording Ws to Sonja, Carrie, and Patrick) Patrick (Notice to final short plat on Permits Plus) Yellow File IU:lPianRcview\COLSOMhortplats 20MBlueberry haven SHPL 08m ClcrkRecord.doc CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: August 6, 2008 TO: Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator FROM: Carrie K. Olson, Plan Review x7235 SUBJECT: BLUEBERRY HAVEN SHORT PLAT LUA07-131-SHPL Technical Services and Development Services have reviewed and recommended approval for the above -mentioned short plat. Requirements and conditions have been fulfilled, fees paid. Two original mylars are attached and are submitted for your review and signature. Please return mylars to me for recording. Thank you. cc! Yellow File \VAPIanRevim\C0LS0N\Shortplats 2008161ueheM Haven SHPL 06m ZimSign.doc CITY OF RENTON + "R + k Denis Law, Mayor Office of the City Attorney Lawrence J. W2rreu �.j Senlor Assistant City Attorneys Mark Barber July 28, 2008 Assistant City Attorneys Kevin Steinacker, Esq. Ann S. Gar an Newsom I1 Dickson Steinacker LLP Shawn E. Arthur 1402 Wells Fargo Plaza 1201 Pacific Avenue Tacoma, WA 98402 Re: Blueberry Haven Short PlatlGordleyr — LUA 07-131, SHPL-A, ECF Dear Kevin: This letter follows up our telephone call Friday regarding your clients, the Gordleys' request to record the above -referenced plat l have also received your correspondence dated July 25, 2008, in which you provided your basis and analysis for seeking the recording despite the ongoing Iitigation regarding the plat, currently in Superior Court on a LUPA appeal by the Appellants Sue Rider and Kennydale Critical Areas Alliance. RCW 30.70C_ 100 Stay of action pending review, sets forth in relevant part: "(1) A petitioner or other party may request the court to stay or suspend an action by the local jurisdiction or another party to implement the decision under review." As you pointed out in your letter, the Appellants did not apply for a stay when they filed their LUPA appeal. Therefore, it is your clients' belief that they are entitled to have their plat recorded. 1 have been unable to find any contrary authority to your position. Notwithstanding this, the City has concerns with proceeding to record the plat. If the Appellants prevail in the LUPA appeal, the existing plat would be overturned and your clients would not be entitled to the proposed subdivision. Hence, a situation would be created in which your clients' plat would have to be "unrecorded" and any other associated permits that may have been issued would have to be retracted and rescinded. Similarly, if any action had been taken in furtherance of the approved plat, that action would also have to be reversed. (Far example, if construction occurred and another building was erected on the site, that building would have to be removed.) Moreover, the City's concerns are exacerbated by the fact that the Gordleys are pushing for the quick recording of the plat, because of their desire to sell the property. While the City has no interest or right to intervene in the Gordleys' private property transaction, the concern arises in that the prospective buyers may not be aware of the existing litigation regarding the property and the possible resulting effects. Given this, the City strongly urges you to advise your clients to fully disclose to any and all prospective buyers, the exact nature of the LUPA appeal and all of its possible results, particularly if the plat is recorded but the decision approving the plat is subsequently reversed by the Superior Court. Post Office Box 626 - Renton, Washingtoo 98057 - (425) 255-86781 FAX (425) 255-5474 SThkpaprcanwmw%wydsdmobi iat.3o960oelm."w RENT ON' AHEAD OF SHE CURY}. Blueberry Haven Short Plat/Gordleys .holy 28, 2008 Page 2 As you can tell by the tenor of this letter, the City has great reservations about proceeding to record the plat. Nonetheless, absent a stay request by Appellants and finding no statutory basis to deny your clients request, the City will proceed to process and record the plat. Please note however, that this process will take approximately two weeks, assuming there are no major obstacles or unanticipated issues. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at (425) 255-8578. Sincerely, Ann Nielsen AssL City Attorney cc: David Mann, attorney for Appellant Sue Rider & KCAA Members of the Renton City Council Jay Covington Alex Pietsch Chip Vincent Jennifer Kenning D CITY F RENTON ♦ �� Department of Community and Economic Development �� Denis Law, Mayor Alex Pietsch, Administrator August 6, 2008 Richard & Lauralee Gordley 2010 Jones Ave NE Renton WA 98056 SUBJECT: BLUEBERRY HAVEN SHORT PLAT LUA07-131-S111PL Dear Mr. & Mrs Gordley: The review submittal on the above -mentioned short plat has been completed and the following comments have been returned. SHORT PLAT REVIEW COMMENTS-- (These items are required to be comple—tc.d prior to recording of the short plat.) 1. Approval is subject to including the King County ec. No. 20080804900005 in "PARENT LEGAL DESCRIPTION" block on Sheet f 2. 2. Pay the Fee -In -Lieu -Of (Sidewalk Mitigation Fees) in the LUA07-131, and; 3. Pay the Transportation and Fire Mitigation Fees in the amount of $1,205.50 for 1 lot under LUA07-131 made payable to the City of Renton. These fees may be paid at the Customer Services Counter on the 6th floor of Renton City Hall. When the above items are completed, you may submit the signed and notarized short plat mylar (one original mylar and one copy (on mylar) of each sheet) along with a check in the amount of: The new rates changes are as follows: Was $13.81; now 15.81 for "same day" service (Gerk's office has to have the package ready and call it in for pickup by 11:00 am in order to get delivery to King County by 5:00 pm) Was $16.78; now 17.72 for 4 hour service Was $19.76; now 20.71 for 2 hour service Was $26.53; now 30.12 for 1 hour service (current courier fee) made out to Champion Couriers. Should you need to discuss any portion of this letter please contact me at (425) 430-7235. Sincerely, t<, ad-e� Carrie K. Olson Development Services, Plan Review FAXED TO: GeoDimensions: - 1&_ 5- 4,51F- 0 $ 1:%PlanReviewlCOLSOMShortplats 20MBlueberry Haven SHPL 07L RequestMylarStop.doc 1055 South Grady Way -Renton, Washington► 9$057 R E T This paper cuntains 50 % recycled material, 30% post consumer A14YAD OF TFIE CURVE lir0: 1 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDINGIPUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM August 1, 2008 TO: Jennifer Henning, Planning FROM: Carrie Olson, Plan Review x7235 SUBJECT: BLUEBERRY HAVEN SHORT PLAT LUA07-131-SHPL Attached is the LUA folder for the short plat. We are in the final review stage of recording this short plat. If you find any short plat requirements that have not been properly addressed, please let me know. Please return comments and folder to me by , so I can proceed to final recording. Thanks. Note: Demo Permit not required. - OIJV �Wj"Wuk,, Approval: L—rull Jennifer Henning, Planning Cc: Yellow File Date: " L•lPlsnReview\00 SONIShortplats 200MIueberry Haven SHPL 03m Planning ReviewStart.doe CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: August 4, 2008 TO: Jan Illian, Plan Review FROM: Carrie Olson, Plan Review x7235 SUBJECT; BLUEBERRY HAVEN SHORT PLAT LUA07-131-SHPL Attached is the most recent version of the above -referenced short plat. The following attachments are enclosed for your review: Short Plat drawings. Also provide the following information requested by Gregg Zimmermen as requirement of project closeout and signing of short plat mylars. Status f- Accepted Related Proiect l Comments NA As-Builts Cost Data Inventory Bill of Sale Easements (Water, Sewer, Utilities, Hydrant, etc.) 3( Deed of Dedication Square Footage: 3( Restrictive Covenants or Fee -In -Lieu -of 3( Fee-In-Licu-of: W,695.68 Maintenance Bond Release Permit Bond Comments : Approval: (, 1 Date: K yr Kittrick Illian Cc: Yellow File CITY OF RENTON 411 PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS o 04 Q MEMORANDUM �`ITFPYN�O DATE: August 4, 2008 TO: Bob Mac Onie, Technical Services Sonja Fesser, Technical Services FROM: Carrie Olson, Plan Review x7235 SUBJECT; BLUEBERRY HAVEN SHORT PLAT LUA07-131-SHPL Attached is the most recent version of the above -referenced short plat. The following attachments are enclosed for your review: • Short Plat drawings If all review concerns have been addressed, please sign below or return your comments as needed. Thanks. 1- -} }C1 L1q C'5 o y aF z . Approval: Robert T Mac Onie, Jr. Cc: Yellow File 1 ate: Sonj ess 1AP1anReviewl00LS0N\Shortplab 20081Blueberry Haven SHPL 04m PR TS ReviewStartdoc CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: August 6, 2008 TO: Jan Conklin, Development Services FROM: Carrie K. Olson, Development Services/Plan Review x7235 SUBJECT; BLUEBERRY HAVEN SHORT PLAT LUA07-131-SHPL A copy of the above mentioned short plat is attached for your information. If you have comments or changes in addressing, please let me know. 111:IP1anReview\CGLSQN15hortplats 240MBIueheM Haven SHPL 05m UnC.doc NO pop% " to OVO <L mor,49H 0-40aDqtA ril"m BEARNG MERUM. GORDLEY LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT VCX.IPAGE CITY OF RENTON PEN CITY OF RENTON SNORT PL.Ar M. SIM -060-07. SW J/4 OF THE NE 114 OF SEC eR., ')VP - W: 'I '�: '.': W NW 114 OF T�IE SE 1/4 OF SEC TOW. 23hf RGE 5E 04 CITY 12F RENTON, KING CMWTY WAS14INa TON RECORDS OF rzw �Ty. wstIlmTam' A VEA.XM OF NOI) '31'M -W M AMA TABLE LUA NO, LUA-07-0904-LA FT OF �00NLS AM NW.E. PARENT LOT - 80, � SO SURVEYOR'S NOTES. I) ME StevEr SIAM � WAS v lei PARCE� k LWN0, LND%AKM 897S5 AREA - 37, 682 Sa FT PEFFDNNED AFC FIELD LOC4F20 IN Wr� NET AREA - 17. 372 SO. FT. /CIP/2006 GRAPHIC SCALE i PARCEL S. OF V" AND JLAC OF 2007 SPOSS AREA -41310 So'" . 2) SLOUECT PFW"Ty TAA PARGEL NO. 277JW46= ffRoss EIM NET AREA 7Sea W. FT. in CUW A!., 0 30 60 3) WE FLAAU AREA PER THIS SURVEY R 601 M. FT. NHIGH COVERS 121 Or PAWERrY. m"'-K go'!�fr FNC. 2' 1" PI5PE HIL� ' NARKED SELL I AT �Ta- CORNER 'mul,Y 1-12 v ELEr.-PM.5' lSAte" `ram' REBAR C CAP 105 W/20/2007 WrOE ZNGRESS AM c'o �Tr �'T Ila. LIT ADO Tom �Lnl 7 A AAR CAP E&qrM ,WNT "R, 160-ps. DO 5" r' N; (fis q 2e.63, NEW LOT L4i t LfNE PARCEL B hBD 100.45' 7, AND T 1 43,3 10 SQ FF ESWT t SEC. I I fs WIDE 14 1%'CAP Es' 6 RA 7W 1. r, FCC. Mo. awwag" i tam XWM?dnml. � .., �' t I w NAIL S WARItp kR 'T T NAIL 21.�.nT NW-,'9'DQ'E 255.00 'Lig Do, - ;F. , �i A � 7TY r5o t I - 1, 29.All' t '�j"N . t ;..'. ..' P" S�A SET 112- G� LS IM 'HAR c� FT. 4 OF T WrLAko EW AREA f nEHAR 6 EGMSS la .1 . ".-mrZ17 ORCT .r N. OF J. W OR,T T I 125. P400WE AND MOM 226 47 t PIC. AEBAR 6 CAR &.0irMa W6 CAP LS 0 17663 39'E f7663- AT PROPERTY ON OpE -WLI)- CDFW7R Win' ELEY-254 s' ELEY.-em.p, 4WOUM-11 E MR 9 CAP AS NOTED *-rLAM FLAGS AO6E FIELD FONMg IR PIPE 47. LOCATED BY SEWINENSt" SE�T 112' 6AA.&'NP'7- LS If"x-- PAC. ON.RIPE 1. MOT A,-WT LAM F(.&S .......... r 369 LoARCEL A uS, E wm W7 InYFS, 7 Tc =� Ar uw TF'MPQ ;E 7,72-$FT IMwo. r... 7 so.r7 'D'W. IT IAI,. ozn WF A rzlFPT -eta CAp jsa�-'. "-M.E.167 $7. 6 A� ApdcH Na FEMM9 13-P GORDUYLOT. VA F'GLAND PIN IN 109 JO/Owl"r REFERENCES USED: I ions, mey. A=J� 279. IS. FuLW DOPE" pzm in f:TTY OF RENTON Y. M PAGE 179 �'-.mmqk WA .. 9M cow INCASED cTry OF REmMN SHORT PLAT Au.swL-00-07. V. Ga PAGE 27a. moms kCAS NAP N.E. J/A SEC Ss SN —1/4. OF ME .114. 5.-ja:- . T-12L R. ALL RECQFW OF KING GOLINTY- IM, 940QUAAW, MW !,14 OF E-E-1/4, T-22w:mk METHOD OF SURVEY WA. Omm BY .:I DATE . PW N PHOW (AM JW45-760 ZkST�Urrm FOR MIS %4?VEY KAS A I - croazwrm � a -A"IW GNrr. �S "" IN MIS MOM DISM" 2 RFYFA� �ES� W �TZW NFCES� SGR ftw llt� A NFM�Y. IXPIRES ii/26V20M 0*0: ili' JSCAL,� , CITY OF AEWMAL KING COMIT AND STATE Of WASNZNGrOW STAMAA� , I S� qr SET 9Y MAC 3�139-100. E. J. G. -'�'2 OF 2 Printed: 08-06-2008 Payment Made ITY OF RENTON 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Land Use Actions RECEIPT Permit#: LUA07-131 08/06/2008 11:43 AM Total Payment: 14,695.68 Current Payment Made to the Following Items: Receipt Number: R0804125 Payee: Pinpoint Inspections Inc. # 3386 Trans Account Code Description Amount ------------------------------------------------------ ---------------- 3025 305.00.344.85.0003 Sidewalk Mitigation Fee 14,695.68 Payments made for this receipt Trans Method Description Amount ---------- -------- ----------------------------- --------------- Payment Check #3386 14,695.68 Account Balances Trans Account Code Description 3021 303.000.00.345.85 Park Mitigation Fee 3025 305,00.344.85.0003 Sidewalk Mitigation Fee 5006 000.345.81.00.0002 Annexation Fees 5007 000.345.81.00.0003 Appeals/Waivers 5008 000.345.81.00.0004 Binding Site/Short Plat 5009 000.345.81.00.0006 Conditional Use Fees 5010 000.345.81.00.0007 Environmental Review 5011 000.345.81.00.0008 Prelim/Tentative Plat 5012 000.345.81.00.0009 Final Plat 5013 000.345.81.00.0010 PUD 5014 000.345.81.00.0011 Grading & Filling Fees 5015 000.345.81.00.0012 Lot Line Adjustment 5016 000.345.81.00,0013 Mobile Home Parks 5017 000.345.81.00.0014 Rezone 5018 000.345.81.00.0015 Routine Vegetation Mgmt 5019 000.345.81.00.0016 Shoreline Subst Dev 5020 000.345.81.00.0017 Site Plan Approval 5021 000.345.81.00,0018 Temp Use, Hobbyk, Fence 5022 000.345.81.00.0019 Variance Fees 5024 000.345.81.00.0024 Conditional Approval Fee 5036 000.345.81,00,0005 Comprehensive Plan Amend 5045 304.000.00.345.85 Fire Mitigation-SFR 5050 305.000.00.344.85 Traffic Mitigation Fee 5909 000.341.60.00.0024 Booklets/EIS/Copies 5941 000.341.50.00.0000 Maps (Taxable) 5954 650.237.00.00.0000 DO NOT USE - USE 3954 5955 000,05.519.90.42.1 Postage 5998 000.231.70.00.0000 Tax Balance Due .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 Denis Law, Mayor August 4, 2008 Richard & Lauralee Gordley 12819 SE 3SO' Street, PMB 206 Bellevue, WA 98006 Re: Blueberry Haven Short Plat 2010 Jones Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Gordley: CITY 4 � RENTON Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator On August 4, 2008, the Development Services Director granted your application for a fee=in-lieu of installing offsite improvements consisting of sidewalks, curb, gutter, and pavement fronting the site on Jones Avenue NE and NE 20`t' Street. The fee for improvements has been calculated as follows: . FEE PER SQUARE YARD # SQUARE (SY) OR LINEAL YARDS OR ITEM FOOT F LINEAL FEET EXTENDED COST Sidewalk fronting Jones Avenue NF 38.00/LF 70 $2,660.00 Curb and Gutter .tones Avenue NF. 48.00/LF 70 $3,360.00 Sidewalk fronting NE 200' Street 38.00/LF 100.88 $3,933.44 Curb and Gutter NE 20"' Street 48,00/LF 100.88 $4,842,24 TOTAL FEE -IN -LIEU OF DUE CITY OF RENTON $14,695.68 1-his fee must be received by the City prior to recording of the short plat. According to City code, you have 15 days from today's date to appeal the administrative determination. Appeals are to be filed in writing, with the City Clerk and require a filing fee in the amount of $75.00. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be .obtained from the Renton City Clerk's office by calling (425) 43076510. 1055 South Grady Way —Renton, Washington 98057 This paper contains50%recycled matenal, 30%. post consumer RENTON AHEAD 6L THE CURVE Printed: 08-06-2008 Payment Made: CITY OF RENTON 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Land Use Actions RECEIPT Permit#: LUA07-131 08/06/2008 11:41 AM Total Payment: 11205.50 Current Payment Made to the Following Items: Receipt Number: R0804124 Payee: Pinpoint Inspection Inc. #3385 Trans Account Code Description Amount 5045 304.000.00.345.85 Fire Mitigation-SFR 488.00 5050 305.000.00.344.85 Traffic Mitigation Fee 717.50 Payments made for this receipt Trans Method Description Amount ---------- -------- --------------------------- ---------------- Payment Check 3385 1,205.50 Account Balances Trans Account Code Description 3021 303.000.00.345.85 Park Mitigation Fee 3025 305.00.344.85.0003 Sidewalk Mitigation Fee 5006 000.345.81.00.0002 Annexation Fees 5007 000.345.81.00.0003 Appeals/Waivers 5008 000.345.81.00.0004 Binding Site/Short Plat 5009 000.345.81.00.0006 Conditional ❑se Fees 5010 000.345.81.00.0007 Environmental Review 5011 000.345.81.00.0008 Prelim/Tentative Plat 5012 000.345.81.00.0009 Final Plat 5013 000.345.81.00.0010 PUD 5014 000.345.81.00.0011 Grading & Filling Fees 5015 000.345.81.00.0012 Lot Line Adjustment 5016 000.345.81.00.0013 Mobile Home Parks 5017 000.345.81.00,0014 Rezone 5018 000.345.81.00.0015 Routine Vegetation Mgmt 5019 000.345.81.00.0016 Shoreline Subst Dev 5020 000.345.81.00.0017 Site Plan Approval 5021 000,345.61.00.0018 Temp Use, Hobbyk, Fence 5022 000.345.81.00.0019 Variance Fees 5024 000.345.81.00.0024 Conditional Approval Fee 5036 000.345.81.00.0005 Comprehensive Plan Amend 5045 304.000.00.345.85 Fire Mitigation-SFR 5050 305.000.00.344.85 Traffic Mitigation Fee 5909 000.341.60.00.0024 Booklets/EIS/Copies 5941 000.341.50.00.0000 Maps (Taxable) 5954 650.237.00.00.0000 DO NOT USE - USE 3954 5955 000.05.519.90.42.1 Postage 5998 000.231.70.00.0000 Tax Balance Due .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 Printed: 08-06-2008 Payment Made: CITY OF RENTON 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Utility Services Permit RECEIPT Permit'#: U080064 07/02/2008 10:25 AM Total Payment: 1,012.00 Current Payment Made to the Following Items: Receipt Number: R0803434 Payee: CASHIER'S CHECK #360163 Trans Account Code Description Amount ------------------------------------------------------ ---------------- 4069 427.388.10.00.0040 Spec Util Connect Stormw 1,012.00 Payments made for this receipt Trans Method Description Amount ---------- -------- --------------------------- --------------- Payment Check #360163 1,012.00 Account Balances Trans Account Code Description Balance Due ------ 3025 ------------------ 305.00.344.85.0003 ------------------------------ Sidewalk Mitigation Fee --------------- .00 4028 000.343.20.00.0000 Public Works Inspection .00 4033 407.343.90.00.0003 Stormwater Insp Approval .00 4040 426.388.10.00.0020 Spec Util Connect Sewer .00 4042 406.343.90.00.0002 Sewer Inspection Approvl .00 4044 406.322.10.00.0015 Sewer Permit .00 4050 000.322.40.00.0000 Right-of-way Constructn .00 4056 425.388.10.00.0010 Spec Util Connect Water .00 4057 405.343.90.00.0001 Water Inspection Approvl .00 4059 405.388.10.00.0013 Misc. Water Installation .00 4061 407.322.10.00.0020 Storm Water Permits .00 4069 427.388.10.00.0040 Spec Util Connect Stormw .00 5025 000.322.10.00.0017 Street Lighting Fee .00 Remaining Balance Due: $0.00 Printed: 08-06-2008 Payment Made: CITY OF RENTON 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Sidesewer Permit RECEIPT Permit#: SS080220 07/02/2008 10:23 AM Total Payment: 2,451.00 Current Payment Made to the Following Items: Receipt Number: R0803433 Payee: CASHIER'S CHECK #360163 Trans Account Code Description Amount ---------------- ------- 4040 ------------------ 426.388.10.00.0020 ------------------------------- Spec Util Connect Sewer 1,401.00 4045 426.388.10.00.0031 Spec Assmt Dist, Sewer 1,050.00 Payments made for this receipt Trans Method Description Amount ---------- -------- ---------------------------- --------------- Payment Check #360163 2,451.00 Account Balances Trans Account Code Description Balance Due ------ 4040 ------------------ 426.388.10.00.0020 ------------------------------ Spec Util Connect Sewer --_-_----_------- .00 4044 406.322.10.00.0015 Sewer Permit .00 4045 426.388.10.00.0031 Spec Assmt Dist, Sewer .00 4050 000.322.40.00.0000 Right-of-way Constructn .00 Remaining Balance Due: $0.00 Printed: 08-06-2008 CITY OF RENTON 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Sidesewer Permit RECEIPT Permit#: SS080220 Payment Made: 06/24/2008 03:20 PM Receipt Number: R0803296 Total Payment: 190.00 Payee: CASHIER CHECK - ALASKA USA #357317 Current Payment Made to the Fallowing Items: Trans Account Code Description Amount ------------------------------------------------------ ---------------- 4040 426.388.10.00.0020 Spec Util Connect Sewer 190.00 Payments made for this receipt Trans Method Description Amount ---------- -------- --------------------------- --------------- Payment Check #357317 190.00 Account Balances Trans ------ Account Code Description Balance Due 4040 ------------------ 426.388.10.00.0020 ------------------------------ Spec Util Connect Sewer --------------- .00 4044 406.322.10.00.0015 Sewer Permit .00 4045 426.388.10.00.0031 Spec Assmt Dist, Sewer .00 4050 000.322.40.00.0000 Right-of-way Constructn .00 Remaining Balance Due: $0.00 Printed: 08-06-2008 Payment Made . ITY OF RENTON 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Water Service Permit RECEIPT Permit#: W080229 +I�?Z.YXIIII,*1k0iEs] 4uJ Total Payment: 2,378.00 #358624 Current Payment Made to the Fallowing Items: Receipt Number: R0803294 Payee: CASHIER CHECK - ALASKA USA Trans Account Code Description Amount -------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- 4056 425.388.10.00.0010 Spec Util Connect Water 2,236.00 4059 405.388.10.00.0013 Misc. Water Installation 142.00 Payments made for this receipt Trans Method Description Amount Payment Check 4358624 2,378.00 Account Balances Trans Account Code Description Balance Due ------ 4021 ------------------ 405.343.90.00.0000 ------------------------------ Meter Processing Fee --------------- .00 4056 425.388.10.00,0010 Spec Util Connect Water .00 4059 405.388.10.00.0013 Misc. Water Installation .00 4068 405.237.00.00.0000 Hydrant Deposit .00 Remaining Balance Due: $0.00 Printed: 08-06-2008 Payment Made: CITY OF RENTON 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Water Service Permit RECEIPT Permit#: W080229 06/24/2008 03:18 PM Total Payment: 1,878.00 #357317 Receipt Number: R0803295 Payee: CASHIER CHECK - ALASKA USA Current Payment Made to the Following Items: Trans Account Code Description Amount ------------------------------------------------------ ---------------- 4059 405.388.10.00.0013 Misc. Water Installation 1,878.00 Payments made for this receipt Trans Method Description Amount ---------- -------- --------------------------- --------------- Payment Check #357317 1,878.00 Account Balances Trans Account Code Description Balance Due ------ 4021 ------------------ 405.343.90.00.0000 ------------------------------- Meter Processing Fee --------------- .00 4056 425.388.10.00.0010 Spec Util Connect Water .00 4059 405.388.10.00.0013 Misc. Water Installation .00 4068 405.237.00.00.0000 Hydrant Deposit .00 Remaining Balance Due: $0.00 CITY OF RENTON Permit Number: SS080220 SOTH Work Description: INSTALL SIDE SEWER FROM MAIN TO PROPERTY LINE Job Address: 1712 NE 20TH ST Owner: GORDLEY RICHARD+LAURALEE 2010 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 Contractor: PALENSKY DOZING INC 25230 SE 359TH AUBURN, WA 98092 Contact Other Information: Date of Issue 07/02/2008 Date of Expiration 12/29/2008 Date Finaled 1/ 1 r 46 S,- Contractor License Contractor Phone: City License_ Contact's Phone: Sidesewer Permit PALENDI051 BT 360-886-1439 0100 Work Order 87026 Parcel Number 9991690020 Inspector's Name Inspector's Phone It is understood that the City of Renton shall be held harmless of any and all liability, damage or injury arising from the performance of the work described above. You will be billed time and material for any work done by City staff to repair damages. Any work performed within the right-of-way must be done by a licensed, bonded contractor. Call 425-430-7203 one working day in advance for inspections. To Cancel an Inspection - call 425-430-7200 between SAM and 5PM Locate utilities before excavating. Call before you dig - 48 Hour Locators 1-800-424-5555 I hereby certify that no work is to be done except as described above and in approved plans, and that work is to conform to Renton codes and ordinances. Subject to compliance with the Ordinances of the City of Renton and information filed herewith permit is granted. Applicant Public Works Rep THIS PER IT MUST BE POSTED AT THE JOB SITE AT ALL TIMES. CNGO 1 12100 bh CITY OF RENTON Construction Permit Permit Number: U080064 Permission is hereby given to do the following described work, according to the conditions hereon and according to the approved plans and specifications pertaining thereto, subject to compliance with the Ordinances of the City of Renton. Work Description: CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR BLUEBERRY HAVEN Job Address: 1712 NE 20TH ST Owner: GORDLEY RICHARD+LAURALEE 2010 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 Contractor: PALENSKY DOZING INC 25230 SE 359TH AUBURN, WA 98092 Contact Other Information: Date of Issue Date of Expiration Date Finaled Contractor License: Contractor Phone: City License: Contact's Phone: 07/02/2008 Work Order 12/29/2008 Parcel Number Inspector's Name Inspector's Phone PALENDI051BT 360-886-1439 0100 87031 9991690020 It is understood that the City of Renton shall be held harmless of any and all liability, damage or injury arising from the performance of the work described above. You will be billed time and material for any work done by City staff to repair damages. Any work performed within the right-of-way must be done by a licensed, bonded contractor. Call 425-430-7203 one working day in advance for inspections. Locate utilities before excavating. Call before you dig - 48 Hour Locators 1-800-424-5555 I hereby certify that no work is to be done except Subject to compliance with the Ordinances of the as described above and in approved plans, and that City of Renton and information filed herewith work is to conform to Renton codes and permit is granted. ordinances. Applicant 11 Public Works Rep THIS PERMIT MUST BE POSTED AT THE JOB SITE AT ALL TIMES. ENG01 12/00 bh /Fi ASL4r�a Dmima, Jam. Invoice 25230 SE 359th Street Auburn, WA 98092 Bill To Richard Gordley 12819 SE 38th ST PMB 206 Bellevue, WA 98006 Date Invoice # 7/17/2008 10375 Terms Project due upon receipt 2010 !ones Ave NE Quantity Description Rate Amount Sewer Installation 10,200.00 10,200.00T Down -payment $3668.94 check #3377 0.00 i I . Subtotal $10,200.00 1.5% PER MONTH INTEREST CHARGE AF FR 30 DAYS_ CUSTOMER IS OBI.[GATED TO PAY ALL LIEN, COLLECTION OR ATTORNEY FEES IN REGARD gales Tax9.0% ) $918,00 TO ANY PART OF THIS INVOICE. Total $11,118.00 Payments/Credits $-3,668.94 Balance Due $7,449.06 Phone # Fax # E-maii 360.886.1439 360.986.7703 palenskydoz[ngGgmaiI.com Carrie Olson - Mime.822 Page 1 <laUraleeg "dey%hoo bm- e2aee framweb54 rail:cor[06.1 48.207jhyRail1.cirentanMPTte05An2008 09:49:46 - Receiv fl DID ed a,owU6.190 48 20ij y �9 ay.ci mr6n.wa us { n ) b wnfi srntpi 28S57Pe fi ©E 2008 09 40A.5 -0TOtt Received �, _ _ ` „` �grnai17365 Ir�vc�ite:, D[3rT18in1{e�(- �gnatUre: ° a= rs C S G= s d=ya ece Mailer Sub Type #$Lvg its MG sf . Y W6d2pyiiD�, 4,{ +0mylypr47gIR,1 oi+g6k Ma �gtJ Reveived from [24 M,355 Tue, 05 A� 2008`° X Mallet.' MaiiltebS ReceAugr2t0mda 0. C From.". Subject ', k Lbu+flfi alGL ii Weiland Fer , � e E To jhenningrerentQ for MIMEw,tCers%r k" 7ve Confetti Type:, lu, b Me ID .314T0.73(i97 itr Content T Aunt ttml; charset= YID Nttaphment DSGEi70.11.jpg D k I ; we IMF 1(erslon Content aXFIKCjb7uiRUVi; i�nC6l=�rIDT. Jennifer, I have attached one of the wetland fence photo's for the Blueberry Haven Shortplat. The landscape is going in today. I am waiting for the final review comments for the survey, do you have any suggestions on anyone I could talk to to ask that it could be done today? Lauralee IF ,- e f i • :'� - • �` 4L r t t a — - •J� 14 te�;r, _.T - .a+' � y } %� n y. .. :_' - � �� .e Carrie Olson - Request for fee -in -lieu Page 1 From: Jan Illian To: lauraleegordley@yahoo.com Date: 08/04/2008 1:33:46 PM Subject: Request for fee -in -lieu Lauralee, Your request to pay a fee in lieu was approved. A letter is going out in the mail to you today, notifying you of that. Fee total is $14,695.68. This amount needs to be paid before the short plat leaves the city for recording. CC: Olson, Carrie; Timmons, Rocale -13 ( U e " S(PL l-AA- o7 - i a I AyPw-zn4 :J �Vq� .� 16f (,4 rJ (eel ovd )e j @ jaboo C41*1 Carrie Olson - Re: Bluebera Haven Shortplat completion requirements LUA07-131 Page 1 From: Jan Illian To: lauraleegordley@yahoo.com Date: 08/04/2008 10:10:50 AM Subject: Re: Blueberry Haven Shortplat completion requirements LUA07-131 Hi Lauralee, As it stands right now, I can not sign off on the civil construction until we hear if you can pay a fee in lieu_ If that gets denied, you have to build the street improvements. You will need to find a civil engineer to design plans for you. If you get the improvements deferred until next year, you will need approved plans before the short plat gets recorded. Let's keep our fingers crossed and hope all goes well this morning. »> Lauralee <lauraleegordley@yahoo.com> 08/03/08 10:15 PM »> Good Morning Jan, We received the Shortplat Recording review late Friday, one of the items was to contact you for requirements to be completed on the civil construction portion to our project. We are hopeing to turn the survey changes in later on Monday. Could you do this as soon as possible? The wetland fence and signage has been installed and the landscape will be installed Monday. I do have one question on the landscape. I turned my landscape plan in and don't have my own copy available. The 5' of landscaping at the front of the lot, can this go on the public right away side of the property line, or does in have to go inside the property line? My contact number is 425-652-3194. Thank you Lauralee CC: Henning, Jennifer; Olson, Carrie Denis Law, Mayor August 1, 2008 Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator Richard & Lauralee GordleyI�A ' 2010 Jones Ave NE Renton WA 98056 SUBJECT: BLUEBERRY HAVEN SHORT PLAT LUA07-131-SBPL Dear Mr. & Mrs Gordley: The review submittal on the above -mentioned short plat has been completed and the following comments have been returned. Please review these comments and make the necessary changes. Once changes have been com feted le a resubmit three co ies the short fat drawin sand of an other related documents SHORT PLAT REVIEW COMMENTS: 1. Contact Jan Illian, Plan Reviewer, at 425-430-7216, for requirements to be completed on the civil construction portion to your project. 2. The parent legal description for this short plat, as shown, is incorrect. Said parent legal should include a reference to Lots A and B (or other names, as determined) of "City of Renton Lot Line Adjustment No. LUA-07-090-LLA, as recorded under King County Rec. No.. 't, TC'y-1& Said lot line adjustment was very recently approved by the city and the recording number may not be available yet from King County, 3. The indexing information, noted at the top and center of all three drawing sheets, is incomplete. The subject properties also fall within the NW quarter of the SE quarter of said Section 5. 4. The "APPROVALS" block (Sheet I of 3) includes signature lines for the Mayor, City Clerk and Finance Director. These city officials do not sign short plat final submittals. Remove said signature lines and titles from said block. 5. Insert a horizontal line to divide that portion of the "APPROVALS" block that is for the City of Renton, from that portion for King County. 6. The City of Renton official, who does sign short plat final submittals, is incorrectly identified as the "ADMINISTRATOR-PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS". Correct the title to ADMINISTRATOR, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. 7. Remove the corporate acknowledgment block (Sheet 1 of 3), if it is not needed. If there is a corporation that needs to sign, add a signature line, with the corporate name and representative under the "DECLARATION" block. 1:1P1anRevievACOLS0N1Shortp1au 20081BIuebeny Haven SHPL 02L ChanpRequeststop,doa 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98057 ° The blocks currently shown as "LOT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION" and "LOT B LEGAL DESCRIPTION" (Sheet 1 of 3) should be removed from said sheet. Said legal descriptions are not required or reviewed by the city. 9. Remove the "VERTICAL DATUM" block (Sheet 2 and 3 of 3). 10. It is suggested that the names of the new short plat lots be distinguishable from the names already given in underlying recorded subdivisions, e.g. "Lot 1" and "Lot 2" or "Lot 1 A" and "Lot 2A". Do not include the word "NEW" in the new names. 11. If there are no private new easements for this short plat, then remove the "DECLARATION OF COVENANT " statement (Sheet 1 of 3). 12. Revise the title of the `.`DECLARATION" block to OWNERS' DECLARATION (Sheet 1 of 3). 13. Remove Item No. 2, under the "SURVEYOR'S NOTES" block (Sheet 3 of 3). A title report was used in this short plat; therefore this item is no longer valid. 14. The final short plat submittal should not include references to utilities facilities, trees, asphalt, gravel, rockery, topog lines and other items not directly impacting the subdivision. Sheet 3 of 3 of the latest review submittal, does include all these items on the short plat drawing and in the "LEGEND". It is suggested that all pertinent information not already noted on Sheets I and 2 of 3 be moved to those sheets, and eliminate Sheet 3 of 3. 15. A separate Native Growth Protection Area Easement document does not need to be recorded concurrently with the short plat. The "Native Growth" block, noted on Sheet 1 of 3, is sufficient. 16. There is no reference to the hatch marks used for the Easement A and Easement B Native Growth Protection Areas in the "LEGEND" block noted on Sheet 2 of 3. Note what the difference is between the "STARS HATCH" and the "CROSS HATCH" easements_ 17. Sheet 3 of 3 notes a "WETLAND AREA HATCH" that overlays a portion of the "STARS HATCH" on Sheet 2 of 3. Can these be shown on the same drawing sheet? 18. The "LND" number shown on Sheet 2 of 3 (upper right-hand corner) is presented in the same type size as the "LUA" number. Said "LND" number should be noted in a smaller type size. 19. See the attachments for circled items that need to be corrected. Should you need to discuss any portion of this letter please contact me at (425) 434-7235. Sincerely, 1 Carrie K. Olson Development Services, Plan Review cc: Yellow File T 'L -060 -67, 099006, 10 D� BLUF'�ERRY HAVEN SH10"RT PLAT SE 114 OF THE . E 114 OF SEC. 5, TWP. 23P . , PGE. 5E. , W.M. CITY OF PENTON, KING COUNTY WASHINGTON A, V. 106. PAGE 179. VO. SHPL-060-87, V. 60, PAGE 270, 3-05 ,WA. AREA = 105 SO. FT. +/- SHED f5 3.5' 5. OF L SURVEYOR'S NOTES: 1) THE TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY SHOWN HEREON WAS PERFORMED IN OCTOBER OF 2006. THE FIELD DATA WAS COLLECTED AND RECORDED ON MAGNETIC MEDIA THROUGH AN EL-ECTRIC THEODOLITE. THE DATA FILE IS ARCHIVED ON DISC OR CO. WRITTEN FIELD NOTES MAY NOT EXIST.CONTOURS ARE SHOWN FOR CONVENIENCE ONLY. DESIGN SHOULD RELY ON SPOT ELEVATIONS. 2LA -TITLE -REPORT WAS --NOT F URNI.5HE6 , A NO - THE'RE'OR, EASEMENTS. -IF ANY; -MAP. 3) SUBJECT PROPERTY TAX PARCEL NO, 277160-4655. 4) SUBJECT PROPERTY AREA PER THIS SURVEY IS 37,672 SO- FT- 5) THE BURIED UTILITY LINES SHOWN ON THIS MAP ARE PER LOCATOR MARKS FOUND IN THE FIELD. 6) WETLAND AREA PER THIS SURVEY = 4, 601 SO. FT. +/- WHICH COVERS 15% OF PROPERTY. )0 "E 255. 50 ' SHED 22" 2+# TOE SLOPE ... . ....:.....: 54 ........... WFJ�- :::. :.:. ::::::: :::::: ... CENTERLINE OF : :..DRAINAGE DITCH ;..::::: ITEM 4...::.... :::.: WF3..... ...... INGRESS, EGRESS AND TOP ril V......... UTILITIES ESM' r :: 'DITCH., REC . NO. 9507281245. ::.:::. .......... . EDGE OF WETLAND AREA to r cn W I 3 O 1839 LOT d'5N0 \ N 0 0 �o R Ln m WOOD BRIDGE - m O O z WETLAND AREA VWF I ' 9, 601 So. FT. +/- ...... 4 ITEM 7 _ . r�" . . ..:...4p.:...... 10 ' WIDE- DRAIN E ESM ' T AEC. NO.B 099006 !0" ____ r .... WF12:.. TOP DITCH !4 9, SQ FT �"� � !2 !O" Ib.. TOE � ` sLDPE F ILDING BUILDING 10109/2006 FNO. REBAR & CAP 0-2' W. OF PROPERTY Miiv -TOP CORNER "HELD" � . DITCH ELEV.=252-4' L6 0 0 z FOUND V FIRE FOUND FOUND UTIL, ® YARD O SANI7 FIND 91 ELEC1 X SPOT R WA TEi © GAS F - WA TEf ANET ! A GF j wi �, yr+ m"-rvrL✓ .- ISSION FROM THE �CITY �OF RENTON_ N'EO NEPEIN SHALL APPLY TO THE AGE LOYEES OF THE OWNERS OR SUBSEQUENT NG PROPERTY. ISFACTORY EVIDENCE THAT 1TED THAT HE/SHE IS -VT AND ACKNOWLEDGED ---TO BE THE FOR THE IS INSTRUMENT. OF WASHINGTON SPECK►[. EXCEPTIONS SCHEDULE B PER SAID TITLE REPORT: ffEM1 AN EASEMENT AFFECTING A PORTION OF SAID PREMISES FOR THE PURPOSES STATED THEREIN: FOR: EXISTING DRAINAGE DITCH DISCLOSED BY INSTRUMENT RECORDED MARCH 21, 1958 RECORDING NUMBER: 4884438 AND 4864439 AFFECTS: EASTERLY PORTION OF TRACT 293 OF C.D. HILLMAN'S LAKE WASHINGT( GARDEN OF EDEN DIV. NO. 4 LYING WITHIN LOT 2 OF PROPERTY HEREIN DESCRIf AS CONSTRUCTED AND THEREFOR NOT PLOTTED ON MAP PAGE. MM 2 AN EASEMENT AFFECTING A PORTION OF SAID PREMISES FOR THE PURPOSES STATE THEREIN. IN FAVOR OF: CITY OF RENTON FOR: PUBLIC UTILITIES (INCLUDING WATER AND SEWER) DISCLOSED BY INSTRUMENT RECORDED: JUNE 29, 19BI UNDER RECORDING NUMBER: 8106290604 AFFECTS: THE: NORTH 15 FEET OF TRACT 293 AND THE WEST 15 FEET OF TRACT OF CO. HILLMAN'S LAKE WASHINGTON GARDEN OF EDEN, DIVISION NO. 4, LYING WITHIN LOT 2 OF PROPERTY HEREIN DESCRIBED NOT PLOTTED PER SHORT PLAT EASEMENT RELEASED BY THE CITY UNDER RECORDING NO.8805099006. ffM 3 AN EASEMENT AFFECTING A PORTION OF SAID PREMISES FOR THE PURPOSES STATED THEREIN: IN FAVOR OF: CITY OF RENTON FOR: PUBLIC UTILITIES (INCLUDING WATER, WASTEWATER AND SURFACE WATER) DISCLOSED BY INSTRUMENT RECORDED. NOVEMBER 5, 1995 RECORDING NUMBER. 9511060098 AFFECTS: PORTION OF LOT 2 PLOTTED ON MAP PAGE ffM 4 AN EASEMENT AFFECTING A PORTION OF SAID PREMISES FOR THE PURPOSES STATED THEREIN: FOR: INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITIES FOR THE PURPOSES OF UTILIZING GRANTEE'S WATER RIGHTS FROM AN UNNAMED CREEK SHORT PLAT NUMBER SHPL-060-B7 DISCLOSED BY INSTRUMENT RECORDED: JULY 28, 1995 UNDER RECORDING NUMBER: 9507281245 AFFf (; I.S- A 10 FOOT STRIP OF LOT 2 ADJACENT TO LOT 1 fW,5 AGREEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF.' -..-, RECOROF_D: MAY 9, 198B RECORDING NUMBER: .6.6 5090391,: UNPLOTTABLE 8 509;C13 q I ffW 6 AGREEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: RECOHOED: JANUARY 14. 1991 RECORDING NUMBER. 9101140952 UNPLOTTABLE ffEM7 COVENANTS, CONDITIONS. RESTRICTIONS AND EASEMENTS CONTAINED IN SHORT f RECORDED: MAY 9, 1986 RECORDING NUMBER: 8805099006 PLOTTED ON MAP PA( NO TE: THE UTILITIES EASEMENT NOTED ON SAID SHORT PLAT OVER LOT 2 HAS BEEN RELEASED BY RECORDING NUMBER 9604170909. nM,o COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS AND EASEMENTS CONTAINED IN LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, COPY ATTACHED: RECORDED. NOVEMBER 29. 1995 RECORDING NUMBER: 9511299005 PLOTTED ON MAP PAGE. AQUIFER PROTECTION NOTICE THE LOTS CREATED HEREIN FALL WITHIN ZONE 2 OF RENTON'S 1Z AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA AND ARE SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY OF RENTON ORDINANCE # 4367_ THIS CITY'S SOLE SOURCE OF DRINKING WATER IS SUPPLIED FROM A SHALLOW AQUIFER UNDER THE CITY SURFACE. THERE IS NO NATURAL BARRIER BETWEEN THE WATER TABLE AND GROUND SURFACE. EXTREME CARE SHOULD BE EXERCISED WHEN HANDLING OF ANY LIQUID SUBSTANCE OTHER THAN WATER TO PROTECT FROM CONTACT WITH THE GROUND SURFACE. IT IS THE OWNERS RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT THE CITY'S DRINKING WATER. DECLARATION OF COVENANT: THE OWNER OF LAND EMBRACED WITHIN THIS SHORT PLAT, IN RETURN FOR THE BENEFITS TO ACCRUE FfgOM-THIS SUBDIVISION, BY SIGNING HEREON COVENANTS AND AGREES TO CONVEY THE BENEFICIAL INTEREST IN THE -Y� PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT *� }+� M E M O R A N D U M DATE: August 1, 2008x TO: - Gftrrie-6fson FROM: Sonja J. fesser SUBJECT: Blueberry Haven Short Plat, LUA-07-131-SHPL Format and Legal Description Review Bob Mac Onie and I have reviewed the above referenced short plat submittal and have the following comments: Comments for the Applicant: The parent legal description for this short plat, as shown, is incorrect. Said parent legal should include a reference to Lots A and B (or other names, as determined) of "City of Renton Lot Line Adjustment No. LUA-07-090-LLA, as recorded under King County Rec. No_ ." Said lot line adjustment was very recently approved by the city and the recording number may not be available yet from King County. The indexing information, noted at the top and center of all three drawing sheets, is incomplete. The subject properties also fall within the NW quarter of the SE quarter of said Section 5. The "APPROVALS" block (Sheet 1 of 3) includes signature lines for the Mayor, City Clerk and Finance Director. These city officials do not sign short plat final submittals. Remove said signature lines and titles from said block_ Insert a horizontal line to divide that portion of the "APPROVALS" block that is for the City of Renton, from that portion for King County. The City of Renton official, who does sign short plat final submittals, is incorrectly identified as the "ADMINISTRATOR-PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS". Correct the title to ADMINISTRATOR, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. Remove the corporate acknowledgment block (Sheet 1 of 3), if it is not needed. If there is a corporation that needs to sign, add a signature line, with the corporate name and representative under the "DECLARATION" block. n\File Sys1LNa - Land Subdivision & Surveying Rmords1LND-20 - Short Ptats1050MV080725.doc August 1, 2008 Page 2 The blocks currently shown as "LOT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION" and "LOT B LEGAL DESCRIPTION" (Sheet I of 3) should be removed from said sheet. Said legal descriptions are not required or reviewed by the city. Remove the "VERTICAL DATUM" block (Sheet 2 and 3 of 3). It is suggested that the names of the new short plat lots be distinguishable from the names already given in underlying recorded subdivisions, e.g. "Lot 1" and "Lot 2" or "Lot IA" and "Lot 2A"- Do not include the word "NEW" in the new names. If there are no private new easements for this short plat, then remove the "DECLARATION OF COVENANT " statement (Sheet 1 of 3). Revise the title of the "DECLARATION" block to OWNERS' DECLARATION (Sheet 1 of 3). Remove Item No. 2, under the "SURVEYOR'S NOTES" block (Sheet 3 of 3)- A title report was used in this short plat; therefore this item is no longer valid. The final short plat submittal should not include references to utilities facilities, trees, asphalt, gravel, rockery, topog lines and other items not directly impacting the subdivision. Sheet 3 of 3 of the latest review submittal, does include all these items on the short plat drawing and in the "LEGEND". It is suggested that all pertinent information not already noted on Sheets 1 and 2 of 3 be moved to those sheets, and eliminate Sheet 3 of 3. A separate Native Growth Protection Area Easement document does not need to be recorded concurrently with the short plat. The "Native Growth" block, noted on Sheet 1 of 3, is sufficient. There is no reference to the hatch marks used for the Easement A and Easement B Native Growth Protection Areas in the "LEGEND" block noted on Sheet 2 of 3. Note what the difference is between the "STARS HATCH" and the "CROSS HATCH" easements. Sheet 3 of 3 notes a "WETLAND AREA HATCH" that overlays a portion of the "STARS HATCH" on Sheet 2 of 3. Can these be shown on the same drawing sheet? The "LND" number shown on Sheet 2 of 3 (upper right-hand corner) is presented in the same type size as the "L.UA" number. Said "LND" number should be noted in a smaller type size. See the attachments for circled items that need to be corrected. HAFile Sys%LND - Land Subdivision & Surveying Records%LND-20 - Short P1ats105091RV080725.do&or CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: July 8, 2008 TO: Bob Mac Onie, Technical Services Sonja Fesser, Technical Services FROM: Carrie Olson, Plan Review x7235 SUBJECT: BLUEBERRY HAVEN SHORT PLAT LUA07-13I-SHPL Attached is the most recent version of the above -referenced short plat. The following attachments are enclosed for your review: • Letter of compliance • Lot Closures • Short Plat Certificate • Short Plat drawings If all review concerns have been addressed, please sign below or return your comments as needed. Thanks. Approval: 1 , Date: Robert T Mac Onie, Jr. Sonja Fesser Cc: Yellow File IAPIanReview\COISOMShortplats 2008TImbe" Ham SIAM Olm PR-TS Reviewstart.doc CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: July 8, 2008 TO: Jan Illian, Plan Review FROM: Carrie Olson, Plan Review x7235 SUBJECT: BLUEBERRY HAVEN SHORT PLAT LUA07-131-SHPL Attached is the most recent version of the above -referenced short plat. The following attachments are enclosed for your review: Letter of compliance, Fee -in -lieu of Request form, Landscape Plan, Short Plat drawings. Also provide the following information requested by Gregg Zimmermen as requirement of project closeout and signing of short plat mylars. Status OP Atentki Rellatki Pr°ieet #s Comments NA As-Bui Its Cost Data Inventory Bill of Sale Easements (Water, Sewer, Utilities, Hydrant, etc.) Deed of Dedication Square Footage: �( Restrictive Covenants or Fee -In -Lieu -of Fee -In -Lieu -of �( Maintenance Bond Release Permit Bond Comments Approval: 1 , Date: Kayren Kittrick Jan Illian Cc_ Yellow File July 7, 2008 Renton City Council Minutes Page 222 CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Council Meeting Minutes of Approval of Council meeting minutes of June 23, 2008. Council concur. June 23, 2008 Court Case: Kennydale Court Case filed on behalf of Kennydale Critical Areas Alliance and Susan Critical Areas Alliance & Rider, by Ashley A. Peck and David S. Mann, Gendler & Mann, LLP, seeking Susan Rider, CRT-08-006 judicial review and reversal of City Council's decision of June 9, 2008, J, C�r't t regarding the Blueberry Haven Short Plat appeal (LUA-07-131)_ Refer to CCt A Attorney_ and Insurance Services. City Clerk: 2008 Renton City Clerk reported the official population of the City of Renton as of 4/1/2008 Population to be 78,780 as calculated by the State of Washington Office of Financial Management. Information. King County: 2008 Community and Economic Development Department recommended authorizing Comprehensive Plan the Mayor to send a letter to the King County Council presenting the City's Amendments position on the 2008 King County Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Council concur. CED: Multi -Family Housing Community and Economic Development Department recommended approval of Property Tax Exemption, 2nd the multi -family housing property tax exemption agreement for the 2nd & Main & Main Apartments Apartments project. Refer to Planning & Development Committee. Comprehensive Plan: 2008 Community and Economic Development Department submitted, as an Amendments emergency finding, two additional proposed 2008 Comprehensive Plan amendments (two map amendments - Fairwood/Redmill and Benson Hill). Refer to Planning & Development Committee and Planning Commission. Annexation: Liberty, 156th Community and Economic Development Department reconnnended approval of Ave SE & SE 144th St the ordinance effectuating the Liberty Annexation, and presenting the ordinance for first and second reading. Council concur. (See page 225 for ordinance.) Fire: 2008 Basic Life Support Fire and Emergency Services Department recommended acceptance of Services, King County $805,254 from King County for basic life support services for 2008. Council concur. (See page 224 for resolution.) Police: Domestic Violence Police Department reported application for funds in the amount of $12,189 Advocacy Assistance Program, from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant to help fund the Edward Byrne Memorial Domestic Violence Victim Advocate program. Information. Justice Assistance Grant Utility: Transformers & Utility Systems Division requested approval of an agreement in the amount of Connections Replacement $24,948 with RH2 Engineering, Inc. for the design of replacement transformers Design, R112 Engineering and connections at City water facilities. Council concur. Legal: NPDES Stonnwater Legal Division recommended contributing up to an additional $25,000 to the Permit, Additional Funds consortium of government entities to fund further work on the appeals to the proposed NPDES II permit (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, Phase II). Council concur. MOVED BY PALMER, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. CI OF RENTON COUNCIL AGEND, LL AI H: Submitting Data: For Agenda of: Dept/Div/Board.. AJLS/City Clerk July 7, 2008 Agenda Status Staff Contact...... Bonnie Walton Consent .............. X Public Hearing.. Subject: CRT-08-006; Court Case Correspondence.. Kennydale Critical Areas Alliance, a Washington non- Ordinance ............. profit corporation; and Susan Rider, Petitioners, v. Resolution............ City of Renton, a Washington Municipal Corporation; Old Business........ and Richard and Lauralee Gordley, husband and wife, Respondents New Business....... Exhibits: Summons and Land Use Petition Study Sessions...... Information........ . Recommended Action: Approvals: Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Services Legal Dept......... Finance Dept...... Other ............... Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment....... Amount Budgeted....... Revenue Generated......... Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. Summons and Land Use Petition filed by Ashley A. Peck and David S. Mann, Gendler & Mara, LLP, 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015, Seattle, 98101, on behalf of Kennydale Critical Areas Alliance and Susan Rider, each with addresses of 1835 NE 20th St., Renton, WA 98056, who seek judicial review and reversal of the City Council's decision of June 9, 2008, regarding the Blueberry Haven Short Plat Appeal; File: LUA-07-131, SHP-A, ECF. 1 2 31I 4 5, 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ci fY OF RENTON JUN 2 72008 RECEIVED CITY CLERKS OFFICE vl a ABd Ge y4l d prrr,er la,'3oP.n�. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR KING COUNTY KENNYDALE CRITICAL AREAS ALLIANCE, a Washington non-profit corporation; and SUSAN RIDER, Petitioners, V. CITY OF RENTON, a Washington Municipal Corporation; and RICHARD and LAUR_ALEE GORDLEY, husband and wife, ndents. TO THE RESPONDENTS: NO. SUMMONS A lawsuit has been started against you in the above -entitled Court by Kennydale Critical Areas Alliance and Susan Rider, petitioners. Petitioners' claim is stated in the written Land Use Petition, a copy of which is served upon you with this Summons. In order to defend against this lawsuit, you must respond to the Land Use Petition by stating your defense in writing, and serve a copy upon the undersigned attorney for the petitioners within 20 days if service of this Surnmons is made upon you within the State of Washington, or within 60 days if service is made upon you outside of the State of Washington, excluding the day of service, or a default judgment may be entered against you without notice. A default judgment is one where the petitioners are entitled to what they ask for because you have not responded. If you serve a notice of appearance on the undersigned attorney, you are entitled to notice before a default judgment may be entered. GENTLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 SUMMONS - 1 °l. Phone: {206} 621•8868 Fax; {2061 621-0512 y A41 0 rA, C Ieas1C ftiyM!- AdehisvS14 0�- orLctu� C6b bcpt AdtAI -Sl'tafor r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 t0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1$ 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 You may demand that the petitioners file this lawsuit with the Court. If you do so, the demand must be in writing and must be served upon the petitioners. Within 14 days after you serve the demand, the plaintiff must file this lawsuit with the Court, or the service on you of this Summons will be void. If you wish to seek the advice of an attorney in this matter, you should do so promptly so that your written response, if any, may be served on time. This Summons is issued pursuant to Rule 4 of the Superior Court Civil Rules of the State of Washington. DATED this ��O day of June, 2008. 1KCAA(Den)',1,(1PA casells ummons 6 25 08.wpd SUMMONS - 2 Respectfully submitted, GENDLFR & MANN, LLP By: Ashley A. "Peck WSBA No. 39254 David S. Mann WSBA No, 21068 Attorneys for Petitioners GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (2061621-8868 Fax: (2061621-0512 vI i f OF REN TOt4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JUN '41 7 �008 VED CIT-' CLERKS OFFICE IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR KING COUNTY KENNYDALE CRITICAL AREAS ALLIANCE, a Washington non-profit corporation; and SUSAN RIDER, NO. Petitioners, V. LAND USE PETITION CITY OF RENTON, a Washington Municipal Corporation; and RICHARD and LAURALEE GORDLEY, husband and wife, ts. Pursuant to RCW 36.70C.070, the Kennydale Critical Areas Alliance ("KCAA") alleges as follows in support of its Land Use Petition. 1. NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS OF THE PETITIONERS Kennydale Critical Areas Alliance 1835 NE 20`h Street Renton, WA 98056 Susan Rider 1835 NE 20`h Street Renton, WA 98056 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 r. Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 621-8868 LAND USE PETITION - 1 Fax: (206) 621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1.5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS OF PETITIONERS' ATTORNEY Ashley A. Peck David S. Mai -in Gendler & Mann, LLP. 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 3. NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS OF LOCAL JURISDICTION WHOSE LAND USE DECISION IS AT ISSUE City of Renton 1055 S . Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 4. IDENTIFICATION OF THE DECISION -MAKING BODY 4.1 At issue is a decision by the Renton City Council on .tune 9, 2008, reversing the Renton Hearing Examiner's March 2.7, 2008 decision and thereby reinstating the Blueberry Haven Short Plat, SHP-07-131- 5. IDENTII{ICATION OF EACH PERSON TO BE MADE A PARTY UNDER RCW 36.70C.040(2)(b) THROUGH (d) The applicants for the project are identified as: Richard and Lauralee Gordley 2010 Jones Ave. NE Renton, WA 98056 In their appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision, the applicants were represented by: Kevin 1'. Steinacker Dickson Steinacker LLP 1401 Wells Fargo Plaza 1201 Pacific Avenue Tacoma, WA 98402 LAND USE PETITION - 2 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 86101 Phone! (2061621-8868 Fax! 12061621-0512 11 21 3i 4 5 6 7 8 9 10, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6. FACTS DEMONSTRATING THE PETITIONERS HAVE STANDING TO SEEK JUDICIAL REVIEW UNDER RCW 30.70C.060 6.1. Petitioner Kennydale Critical Areas Alliance is a Washington non-profit corporation composed of neighbors who own property and reside in the Upper Kennydale Area near the subject site. Petitioner Susan Rider is the president of KCAA. Ms, Rider owns property and resides across the street from the subject site and along Kennydale Creek, Ms. Rider and other KCAA members highly value Kennydale Creek and the neighborhood's wetlands for the wildlife habitat and aesthetic values they provide. As such, they have actively advocated for the protection of these critical areas, consistent with the law, for several years. They have particularly advocated for the City of Renton to correctly designate Kennydale Creek consistent with its perennial flow and apply appropriate land use protections. 6.2, The Blueberry Haven Short Plat applied minimal buffers for a Class 4 (intermittent) stream and Category 3 wetland. In granting the short plat, the City of Renton waived a requirement that the applicant conduct a stream study to determine appropriate protections and did not require a supplemental wetland study. As a result, the City failed to apply the appropriate protections for critical areas on the site, thereby significantly affecting Petitioners' interests. 6.3 The Petitioners have an aesthetic interest in the protection of Kennydale Creek and its wetlands. The Creek flows through several KCAA members' properties and alongside Ms. Rider's. Other members frequently pass the Creek on walks. They regularly enjoy observing wildlife that inhabits the area such as deer, herons, ducks and other birds. Buffers serve to protect the functions and values of streams and wetlands by ensuring that development will be setback from the resource, and that riparian and wetland vegetation may remain intact. LAND USE PETITION - 3 GENDLER & MAVEN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phoney ;206E 621-9868 0 Fax; 1206) 621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Wien appropriate buffers are not applied, degradation to these resources and the wildlife they support may result. 6.4. The Petitioners also have a practical interest in ensuring that their properties are not impacted by improper development in critical areas. In the past, developiTient in the area has resulted in changes to the groundwater table and diversion of storinwater from increased impervious surface, thereby impacting Petitioners' properties. Appropriate buffers also serve to protect functions such as groundwater recharge and surface water conveyance. 6.5. On behalf of KCAA, Susan Rider filed a timely appeal of the Blueberry Haven Short Plat decision to the Renton Nearing Lxaniincr and defended the decision before the City Council. KCAA is significantly affected by the Council's reversal of the Hearing Examiner decision. 6.6. Petitioners fully participated in the Hearing Fxaminer's reviev,: of the short plat decision. Ms. Rider, and several other neighbors and KC2V& members testified at the hearing that Kennydale Creek runs perennially and that they had never seen it run dry. Several more KCAA members submitted written declarations asserting the same. Ms. Rider also submitted written briefs and multiple exhibits for the record supporting her position. Ms. Rider, on behalf of KCAA, also participated fully in the City Council appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision by submitting written briefs and through oral argument by her attorney before the Council's Development Committee. 6.7. Petitioners' interests are among those the City of Renton was required to consider when it made its decision. LAND USE PETITION - 4 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phow 12061621-$868 Fax: WO0 621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6.8. A decision in favor of Petitioners will redress the hann done to Petitioners by the City Council's reversal of the Hearing Examiner's decision and reinstatement of the short plat decision. 6.9. Petitioners have exhausted their administrative remedies to the extent required by law, There are no further administrative appeals for Petitioners to exhaust. 7. SEPARATE AND CONCISE STATEMENT OF ERRORS ALLEGED TO RAVE SEEN COMMITTED 7.1. The City Council's reversal is clearly erroneous and not supported by substantial evidence. 8. STATEMENT OF FACTS 8.1. Applicants Richard and Lauralee Gordleyown property in the Upper Kennydale neighborhood at 210 .tones Avenue NE, Renton, Washington- The Gordleys sought approval from the City of Renton to subdivide the parcel into two lots. A stream. Kennydale Creek, flows across the property, and there is also a portion of wetland on the northeast corner of the property. 8.2. In support of their application, the Gordleys submitted a "Critical Areas Study" prepared by a consultant on their behalf. The Study classified the onsite wetland as a Category 3 wetland under the City's code, but did not address the stream. The City did not require the Gordleys to submit a stream study as required by RMC 4-3-050(L)(3)(c)(ii), apparently waiving the requirement and relying on the City's interpretive water class map and prior studies in the area. 8.3. The Renton Municipal Code provides that no pen -nit should issue unless consistent with critical areas regulations, The Code's critical areas regulations provide criteria LAND USE PETITION - 5 GENPLER & MANN, LL.P 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 1206) 621-8868 Fax: 12061 621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 for four types of regulated water bodies and supply protective buffers based on the type. A "Class 3" water is defined as a non-salmonid bearing perennial waterway during years of normal rainfall, RMC 4-3-050(L)(1)(a)(iii), and a "Class 4" water is defined as a non-salmonid bearing intermittent waterway. RMC 4-3-050(L)(1)(a)(iv). 8.4. The Code also prescribes buffers for wetlands based on their classification. A wetland located in the headwaters of a watercourse is correctly classified a "Category 2" wetland. RMC 4-3--050(M)(1)(a)(ii), 8.5, The City's short plat decision applied buffets for a Class 4 stream and a Category 3 wetland. The City waived the requirement for a stream study and did not require a supplemental wetland study. 8.6. Ms. Rider timely appealed the City's short plat decision on behalf of KCAA, arguing that the decision was in violation of the City's critical areas regulations because Kennydale Creek flows perennially and because the wetland is a Category 2 wetland under the City's code because it is located in the headwaters of a watercourse. 8.7. On February 12, 2008, an appeal hearing was held before the Renton Ifearing Examiner. Ms. Rider and her neighbors submitted extensive evidence showing that Keiinydale Creek does not run dry in the summer months, including testimony, photos and declarations. They also pointed out that none of the studies cited by the applicants and the City found that the Creek was intermittent nor supported a Class 4 designation. The Applicants also testified at the hearing; arguing that the Creek was correctly classified and that a study was not required, but they did not testify that the Creek ran dry during the summer months. S.S. The Hearing Examiner issued his decision on March 27, 2008, concluding that the City's issuance of the shot! plat permit was in error, contrary to law and arbitrary and GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue. Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 96101 Phone: 12W 621-8868 LAND USE PETITION - 6 Fax: 1206) 621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 capricious. He found that the evidence showed the City erred in waiving the stream study requirement, applied the wrong designation to the stream pursuant to the code, and failed to require independent review of the applicant's wetland classification when it conflicted with prior studies. 8,9. The Hearing Examiner specifically found that the studies relied on by the City and the Applicants did not substantively address whether the stream was perennial or intennittent and that the City had been made aware that there was a conflict as the Creek's designation. The very study relied on for the stream classification referenced reports of year-round flow and i ndicated that if the Creek flowed year-round, it was correctly categorized Class 3. 8.10. The Hearing Examiner found that the Code required a stream to be classified based on its characteristics, not the CAy's interpretive water class map. He found that the Code clearly dictates that if stream flows year-round, it is a Class 3 stream. He further found that the evidence and reports showed evidence of perennial flow in a nonnal year, and thus the City's classification was wrong. 8.11. The Hearing Examiner also found that the City's failure to require independent review of the Applicant's wetland study when it conflicted with prior studies performed on the same wetland for the City was in error. 8.12. The Applicants filed a timely appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision to the Renton City Council. The Planning and Development Committee of the Council heard the appeal on June 5, 2008, The Committee's review was limited to the record, the submissions of the parties, and oral argument by counsel, Without making specific written findings, the LAND USE PETITION - 7 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle. WA 98101 Phone: 12061 621-8868 Fax: 1206} 621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 81 9' 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1.9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Committee found that the Hearing Examiner committed a substantial error of law and fact and recommended reversal of the decision. 5.13. On June 9, 2008, the Renton City Council addressed the appeal in its regular Council meeting and the Planning and Development Committee relayed its recommendation. During the Council meeting, Councilmeniber Randy Corman stated that he had lived in the subject neighborhood for more than 20 years and had "never, ever seen this creek dry." He further stated that it was his own observation that Kennydale Creek was not intermittent, but perennial. Counci lmelnber Connan was advised that because he had independent information, he shouid recuse himself from the decision. Councilmember Marcie Palmer also recuscd herself. 8,14. The Council subsequently adopted the recommendation of the Planning and Development Committee, reversed the decision of the Hearing Examiner, and thereby reinstated the approval of the Short plat. 8.15, KCAA files this Land Use Petition pursuant to chapter 35.70C RCW seeking judicial review of the Council decision. 9. REQUEST FOR RELIEF Petitioners request the following relief - a. Issuance of an order directed to the City to produce its record so that the same may be reviewed by the court. b. Entry of an order reversing the City Council's decision. C. Such further relief as the court deems just and necessary. LAND USE PETITION - 8 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 621-8968 Fax: (2061621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DATED this ��day of June, 2008. Respectfully submitted, GENDLER & MANN, LLP By: 449-&-7, Ashley A. eck WSBA No. 39254 David S. Mann WSBA No. 21068 Attorneys for Petitioners 1KCAA(Den)1LUPA case\Land Use Petition FINAL 6 27 48.wpd LAND USE PETITION - 9 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 1206) 621 •BB66 Fax: 12061 021-0512 June 26, 2008 To: Jennifer Henning City of Renton Planning Department 1055 S Cxrady Way Renton, WA 98057 From: Richard & Lauralee Gordley, Applicants Re: Blueberry Haven Short Plat LUA-07-131-SHPL Confirmation of Compliance with all conditions of Plat Approval 1, The Gordley/Denzler Lot Line Adjustment shall be recorded prior to the recording of the Blueberry Haven Short Plat The survey with corrections was submitted on June 22, 2008 for final review and recording. 2. A tree planting plan shall be submitted prior to the issuance of building permit — No building permit will be obtained for this short plat recording, landscape plan 3. The applicant shall be required to pay a Transportation Mitigation Fee — Transportation Mitigation Fee of $717.75 on ,,5 §r-+-- p is -- (- C_z, rJ 4. ff the applicant proposes to provide a minimum 25 foot buffer from the edge of the on -site wetland, then a wetland buffer enhancement plan shall be submitted and approved prior to building permit --- No building permit will be obtained for this short plat recording, wetland enhancement plan waived until building permit. 5. A Native Growth Protection Easement shall be recorded over the wetland, stream and associated buffer areas prior or concurrent with recording — Surveyor has prepared Native Growth Protection Easement for recording concurrently with Short Plat recording. 6. The edge of the NGPE shall be delineated with a split rail fence and identified with signage—A fencing and signage detail shall be submitted far final review and approval —shall be installed prior to recording. Fencing detail and signage plan submitted to City Project Manager 6/26/08. Signage has been ordered from Alpine Markings to be delivered and installed 7/3/08. Fencing to be installed at approval of submitted detail and plan no later than 7/8/08. 7. The applicant shall be required to pay a Fire Mitigation Fee at the rate of $488. 00— Fire Mitigation Fee of $488.00 paid on, -5 k1& r l Q re C"') rd i n3 . 8. Erosion control shall be installed and maintained during construction — No construction of grading or construction work will be occurring until building permit. '-BUtiMr� �1r� VW Shor, 71(tt DENSITY WORKSHEET City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way -Renton, WA 98055 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 1. Gross area of property: 1. -3 !1 (-7 ,L square feet 2. Deductions: Certain areas are excluded from density calculations. These include: Public streets*" Private access easements*" Critical Areas* Total excluded area: 3. Subtract line Z from line I for net area: 4. Divide line 3 by 43,560 for net acreage: 5. Number of dwelling units or lots planned: 6. Divide line 5 by line 4 for net density: square feet 00square feet ioo I square feet 2. n� 0 4 square feet 3. l square feet 4. . 0 �-- acres 5. 2. units/lots 6. = dwelling units/acre *Critical Areas are defined as "Areas determined by the City to be not suitable for development and which are subject to the City's Critical Areas Regulations including very high landslide areas, protected slopes, wetlands or floodways." Critical areas buffers are not deductedlexcluded. ** Alleys (public or private) do not have to be excluded. Q:1WES1P W'DEVSERVTonmT]anningldensity_doc Last updated: 11/08/2004 1 0 PLANNING DIVISION WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS I 0 usl~P�I+t�r sulnITTtaDll`D EQU. I� C.OMME-nTS : ... i . �'..:> Calculations , l�l inument Ca��S. one' per rn urr?Erif t. Neighborhood Detail Map a This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services Section PROJECT NAME: 2. Public Works Plan Review Section 3. Building Section DATE: 3 U 4_ Planning Section Q:1WEBIPSMDEVSERV1FormslPlanninglwaiverofsubmittalregs.)ds 02108 PLANNING DIVISION WAIVEK OF SUBMITTAL REQUIRL-MENTS FOR LAND US APPLICATIONS Rehabilitation Plan 4 erebit lefil Site Plan 2 AND 4 Wireless: Applicant Agreement Statement 2 AND 3 Inventory of Existing Sites 2 AND 3 Lease Agreement, Draft 2 AND 3 Map of Existing Site Conditions 2 AND 3 Map of View Area 2 AND 3 PhotosimuIations 2 AND.3 This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services Section PROJECT NAME: j3h At& 2. Public Works Plan Review Section 3. Building Section DATE: O 4. Planning Section Q:IW E BIP{MDE VS E RV%Form s\Planninglwaiverofsubm ittalregs.xls 02108 APPLICATION FOR CITY OF RENTON R1GUT OF WAY USE -- DEFERRALS — WAIVERS — VARIAN('LS — FIDE; 1N LIFu 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 (425) 430-7204 PROJECT NAME: SITE ADDRESS_ __' _+ d, /v"✓ LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: Include King County Assessors Parcel No: APPLICANT t! '" �-IU �PHONE: � �_� (�� `r''��3 � � ��. �a. M44fjJ 7 r Rf I.Ci �FSS ADDRESS: ,';. ( ,= c ,t V'v _�_, Zip Code ATTACH A SEPARATE LETTER WITH T..HIS.APPLICATION STATING IN DIJTAIL: I _ The request 2. Applicable City Code 3. Items and quantities involved 4. Justification for request 5. An-iount of time requested 6. Provide vicinity map Attach a I r 100 drawing of your site. Mail or drop off the completed application and reap to: CITY OF RENTON Development Services Division Mike Dotson, Coordinator 1055 — S. Grady Way 6t11 Floor Renton, WA 98058 425-430-7304 Completed applications will be reviewed and a written determination issued approximately 3-4 weeks from date of receipt of application. You will be contacted if application is incomplete or if additional information is required. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE: , r-DATE: OFFICE USE ONLY OFFICE USE ONLY OFFICE USE ONLY OFFICE USE ONLY DEFERRAL {) New (} Extension Offsite Onsite EXCESS RIW {) FEE IN LIED {) WAIVER ( ) f %Ftic Sys\BM - Hoard of Public Work,',APPT [C.ATION''W'A'2007,doc VARIANCE ( ) New {) Extension { } Underground ( ) Slope Grades ( ) Driveway ( ) Noise June 25, 2008 Development Services Division Mike Dotson, Coordinator 1055 S Grady Way — 61h Floor Renton, WA 98057 Re. Request for Sidewalk Fee Variance Blueberry Haven Short Plat LUA-07-131 Dear Mike Dotson: The City of Renton building code requires a sidewalk installation for lot frontages included in a short plat. In the Administrative Short Plat Report & Decision Renton Municipal Code Section 4-6-060 is referenced. The Blueberry Haven short plat creates 2 lots, one abutting at 2010 Jones Ave NE and one abutting 1712 NE 20th St. Sidewalks do not exist in the vicinity of these lots. The Jones Ave lot is an existing residence. At this time it is scheduled by the city of Renton to move the road west 6' in front of the lot and install sidewalks. (note — see attached City of Renton June 2, 2008 letter). The NE 201h St lot is an undeveloped lot which will have water and sewer stub installed as a requirement of this short plat. We are requesting a variance on the payment in lieu of sidewalk installation due to a hardship, in order to protect the integrity of the Category 4 stream at the east side of the property and creating other drainage problems for the property owner east of the lot on NE 20" St. The category 4 stream is at the lower point and most east location of our NE 20th St lot. Installing a sidewalk that would not tie to any other sidewalk, a large poplar would have to be removed from the creek bank and may not fit within the long term plans of the city's storm water drainage plans, may become a nuisance for the City maintenance department and therefore may be best not to install at this time. In discussing with our engineer the installation of a sidewalk including a drain basin for the storm water drainage from the street to the ditch, excess water could be directed to the Denzler property, exasperating his low point drainage collection during high rains due to no storm water drainage for the street. Due to the hardship of creating this short plat in an area where there has been confusion of the category of wetlands by the neighbors, we have had extensive expenses including large legal expenses. Our engineer and concrete contractor that we have a personal relationship with have taken great consideration in our financial situation and are will to do all work for $3200. In regards to the above paragraph, although its lower cost to install then to pay the in lieu of fee, we are asking for a variance. We believe some payment may have been paid at the time of the prior short plat by ,Ian - Wes construction in 1995, which could be taken into consideration. We are requesting to be granted a variance not to pay the in lieu of fee, and if not possible the maximum of $3200 that we would pay to have this done or a reduced frontage calculation due to the creek. Due to the length of time this short plat has taken and our financial situation we appreciate your expeditious decision. Sincerely, Richard & Lauralee Gordley _ �E • ''Rix e• � � 't � 's off. r= '14 GeoDimensions Inc. 1-425-396-0732 Friday, January 04, 2008 10:01:03 AM PROJECT: GORDLEY SHORT PLAT JOB NO. 6309 CLOSURE REPORT Coordinate values shown are computed based on the rounded bearing and distance, or chord bearing and chord lengths as indicated herein. Boundary Name: LOT A AREA Point Number Description Sta Northing Easting Bearing ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Distance 0 0+00.00 5301.660 10027,281 N89029100"E 255.50 ft 0 2+55.50 5303.964 10282.771 S00035,32"E 70.00 ft 0 3+25,50 5233.968 10283.494 S89029100"W 255.60 ft 0 5+81.10 5231.663 10027.904 N00031,0011W 70.00 ft 0 6+51.10 5301.660 10027.273 Closing latitude Closing departure Closing bearing Closing distance Total traverse length Total error of closure Error of closure in latitude Error of closure in departure Area Area _- 0 . 0 0 0 0 1 _-0,00769 = N89056'12"E w 0.00769 = 651.10 (651.10) 1/84649 1/76630525 = 1/84649 = 17888.42 SQ FT = 0.41 ACRES GeoDimensions Inc. 1-425-396-0732 Friday, January 04, 2008 10:03:37 AM PROJECT: GORDLEY SHORT PLAT JOB NO. 6309 CLOSURE REPORT Coordinate values shown are computed based on the rounded bearing and distance, or chord bearing and chord lengths as indicated herein. Boundary Name: LOT B AREA Point Number Description Sta Northing Easting Bearing Distance ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 0 0+00.00 5233.061 10182.901 N89029100"E 100.60 ft 0 1+00.60 5233.968 10283.497 S00035132"E 195.34 ft 0 2+95.94 5038.638 10285.516 S88016114"W 100.88 ft 0 3+96.82 5035.594 10184.682 N0003110011W 197.48 ft 0 5+94.30 5233.066 10182.901 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Closing latitude = 0.00501 Closing departure = 0.00015 Closing bearing = S01°40'38"W Closing distance = 0,00501 Total traverse length = 594.30 (594.30) Total error of closure = 1/118634 Error of closure in latitude = 1/118685 Error of closure in departure = 1/4053193 Area = 19784.36 SQ FT Area = 0.45 ACRES a S TICOR TITLE COMPANY 600 SW 39th Street, Ste 100, Renton, WA 98057 (425)255-7575 FAX (425)255-0285 Date: June 24, 2008 at 08:00 AM Prepared For: Richard Gordley 2010 Jones Avenue Northeast Renton, WA 98058 INQUIRIES SHOULD BE MADE TO: UNIT E (425)255-7943 Order No,: Your Reference: Charge: Tax: PLAT CERTIFICATE SCHEDULE A TITLE IS VESTED IN: Richard Gordley and Lauralee Gourdley, husband and wife LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 6415170-E Gordley & Gourdley! $ 250.00 $ 22.50 Lot(s) 4, City of Renton Short Plat Number SHPL-060-87, recorded under Recording Number 8805099006, in King County, Washington, and that portion of Lot 2 of said short plat, lying southerly of the following described line: Beginning at the northeast corner of said Lot 4; thence north 89029'00" east on the easterly projection of the north line of said Lot 4 a distance of 226.50 feet to a point on the easterly boundary of said Lot 2; said point being south 00035'32" east a distance of 326.88 feet from the most northeasterly corner of said Lot 2, and the terminus of the herein described line; (BEING KNOWN AS Lot B, City of Renton Lot Line Adjustment Number LUA 95-093 recorded under Recording Number 9511299005)_ PLAT Certificate Schedule A Policy No. 6415170-E LEGAL DESCRIPTION SCHEDULE A CONTINUED The land referred to herein is described as follows: Lots) 4, City of Renton Short Plat Number SHPL-060-87, recorded under Recording Number 8805099006, in King County, Washington, and that portion of Lot 2 of said short plat, lying southerly of the following described line: Beginning at the northeast corner of said Lot 4; thence north 89°29'00" east on the easterly projection of the north line of said Lot 4 a distance of 226.50 feet to a point on the easterly boundary of said Lot 2; said point being south 00035'32" east a distance of 326.88 feet from the most northeasterly corner of said Lot 2, and the terminus of the herein described line; (BEING KNOWN AS Lot B, City of Renton Lot Line Adjustment Number LUA 9"93 recorded under Recording Number 9611299005). PLAT CERTIFICATE SCHEDULE B EXCEPTIONS: AN EASEMENT AFFECTING A PORTION OF SAID PREMISES FOR THE PURPOSES STATED THEREIN: FOR: Existing drainage ditch DISCLOSED BY INSTRUMENT RECORDED: March 21, 1958 RECORDING NUMBER: 4884438 and 4884439 AFFECTS: Easterly portion of Tract 293 of C.D. Hillman's Lake Washington Garden of Eden Div. No. 4 lying within Lot 2 of property herein described 2. AN EASEMENT AFFECTING A PORTION OF SAID PREMISES FOR THE PURPOSES STATED THEREIN: IN FAVOR OF: City of Renton FOR: Public utilities (including water and sewer) DISCLOSED BY INSTRUMENT RECORDED: June 29, 1981 RECORDING NUMBER: 8106290604 AFFECTS: The north 15 feet of Tract 293 and the west 15 feet of Tract 284 of C.D. Hillman's Lake Washington Garden of Eden, Division No. 4, lying within Lot 2 of property herein described 3. AN EASEMENT AFFECTING A PORTION OF SAID PREMISES FOR THE PURPOSES STATED THEREIN: IN FAVOR OF: City of Renton FOR: Public utilities (including water, wastewater and surface water) DISCLOSED BY INSTRUMENT RECORDED: November 6, 1995 RECORDING NUMBER: 9511060098 AFFECTS: Portion of Lot 2 4. AN EASEMENT AFFECTING A PORTION OF SAID PREMISES FOR THE PURPOSES STATED THEREIN: FOR: Ingress, egress and utilities for the purposes of utilizing Grantee's water rights from an unnamed creek Short Plat Number SHPL-060-87 DISCLOSED BY INSTRUMENT RECORDED: July 28, 1995 RECORDING NUMBER: 9507281245 AFFECTS: A 10 foot strip of Lot 2 adjacent to Lot 1 AGREEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: RECORDED: May 9, 1988 RECORDING NUMBER. 8805090391 6. AGREEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: RECORDED: January 14, 1991 RECORDING NUMBER: 9101140962 7. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS AND EASEMENTS CONTAINED IN SHORT PLAT -- RECORDED: May 9, 1988 RECORDING NUMBER: 8805099006 SCHEDULE B (Continued) 8 E The utilities easement noted on said short plat over Lot 2 has been released by Recording Number 9604170909. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS AND EASEMENTS CONTAINED IN LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, COPY ATTACHED: RECORDED: November 29, 1995 RECORDING NUMBER: 9511299005 DEED OF TRUST, AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTOR: Richard Gordley and Lauralee Gordley TRUSTEE: George C. Reinmiller Trustee, Inc. BENEFICIARY: Source One Mortgage Services Corporation ADDRESS: 27555 Farmington Road, #300, Farmington Hills, MI 48334-3357 LOAN NO.: Not disclosed AMOUNT: $240,000.00 DATED: March 17, 1999 RECORDED: March 19, 1999 RECORDING NO.: 9903192831 THE BENEFICIAL INTEREST OF SAID DEED OF TRUST HAS BEEN ASSIGNED: TO: Fleet Mortgage Corp. ADDRESS: 1333 Main Street, #700, Columbia, SC 29211 RECORDING NO.: 19990922001469 APPOINTMENT OF SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE: APPOINTED: Bishop, White & Marshall, P.S. BY: Washington Mutual Bank in successor in interest by merger with Washington Mutual Home Loans, successor in interest by merger with Fleet Mortgage Corporation RECORDED: April 3, 2007 RECORDING NUMBER: 20070403001900 NOTICE OF TRUSTEE'S SALE: GIVEN BY: Bishop, White & Marshall, P.S. SALE TO BE HELD ON: July 6, 2007 DATED: April 6, 2007 RECORDED: April 6, 2007 RECORDING NUMBER: 20070406001413 10. DEED OF TRUST, AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTOR: Richard Gordley and Lauralee Gordley, husband and wife TRUSTEE: Chicago Title Insurance Company BENEFICIARY: King County Credit Union, a corporation ADDRESS: 801 2nd Avenue, #100, Seattle, WA 98104 LOAN NO.: Not disclosed AMOUNT: $30,000.00 DATED: August 30, 2004 RECORDED: September 3, 2004 RECORDING NO.: 20040903002252 SCHEDULE B (Continued) 11. TRANSCRIPT OF JUSTICE COURT: JUDGMENT AGAINST: IN FAVOR OF: AMOUNT: TRANSCRIPT FILED: KING COUNTY JUDGMENT NUMBER: SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NUMBER: ATTORNEY FOR JUDGMENT CREDITOR: Richard Gordley Global Creditors Netowork $16,404.94, plus interest and/or costs if any December 15, 2006 069361429 06-2-39332-5 Robert Keith Hunter Jr_ The effect of said matter(s) depends upon the identity of the debtor. Please have the confidential information statement(s) attached to this Commitment completed and returned to this office at least three days prior to close in order for the company to make a final determination as to the effect of said matters_ A copy of said judgment was recorded under King County Recording Number 20070105000383. 12. General property taxes and special district charges, as follows, together with interest, penalty and statutory foreclosure costs, if any, after delinquency: (1st half delinquent on May 1st; 2nd half delinquent on November 1st) Total Taxes for Year 2008 Amount Billed: $4,666.34 Amount Paid: $2,333.17 Amount Due: $2,333.17 Tax Account Number: 334390-3563-04 Levy Code: 2100 Current Assessed Value: Land: $220,000.00 Improvements: $256,000.00 13. MATTERS DISCLOSED BY OUR INSPECTION: 1. Wood fence assumed appurtenant to real estate under search encroaches 2 feet more or less onto the northerly adjoiner. 2. Wood fence and concrete wall appurtenant to real estate under search extend 2 feet more or less onto the southerly adjoiner. 3. Concrete wall assumed appurtenant to real estate under search extends 5 feet more or less into the right of way of Jones Avenue NE. NOTES: 7 E. 111 Abbreviated Legal for purposes of King County Recorders Office is: Lt 4 and Ptn Lt 2, Sp # SHPL-060-87, Rec # 8805099006_ The records of King County and/or our inspection indicate that the address of the improvement located on said land is: 2010 Jones Road Northeast Renton, WA 98056 A Single Family Residence There are NO Conveyances affecting said land recorded within 24 months of the date of this report. BMIRE/06130/2008 SCHEDULE B (Continued) cc: Ticor Title Company Richard Gordley and Lauralee Gourdley (US MAIL) PLAT Certificate Schedule B Effective Date: 5/1 /2008 Fidelity National Financial, Inc. Privacy Statement Fidelity National Financial, Inc. and its subsidiaries ("FNF") respect the privacy and security of your non-public personal information ("Personal Information") and protecting your Personal Information is one of our top priorities. This Privacy Statement explains FNFs privacy practices, including how we use the Personal Information we receive from you and from other specked sources, and to whom it may be disclosed. FNF follows the privacy practices described in this Privacy Statement and, depending on the business performed, FNF companies may share information as described herein. Personal Information Collected We may collect Personal Information about you from the following sources: • Information we receive from you on applications or other forms, such as your name, address, social security number, tax identification number, asset information, and income information; • Information we receive from you through our Internet websites, such as your name, address, email address, Internet Protocol address, the website links you used to get to our websites, and your activity while using or reviewing our websites; • Information about your transactions with or services performed by us, our affiliates, or others, such as information concerning your policy, premiums, payment history, information about your home or other real property, information from lenders and other third parties involved in such transaction, account balances, and credit card information; and • Information we receive from consumer or other reporting agencies and publicly recorded documents. Disclosure of Personal Information We may provide your Personal Information (excluding information we receive from consumer or other credit reporting agencies) to various individuals and companies, as permitted by law, without obtaining your prior authorization. Such laws do not allow consumers to restrict these disclosures. Disclosures may include, without limitation, the following: • To insurance agents, brokers, representatives, support organizations, or others to provide you with services you have requested, and to enable usto detect or prevent criminal activity, fraud, material misrepresentation, or nondisclosure in connection with an insurance transaction; • To third -party contractors or service providers for the purpose of determining your eligibility for an insurance benefit or payment and/or providing you with services you have requested; • To an insurance regulatory authority, or a law enforcement or other governmental authority, in a civil action, in connection with a subpoena or a govemmental investigation; • To companies that perform marketing services on our behalf or to other financial institutions with which we have joint marketing agreements and/or • To lenders, lien holders, judgment credits, or other parties claiming an encumbrance or an interest in title whose claim or interest must be determined, settled, paid or released prior to a title or escrow closing. We may also disclose your Personal Information to others when we believe, in good faith, that such disclosure is reasonably necessary to comply with the law or to protect the safety of our customers, employees, or property and/or to comply with the judicial proceeding, court order or legal process. Effective Date: 5/1/2008 Disclosure to Affiliated Companies We are permitted by law to share your name, address and facts about your transaction with other FNF companies, such as insurance companies, agents, and other real estate service providers to provide you with services you have requested, for marketing or product development research, or to market products or services to you. We do not, however, disclose information we tolled from consumer or credit reporting agencies with our affiliates or others without your consent, in conformity with applicable law, unless such disclosure is otherwise permitted by law. Disclosure to Nonaffiliated Third Parties We do not disclosure Personal Information about our customers or former customers to nonaffiliated third parties, except as outlined herein or as otherwise permitted by law. Confidentiality and Security of Personal Information We restrict access to Personal Information about you to those employees who need to know that information to provide products or services to you. We maintain physical, electronic, and procedural safeguards that comply with federal regulations to guard Personal Information. Access to Personal Information/ Requests for Correction, Amendment, or Deletion of Personal Information As required by applicable law, we will afford you the right to access your Personal Information, under certain circumstances to find out to whom your Personal Information has been disclosed, and request correction or deletion of your Personal Information. However, FNF's current policy is to maintain customers' Personal Information for no less than your state's required record retention requirements for the purpose of handling future coverage claims. For your protection, all requests made under this section must be in,writing and must include your notarized signature to establish your identlty. Where permitted by law, we may charge a reasonable fee to cover the costs incurred in respond to such requests. Please send requests to: Chief Privacy Officer Fidelity National Financial, Inc. 601 Riverside Avenue Jacksonville, FL 32204 Changes to this Privacy Statement This Privacy Statement may be amended from time to time consistent with applicable privacy laws. When we amend this Privacy Statement, we will post a notice of such changes on our website. The effective date of this Privacy Statement, as stated above, indicates the last time this Privacy Statement was revised or materially changed_ NU!] W z N 9-I559 M mN + - 5011 4 'SflIIbi� 4.41 z9 2; O O R 32 3t B1 I- , � a i 2q 033C7 4rm EN OF 5 734 100 46 16 N Sd-16-14 E 31 9291186 jJ { LOT 4 0�1 w 54 67 0 0 67�,�y` o POFZ o 5 ------ f55 - — �— 36G3 - 1323 74}ua34 J��30 ' por- lot 2 0 ?q1 9F Lon �`93 312 i i N 6 -7 -14 26 47 a571J� 2803 N -1 -10 4 E 155 D a m 35'� a 1S g rn 1 a`91J a 0390 ' d o _ 67 N o qqe 5731) o f 93 28 e}� f26ti Q 1= 10 7 ,,ywyr C] _ ��O Sit t „� 27 11CIS3 z _ a 13600 SF 1 47 Ai 16604 Sr 13440 SF ^.` 3 'an�0370 21 21 .05 Sr a 3m 64,M 55FF 3 3 2722 °h R•25 t 55.? 100 88 11 100 3 t 38 76 ig N.E.20TH ST 202 x 89-n-12 F SP S 1047H SF N 64- -73 6 - --- 125 95 6 6 70 112 4d (F) � qq qD 5F a LOT s� j �v o LOT & 121 b.S _9 S;t•C 9304 SF REN SP 130-78 - 01�0 91 f7383 SF Y LOT 3 69d6 SF a N $9- - 8965 Sr 9800 SF 9d00 Sr 3WO v', Jim �) 29 12614 o5 65 - f2 00 51 =_ N 25614 140.0 {P) 14 780721076 b ,� k o LOT 1 �y�`' 20486 SF o o 3529 m 7279 5F� N E9-Jd-Sf 256.26 �� 4 000 rygr, 7 76 900 SF y 'e q�t*t _ N 89-22-13 E 257.24_ 6 N.E.19TH PL 3525 1ii e Z 46 tii This sketch is for the purpose of shM - W -T, i x 515 SF G 20515 SF i 3527 the approximate general IoWion of the 913+ SF ° preMises without actual survey and ° ° , 4 Tim Title assumes no 1109 ty in -" 94 Ofi Wdh the same. 15 '' 2051d 5F )4-1)-7 .�1` �J is y 7rU 03 F 10445 SF o q All 125 Sr _ 83 55 51 5S 55 50 a a 1 80 Y _NE ISTH PL - W n RNSP ,LUA03 S5 yS P + iDTn4 _ -r . 1f 0 7e 7 5F 9 om 1 LID i l'bT 'S t1503d 6659� 6664) 5999r -dam 5F 3M 3522 3524 3526 342 AC ! 9654 sr f� q1 t 55 5 0 3240 N 89-54- om 98 256 65 N 89-38-51 E 252 36 (P) lie e� s 1Qg4 8190 SF Ld 0 SF td 531D Sf 0084 Sf 9054 SF 5 w 3M 3478 1944 5F OM$ t ,.� 74175 5F e Q 71 97om r 0090 ti'• yh' om>a° Z _ g,45 raj 'N N -59-3� E k o 603d SF N 64 SF 97 �l ro I IN 1 o ee o SF CO .4�75 SF � i 763i SF fi o 0 6 11 gh `�Q i0111 SF 0 S �� 9 1 101 47 om - =4 (6/24/2008� Cynthia Moya Party of Record Change (LUA07- 131 Blueberry Haven Short Plat LUA07 090 Gordley/Denzidje4 From: Rocale Timmons To: Stacy Tucker CC: Jennifer Henning Date: 6/23/2008 4:05 PM Subject: Party of Record Change (LUA07-131 Blueberry Haven Short Plat; L - GwAe�-LkA) Hey Stacy, Can you change the Owner information (address and phone number) for the above mentioned land use files. Lauralee & Richard Gordley 12819 SE 38th Street PMB 4206 Bellevue, WA 98006 425-652-3194 Let me know if you have any questions. Rocale Timmons City of Renton Development Services 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 (425) 430-7219 (425) 430-7300 rtimmons@ci.renton.wa.us (6124/2008) Cynthia Moya - Party of Record Change (LUA07-131 Blueberry Haven Short Plat) Page 1 From: Stacy Tucker To: Moya, Cynthia CC: Timmons, Rocale Date: 6/24/2008 11:45 AM Subject: Party of Record Change (LUA07-131 Attachments: Party of Record Change (LUA07-131 dley/Denzler LLA) Cindy, Blueberry Haven Short Plat) Blueberry Haven Short Plat; LUA07-090 Gor Can you update the party of record listing for the above referenced project? 1 believe the file has been forwarded up to the City Clerk's office. I will change it on my end as well. Stacy M. Tucker Secretary City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 (425) 430-7282 S Denis Law, Mayor June 10, 2008 Richard and Lauralee Gordley 2010 Jones Ave. NE Renton, WA 98056 Re: Blueberry Haven Short Plat; SHP-07-131 2010 Jones Ave. NE Dear Mr. and Mrs. Gordley: CITY IF RENTON City Clerk Bonnie 1. Walton At the regular Council meeting of June 9, 2008, the Renton City Council adopted the recommendation of the Planning and Development Committee to reverse the decision of the Hearing Examiner, thereby reinstating the approval of the Blueberry Haven Short Plat subject to conditions and mitigation measures. A copy of the approved Committee report is enclosed. For additional information or assistance, contact City Clerk. Bonnie Walton. Sincerely, - Michele Neumann Deputy City Clerk Enclosure cc: Mayor Denis Law Council President Marcie Palmer Neil Watts, Development Services Director Parties of Record (15) 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98057 - (425) 430-6510 ! FAX (425) 430-6516 R E N T N 1�1T., nHJEnn OF -rHE CURVE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT June 9, 2008 BLUEBERRY HAVEN SHORT PLAT APPEAL File LUA 0.7-131; SHPL-A, ECF (Referred April 28, 2008) The Planning and Development Committee ("Committee") heard this appeal on June 5, 2008. Pursuant to RMC 4-8-11 OF, the Committee's decision and recommendation is limited to the record, which consists of, but is not.limited to the Hearing Examiner's Report, the Notice of Appeal and the Submissions by the Parties. The subject property is located in the upper Kennydalee-neighborhood at 210 Jones Avenue NE, Renton, VITA and consists of a 37, 714 square feet (.86 acre) lot located between Jones Avenue NE and NE 20th Street. The, property along on. the NE 20, St is located across from the Blueberry.Farrn. The City. of Renton staff approved Applicant Richard and Lauralee Gordley, ("Gordleys") short plavregixest to subdivide this parcel into two lots, with Lot A proposed at 17; 90 square feet -and Lot B proposed at 19,784 sq. feet. As part of their application; the Gordleys submitted a Critical Areas Study ("CAS") which identified a 9,..6(11 sq.. ft category, 3 wetland on the site. Although there is also a "stream" on the site, the City waived'a supplemental, stream study because there had been several prior stud' 'tithe surr dnd' ngareas which satisfied the City as to its Class 4 designation. Based on these studies, the City staff Water Class Map and the Streams and Lakes Map `set out -its RMC 4L3-050Q;;the-City staff deemed the property to - contain Category 3 wetlai'd arid' Class 4 streams aria applied.,the appropriate buffers associated with those levels Appellant Sue Rider {"Rider") `Who :xesides in the neighborhood, filed a timely appeal and the matter was held before the Hearing Examiner, Where was no. independent study submitted by the Appellants, but Appellan`dd present testimony of Larry Fisher of Fish &. Wildlife, and numerous neighbors who all indicated that they believed the stream running along the subject site was perennial, rather than intermittent: The Gordleys testified that the stream was manmade, was not able to sustain any-lifeforms, 'and was intermittent. On March 27, 2008, the -Hearing Examiner issuedhs decision finding that the City staff erred,in waiving the requisite stream study and in not undertaking an independent wetland assessment.. Accordingly, the Hearing 'Examiner reversed the approval of the Blueberry Haven short plat: A timely appeal of the Hearing .Examiner's decision was . filed by the Gordleys. APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL Date— Vio-19 This Committee, after hearing the presentations by City Staff, the Gordleys and Ms. Rider and having considered the record below, finds that the Hearing Examiner made a Aa3A"d,09-008- u4!ns#su!,p Iuawa6�ey3 ap suaS ®Dabs ®AH3A'd I!jege6 al zasilixn worifjane•MMM all!na} el zallnsuo- V jaled q salpe; sauanblq Denise Blackmau 2100 Jones Ave. NE Renton, WA 98056 Susan Rider 1835 NE 20 St Renton, WA 98056 Richard & Lauralee Gordley 2010 Jones Ave. NE Renton WA 98056 DeAnna Dobak 1700 NE 20' St. Renton, WA 98056 Julie Bray 1901 NE 20`h St Renton, WA 98056 Tom Dickson/Kevin Steinacker Dickson Steinacker LLP 1201 Pacific Ave, Ste 1401 Tacoma, WA 98402 Sue Larson -Kinzer Robert Cave 1733 NE 20" St. 12518 E 17u' St. Renton, WA 98056 Bellevue, WA 98005 Barbara Hicks William O'Conner 10402 151" Ave. SE 921 S. Washington St. Renton, WA 98059 Port Angeles, WA 98362 Ashley Peck Loraine Taylor Gendler and Mann LLP 220$ Jones Ave. NE 1424 Fourth Avenue, Ste. 1015 Renton WA 98056 Seattle, WA 98101 Larry Fisher Karen Finnicum 1775 lft Ave. NW, Ste. 201 1302 Aberdeen Ave. NE Issaquah, WA 98027 Renton, WA 98056 Paul Watt Christian Denzler 2433 Jones Ave. NE 1800 NE 20" St. Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 T 909LS8AH3A%f Tajniea as Asez jo jade T @09ZS 31%gdW31 O/Ganb esn � I d 3 t d paa� , 0 ; iaa4S uolpwtsul aaS i Eg slagel load AWE! r June 9, 2008 Renton City Council Minutes Page 189 Planning & Development Committee Appeal: Blueberry Haven Short Plat, Gordley,. SiLP- 131 the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal, and the submissions by the parties. The subject property is located on 630 Monroe Ave. NE consisting of a three - lot subdivision in the R-8 zone. The short plat proposal called for Lots I and 2 to be 6,769 square feet (gross) and Lot 3 to be 6,348 square feet. This plat was encumbered with a King County restrictive covenant, which called for a minimum lot size requirement of 6,000 square feet. The applicable City Code provision requires 5,000 square feet net density. The hearing concerned the dispute over the interpretation of this covenant as to whether the 6,000 square feet minimum lot size requirement was one of net or gross density. On 2/18/2008 the Hearing Examiner issued his decision affirming the decision of the Administrative Director to interpret the covenant as requiring 6,000 square feet gross. Appellant Vogbt appealed this decision. On 4/21/2008, the Renton City Council approved the release of this restrictive covenant. This action effectively renders any application containing this covenant will be processed without the restriction contained therein, and solely based on the existing zoning and development criteria for that particular parcel. On 4/24/2008, Chair Parker sent a letter to appellant Voght explaining that based on this recent action by the City Council regarding the covenant, the basis of his appeal was effectively moot. Accordingly, Chair Parker advised that he was inclined to cancel the appeal hearing unless the appellant could articulate a basis to still hold the hearing. The appellant did not wish to acquiesce and therefore, the hearing was opened on the scheduled date. On the date of the hearing, the appellant presented his case. Having considered the comments made by the appellant, and taken into consideration the files therein and actions taken regarding this covenant, this Committee made the following recommendations to the City Council: That the City Council finds that having previously approved to release this King County restrictive covenant by its action of 4/21/2008, this appeal of RTC Short Plat is rendered moot, and therefore, the appellant's appeal should be dismissed. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED, Planning and Development Committee Chair Parker presented a report regarding the Blueberry Haven Short Plat appeal. The Committee heard the matter on 6/5/2008. Pursuant to City Code 4-8-110F, the Committee's decision and recommendation is limited to the record, which consists of, but is not limited to the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal, and the submissions by the parties. The subject property is located in the upper Kennydale neighborhood at 2010 Jones Ave. NE, and consists of a 37,714 square foot (.86 acre) lot located between Jones Ave. NE and NE 20th St. The property along NE 20th St. is located across from the Blueberry Farm. City staff approved applicant Richard and Lauralee Gordiey's short plat request to subdivide this parcel into two lots, with Lot A proposed at 17,930 square feet and Lot B proposed at 19,784 square feet. As part of their application, the Gordley's submitted a Critical Areas Study, which identified a 9,601 square foot Category 3 wetland on the site. Although there is also a "stream" on the site, the City waived a supplemental stream study because there had been several prior studies in the surrounding areas that satisfied the City as to its Class 4 designation. Based on these studies, e June 9, 2008 Renton City Council Minutes Page 190 the Water Class Map and the Streams and Lakes Map set out in City Code, City staff deemed the property to contain a Category 3 wetland and Class 4 streams, and applied the appropriate buffers associated with those levels. Appellant Sue Rider, who resides in the neighborhood, filed a timely appeal and the matter was held before the Hearing Examiner. There was no independent study submitted by the appellants, but the appellant did present testimony from i Larry Fisher of the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, and numerous neighbors who all indicated that they believed the stream running along the subject site was perennial, rather than intermittent. The Gordleys testified that the stream was manmade, was not able to sustain any life forms, and was intermittent. On 3/27/2008, the Hearing Examiner issued his decision finding that City staff erred in waiving the requisite stream study and in not undertaking an independent wetland assessment. Accordingly, the Hearing Examiner reversed the approval of the Blueberry Haven Short Plat. A timely appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision was filed by the Gordleys. This Committee, after hearing the presentations by City staff, the Gordleys and Ms. Rider, and having considered the record, finds that the Hearing Examiner made a substantial error of law and fact and recommended reversal of the Hearing Examiner's decision. For these reasons, the Committee made the following recommendations to the City Council: • That the City Council finds that the Hearing Examiner made a substantial error of fact in finding that City staff did not follow the applicable City Codes by waiving the stream study and not requiring an independent wetland analysis; and a substantial error of law in that he found City staff s decision to be clearly erroneous and arbitrary and capricious_ Accordingly, the decision of the Hearing Examiner should be reversed, thereby reinstating the approval of the Blueberry Haven Short Plat, subject to the conditions set forth in the Approval Report and Decision dated 12/10/2007, the applicable mitigation measures set forth in the Environmental Review Committee Report dated 12/3/2007, and any other related City staff provisions. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT.* Discussion ensued regarding the stream running along the subject site. Citing a conflict of interest, Councilmembers Corman and Palmer recused themselves from the meeting, Time: 7:18 p.m. Discussion continued regarding the stream, the studies and maps, and the Hearing Examiner's decision. *MOTION CARRIED. Councilmembers Corman and Palmer returned to the meeting. Time: 7:23 p.m. ADMINISTRATIVE Chief Administrative Officer Covington reviewed a written administrative REPORT report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2008 and beyond. Items noted included: The Renton fire and Emergency Services Department will be conducting a live fire drill June 17 to June 19. The residential structure to be used for the PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT June 9, 2008 BLUEBERRY HAVEN SHORT PLAT APPEAL File LUA 07-131, SHPL-A, ECF (Referred April 28, 2008) APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL Date POP9 The Planning and Development Committee ("Committee") heard this appeal on June 5, 2008. Pursuant to RMC 4-8-11 OF, the Committee's decision and recommendation is limited to the record, which consists of, but is not limited to the Hearing Examiner's Report, the Notice of Appeal and the Submissions by the Parties. The subject property is located in the upper Kennydale neighborhood at 210 Jones Avenue NE, Renton, WA and consists of a 37, 714 square feet (.86 acre) lot located between Jones Avenue NE and NE 20t4 Street. The property along on the NE 201" St is located across from the Blueberry.Farm. The City of Renton staff approved Applicant Richard and Lauralee Gordley ("Gordleys".) short plat request to subdivide this parcel into two lots, with Lot A proposed at 17, 930 square feet and Lot B proposed at 19,784 sq. feet. As part of their application, the Gordleys submitted a Critical Areas Study ("CAS") which identified a 9, 601 sq, ft category 3 wetland on the site. Although there is also a "stream" on the site, the City waived a supplemental stream study because there had been several prior studies in the surrounding areas which satisfied the City as to its Class 4 designation. Based on these studies, the City staff Water Class Map and the Streams and Lakes Map set out in RMC 4=3-050Q, the City staff deemed the property to contain Category 3 wetland and Class 4 streams and applied the appropriate buffers associated with those levels. Appellant Sue Rider ("Rider"), who resides in the neighborhood, filed a timely appeal and the matter was held before the Hearing Examiner. There was no independent study submitted by the Appellants, but Appellant did present testimony of Larry Fisher of Fish & Wildlife, and numerous neighbors who all indicated that they believed the stream running along the subject site was perennial, rather than intermittent. The Gordleys testified that the stream was manmade, was not able to sustain any lifeforms, and was intermittent. On March 27, 2008, the Hearing Examiner issued his decision finding that the City staff erred in waiving the requisite stream study and in not undertaking an independent wetland assessment. Accordingly, the Hearing Examiner reversed the approval of the Blueberry Haven short plat. A timely appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision was filed by the Gordleys. This Committee, after hearing the presentations by City Staff, the Gordleys and Ms. Rider and having considered the record below, finds that the Hearing Examiner made a Blueberry Haven Appeal Page 2 substantial error of law and fact and recommends reversal of the Hearing Examiner's decision. For these reasons, the Committee makes the following recommendations to the City Council: That the City Council finds that the Hearing Examiner made a substantial error of fact in finding that the City Staff did not follow the applicable city codes by waiving the stream study and not requiring an independent wetland analysis; and a substantial error of law in that he found the City Staff's decision to be clearly erroneous and arbitrary and capricious. Accordingly, the decision of the Hearing Examiner should be reversed, thereby reinstating the approval of the Blueberry Haven short plat, subject to the conditions•set forth in the Approval Report and Decision dated December 10, 2007, the applicable mitigation measures set forth in the Environmental Review Committee Report dated 2007, and any other related City Staff provisions. cc: Alex Pietsch Jennifer Henning Lawrence J. Warren Fred Kaufman Net) Wa #5 April 28, 2008 Renton City Council Minutes Page 141 Budget: 2008 Amendment, An ordinance was read amending the 2008 Budget in the total amount of Information Technology $486,000 as it relates to Information Services Fund 503. MOVED BY Projects PERSSON, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 5/5/2008. CARRIED. The following ordinance was presented for second and final reading and adoption: Ordinance #5372 An ordinance was read amending Chapter I, Garbage, Chapter 2, Storm and Utility: Low -Income Senior & Surface Water, Chapter 4, Water, and Chapter 5, Sewers of Title VIII (Health Disabled Utility Rates and Sanitation) of City Code by adjusting current utility discount rates for low- income senior/disabled residents. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS Citizen Comment: Blueberry Haven Short Plat Appeal, Gordley, SHP-07-131 ADJOURNMENT Recorder- Michele Neumann April 28, 2008 Councilmember Parker reported receipt of correspondence within the deadline allowed by City Code regarding the appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision concerning the Blueberry Haven Short Plat from the following: William E. O'Connor (Port Angeles), Sue Rider (Renton), Deanna Dobak (Renton), Barbara P. Hicks (Renton), Julie E. Bray (Renton), and Ashley A. Peck, Gendler & Mann LLP (Seattle). MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL REFER THESE ITEMS OF CORRESPONDENCE TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. CARRIED. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL ADJOURN, CARRIED. Time: 7:48 p.m. Bonnie I. Walton, CMC, City Clerk <<, « L--t C-Uwu ,L,U u i - is rIi ri. tinge ies vH PHA NU. 1 3OU 4� f Ub Ib f . U2 CITY OF RENION APR 2 5 ?008 L4,14 � Bonnie Walton, City Clerk RECEIVED City of Renton ciry CI_FRK1,S OFFICE 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 d 4o Pay April 24, 2008 RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision dated 3/27/08 regarding the Blueberry Haven Short Plat located at 2010 Jones Ave NE (File No. LUA- 07-131) Dear Ms Walton: As noted in your April 15, 2008 letter regarding the subject action i wish to submit thefollowing in support of the Hearing Examiner's 3/27/08 Decision. The Examiner was clearly correct in stating firmly that the stream (Kennydale Creek) which flows through the Gordley property is a Class 3 perennial stream. The fact is that the City originally arbitrarily classified the creek as a Class 4 stream without any evidence that there was not a year around flow. Ms. Rider had requested several times that the City provide evidence on the original classification of Kennydale Creek. The City failed to provide Ms Rider with any studies or other evidence regarding stream flow in the creek. During the hearing Ms. Rider provided extensive testimony and documentation from the neighbors that the creek has never been known to dry up. No testimony was ever provided that the stream ever dried up_ Even the Gordleys, during their testimony were very careful never to state that the stream ever dried up. The overwhelming evidence provided to the City in the hearing....... and also during the former process when Mr. Dutro attempted to downgrade the stream...,. was that the stream does flow year round, taking water from the Blueberry Farm down to Lake Washington. It is also clear from the record that the stream originates in the natural bowl area wetlandcontaining the Blueberry farm bog and that the wetland is a headwaters wetland and properly classified as a Class 2 under the City's criteria for wetlands. Again I support the well reasoned decision by the Hearing Examiner. William E. O'Connor 921 S Washington St Port Angeles, WA 98362 �_XY OF REIN 1 ON April 23, 2008 Renton City Council 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Re: Blueberry Haven ShortPlat LUA-07-131 Dear City Council and Planning Committee: APR 25 7008 0'` RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE P/�,,� d"n W 4U-el� rm� `ila PIa°°B "We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors. We borrow it from our children." If this sounds familiar, that is because it is the opening page of the City's website, urging citizen involvement in protecting the environment. The irony is not lost on those of us who have spent the last five years begging the city to enforce the laws pertaining to the creeks and wetlands in our own neighborhood. We have attended every hearing, Planning Committee meeting, Planning Commission meeting, countless City Council meetings, one-on-one meetings with Planning and Development staff, and several conversations with Mr. Clawson, who was the P&D committee chairman at the time. We have complained as the city allowed Cam -West to divert an underground stream away from the wetlands in this valley; called city inspectors and their bosses to no avail while Terry Dutro excavated the wetlands on his property; watched helplessly as a tiny farmhouse on a beautifully treed lot was replaced with a huge, out of place mega -mansion, every tree cut down and the wetlands bulldozed to the property line. The foundation dig for this home was one of the exhibits we submitted in our appeal to the Hearing Examiner. It shows the bole filling to the top with groundwater, faster than they could pump it out. We all have similar groundwater levels in this area; even while planting a rosebush, the water rushes in to fill the hole. It is interesting to note that Mr. Carl Hadley's report (Cedarock Consultants) not only says the City should evaluate the stream in the summer months, he says definitively that "if the stream is groundwater -driven, it WILL BE PERENNIAL." We have presented the City with historic photos showing this peat wetland system before any significant development took place. It is spring -fed, and the entire wetland and headwaters of the creek are groundwater driven. We have, contrary to the Gordley's assertion, asked the City numerous times for a formal process by which we could establish the correct classsff cation of Kennydale Creek. We were told by Mr. Clawson in 2005 "not to worry", because a Class IV was just as good as a Class III, and besides no one could build until they did a stream study. We were told by Jennifer Henning that there was NO process to have the stream upgraded, but we could apply for a "comp -plan amendment" and maybe that would work, It was not until we spent thousands of dollars of our own money to hire a lawyer that we learned what they should have told us from the beginning- when the creek is perennial, the map is supposed to be changed_ The evidence is right there; all they had to do was look at it in the summers, see that it never dries up, and classify it accordingly. The Hearing Examiner is hired by the City to arbitrate these matters of evidence professionally and impartially, and that is what he has done. That is what the City Planning Department should have been doing for the last five years, instead of ignoring everyone except the potential developers. Now that the evidence has finally been considered and judged to be credible, we ask that the decision be upheld, and the "wink -wink" policies of the past be rejected. These waters are directly connected to Lake Washington and they are vital to the health of Puget Sound. The peat wetlands are the most efficient filter system for runoff in existence. All we have to do to benefit from their remarkable stormwater capacity is to protect them, by enforcing the codes as they are written. Anything less makes a mockery of our commitment to the planet and to our beautiful City. No house is worth the sacrifice of our children's future home. The Gordley's knew their property was a wetland when they bought it, and they should not expect the City Council to ignore the evidence in order to further the destruction of this raze and precious valley. This wetland is home to deer, herons, ospreys and, just up the street today, a bear. We have sacrificed a great deal financially in order to give them a voice, and we beg you to consider them in your decision. The WRIA 9 report done by Washington Trout found that AT LEAST 94% of the urban streams they studied were misclassified, almost always with less protection than was warranted. Please uphold Mr. Kaufman's decision, and decide in favor of optimism and citizen involvement, in opposition to the cynicism of "politics as usual." You will be doing the right thing. Thank you for your consideration. S.Rider 1835 NE 20 ST Renton, WA 99056 Kennydale Critical Areas Alliance OF RENTON Dear City Council Members. RECLibt OTT GL.FFWnFFfGr RE: Appellant Susan Rider's Response to Gordle_y Appeal, Blueberry Haven Short Plat, LUA-07-131_ SHPL-A, ECF I am Deanna Dobak; 1 live at 1700 NE 2& St., Renton, 98056. We have a neighboring property to the Gordley property. We have lived in this house for the past 5and a half years. During this time my husband and l have worked with other concerned neighbors establishing that Kennydale Creek runs year round to help in correcting the stream classification. I strongly urge you to keep the Hearing Examiners ruling in place because the stream flows year round_ In my 5 years here I have never seen the stream dry during any part of the year, this includes the driest year Seattle area has on record. I walk or drive the area and cross past the stream to get back to my house so I see the stream on a daily basis, In the driest year on record there was still water in the stream. The Hearing Examiner's ruling should stand. Thank you, Sincerely, '24 Deanna Dobak 1700 NE 20th St. Renton, WA 98056 cuvo gnu u 1 1 1 d N1 rt. Hngeles M rAX NO. 1 360 457 0618 P. 01 CITY OF RENT oil Cho Bonnie Walton, City Clerk APR 2 5 20118 jj.q(''% City of Renton RECEIVED 1055 S Grady Way ff CITv CLERK's OPFIC& Renton, WA 98057 April 24, 2008 RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision dated 3/27/08 regarding the Blueberry Haven Short Plat located at 2010 Jones Ave NE (file No. LUA- 07-131) Dear Ms. Walton: As a party of record I am responding to your April 15, 2008 letter regarding the I Tearing Examiner's decision of 3/27/ 08. I feel that testimony has been provided on many occasions to the City Council regarding the year around flow of the Kennydale Creek, by people who lived in the area. This testimony was again provided to the Hearing Examiner along with documentation from neighbors who had lived in the area. 1 also feel that the city classified the stream as a Class 4 without clear evidence that the stream did not flow year around. The city has never had a study done to determine whether the stream does or does not flow year around and there never has been any documented evidence or testimony that the stream ever, dried up. When inquiring of city staff about upgrading the creek I was advised that there was not a procedure for upgrading a stream only, downgrading a stream. The Hearing Examiner reached his decision after thoroughly weighing all of the evidence, testimony and reading various reports. It is my hope that the City Council will take as much time and care as he did to reach the conclusion that the creek does u-t fact flow year round and his decision should be upheld. Thank you for all of your attention to taus important matter. Sincerely yours, Bar ara P. Hicks 104021515L Ave 5E Renton, WA 98059 April 24, 2008 Renton City Council 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Dear Council Members, CITY OF RENTON APR 2 8 2008 C CITY LEERE"iR'VS OED F F I C E 144od Dee-vere d �o dawn c; l afre, �+ 44eA 4o efi< I am writing regarding the recent decision by the Hearing Examiner regarding the Blueberry Haven Short Plat. Given all of the overwhelming evidence presented at the appeal, I feel the correct decision was made. What especially bothers me is that the City did not require a stream study given the nature of the property and the testimony of the people living in the area. I have been following the development requests for this area for some time (both the Gordley's property and the Blueberry Farm). Of particular concern is the drainage on my property. Both my neighbor and I live at the lowest point on NE 20`h and I can usually depend on having a pond in my backyard with any significant amount of rain. The lowest points are usually muddy until early summer. The water drains from my property to Sue Rider's, into the creek on the Blueberry Farm and then out to the Gordley's property. If this stream is blocked I'm concerned it will have an adverse affect on my property. I'm by no means an attorney, but in reading all of the appeals and responses, and especially the Hearing Examiner's Decision, I'm concerned about the City's handling of this whole issue. It would appear that the City is not following it's own processes and requirements. I would once again like to state that I have lived at 1901 NE 201h St for approximately 21 years and at times walked past the stream in question on a daily basis and have never seen it dry. In fact, 9 times out of 10 I would need to hose down my dog(s) because they were splashing in it. When my son was younger we would walk everyday, rain or shine, and he would always have to throw grass or a stick into the water. Please uphold the Hearing Examiner's Decision. i i� J 'e E. Bray 1901 NE 20`3' St Renton, WA 98056 425-255-5151 w 425-271-7449 h Michael W. Gendler* David S. Mann Ashley A. Peck *Also admitted in Oregon �d �l rind GENDLER & MANN LLPgoo� ATTORNEYS-A'r-LAW 1424 FOURTn AvENUE, SUITE 1015 SEATTLF. WA 98101 April 24, 2008 (206) 621-8868 Fax (2M) 621-0512 ashley@gendlermann.com www.gendlermann.com CITY OF RENTON .,APR 2 5 2008 Renton City Council PFCEIclTv CLERK'S OFFiCE 1055 S, Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 RE: Appellant Susan Rider's Response to Gordley Appeal, Blueberry Haven Short plat LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF Dear Council Members: We write on behalf of Susan Rider and the Kennydale Critical Areas Alliance and provide the following response to Richard and Lauralee Gordley's appeal of the Hearing Examiner's reversal of their short plat decision. Because the Hearing Examiner's decision is strongly supported by the record and applicable provisions of the Renton City Code, Ms. Rider respectfully requests that the Council affirm the decision and dismiss the Applicant's appeal. I. BACKGROUND This appeal concerns application of the City of Renton's critical areas regulations. The City approved the Applicants' short plat application to divide their property into two parcels on December 10, 2007. A stream, Kennydale Creek, flows across the property, and there is a wetland on the northeast portion of the property.] In support of their application, the Applicants submitted a "Critical Areas Study" prepared on their behalf by Steward and Associates, which determined that the onsite wetland was a Category 3 wetland under Renton's critical areas ordinance.2 The City did not require the Gordleys to prepare an analysis of the stream, instead apparently relying on previous studies of the area and the City's water class maps.3 City staff applied buffers for a Class 4 intermittent stream and a Category 3 disturbed wetland in the administrative approval of the short plat.4 Hearing Examiner Report and Recommendation? Finding 7, page 12 (March 27, 2008) (hereinafter "HE"). 2 HE, Finding 9; see also Exhibit 1. 3 14E, Finding 9, 4 HE, Finding 10. it Renton City Council April 24, 2008 Page 2 Ms. Rider filed a timely appeal of the short plat decision, arguing that it was in violation of the City's critical areas ordinance because Kennydale Creek is perennial and thus a Class 3 stream pursuant to the City code, and that the wetland is a Category 2 wetland because it is located in the headwaters of a watercourse.5 A hearing was held on February 12, 2008. Ms. Rider submitted extensive evidence showing that Kennydale Creek is a perennial stream that does not run dry in the summer months during normal years.b In addition to Ms. Rider, six neighboring property owners testified at the hearing that they have observed Kennydale Creek on a regular basis for decades and have never seen it run dry. For instance, Paul Watt, who lives downstream from the Gordley property, testified that he has observed the stream run through his backyard nearly every day since the 1960s and has never seen it dry.7 Larry Fisher of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) also testified that he has observed Kennydale Creek regularly during his 18 years as the local Area Habitat Biologist. He testified that the creek is perennial and is thus a Class 3 stream under the City's code. Mr. Fisher also testified that he had attempted to bring this issue to the City's attention through comment letters on previous matters, but to no avail.$ Ms. Rider further testified that she and other neighbors had made extensive efforts for several years to bring this issue to the City's attention, and she submitted copies of numerous affidavits previously submitted to the City about the perennial nature of Kennydale Creek.9 Neighbors' concerns were consistently dismissed as lay observation even though they demonstrated a conflict regarding the classification.10 Additionally, Ms. Rider submitted photos of water flowing in Kennydale Creek in the dry summer months at points directly upstream and directly downstream of the Gordley property." She pointed out that the very study relied on by the City and the applicants did not support a Class 4 designation. It rather stated that the creek would be Class 3 if it flowed year round, referenced prior findings indicating perennial flow and stated that the creek would be perennial if it was fed by groundwater. 12 She also submitted several prior wetlands studies that had classified the wetland on the Gordley property as a Category 2 headwater wetland under the City's code,13 5 HE, Finding 11. 6 See, ems, Exhibits 6-10, 12, 17; HE, pages 3-5. 7 HE, page 4. 8 HE, page 3; see also Exhibit 6. 9 See Exhibits 7-9, 10 See HE, Finding 12; Conclusion 7. 11 See Exhibit 10, 12 See Exhibit 18, see also HE, Findings 16-19. 13 See Exhibits 14 — 16. Renton City Council April 24, 2008 Page 3 City Planner Jennifer Henning and Mr. and Mrs. Gordley also testified and submitted exhibits at the hearing.14 After hearing all of the evidence and reviewing the submissions of the parties, Hearing Examiner Fred Kaufman concluded that Ms. Rider had demonstrated that the decision of City staff was in error, contrary to law, or arbitrary and capricious, and he reversed the decision.15 Specifically, he found the decision should be reversed because the evidence showed the City erred in waiving the stream study requirement,16 applied the wrong designation to the stream pursuant to the code,17 and failed to require independent review of the applicant's wetland classification where it conflicted with prior studies. is II. APPLICABLE LAW A. Protection of Critical Areas Renton's Comprehensive Plan states an objective to "protect and enhance the City's rivers, major and minor creeks and intermittent stream courses." Renton Comprehensive flan, Objective EN-C, The City's critical areas ordinance limits the issuance of a permit on property that is on or near regulated streams or wetlands, and specifically provides that a permit may only issue where it is consistent with critical areas regulations. RMC 4-3-050(L)(7). The ordinance outlines criteria for four types of regulated water bodies and prescribes protective buffer requirements based on those types. Class 3 waters are described as follows: iii. Class 3: Class 3 waters are non-salmonid-bearing perennial waters during years of normal rainfall, and/or mapped on Figure Q4, Renton Water Class Map, as Class 3. RMC 4-3-050(L)(1)(a)(111) (emphasis added). Contrarily, the criterion for Class 4 waters is the absence of year-round flows: iv. Class 4: Class 4 waters are non-salmonid-bearing intermittent waters during years of normal rainfall, and/or mapped on Figure Q4, Renton Water Class Map, as Class 4. 14 See HE, pages 5-11 _ 15 HE, Conclusion I _ 16 HE, Conclusions 6, S. 17 HE, Conclusion 10. 's HE, Conclusion 9, i Renton City Council April 24, 2008 Page 4 RMC 4-3-050(L)(1)(a)(iv) (emphasis added). The sole difference in the two water class designations is the presence or absence of water flowing in the stream year-round. Thus, if a stream does not run dry in the summer during normal years, it is a Class 3 waterway pursuant to the code. The code prescribes minimum buffer widths according to classification, requiring a 75-foot buffer for Class 3 streams and a 35-foot buffer for Class 4. RMC 4-3-050 (L)(5)(a)(i). The code also supplies a map, generally referred to as the "Q Map," which shows the "approximate location and extent of Class 2 to Class 4 water bodies with the City limits." RMC 4-3-050(L)(l)(c)(i). However, the code clearly explains that the classifications assigned in the Q map are interpretive only: The map is to be used as a guide to the general location and extent of streams. Specific locations and extents will be determined by the City based upon field review and applicant funded studies prepared pursuant to subsection L3 of this Section. Id. Notwithstanding the map classifications, the actual presence or absence of the criteria spelled out in the ordinance is to govern stream classifications for individual sites. RMC 4-3-050(L)(1)(c). Administrative approval is required for the reclassification of a water body to a lower class that that in the map, but is not required for a reclassification to a higher class: ii. Reclassification: Where there is a conflict between the Renton Water Class Map in Subsection Q and the criteria in subsection L1 a of this Section, the criteria in subsection Ll a of this Section shall govern. The reclassification of a water body to a lower class (i.e. 2 to 3, or 3 to 4, etc.) requires administrator acceptance of a supplemental stream or lake study, followed by a legislative amendment to the map in subsection Q of this Section prior to its effect. RMC 4-3-050(L)(1)(c)(ii)(emphasis added). Accordingly, the ordinance requires applicants to conduct a standard stream study if a site contains a water body or buffer area or the project area is within one hundred feet (100') of a water body. RMC 4-3-050(L)(3)(a). The report is to be prepared by a qualified biologist and include a map identifying the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), the stream classification, topography of the site, flood plain, and vegetative cover. RMC 4-8-120. The study should also Renton City Council April 24, 2008 Page 5 describe the ecological functions provided by the waterway, observed fish and wildlife that use the area, and measures to protect trees and vegetation. Id. The stream study requirement "[m]ay only be waived ... when the applicant provides satisfactory evidence that ... [a]pplicable data and analysis appropriate to the proposed project exists and an additional study is not necessary." RMC 4-3-050(L)(3)(d)(ii)(e) (emphasis added). The current interpretive Water Class Map classifies the lower portion of Kennydale Creek as Class 3, but inexplicably classifies the upper reaches, including its headwaters, as Class 4. See Renton Water Class Map, Figure Q, RMC 4-3-050. The City's critical areas regulations also outline protections for wetlands and specify that permits should only be approved where there is to be no net loss of regulated wetland area, value or function in the drainage basin where the wetland is located. RMC 4-3-050(M)(2)(b), The code also requires applicants to submit a wetlands study to determine classification. RMC 4-3-050(M)(3)(a)(1). Wetlands that meet one or more of the following criteria are correctly classified Category 2 wetlands: (a) Wetlands that are not Category 1 or 3 wetlands; and/or (b) Wetlands that have heron rookeries or osprey nests, but are not Category 1 wetlands; and/or (c) Wetlands of any size located at the headwaters of a watercourse, i.e., a wetland with a perennial or seasonal outflow channel, but with no defined influent channel, but are not Category 1 wetlands; and/or (d) Wetlands having minimum existing evidence of human -related physical alteration such as diking, ditching or channelization; and/or RMC 4-3-050(M)(1)(a)(ii) (emphasis added). B. Authority, of Hearing Examiner The Renton Hearing Examiner has the authority to review and act on appeals of administrative decisions. RMC 4-8-110(E)(1)(a). The Hearing Examiner may reverse the administrative decision where the appellant has shown it to be in error, otherwise contrary to law, or arbitrary and capricious. RMC 4-8-110(E)(7)(b). A decision is arbitrary and capricious where it is willful and unreasoning, without consideration of the facts and circumstances. Bishop v. Houghton, 69 Wn.2d 786, 794 (1966). "[T]he Examiner shall have all of the powers of the office from whom the appeal is taken insofar as the decision on the particular issue is concerned." RMC 4-8-110(E)(1)(c)(emphasis added). Renton City Council April 24, 2008 Page 6 The City Council should only reverse or remand the decision of the Hearing Examiner where it finds that "a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record," RMC 4-8-110(F)(7). III. ARGUMENT Hearing Examiner Kaufman correctly found that City staff erred in waiving the code requirement for a stream study where there was a known discrepancy as to the stream's classification and no prior study supported the classification applied. He correctly interpreted the City's code as requiring that streams be classified by their characteristics where there is a conflict with the City's basic interpretive map. He reviewed the evidence in the record and concluded that according to the code, Kennydale Creek is properly categorized a Class 3 perennial stream. He also correctly found that because the wetland on the applicant's property had been classified a Category 2 headwater wetland by previous studies, the City erred by not requiring an independent analysis. These decisions were within the authority of the Hearing Examiner, and because he did not commit a substantial error in fact or law, his decision should be affirmed, A. The Hearing Examiner Correctly Found that the City's Waiver of the Stream Stud Requirement Was in Error Hearing Examiner Kaufman found that the City erred in not requiring the Gordleys to submit a stream study pursuant to RMC 4-3-050(L)(3)(a) where the record demonstrated it had been made aware that there was a conflict as to the perennial or intermittent nature of the stream. After review of the evidence, he found that that the previous study relied on by the applicants and the City as evidence of Kennydale Creek's Class 4 designation (Exhibit 19, by Carl Hadley of Cedarock Consultants) did not substantively address whether the stream was perennial or intermittent, indicated that if it flowed year round it should be Class 3, and even referenced other studies reporting year round flow.(9 The applicant's Critical Areas Study by Steward and Associates did not evaluate the stream at all.2° The City received several letters from neighbors pointing out that the stream flowed year round in response to the short plat application.21 The issue had also been brought to the City's attention through previous processes by both neighbors and the WDFW,22 The City clearly had notice of a conflict between the water class map and actual conditions. In light of such uncertainty, Mr. Kaufman found that the required stream study "might have helped finally decide an issue that has been raised by the appellant and neighbors for a number of 19 HE, Findings 16-19. 20 See HE, Finding 4; Exhibit 1. 21 See Exhibit 1; HE, Conclusion 7. 22 HE, Conclusion 7; see Exhibits 6-9. Renton City Council April 24, 2008 Page 7 years."23 He found that the City not only erred in waiving a stream review by the Applicants' expert, but also by not seeking an independent study that could have resolved the contradictions raised by neighbors.24 The applicants erroneously contend that the City was correct to waive the requirement for a stream study due to the "numerous prior studies" that "dealt with similar issues and contained relevant analysis for stream designation."25 They further claim that "only one out of seven studies classified the stream as anything other than a Class 4. ,26 They include a chart listing four of these purported studies in their brief and refer to three additional studies later on (one of which is duplicated in the chart). A review of these six studies proves that the applicants are wrong. None of them provides analysis supporting the designation applied in the short plat. A brief summary of each of the six referenced studies and their failure to address the streamflow issue is provided below: 1. Entranco -- (Exhibit 15) - The Entranco report is a wetland delineation that classified the wetlands on the Gordley property as Category 2 headwater wetlands. See Exhibit 15, page 12. This study does not evaluate the creels at all or classify it according to the code; indeed, the current stream classifications had not yet been adopted. 2. Elli sport Engineering (10/2004) (Exhibit 14) -- This study is another wetland delineation that does not substantively address the stream classification at all, but only summarily states: "The Gordley property does have a Class III stream crossing it north to south." Exhibit 14, page 5 (emphasis added). 3. Ellisport Engineering (4/2005) (Exhibit 19) - The second Ellisport Engineering letter referenced, Exhibit 19, was written on behalf of developer Terry Dutro in support of his request to reclassify the stream to a Class 5 unregulated, manmade waterway. Again, it does not address whether the stream flows year round and thus does not substantively support a Class 4 intermittent designation for Kennydale Creek. 4. Watershed — Hugh Mortenson (Exhibit 17) - Likewise, the Watershed Company Study listed in the table, presumably Exhibit 17,27 reviewed only whether the 23 I1E, Finding 6. �4 Id. 25 Applicant's Brief, page 2. 26 Id, 1' The chart in the applicants' brief lists the date as 4/2005. Ms. Rider assumes the appellants are referring to Exhibit 17, a July 19, 2005 letter from Hugh Mortenson of the Watershed Company to Nancy Weil. Renton City Council April 24, 2008 Page 8 stream should be downgraded to a Class 5 waterway and did not analyze the perennial flow issue. Of note, however, the ecologist observed water in the stream in late July, which indicates perennial flow. Appellants refer to this report later on in their brief, Appellant's brief at 5, as supporting the Class 4 designation, but it does no such thing. Indeed, Exhibit 18 cites it as an indication that the stream does flow perennially, 5. Cedarock Consultants (Exhibit 18) - This letter from Carl Hadley to Jennifer Henning only concluded that the stream should not be downgraded to a Class 5 manmade waterway and did not substantively support the City's conclusion that it should be classified as intermittent. In fact, Mr. Hadley concluded that if the stream flows year round, it should be Class 3 and he pointed out that more information is needed to make this determination. Exhibit 18, page 2. He cited other studies as reporting flow in dry months and explained that the stream may be fed by groundwater, in which case it would be perennial. Id. at page 3. 6. Steward and Associates (Exhibit 1) — The applicants' Critical Areas Study only addresses the wetland classification and does not substantively evaluate the stream at all. In sum, none of the six studies referenced by the Applicants provides any substantive evaluation of whether Kennydale Creek flows perennially or intermittently, the main issue before both City staff and the Hearing Examiner. The majority of them don't address the creek at all, and the ones that do only analyze whether it is or is not a manmade waterway, a contention that was already conclusively rejected by this Council in a previous process.28 The most pertinent study by Carl Hadley was inconclusive, and should have encouraged the City to seek such an evaluation. In light of the lack of any substantive support for the Class 4 designation and the conflict raised by neighbors, the Hearing Examiner was correct to find that the City's waiver of the code requirement for a stream study was in error. B. The Hearing Examiner Did Not "Reclassify the Stream " But Rather Interpreted the Code as Written and the Facts Presented to Determine that the City's Decision Was Erroneous The Code requires stream classifications to be determined by characteristics, not solely the "Q Map" The Hearing Examiner correctly found that the City's water class maps are not dispositive proof of stream class and that the actual characteristics of a stream are to determine its classification pursuant to the code. He found that the small size and poor detail of the water class maps and the za HE, Finding 13. Renton City Council April 24, 2008 Page 9 code provisions indicate that they are interpret interpretive only and that a stream's classification depends on its character.29 Specifically, he found: The map is not conclusive — rather how a stream flows determines its class. A wrong map designation does not make a stream a Class 4 if it in fact flows per the definitions.30 Responding to the City's contention that the water class maps are proof of stream class, he interpreted the code as requiring that a stream be classified based on "its real characteristics and not some supposition."31 He went on to find that the code clearly directs that a stream that flows year round is a Class 3 stream. "It is a simple proposition — perennial flow, Class 3. Intermittent Flow, Class 4... The Map is not conclusive —rather how a stream flows determines its class."32 The applicants contend that the Hearing Examiner did not have authority to "reclassify" the stream on appeal of a short plat application, They further argue that in order for the stream class to be changed from the classification outlined in the Q Map, Ms. Rider must have made a formal application to the Planning Department.33 These arguments are foreclosed by the cede sections directing such administrative interpretation and granting the Hearing Examiner the same power as administrators. The applicants cite the very sections providing such authority to administrators to review and determine a stream's classification based on its characteristics where there is a conflict with the designation in the maps. See id (citing RMC 4-3-050(L)(c)(1)). They also acknowledge that the Q Map is only a guide to the general location and extent of streams. Id. Because the code gives the Hearing Examiner the same authority to review and interpret the code as administrators had in making their decision, he did indeed have the authority to determine there was a conflict with the map and apply the correct code classification to the stream. See RMC 4-8-110(E)(1)(c). Ms. Rider was not required to submit a formal request for a reclassification. The code does not require or even allow her to do so. Rather, the code directs that a formal application is only required where an applicant seeks a downgrade from the class assigned in the map and does not provide such a requirement for upgrades. Rather, in situations where the actual criteria conflict with the map, the criteria prevail and the higher classification is automatic. See RMC 4-3-050(L)(1)(c)(11). Moreover, the record demonstrates that Ms. Rider and neighbors have attempted repeatedly to dispute the map classification of Kennydale Creek, 29 HE, Finding 7. 30 Id. 11 id. 32 HE, Finding 7. 11 Applicant's Brief, page 7. Renton City Council April 24, 2008 Page 10 2. The evidence in the record demonstrates that Kennydale Creek flows year round, thus creating a conflict with the Q Map classification After reviewing the evidence presented by the Applicants, the City, and Ms. Rider, the Hearing Examiner concluded that the record demonstrated that the City's short plat decision was in error and arbitrary and capricious because it was inconsistent with the City's critical areas ordinance: The record before this office demonstrates that the stream flows perennially as it enters a culvert under NE 20'h street and wears to flow as it begins entry into the subject site, the Gordley property. The record further demonstrates that this same stream flows perennially north of the subject site. The record does not directly show how the stream flows once it disappears from view looking north of the subject site. But the Hadley report coupled with the lay testimony allows one to draw reasonable conclusions.34 The Applicants again contend on appeal that the evidence in the record is not relevant because it does not directly concern the portion of the stream on the Applicants' property.35 However, the evidence was indeed directly relevant in determining how the stream flows immediately before and after the Applicants' property. The Applicants did not present evidence refuting the obvious presumption that the section of the stream on their property also flows accordingly. The Hearing Examiner responded to this issue directly at the hearing and in his decision, determining that the evidence was indeed relevant to show the characteristics of the stream. Responding to the City and the Applicants' contentions that neighbors could not observe the entire length of the stream on their property, Mr. Kaufman thoughtfully concluded: [T]here are probably sections of the Cedar River that flow through private property that may be harder to observe and would be hard to verify. Clearly, in those instances, the Cedar River is seen flowing toward a property and seen flowing away but might be hidden beyond view on private property. Logic allows some leaps of faith and logic suggests that it might be flowing even where it cannot be observed.36 Accordingly, the Hearing Examiner found: "The current facts, the anecdotal evidence and the Hadley report show evidence of perennial flow in a normal year. Code proclaims streams with 34 HE, Conclusion 6 (emphasis added). 35 See Applicant's Brief, pages 3-4, 6, 36 HE, Conclusion 7. Renton City Council April 24, 2008 Page 1 i those characteristics a Class 3. This office has to conclude therefore, that the City was wrong based on current knowledge."37 Because the evidence showed that the creek flowed perennially, administrators were wrong to apply buffers for an intermittent stream. The City and Applicants did not provide any evidence refuting neighbors' testimony that the creek flows year round,38 and the report that they relied on, Exhibit 18, also cites reports of year round flow. Accordingly, pursuant to the code, Kennydale Creek is a Class 3 stream.39 The Hearing Examiner did not "reclassify" the stream as the Applicants contend. He rather determined that the short plat decision was in error and must be reversed because it was not consistent with the critical areas regulations in the code. RMC 4-3- 050(L)(7). C. Requiring a Native Growth Protection Easement Does not Make the Decision Consistent with the Critical Areas Regulations Again, the City's critical areas ordinance limits the issuance of a permit on property that is on or near regulated streams or wetlands and provides that a permit may only issue where it is consistent with critical areas regulations. RMC 4-3-050(L)(7)(emphasis added). The critical areas ordinance also requires the creation of a Native Growth Protection Area for projects on or near Class 2-4 waterbodies. RMC 4-5-050(L)(7). Granting a conservation easement over a buffer area is one of the ways an applicant may comply with this requirement, RMC 4-5-050(E)(4). The Applicants argue that the City's imposition of a Native Growth Protection Area on the Gordley property demonstrates that the City was "cognizant of the stream issue."40 While this condition may show that the City was aware that there was a stream on the property, it does not allow the City to misclassiiy the stream and apply minimal buffers. Indeed, the Native Growth Protection Area is required by the code for Class 2-4 streams and does not have any effect on stream classifications or buffers. It is simply an additional requirement that does not absolve the City from the other express requirements of the code pertaining to streams. 37 HE, Finding 10. 3s The Applicants' appeal brief makes the claim that they testified that the stream is intermittent. In fact, they were careful to avoid such a direct contention in their testimony, instead disputing how far neighbors could see onto their property and claiming that the stream was a "ditch." See HE, pages 6-8. 39 IIF, Conclusion 10. "p Applicant's Brief, page 3. Renton City Council April 24, 2008 Page 12 D. The Hearing Examiner Correctly Determined that the City Erred by Not Requiring Independent Review of the Wetland Classification Where it Conflicted with Prior Studies The Hearing Examiner also found that the City's failure to require independent review of the Applicants' wetland classification where the applied Category 3 classification conflicted with prior studies performed for the City on the same wetland. Specifically, he found: [H]ad the City compared the results of the applicants' recent wetland study with results of reports it had on file, as it supposedly did with the creek, it might have found contradictions that may have encouraged it to seek an independent assessment. Studies or reviews in three cases called the wetland a "headwaters wetland" and that means it should be a Category 2 Wetland.. ,The lack of such independent review was erroneous unless one concludes that the earlier reviews for City projects or other purposes were independent and then those reviews found it a "headwater wetland, a Category 2 wetland."41 The Applicants assign error to this conclusion, but do not explain why it was in error in their brief. The record, including various prior studies conducted for the City,42 strongly supported the Hearing Examiner's conclusion regarding the wetland classification and it should be affirmed. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Hearing Examiner's decision reversing the short plat should be affirmed and the applicant's appeal should be dismissed. Very truly yours, GENDLER & MANN, LLP Ashley A. Peck Attorneys for Sue Rider and the Kennydale Critical Areas Alliance AAP:dab cc: Client Kevin T. Steinacker 41 HE, Conclusion 9. 4' HE, Finding 20; Exhibits 15-17. 2 *Myap)e,-t�s City Clerk's Office Distribution List Appeal, Blueberry Haven Short Plat LUA-07-125, SHP-A, ECF April 10, 2008 1 Renton Reporter 1 City Attorney Larry Warren 1 City Council * JuIia Medze ian 8 Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch Rebecca Lind Neil Watts Jennifer Henning Stacy Tucker Erika Conkling Janet Conklin LaEy Mecklin 1 Fire Marshall Dave Par as 1 Fire & Emergency Services Bob Van Horne 7 Planning Commission Judith Subia 15 Parties of Record see attached list 1 Public Works Department GreggZimmerman 1 PW/Trans ortation Services Peter Hahn 1 PW/Utilities & Tech Services Lys Hornsby 1 LUA-07-131 • *City Clerk's Letter & POR List only \ Appeal 4/10/08 1 28, 2008 Renton City Council Minutes Page 138 There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC H> ARING. CARRIED. Councilmember Parker noted that these items will remain in Planning and Development Committee for further review. ADMINISTRATIVE Chief Administrative Officer Covington reviewed a written administrative REPORT report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2008 and beyond. Items noted included: The public is invited to an open house to kick-off the beginning of the Shoreline Master Program update on April 30 at City Hall. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Council Meeting Minutes of Approval of Council meeting minutes of4/21/2008. Council concur. 4/21 /2008 Appeal: Blueberry Haven City Clerk reported appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision regarding the Short Plat, Gordley, SHP-07- Blueberry Haven Short Plat application (SHP-07-131) by Richard and Lauralee 131 Gordley, represented by Dickson Steinacker LLP, accompanied by required fee. �- Refer to Planning and Development Committee. (See page 141 for action on ;related correspondence.) Court Case: Shane Watson & Court Case filed on behalf of Shane Watson and Lauren Watson by Sheffield & Lauren Watson, CRT-08-004 Associates who seek compensation for injury and permanent disability sustained by Shane Watson on 2/10/2005 while working as a subcontractor on the Maplewood Water Treatment Facility and Golf Course Improvements construction project. Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Services, Annexation- New Life - Aqua Community and Economic Development Department recommended approval of Barn, Maple Valley Hwy the New Life - Aqua Barn Annexation; 374 acres located in the vicinity of Maple Valley Hwy. Council concur. (See page 140 for ordinances.) Community Services: Park Community Services Department recommended approval of the revisions to the Rules & Regulations Changes Park Rules and Regulations. Refer to Community Services Committee. Police: Lateral Police Officers Police Department recommended approval of the starting compensation for two Hire at Step D specific Lateral Police Officers at Step D of the salary range. Council concur. Finance: Utility Bill Public Works Department recommended approval of the request to waive the Adjustment, Community past due water bill in the amount of $16,307.72 for the water meter at Liberty Services Department Park. Refer to Finance Committee. Budget: 2008 Amendment, Public Works Department recommended approval to amend the 2008 Budget Mechanic Assistant Position for Fund 501, Equipment Rental, in the amount of $37,077 to fund a Mechanic Assistant position, and approval to add the previously approved Street Maintenance Manager position to the 2008 Budget index of positions. Approval was also sought to hire a Mechanic Assistant, grade a09, effective 7/1/2008. Refer to Finance Committee, Transportation: Ripley Lane Transportation Systems Division requested approval of an agreement in the Shoulder Improvements, King amount of $19,700 with King County for providing shoulder improvements County along Ripley Lane. Council concur. (See page 139 for resolution.) Transportation: May Creek Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of an agreement in the Bridge at NE 3 l st St amount of $63,797 with Parametrix, Inc. for the May Creek Bridge at NE 31 st Replacement, Parametrix St. Replacement project. Council concur. C OF RENTON COUNCIL AGEND ILL -1 L AI #_ Submitting Data: For Agenda of. 4/28/2008 Dept/Div/Board.. AJLS/City Clerk Agenda Status Staff Contact...... Bonnie I. Walton Consent .............. X Public Hearing.. Subject: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 3/27/2008 Correspondence.. regarding the Blueberry Haven Short Plat application. Ordinance ............. (File No. LUA-07-131, SHP-A, ECF) Resolution............ Old Business........ New Business....... Exhibits: City Clerk's letter (4/15/2008) Study Sessions...... Appeal - Richard and Lauralee Gordley (4/10/2008) Information......... Hearing Examiner's Decision - (3/27/2008) Recommended Action: Approvals: Refer to Planning and Development Committee. Legal Dept......... Finance Dept...... Other ............... Fiscal Impact: N/A Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment....... Amount Budgeted....... Revenue Generated......... Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision on the Blueberry Haven Short Plat application was filed on 4/10/2008 by Richard and Lauralee Gordley, represented by Dickson Steinacker LLP, accompanied by the required $75 fee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Council to take action on the Blueberry Haven Short Plat application appeal. cc: Jennifer Henning Larry Warren Rentonnetlagnbilll bb C T7 DF RENTON City Clerk �� ,� Denis Law, Mayor . BDnn[e I. Walton April 15, 2008 . APPEAL FILED BY: Richard and Lauralee Gordley, represeizted by Dickson Steihacker LLP RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 3/27/2008 regarding the Blueberry Haven Short Plat located at 2010 Jones Ave. NE (File No. Ll_JA-07-1,31,,SHF-A, ECF) 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 BIueberry Haven Short Plat application has been filedwith the City Clerk. In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110F, the. City Clerkshall notify all 'parties of record ofthe receipt of the appeal. Other patties 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 f'ling'of-the appeal. The deadline for submission of additional letters is 5:00 pm, Friday, April 25, 2008. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal:and other p`erapent documents will be reviewed by the Councils Planning and Development Comirasttee..The "Council Liaison will notify all parties of record of the date and.,ttnie:of the -Planning and Development Committee meeting. If you. are not listed in local telephone dY dteries`and wish io.attend the meeting, please call. the Council -Liaison at 425-43.0-6501.f6r information.: The recommendation of the Comniittee.will be presented for consideration by the full Council at a subsequent Council' meeting. Enclosed you will find a copy of the appeal and of the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeals of Hearing Examiner decisions or recommendations .Pltia e note that the City Council will be considering the merits of the appeal based upop the written'mcord`previously established. Unless a showing can be made that additional eyiderice could notreasotiably,have been,avaiiable at the prior hearing held -by'the Hea6ng.Examiner, nfurther evidence or testimony on this matter will`be accepted by the City Council. , For additional information or assistance, please feel free to call me at 425 ,430-6502. Sincerely, Bonnie 1. Walton ; City Clerk Enclosures cc: Council Liaison 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 48057 - (425) 430-6510 / FAX (425) 430-6516 R E N T O AHEAD OV THE CURVE This paper contains 50 % recycled material, 30 % post consumer City of Renton Municipal CogWitle TV, Chapter 8, Section 110 — Appea 4-8-110C4 The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170, the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-110F: Appeals to City Council — Procedures 1. Time for Appeal: Unless a specific section or State law providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court or any other body, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Council, upon a form furnished by the City Clerk, within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. 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: Other 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. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report, the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982) 5. 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 unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required, the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the applicant. In the absence of an entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 4389, 1-25-1993) 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 submissions by parties. 7. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-05OF1, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the proceeding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. 8. Council Action: If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050F2 and F3, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified, the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application. 9. Decision Documentation: In any event, 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. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord 3658, 9-13-1982) 10. 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 G5 of this Section. (Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997) WPEAL TO RENTON CITY COI IL OF HEA: G EXANUNER'S DECISIONIRECo,� .MENDATION J APPLICATION NAME 1 1' ! Qf'�� ' 6rlL� FILE NO. The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal f om the decision or recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated _ � �� ,� 2Q��, OFICWON I. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: � Name:ECha r_cJq C Address:._.2L Il s Ae c Phone Number: Email: APR 1 2008 q:3�Pr REPRESENTATIVE (IF AN I a Name: { & L,yj&,� E Address: f ! P19r• �A"Lr, 5-12-. //W/ i Eked z Phone Number:5� r CCU Email: Id/a�f c c a(rse, -, . c 2, SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: Finding of Fact: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's Report) No. 5 Error: Correction: Conclusions: No-fPWV Error: 7 C"n:g '] Correction: Other: No. Error: Correction: 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: Iq Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Other: qljolvk A pellant/Representa ive Signature Type/Printed Name Date NOTE: Please refer to Title IV, Chapter 8, of the Rentop 14urkicipal Code, and Section 44--8- l OF, for specific appeal procedures. ` CCa (/'"r"c� c. DICKSON STEINACKER LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW REPLY TO TACOMA OFFICE: 1401 WELLS FARGO PLAZA 1201 PACIFIC AVENUE TACOMA, WA 98402 TELEPHONE: (253) 572-1000 FAX: (253) 572-1300 April 10, 2008 Renton City Council 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 SEATTLE OFFICE: HANK OF AMERICA TOWER 701 FIFTH AVENUE, STE. 4201 SEATTLE, WA 98104 TELEPHONE: (206) 621-1110 FAX: (253)572-1300 Re: Blueberry Haven Short Plat Appeal LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF Dear City Council: THOMAS L. DICKSON KEVIN T. STEINACKER SHANE L. YELISH MATTHEW J. SMITH ROBERT P. DICKSON Applicants Richard and Lauralee Gordley hereby appeal the Hearing Examiner decision dated March 27, 2008, regarding the Blueberry Haven short plat application, LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF, a copy of which is attached. A hearing in this matter was held on February 12, 2008. For the reasons set forth below, the Gordleys respectfully request that the decision be reversed. Assi nments of Error The Gordleys assign error to the Hearing Examiner's Findings of Fact 12-15, 18-20, and 22, and to all of the Conclusions of Law. Factual Summary The Gordleys are the owners of property located at 2010 Jones Ave. NE in Renton. In an effort to modify their property, they submitted a short plat application in late 2007 to divide their parcel into two lots. The application was approved by the City on December 10, 2007. A neighbor, Susan Rider, appealed the approval to the Hearing Examiner. The Gordley property is an inverted L-shaped parcel. There is a streams running south to north through the property and a wetland just west of the stream in the northeast portion of the property. In an effort to subdivide and eventually sell portions of their property, the Gordleys sought and obtained approval from the City of Renton, for two short plats and a lot line adjustment (this adjustment is not at issue here). The City required the Gordleys to submit a Critical Areas Study to describe and analyze the proposed impact of the requested property action. In this case, the Gordleys produced a report from Steward and Associates which concluded that a portion of their property is a Category 3 wetland, 1 Reference to the water body as a "stream" should not be construed as an admission that it is a naturally occurring channel, as opposed to an artificially constructed drainage ditch. Renton City Council Gordley Brief on Appeal Page 2 of 8 mentioning that a small stream exists on the property. This report did not directly address the issue of stream classification. Pursuant to RMC 4-8-100(A)(1)(a) and RMC 4-3-050(L)(3)(d)(ii),2 the City did not require the Gordleys to produce additional studies, including a specific stream study, not because they assumed the Steward and Associates study was sufficient on its face, but because of numerous prior studies dealt with similar issues and contained relevant analysis for stream designation. Only one out of seven studies classified the stream as anything other than a Class 4. The one study that stated the stream may be a Class 3 was later corrected to indicate that the stream was in fact a Class 5. Prior to the Gordleys' efforts to secure a short plat approval, a neighbor (Mr. Dutro) had interest in the area and sought to re-classify the stream to an even lower category, a Class 5. In his efforts, Mr. Dutro secured a study of the area which demonstrated that the stream in question ought to be a Class 5 drainage ditch. The following is a chart with information taken from Figure 1 of the City's brief to the Hearing Examiner, summarizing the various studies that had been done and were reviewed by the City while processing the Gordley short plat application: CqMany Datlej Classifications: Property Notes Entranco 12/1996 Stream = NIA Higate Includes Gordley property Wetland = 2 Elisport Engineering — 10/2004 Stream = 3 Core/Gordley No wetland due to Anne Seethoff Wetland = NIA changing water levels Ellisport Engineering — 4/2005 Stream = 5 Dutro/Gordley Letter to Dutro regarding Anne Seethoff Wetland -- N/A analysis (including Gordley parcel), submitted to City for request change to unregulated Class 5 Stream. Watershed — Hugh 4/2005 Stream = 4 Gordley/ Analyzed the stream in Mortensen Wetland = 2 Blueberry Farm context of whether it was a Class 4 or Class 5. Operating within its discretionary authority as granted by the Code, the City had a preapplication meeting with the Gordleys in 2005. Based upon further review during the application process, the City affirmed what the Code already indicated for the area: that the stream running across a portion of the Gordley property is a Class 4 stream. The City's decision on the short plat application stated: 2 Under this provision, a standard stream or take study may "be waived by the Administrator when the applicant provides satisfactory evidence that: (a) A road, building or other barrier exists between the water body and the proposed activity, or (b) The water body or required buffer area does not intrude on the applicant's lot, and based on evidence submitted, the proposal will not result in significant adverse impacts to nearby water bodies regulated under this Section; or (c) Applicable data and analysis appropriate to the proposed project exists and an additional study is not necessary." RMC 4-3-050(L)(3)(d)(ii) (emphasis added) 3 Ellisport wrote a letter in June 20505 stating that the Class 3 designation was under the old ordinance. Based on the new Critical Areas Ordinance (passed in 2005), the channel should properly be designated as a Class 5. Exhibit M Renton City Council Gordley Brief on Appeal Page 3 of 8 A stream has been identified, which flows along the east border of the project site. The City's Streams and Lakes Map classifies the stream as a Class 4 stream, which is non- salmonid bearing intermittent stream. Class 4 streams require a minimum 35-foot buffer. A stream study prepared by Cedarock Consultants, Inc., dated February 17, 2006 was submitted with the project application. The study was prepared for the City of Renton and was prepared in response to a previous request to reclassify the on -site stream from a Class 4 stream to a Class 5 stream, which is unregulated. In addition, at the time there was also some discussion as to whether the stream should actually be classified as a Class 3 stream. A Class 3 stream is a non-salmonid bearing stream that has perennial flows and requires a 75-foot buffer. The report included a review of the previous documentation that had been prepared regarding the stream, information that had been obtained through a site visit, and a review of the City's Critical Areas Regulations. The report concluded that it is unlikely that the stream is a salmonid bearing stream due to steep slopes that exist downstream towards Lake Washington. The report indicated that no conclusive evidence had been gathered as to whether the stream was perennial or intermittent and that this issue can only be resolved through direct observation of flow characteristics during the summer and that this data can take several years to gather depending on rainfall patterns. Therefore, the report recommended that the stream retain its Class 4 strearn classification. Staff has received comments from neighbors regarding the classification of the stream. The neighbors have indicated that the stream flows perennially and that the stream is misclassified and should be classified as a Class 3 stream. In order to protect the wetland, stream and associated buffer areas, staff recommends as a condition of approval that a Native Growth Protection Easement shall be recorded over the on -site wetland, stream, and associated buffer areas prior to or concurrent with the recording of the final short plat may. In order to notify future property owners of the presence of the stream and wetland areas, staff recommends that the edge of the NGPE be delineated with a split rail fence and identified with signage as approved by the Development Services Division Project Manager. A fencing and signage detail shall be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager at the time of Utility Construction Permit Application for review and approval. The fencing and signage shall be installed prior to the recording of the final plat. Exhibit 1, December 10, 2007 Report and Decision, pages 7-8 (emphasis added). It is clear from these passages of the final short plat approval, that the City was not only cognizant of the stream issue, but it took steps to address the issue directly by creating an easement. The decision making process by the City followed stringent and carefully thought-out procedures. Rather than completely ignoring the concerns of the surrounding neighbors, the City mandated that for the final approval for the Short Plat to go through, the Gordley property would be subject to a Native Growth Protection Easement. Much of the evidence submitted by Ms. Rider at the hearing (with the intent to counter the City's decision) was irrelevant and should have been excluded. The photos in Exhibit 10 were not photos of the Gordley property, and are therefore entitled to little, if any weight. For the same reason, the photos Renton City Council 'Gordley Brief on Appeal Page 4 of 8 in Exhibit 11 are also not photos of the Gordley property, and Ms. Rider had no expert testimony to clarify how the comments and photos of Exhibit 11 affect classification of the stream and wetland on the Gordley property. The Council Meeting Minutes of March 21, 2005 (Exhibit 12) do refer to Kennydale Creek as an example of a Class 3 stream, but the portion of the stream on the Gordley property is not Class 3. Exhibit 12 is certainly not an expert study of the Gordley property. Similarly, the letters in Exhibits 6 and 13 also do not discuss the Gordley property. Authority and Argument The City's decision to approve the short plat application was neither arbitrary and capricious nor clearly erroneous, and the Hearing Examiner's decision must be reversed, The only issue on which the City's decision could be reversed was whether the City properly processed and approved the Gordleys' short plat application, specifically, whether the City's decision to waive the stream study was justified. See Conclusion of Law 6. The Hearing Examiner failed to give proper weight to the prior decision of the City and Ms. Rider did not meet her burden to establish that the City's approval of the short plat application was in error. Ms. Rider argued that the approval was in error because the buffers applied by the City were contrary to existing conditions. However, Ms. Rider had made no formal request to reclassify the stream, and the Hearing Examiner had no authority to sua sponte reclassify the bodies of water on the Gordley property. Furthermore, if the City did not err in waiving the stream study, then its approval of the short plat application based upon the current classification cannot have been an error. weight. The City's procedural determinations and discretionary decisions are both entitled to substantial The procedural determination by the Environmental Review Committee or City staff shall carry substantial weight in any appeal proceeding. The Hearing Examiner shall give substantial weight to any discretionary decision of the City rendered pursuant to this Chapter/Title. RMC 4-8-110(E)(7)(a). Where such deference is mandated, a reviewing tribunal should not "substitute its judgment for the judgment of [the original decision making agency] on a disputed factual issue." Northern Pac. Transport Co. v. mash. Utilities and Transportation Commission, 69 Wn.2d 472, 477, 418 P.2d 735 (1966). Given this deference, the City staff decision should be presumed to be correct and only overturned on a clear showing that it was in error. Ms. Rider has not met this burden. The City's approval of the Gordley short plat can only be reversed if the decision to waive a stream study and subsequent approval of the application was either "clearly erroneous in view of the entire record as submitted" or "arbitrary or capricious." RMC 4-8-110(E)(7)(b)(v and vi).a The Hearing Examiner improperly applied these standards. 4 There can be no argument that the other criteria of RMC 4-8-110(E)(7)(b) are grounds for reversal of the City's decision. Planning clearly had jurisdiction to approve the application, and there was no procedural error in processing the application, especially in light of the specific provision in the Code allowing for waiver of the standard stream study_ Renton City Council Gordley Brief on Appeal Page 5 of 8 1. The City Sta Decision Was Not Arbitrary or Capricious. The decision to waive the stream study was not arbitrary or capricious. A decision is arbitrary and capricious if it is willful and unreasoning in disregard of the facts and circumstances. Northern Pac. Transport Co., 69 Wn.2d at 478. "Action is not arbitrary and capricious when exercised honestly and upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances." Id. "Where there is room for two opinions, an action taken after due consideration is not arbitrary and capricious even though a reviewing court may believe it to be erroneous." Rios v. Dept. of Labor & Indus., 145 Wn.2d 483, 501, 39 P.3d 961 (2002) (quotation omitted); see also Sparks v. Douglas County, 127 Wald 901, 908, 904 P.2d 738 (1995). Sparks v. Douglas County involved the approval of several plat applications on the condition that the applicant dedicate certain rights of way for road improvements. 127 Wn.2d at 904-05. The applicant appealed the condition several times, arguing in part that the condition was arbitrary and capricious because there was no evidence that the proposed subdivisions would have an adverse impact on the existing traffic sufficient to require widening of the existing roads. The Washington Supreme Court held that the County decision was not arbitrary or capricious because the County properly considered the available facts, including the current road widths and information regarding current and projected road use, even though there was no direct evidence that the proposed subdivisions would have an adversely impact. Id. at 909-10. Because there was substantial evidence to support the County's decision, the decision was not arbitrary or capricious even though additional evidence might have supported a different outcome. Based upon the evidence available, the City's decision to waive further stream studies was justified. The Q Map shows the stream as a Class 4 stream. This is supported by the Cedarrock report of February 2006 (Exhibit 18), the Watershed study of July 2005 (Exhibit 17), and the Seward & Associates CAS submitted as part of the Gordleys' application. The reports and letters by Ellisport Engineering placed the stream in Class 5. Exhibits 14 and 19. It is clear from the Administrative Short Plat Report and Decision (Exhibit 1) that the City considered all of the evidence it had available, including comments from neighbors, and decided to approve the application based on the buffers for a Class 4 stream and Category 3 wetland. The City examined the Cedarrock study. At the time of that study, the City states that "there was also some discussion as to whether the stream should actually be classified as a Class 3 stream." (Exhibit 1, Decision page 8.) The City relied on the study's conclusion that "no conclusive evidence had been gathered as to whether the stream was perennial or intermittent and that this issue can only be resolved through direct observation of flow characteristics during the summer and that this data can take several years to gather depending on rainfall patterns." Id. Therefore, the City adopted the report's recommendation to retain the Class 4 classification. However, in light of comments from neighbors that the stream should be Class 3, the City required a Native Growth Protection Easement to be recorded as a condition of approval, and further required that the easement be delineated with a fence and signage. There was no study available to the City or later submitted by Ms. Rider that indicated the stream was a Class 3. Although it is Class 3 further downstream, Ms. Henning testified that it is not unusual for there to be multiple classifications on any one stream. The City acknowledged receipt of various letters from residents regarding the characteristics of the stream, but the decision to favor expert studies over lay observations cannot be arbitrary and capricious. Those neighbors who testified at the hearing did not Renton City Council 'Gordley Brief on Appeal Page 6 of 8 have a clear view of the stream due to vegetation, and their testimony was contradicted by the Gordleys who stated that the stream is intermittent and without any sustainable life. The letters of Larry Fisher to the City dated October 12 and 19, 2006, should not have been admitted into evidence because they do not relate to the portion of the stream on the Gordley property. Mr. Fisher admitted that he had never been on the Gordley property. The City's decision not to require an additional stream study was not arbitrary or capricious. The City considered the several studies that had already been done in the area and determined that an additional study was not necessary. Even in light of the City's knowledge of the comments of Larry Fisher and residents of the area, the decision not to require an additional study was not arbitrary or capricious because neither Mr. Fisher nor the residents provided a study that contradicted those already reviewed by the City. Although there may have been conflicting opinions as to whether an additional study would be relevant, this alone does not establish that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. Rather than require a study which would either be inconclusive or take years to complete, the City conditioned approval on the recording of an easement to protect the wetland. The decision of the City staff to approve the application without an additional stream study must be affirmed. 2. The City Staff Decision Was Not Clearly Erroneous. The Hearing Examiner improperly determined that the decision was clearly erroneous. Under the clearly erroneous standard, a decision can be reversed when the reviewing tribunal, "with good reason therefor, [has] a definite and firm conviction that a mistake of fact [has] been committed." Ancheta v. Daly, 77 Wn.2d 255, 259, 461 P.2d 531 (1966) (emphasis added)_ Thus, the clearly erroneous standard applies specifically to findings of fact, not to discretionary decisions based on facts. E.g. Port of Seattle v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd, 151 Wn.2d 568, 588, 90 P.3d 659 (2004); Pitts v. State, Dept. of Social and Health Services, 129 Wn. App. 513, 523, 119 P.3d 896 (2005). A perceived error in judgment alone would not justify reversal under the clearly erroneous standard, because the reviewing body should not substitute its judgment for that of the agency.5 Ancheta, 77 Wn.2d at 259. In Brown v. City of Tacoma, 30 Wn. App. 762, 637 P.2d 1005 (1981), a citizen appealed the city's decision not to require an environmental impact statement for a proposed condominium development near the citizen's home. The city reviewed the environmental checklist submitted by the builder and required certain studies, before issuing a declaration of nonsignificance. Id. at 763-64. Although the appellant argued that the builder's checklist was biased and incomplete, the city's decision was not clearly erroneous because it considered extensive evidence, including comments raised by the appellant during the review process. Id. at 765. The city's threshold determination of nonsignificance was based upon reasonably sufficient information, and was not clearly erroneous. Id. The City's approval of the short plat application was not clearly erroneous. The City reviewed all of the evidence it had available and determined that an additional study of the stream was not necessary. The City was not required to reevaluate the classification of the stream, nor was reclassification justified based on the studies that had been done. Neither the City Council nor the Hearing Examiner can substitute its judgment for the Planning Department. As discussed above, the mere fact that there were conflicting opinions as to the proper classification of the stream is insufficient 5 An error in judgment would be more properly analyzed under the arbitrary and capricious standard, as discussed above. Renton City Council Gordley Brief on Appeal Page 7 of 8 to overturn the City's approval of the short plat. There is no study that classifies the stream as a Class 3,6 so the City's decision to rely on the studies and Q Map showing the stream as a Class 4 was not clearly erroneous. 3. The HeariM Examiner Did Not Have Authority to Reclassi& the Stream. The Hearing Examiner's decision must also be reversed because he improperly recategorized the stream.. Conclusion of Law 10. Under the Code, the location and extent of Class 2 to 4 water bodies is depicted on the Q Map found in RMC 4-3-050(Q). RMC 4-3-050(L)(1)(c)(i). The Q Map is "a guide to the general location and extent of streams." Id. Specific classification of a particular water body is "determined by the City based upon field review and applicant -funded studies" as described in the Code. Id. Nothing in the Code allows classification of a particular water body by the Hearing Examiner on appeal of a short plat application. A stream can be reclassified to a lower (less restrictive) class based upon "administrator acceptance of a supplemental stream or lake study, followed by legislative amendment to the map in subsection Q of this Section prior to its effect." RMC 4-3-050(L)(1)(c)(ii). Although the Code does not specifically address reclassification to a higher class, any such reclassification should be supported at a minimum by appropriate studies pursuant to the quoted language in RMC 4-3-050(L)(1)(c)(i and ii). Placing a stream in a higher class would also arguably require legislative amendment to the Q Map, just as with a change to a lower class. In any event, the requirement for field review and appropriate studies certainly means that reclassification of a stream based on its characteristics is not "automatic," as the Hearing Examiner claimed without citation to a section of the Code. Conclusion of Law 10. Furthermore, nothing in the Code allows for reclassification of a stream based on the testimony and observations of lay witnesses. Even if the Hearing Examiner did have the authority to reclassify the stream, there was no study submitted as required by the Code that could support a different class. The Q Map conclusively establishes the category of a water body unless there is a conflict between the Q Map and the criteria for classification of a stream. RMC 4-3-050(L)(1)(c)(ii). At the time the short plat application was reviewed, the stream was a Class 4 and the wetland was a Category 3. By approving the Gordley short plat, the City determined either (1) there was insufficient evidence of a conflict to justify changing the Q Map or (2) there was no conflict because the stream was properly Class 4 as depicted on the Q Map. As discussed above, the Code only allows a change to the category of a water body when supported by a proper study. The only reports the City had showed the stream as a Class 4. Thus, if the decision not to require another study was justified, as argued above, it cannot have been error for the City to process the application according to the buffers provided in the Code for the existing classifications. Ms. Rider should not have been allowed to argue the classification of the stream on appeal of the City's approval of the short plat. She had not made a formal request to the Planning Department to reclassify the stream or wetland, and without an appropriate study to support a change in the classification, no change to the class could be justified under the Code. Ms. Rider's arguments as to the 6 The Ellisport Engineering report of October 2004 was prior to enactment of the Critical Areas Ordinance, and was later revised by Ellisport after the CAO was in effect. Exhibit 19. It should also be noted that Ms. Rider had an opportunity to present argument regarding proper classification of the stream at the time of Mr. Dutro's application to reclassify the stream. Renton City Council Gordley Brief on Appeal Page 8 of 8 proper classification of the water bodies can only be considered to the extent that they are relevant to determine whether the City's decision to waive the stream study was arbitrary or capricious. If the water bodies were improperly classified by the City, the most that the Hearing Examiner could have done was remand the matter for another study. 4. Conclusion. The critical issue on this appeal is whether the City properly processed the Gordley short plat application in waiving another stream study. If the decision to waive a study was not arbitrary or capricious, then the City approval of the application must be upheld. The short plat was approved subject to buffers for a Class 4 stream and a Category 3 wetland, as the water bodies were categorized at the time of the application. There can be no error by the City in approving the application based upon the existing classification. This is especially true in light of the fact that the City required a Native Growth Protection Easement to protect the wetland, stream, and buffer area. In light of the evidence available to the City, the decision to require an easement rather than engage in a years -long study to evaluate the stream was not arbitrary or capricious. In order to determine whether the waiver of the stream study was justified, it is critical to evaluate the evidence available to the City staff at the time the decision was made. The testimony and exhibits submitted by Ms. Rider at the hearing are only relevant to the extent that that evidence was provided to the City while the Gordley short plat application was pending. The evidence shows that the City had three studies of the area, all showing the stream at Class 4. The only evidence suggesting a Class 3 classification were various letters from residents, and it is not clear what those letters contained other than lay observation. The City also had information to suggest that the stream lacked a natural channel and should therefore be a Class 5. Even assuming that the City should have questioned the established classification of the stream, an additional study at the time of short plat application (late 2007) would likely not have conclusively resolved the question. Based on the lack of any study showing the stream as a Class 3 and the other evidence described, the City's decision to waive another study and to process the application based on existing classifications was reasonable. Ms. Rider has not met her substantial burden to establish that the decision was clearly erroneous, arbitrary, or capricious. She also failed to submit sufficient evidence, such as a stream study, to justify reclassification of the stream, assuming that the stream could be reclassified after the short plat was approved. The Hearing Examiner must be reversed, and the City staff decision reinstated. Respectfully submitted, DICKSON STEINACKER LLP Kevin T. Steinacker Attorneys for Richard and Lauralee Gordley 041008 Gordley 8059 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND RECOWMNDATION APPELLANT: APPLICANT: Susan Rider Richard and Lauralee Gordley 2010 Jones Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Blueberry Haven Short Plat Appeal LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF March 27, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Appellant's written requests for a hearing and examining available information on file, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the February 12, 2008 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, February 12, 2008, at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record. Exhibit No. 1: Staff file containing the original appeal letter, the plat application and the City's determination. Exhibit No. 2: Vicinity Map Showing the Original Plat Exhibit No. 3: Plat Map Prior to Lot Line Adj ustment Exhibit No. 4: Short Plat Map. Shows wetland area in green, buffer area in light geen. Exhibit No. 5: City Stream Classification Map Exhibit No. 6: Three Letters from Mr. Fisher dated October 12, 2006, October 19, 2006 and February 20, 2007. Exhibit No. 7: Packet of Letters From Owners dated 2005 Exhibit No. 8: Packet of Letters from Owners dated 2006 Exhibit No. 9: Packet of Letters From Owners dated 2008 Exhibit No. 10 a-r: Photos of the Area Exhibit No.11: Packet from Randy Corman website (17-pages) with photos showing foundation filled with water, etc. Exhibit No. 12: City Council Minutes dated March 21, 2005. Blueberry Haven Short Plat A LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF March 27, 2008 Page 2 Exhibit No. 13. Washington Department of Ecology, Wetland Studies dated October 16, 2000. Exhibit No. 14: Ellisport Engineering Packet, Wetland Delineation Report on Gordley and Dutro properties.__ Exhibit No.15: Wetland Delineation, Highgate Sewage Lift Station Elimination, December 1996 Exhibit No. 16: Watershed Company Report dated March 2, 2007, to Terry Dutro, regarding wetland determination at the Dutro property. Exhibit No. 17: Letter from Watershed Company to City of Renton dated July 19, 2005 regarding Blueberry Meadows project for Environmental Review Exhibit No. 18: Letter from Mr. Hadley of Cedarock Consultants to Mr. Dutro dated February 17, 2006 Exhibit No. 19: Ellisport Engineering letter to Mr. Dutro dated June 29, 2005 and letter to LauraIee Gordle dated A ril 25, 2005 also from Ellis ort En . Exhibit No. 20: May 17, 2005 Masterbuilt Construction letter to the City of Renton. Exhibit No. 21: Easement for Manmade Drainage Ditch. quit Claim Deed K2 sheets) Exhibit No. 22: Q-Map from Code Reference Map Exhibit No. 23: Letter regarding Terry Dutro study from Ellisport Engineering — Stream Class 5 Exhibit No. 24a-d: Photos of Gordiey's home Parties Present: Jennifer Henning, Development Services Ann Nielsen, Assistant City Attorney Ashley Peck, Attorney for Appellant Susan Rider, Appellant Richard and Lauralee Gordley, Applicant Prior to testimony, discussion was had regarding briefs, responses, and testimony of witnesses and determining classifications of creeks and wetlands. Ms. Peck stated that they had eight witnesses, seven are neighbors and have personal knowledge of the creek. The eighth witness was Larry Fisher from the Department of Fish and Wildlife. A list of witnesses was provided to the Examiner. Opening Statement from Ashley Peck. The main issue in Ms. Rider's appeal is the application of the Critical Areas Ordinance to this Short Plat approval. Kennydale Creek flows through the property, there also are wetlands on the site and they believe that the classifications that have been applied in this short plat are contrary to the critical areas criteria as well as the existing conditions. The Kennydale Creek should be classified as a Class 3 perennial stream rather than a Class 4 stream. The buffers applied to this stream are the least restrictive and least protective buffers to a stream. Further, there are issues with the wetland classification, in the past this wetland has been classified as a Category 2 Headwater Wetland because it is Iocated in the headwaters of Kennydale Creek. The Critical Area Study submitted by the applicant shows the creek as a Category 3 Wetland and does not take into consideration that it is located in the headwaters. Blueberry Haven Short Plat App--I LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF March 27, 2008 Page 3 Jennifer Henning gave a brief overview of what is proposed and where the property is located, where the creek runs and the associated wetlands. The property is located in the East Kennydale area to the east of 1405 and east of Jones Avenue NE and north of NE 20`" Street. The proposal is to subdivide the property into two lots. The wetland area extends across both parcels. In addition Kennydale Creek is located on the east boundary of the property. It is a drainage channel that feeds into the larger creek downstream. The City has classified the creek as both a Class 3 and a Class 4. As the creek begins to cross under I-405 it converts to a Class 3, at NE 24'h it becomes a Class 4 stream. Julie Bra , 1901 NE 20" Street, Renton, WA 98056 stated that she has lived at this address for approximately 20 years, she walks almost every day and the creek has always been running. It runs during the dry summer season, she has never seen it without water. Upon Questioning by Ann Nielsen, Ms. Bray stated that she has worked for the City of Renton for 26 years in the Fire Department. She does have access to City Codes, as well as being aware of and knowing Jennifer Henning and where the Development Services Division is located. She has seen signs on the property, but did not realize that it was going to impact her property. She further stated that she saw the creek on a daily basis, her house is located just south of Lot B and she walks along 201" at a distance of approximately two feet from the creek. Her dog would often go into the creek and play in the water. Larry Fisher, 1775-12t" Ave NW, Ste. 201, Issaquah, WA 98027 stated that he has been with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and has been the area Habitat Biologist for about I7 years. His area of expertise includes all tributaries south of 1-90, he is familiar with Kennydale Creek. He received a notice to testify and to his knowledge he is testifying as a State expert. There has been activity around this creels for several years. He has seen the stream during all the months of the year and has never seen it dry. It does not make sense that the headwaters would be classified different than the lower part of the stream. Comment letters have been sent to the City of Renton regarding the Kennydale Blueberry Farm proposal explaining why this stream should be a Class 3 rather than a Class 4. The creek is spring fed and they maintain their flow year around. Upon Questioning by Ms. Nielsen. Mr. Fisher stated that he received the subpoena requesting him to testify approximately two weeks prior to today. He believed that his supervisor was aware that he was present today testifying in his capacity as an employee of the Department of Fish and Wildlife. He has had conversations with Ms. Rider about the application and reviewed materials that she had in her file. The creek does have water running in July, August and September. Ms. Nielsen wanted to establish when exactly he was out there, from what vantage point was he able to observe the creek, Mr. Fisher stated that he was there during the summer in the 90's when the City did a sewer line project, he was also there during the summer reviewing the activity during the Roberson Short Plat extension of the culvert about two years ago. During the normal construction season, usually during the summer, the waters are the lowest and likely to cause the least impact, there has always been water in the creek. His observations of the creek have been from the road (NE 20'h). From this vantage point, he is able to see approximately 100 feet up stream. Deanna Dobak. 1700 NE 20"' Street, Renton, WA 98056 stated she overlooks Lot A and Lot B, they are able to see the wetlands from their house. They have Lived there since 2002 and she has never seen the creek dry. They -Blueberry Haven Short PIat A ---al LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF March 27, 2008 Page 4 walk with their dogs and child at least three times a week. She stops and checks it out and takes the time to look at the water. She has never seen the creek dry during the months of June, July and August. Upon questioning by Ms. Nielsen Ms. Dobak stated that she was observing the creek from NE 20`h Street and can see approximately a third to half of the way up the east property line of Lot B. She has seen ducks swimming in the water during the summer months. William O'Connor, 921 S Washington Street, Port Angeles, WA 98362 stated that he has known Ms. Rider for five to six years. Together they have been watching and studying the creek for some time. Ms. Rider has a ground water pond in her backyard that is level with the stream at the Blueberry Farm. There has been water in the Blueberry Farm stream and at NE 20 Street on every occasion that they have looked at it. His personal knowledge is that the stream is always flowing during the summer months and that it has never dried up. Paul Watt, 2433 Jones Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98056 stated that he has lived at this address since the 1960's, he is north of 24 h on the west side of Jones. The stream runs on the backside of his property between the freeway and his property. He gets up at 5.00 am and walks to the creek each morning, he has never seen the creek dry. He does not walk to the creek in the winter months, it's too soggy and wet. Karen Finnicum, 1302 Aberdeen Ave NE, Renton, WA 98056 stated that she has lived in the area since 1963, in 1971 her car was driven into the creek. The creek has never been dry. When the property belonged to the Pohls, she rode horseback through the property, the ponies would dump them into the creek in the summer. She has never seen the creek without water. 10-minute recess Susan Rider, 1835 NE 20'h Street, Renton, WA 98056 stated that when they first found out about the creek reclassification in 2005 the neighborhood was astonished that there was a claim that the stream was seasonal, because no one had ever seen it go dry. The creek is obviously a Class 3, in 2005, 2006 and 2008 letters and affidavits regarding the stream and the amount of water consistently in the stream were written by the neighbors. A series of photos were introduced by Ms. Rider, they were documented as Exhibit l0a-r: 10a: Shows the grate on the east side of 1-405 that takes the water underneath 1405 and comes out onto the Kennydale Creek ravine, which flows into Lake Washington, 1 Ob: Shows the same area showing water flowing out of a pipe in the Misty Cove area, 10c: Shows wetlands next to the project (deer in field). She was standing on NE 20'h east of the Gordley property when taking these photos, 10d: From 24'4 and Jones showing creek flowing downstream from the Gordley property, 1 Oe: Shows creek flowing along the west side of the Rider property and continues across the Blueberry property and comes out by Mr. Gordley's property, 10f: Shows where creek comes out on 20t' from the Blueberry Farm (looking south), 10g: Shows the creek along NE 20'h in front of the Blueberry Farm during the summer, 10h: Shows the creek along NE 20u'in front of the Blueberry Farm during summer flowing to the culvert, 10i: Shows the creek in the Rider backyard during the summer, 1 Oj : Shows the creek coming out under the fence on the Blueberry Farm, 10k: Shows the Rider backyard in July 2006, 101: Shows the creek in front of the Blueberry Farm on NE 20"' in July 2006 during the drought, 10m: Shows the creek flowing to the culvert where it goes under NE 20`h and continues to the Gordley property, IOn: Duplicate of IOf, Blueberry Haven Short Plat Ap LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF March 27, 2008 Page 5 10o. Mr. Zevart in Mr. Watt's yard, shows dog playing in the creek at the end of the longest drought in Washington history. The picture was taken in the vicinity of Jones Avenue between NE 240' and the grate that goes under 1-405, l Op-q-r. Show water flowing in the creek during the summer months. The above photos all depict water north and south of the Gordley property in July, which was one of the driest July's on record. People in the neighborhood have called the City Council with concerns about the creek and headwater wetlands. Recently a foundation was being dug for a house across the street, north of Ms. Rider's house. The water table is on higher ground than the wetlands and creek, the property was entirely spring fed, the contractors had to run pumps 24-hours a day for months. She presented another photograph that was taken by Randy Corman on a visit to the location. City Council minutes from the March 21, 2005 meeting were presented, there were statements in the minutes for the adoption of Kennydale Creek classification as a Class 3 creek. Mr. Rider presented a letter from the Washington State Department of Ecology referring to the wetland and creek issues in this area. As well, Wetland Studies were presented by various professional organizations. They refer to water in the creek, and the creek being perennial if it were down to the ground water level, which it is. Upon questioning y Ms. Nielsen, Ms. Rider stated she had looked at the creek on the Gordley property during the summer of 2007. She had not been on the property since the Gordleys purchased it approximately 10 years ago. She also observed the creek from NE 20`', she could see approximately 100 feet into the property. She is also able to see the wetlands, the deer in a prior picture were in the wetlands and on the Gordley property. Since then, there has been a lot line adjustment and she was not sure where the Gordley property runs now. Ms. Rider has lived on her property since 1982, she had lived on NE 20`' since 1976, sees the creek most every day. In the summer there is more grass, but the creek is fairly open, it can be seen both summer and winter. The mud is really deep, the water on top of the mud is only a few inches, once the kids or dogs get in, they are wet up to their knees. During the Roberson Short Plat planning, it seemed that no one knew anything about that project, then all of a sudden they started doing work on the property. There was further discussion on haw the stream was classified, Exhibit 18 was a stream survey which stated that it was not possible to tell if it was indeed a Class 3 stream because the survey was done during the winter months and the person doing the work did not study the stream in the summer months. Ms. Nielsen went on the clarify that this classification study was submitted as part of the Dutro application, Mr. Dutro came up with his own study, in which he proposed that the classification be evaluated as a CIass 5. The City was then left to do a study to evaluate if it truly was a Class 5 or if it was a Class 4 stream. There was never an issue to looking at the stream as a possible Class 3. The requirements of a stream classification study were then discussed, it has to identify the mean high water mark, the functions of the stream and review the criteria in the Code for the classification. )Lauralee Gordley, 2010 Jones Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98056 stated that she is the applicant. She started this process began in March of 2005. The short plat was filed based on the current zoning and the current stream classification. Both of those have changed since she started this project. The CAO was adopted in June 2005 and the rezone was adopted in December 2006. The stream has been addressed previously, there has been Blueberry Haven Short Plat, al LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF March 27, 2008 Page b planning and council meetings regarding the stream. Sue Rider attended those meetings and stated her position. Ms. Gordley feels that she has been at a disadvantage as a property owner, she has put out great expense doing the short plat, this is not a big developer short plat, rather a private short plat. She has been reduced to a two -lot short plat. They have previously gone through a stream classification, the Department of Fish and Wildlife have been to the site, they have said this stream is not significant, it's not even on their radar. She feels she has not been treated fairly by the City and others. The wildlife, deer, ducks and rodents are typical to this area but she has never seen any of them drink out of the "drainage ditch" as it is called on her title report. They will drink surface water. The Monterey Court NE residential neighborhood runoff drains into the BIueberry Farm, the 37-home Westminster development drains all surface water into the entrance of her property, which on her title reports notes that it is a private drainage ditch and was determined to be such in 1958. The sewer line was put in after the purchase of her property and has been addressed in prior meetings that that sewer line changed the hydrology of her property. They created a French drain in order to drain the area of its water. Exhibit 2, the photograph showing a foundation filled with standing water, was discussed regarding the sewer lines that were installed north of 20'h and west/north of the subject site. Surface water runs into the ditch at NE 20"' Street, the pipe from the Blueberry Farm has no water flowing out of it. There could be standing water, but it is not flowing. People testified that they could see 100' up the stream, however, the landscape consists of a row of Poplar trees with blackberry bushes that are overgrown and obstructing. The blackberry bushes begin at the corner of NE 20`h Street and continue back approximately 100 feet. The creek cannot be seen from .tones or NE 20"', it's private property, once the creek hits the property north of them, it is completely overgrown and cannot be viewed from anywhere, The original owner of the property told her that he and his children dug the ditch, it was also stated in the history of the stream that the Corps of Engineers brought out mules and dug some of the ditch. When Terry Dutro purchased the property he wanted to reclassify the stream to a Class 5, Gordley's said they did not want to be involved in changing anything. In 2004 she went to the City and wanted to know the status of her property, what documentation there was on the wetland, and what could be done, In order to sell part or all of her property, she needed to have that information. She was told that she would have to do a new wetland study, things change and there had been a lot of new development in the area. They agreed to doing a joint wetland study at that time, if the study had shown that there was a wetland, she would not have invested any further money into the development of her property. Ms. Gordley continued with a list of objections that she had with the previous testimony heard. First, Larry Fisher talked about a peat bog, there is no peat bog on her property. The photo of the headwater is far from her property and her understanding is that while there may be, some water flowing at that point, it does not get to her property without other surface water taking it there. She further stated that she had never seen any fish or other life form in the stream. They tried to enhance the area by placing frogs in the stream, but they died. She has never seen any animals drinking from the ditch. The deepest level of water has been to the top of the ditch and that was during the monsoon rains. The ditch is approximately 3 feet deep. She has seen the pipe coming from the Blueberry Fann at the entrance of her property with no water coming out. Regarding the photos that were presented earlier, she stated that none of the photos were taken on the Gordley property. The Randy Carman log was not about their property. Exhibit 15 was prior to their ownership and the hydrology has changed since that report was written. She has had two studies done since then. The Ellisport Engineering Report was not accepted by the City, it did state a stream classification but the information was based on a pre- Blueberry Haven Short flat A l LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF March 27, 2008 Page 7 CAQ category. A letter following that was submitted, however the referenced area is not in the short plat application, she did offer the letter as an exhibit. Exhibits 16 and 17 were not on their property. If the area were one that needed to be preserved, she would not have gone through this process. The property has been enhanced since their purchase, the neighborhood enjoys their open space. She believes this is an open space issue and that a huge burden has been placed on them by the City Planning Department to provide reports and documents. They have committed money based on the City procedures and zonings. There should be a grandfather clause so they can finish up their project. The area- was originally zoned R-8 and was downzoned to R-4. Upon questioning by Ms. Peck. Ms. GordLey stated that the ditch is not continuous, there are culverts that come in above the level of the bottom of the ditch. She has.seen that no water is coming from that pipe. People saying that they can see 100' down her property cannot possibly see that far. The plants and trees would definitely block the view of the stream. She further stated that she has no proof or information that this stream is intermittent rather than perennial. The Cedarock Consultants prepared a stream classification report for the short plat. It was not, however, her burden to prove the stream classification. Her title report states that it is a drainage ditch, not a stream. It became a Class 4 stream, but that was without best available science, it is a drainage ditch. The City Council decided to send out their own consultant who stated that if the property were to be short platted it could be enhanced in the buffer zone to keep water cool. There is no official stream study report concluding that this stream flows intermittently. Break for Lunch to reconvene at 1:49 p.m. Rick Gordlev, 2010 Jones Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98056 stated that he was using Exhibit 3 for reference and gave a description of the terrain between the Blueberry headwaters and the end of his property. All the local neighborhoods built in the 1980's use surface drains, the houses, roads, sidewalks, and driveways have below grade surface drains, which flow downhill to the Blueberry field and into his and the adjacent properties to the north. There are well over 400 houses that drain to these properties. The drainage ditch was dug in 1958, since that time neighborhoods have been developed, roads built and all that water is being directed to the drainage ditch. He further stated that he is a licensed ICC inspector, most of his fieldwork has been in drainage. Uponquestioning by Ms. Nielsen Mr. GordleX stated that the headwater is at the entrance of his driveway and the creek runs right along the east side of his property. There are lots of large poplar trees and blackberries in the vicinity. At the end of the culvert where the creek dumps into his property from the adjacent neighborhood of 37 homes, it is impossible to see five feet up the creek from the middle of June on. Today you can see maybe 30-feet up stream. He has only seen this ditch with a mud bottom one time, he does not believe it is a creek, he believes it is a drainage ditch. Currently the water is approximately 3-4 inches deep, in the rainy season it can go all the way to the top of the bank No living critters are in the water, no fish, no frogs, in fact one of his animals died from drinking the stagnant water. Mr. Pohl originally owned the land, he wanted to create a wildlife preserve in the backyard. He brought in the wetIand along with trees and bushes and planted them all over the yard. He installed a 25,000-30,000 gallon Blueberry Haven Short Plat, al LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF March 27, 2008 Page 8 pond that he pumped from the ditch to his backyard. He has an agreement with the City that he can continue to do that for the next 30-40 years. Mr. Pohl Ieft and the system failed. Upon questioning by -Ms. Peck Mr. Gordley stated that he has owned this property for approximately 9-10 years. He only knew of the one stream study that was done by Mr. Hadley from Ellisport Engineers. Erika Conklin;, Sr. Planner, Economic Development stated that their responsibility is looking at planning and long-range issues. They process plans and programs of a non -project nature where they look at the long term and large view of the City, including the processing of annual comprehensive plan amendments. She was involved with the 2006 updates and managed the Gordley comprehensive plan amendments. This was considered a non -project action because there is not a specific development proposal associated with them, but because they were amending the comprehensive plan. SEPA determinations were made on the proposed comprehensive plan amendments of non -significance. Two separate comment letters were received from Larry Fisher of the Department of Fish and Wildlife on the Blueberry Farm comprehensive plan amendment. There were no comments on the downzone of the larger area. It was not necessary at the time of the SEPA review to look at critical areas that would come at the time of a specific project review. Things are looked at in general, but one can never predict what the specific analysis would be until you have a project. The Examiner reviewed this testimony and finished by asking exactly what is happening on the Gordley property? Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager, Development Services showed the code provision 4-3-050q, the Streams and Lakes reap also known as the water class map. She marked the map with various colors to show the different classifications of this stream in question today. The Examiner was given an I 1 x 17-inch copy of the map for his use during this hearing. Ms. Henning continued stating that this map does not include Class 5 streams because they are considered to be unregulated, nor does it include Class 1, which are the shorelines of state by significance and are subject to the shoreline master program. This is for streams in the city that are Class 2, 3, or 4. When initial discussions begin with an applicant, the critical area maps are one of the first things that are looked at, including the stream and water class maps so it can be determined what, if anything, is on the subject property. In this case, the map shows a Class 4 stream going through the property, which begins to the south of this property and extends to the north, crosses under I405 comes out in a ravine and outlets into Lake Washington. It is not unusual to have multiple classifications on any one stream. The first person in this case that came looking for a downgrade in the classification was W. Terry Dutro, he was looking at assembling various parcels in'the area including the Gordley's property, the Core property (which Dutro now owns) and one other parcel. He brought in some studies that stated it was a man made drainage ditch and therefore should not be regulated. July 19, 2005 they received correspondence from Hugh Mortenson of the Watershed Company that talked about what it would take to classify the stream as a Class 5 stream, more discussion was had about the wetland system. At the time Mr. Mortenson determined that the recommendation for this stream as a Class 4 should stand. The City held that it was a Class 4 Stream not a Class 5; Mr. Dutro appealed the determination and went before the City Council. (see RMC 4-3-050Llcii — Reclassification) Ultimately Mr. Dutro withdrew his appeal but it became a larger discussion on how these streams get reclassified and what is the proper process. When public notice went out on discussion of this creek, neighbors came, wrote letters or attended committee meetings. The Council decided that they needed to understand better what was going on, they asked that the City pay for a study to evaluate whether this stream should be a Class 5 or remain a Class 4. They further instructed the City Blueberry Haven Short Plat Ap LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF March 27, 2008 Page 9 to hire the firm that had put together the City's water classification map originally. That was Cedarock Consulting, Carl Hadley. After evaluation by Mr. Hadley, he determined that the stream should remain a Class 4. Mr. Hadley only studied the stream as to whether it was a Class 4 or 5 stream, he did not look at the possibility of the stream being a Class 2 or 3. A discussion was had between the Examiner and Ms. Nielsen. Ms. Hennine stated that one of the reasons Mr. Dutro asked for this reclassification was because he and the neighbors both presented aerial photographs of the site dating back to 1936 which showed no defined channel until in the 1950's when it was hand dug. Mr. Hadley's conclusions state that he looked at the possibilities of Class 3 and CIass 4 and Class 5, those conclusions are in his decision. He does state that "in the absence of conclusive evidence supporting a change from the existing Class 4 water classification, it is my recommendation that this classification stands." Upon questioning by Ms. Peck, Ms. Henning stated that as the current planning manager, she is charged with implementing the codes of the City. There is another group in strategic planning that actually drafts the codes and runs the critical areas program and hires consultants. How information gets translated into these maps is for those experts, she had no working knowledge of how the information came about. The map that she used is her guidepost, what she uses to implement the code. When an application for a land use project comes in, there is a list of things that might apply. They have the ability to require, modify or waive requirements. The supplemental stream study was waived in this case because they felt that they had the information they needed and it was current based on the Hadley report that the City had paid for. A supplement anaIysis would only be needed to address the crossing of the stream and if the buffers were to be reduced to 25-feet. Ms. Peck stated that if the stream flows perennially then it would be classified as a CIass 3 stream and that is essentially what the Hadley study states. She quoted from the study as follows, "If the water flows continuously during years of normal rainfall, it would be classified as a Class 3 water". He does note that he was not commissioned to address that issue; that he was there in February and that it would take years of study to determine. Nowhere in the letter does he say that this is an intermittent stream. Ms. Nielsen countered with the first paragraph, "water type classification" he says that, "the water course has been classified by the City of Renton, the Q map, as a Class 4 water based on the belief that, 1) the water is not fish bearing, and 2) the water course is intermittent during years of normal rainfall." Discussion continued between Ms. Peck and Ms. Nielsen. Ms. Henning stated that she had a minimum of six studies for this area that were done in the last 10 years. The reason for so many studies is due to the change of the water over that span of years, development has taken place and caused the water table and drainage patterns to change. She further stated that she has three reports that call the stream a 4, one that calls it a 5 and one that, back in 2004 called it a 3, however there was no classification system in place at that time. She does not have any report that says it is anything other than a 4 or 5. Ms. Peck stated that the applicant did submit a critical area report for the Gordley property. There are some errors in the report. The Steward & Association Report concludes that this property is a Category 3 wetland and they allude to hydrological changes in the area. There were several wetland studies done and Ms. Peck referred to each showing the various classifications that were given at the specific times. The 1996 report stated that the area should be classified as a Category 2 wetland. The area has been reviewed on three subsequent occasions for the City, the most recent time was 2007 in which it was confirmed as a Category 2 wetland, that report was Blueberry Haven Short Plat 7 nl LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF March 27, 2008 Page 10 done by the Watershed Company. There was an additional confirmation by Entranco in 1999 and the Watershed Company in 2005 again confirmed this classification - The initial report goes on the refer to the Kennydale Creek as a seasonal drainage ditch and further refers to the fact that the creek flows north and eventually runs into May Creek. She does not know where that information came from, but this creek does not flow into May Creek, it flows into Lake Washington. A 15-minute break was taken. Testimony resumed at 3:48 p.m. Ms. Nielsen stated that regarding the concerns of the Hearing Examiner over the fact that there has not been an independent study done on this project, which leaves a quandary on any challenger in that they are not allowed on the subject property with an expert in order to try to present a counter study, The City's position is that there should be more than a layperson's information submitted. Therefore, the City proposed to adjourn this hearing and give the appellant an opportunity to bring in their own study performed by an expert, the applicant has agreed to that limited purpose and that an expert would be allowed to come onto their property. The City did request that the consultant not be someone who has previously made a report on this particular project. Secondly, they asked for a list of experts be submitted to the City within two weeks, the City will look at the list and make a determination as to which expert should do the study. Within one month that person would have a report prepared. Finally, there needs to be communication between the appellants' expert and the applicant, they need to set a date and time that they would be on the property to do the study. The Examiner stated that this could take longer than one month, the expert cannot do fair research this time of year. It certainly would be different now than in the dry summer months. Ms. Peck stated that she did not feel that it was the appellant's responsibility to pay for the expert. It is a shame that the appellant has had to hire an attorney to enforce the City's own codes. The Examiner further stated that there are properties that have constraints, it would have been helpful if the Gordleys' had been told about some of the constraints on their property and sometimes it just is not known until the money has been spent and the surveys done. However, in one month could an expert come in and say this creek is intermittent, or this creek flows. If they cannot, then we are back at square one. He also agreed with the appellant, he did not know if it truly was their burden. If the evidence shows that the creek is flowing regularly, then is the map wrong or the text right. The appellants do have the burden to show testimony, lay testimony is permitted, it is not anecdotal. There had even been conflicting lay testimony. Ms. Peck stated that she felt it was not her client's duty to do the work. This is not the first time this has been brought to the City. The City has classified this stream and still cannot produce any scientific evidence that it has ever done a study that proves that this stream is intermittent. The City has had ample notice of this issue. The Examiner decided to go ahead with the hearing, he would make a decision and either party can appeal. He is not totally convinced that the creek is always there. It has to flow and it has to flow more than intermittently, there is a water body out there that contains water. After much discussion on the merits of the offer being presented to the appellants, it was decided that the hearing would continue, the Examiner felt that the offer was not a fair offer. The applicant usually pays the cost for studies and determinations on water situations and the timing would not work. Christian Denzler, 1800 NE 20a' Street, Renton, WA 98056 stated that he lives on NE 206' immediately east of the Gordley property. He shares the stream with the Gordleys a length of approximately 134 feet. He has lived Blueberry Haven Short Plat Al LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF March 27, 2008 Page I 1 there 14 years and has the low lot in the area. Springs bubble up and move around to a different part of the yard and then disappear. Several years ago the City took out the Highgate lift station and created a gravity feed sewer line that goes 12 feet deep and then cuts over to Jones and gravity feeds down. This essentially created a French drain, it took about two years and his yard started drying out. Heritage Glen, east of his property, capped a spring and put in a surface water drain for the development, it is a 24-inch diameter pipe that runs in front of his house and dumps into a small pool in the ditch. They were also allowed to put in 3-5 dewatering wells, which changed the entire water table. When that happened, the stream did go dry. Jennifer Henning stated that before the above discussion, Ms. Peck had been asking questions regarding the wetland study that was presented. Ms. Peck stated that the applicant's study does not acknowledge that this is located in the headwaters of Kennydale Creek. Prior studies that were submitted included one done for the City by the Watershed Company dated March 2, 2007, which concluded that these wetlands were Category 2 because they were located in the highwaters of Kennydale Creek. Ms. Henning continued that the Watershed study was done as a result of some grading activity that had happened at the Dutro site, they required a delineation to be done. It does state that it is a Category 2 headwaters wetland. They are still in the process of responding to that study in terms of the restoration that must occur. They have stated that they believe the wetland was disturbed enough, several have called it a Category 3 wetland, two have called it a Category 2 headwater wetland. They are accepting a mixed designation where it appears to have been heavily disturbed. Discussion continued between Ms. Henning and Ms. Peck regarding the headwaters of Kennydale Creek and as to the classification of the wetlands whether they are Category 2 or 3. Regardless of what the wetland is classified as, there are still buffers and the site has development potential. A Category 2 wetland has a 50-foot buffer, a Category 3 wetland has a 25-foot buffer. Before the Critical Areas Ordinance was adopted all creeks and water bodies in the City had a 15-foot buffer. A Class 4 has a 35-foot buffer which can be averaged down to 25 feet, a Class 3 has a 75-foot buffer which can be buffer averaged down to 37.5 feet. The Steward and Associates report was accepted. Exhibit 4 shows the wetland in green with the buffer area in light green and in light yellow a 35-foot buffer from the creek. It is difficult to tell the wetland area because it is a mowed lawn area. Exhibit 24 a-d photos (4 pages) of the Gordleys' home were identified and show the location and condition of the wetland. Lauralee Gordley stated that she believed they had been burdened with going the extra mile on the development of this property. The Preliminary Application response is dated March 2005. They have had to do the best available science, they understand the concern of the people in the area and that they enjoy the open space. There is a great conflict of interest on the part of people walling by and walking their dogs, they are benefiting from this property and to say that it is an independent opinion is not true. If the codes are going to change, the Gordleys should be grandfathered on their original application. Making this process go on for years is not justice to the Gordleys, they have submitted reports they paid for as well as the codes and regulations of the City. She further does not believe that people have a clear view of the stream. The poplar trees are full and there is a heavy growth of blackberries which block view of the stream. Blueberry Haven Short Plat A LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF March 27, 2008 Page 12 The Examiner stated that the record would be kept open for one week for written rebuttal of information presented today. Record will be open until February 15, 2008. Ann Nielsen's brief will be submitted by February 29, 2008 and Ashley Peck's reply will be in March 7, 2008. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 4:38 pm. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following. - FINDINGS: The appellant, Susan Rider, hereinafter appellant, filed an appeal of an administrative decision approving a short plat. A brief submitted on behalf of the appellant noted it was filed for "appellants Sue Rider and the Kennydale Critical Areas Alliance." 2. The appeal was filed in a timely manner on December 26, 2007. 3. The appellant lives across the street from the subject site. 4. The City approved a two -lot short plat for property located at 2010 Jones Avenue NE. The short plat is called the Blueberry Haven Short Plat (LUA07-131, SHPL-A). It was an administrative approval_ The parcel is an inverted L-shaped parcel with frontage along Jones Avenue NE (its address street) and along NE 20th Street. The subject site is approximately 37,714 square feet. Proposed Lot A would be 17,930 square feet while Proposed Lot B would be 19,784 square feet. Proposed Lot A would contain the existing home and would take its access from Jones. It would be oriented in an east -west direction. Proposed Lot B would be oriented north -south and take its access from the south or NE 20th Street. 6. Proposed Lots I and 2 would comply with the R4 (4 dwelling units per acre) Zoning district. 7. The subject site contains areas defined or limited by City Critical Areas regulations. There is a creek that flows along the eastern margin of the subject site and a wetland just west of the creek in the northeast portion of the subject site. The City has two maps that define or deal with the creek. There is a Water Class Map (Ex 5) and the Streams and Lakes Map found in Section 4-3-050(Q) generally known as the Q Map. Both of those maps appear to show that the stretch of the creek at the subject site is a Class 4 waterway. 9. The applicants submitted a Critical Areas Study prepared at their request by Steward and Associates. That study determined that the wetland on the subject site was a Category 3 wetland. The City determined that an analysis of the creek was unnecessary apparently in the belief that sufficient studies in the area had already been conducted and that the creek was a Class 4 creek given the City's Water Class Map and the Q Map. 10. Staff based its short plan analysis and approval on its review of both the wetland and creek located on the subject site as well as the zoning and comprehensive plan. Staff determined that the wetland is a Category 3 wetland and required a buffer of 25 feet. Certain requirements accompany the preservation or enhancement of such wetIands but those are not at issue in this review. Staff also determined that the Blueberry Haven Short Plat App LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF March 27, 2008 Page 13 or enhancement of such wetlands but those are not at issue in this review. Staff also determined that the stream is a Class 4 stream that requires a 35-foot buffer. Again, issues relating to buffer or stream preservation are not at issue in this review. i t . The appellant alleges that the approval of the short plat violates critical areas regulations by not recognizing the appropriate classification of a stream that runs along the eastern margin of the site and not recognizing the appropriate categorization of a wetland located in the center of the site, generally where Proposed Lots A and B join. The appellant alleges that the stream should be a Class 3 stream with a buffer of 75 feet. The appellant also alleges that the wetland is a Headwaters Wetland and should be a Category 2 with a buffer of 50 feet. 12. The City dismisses the many letters and comments as merely anecdotal and lay observations on the nature of the creek, particularly as to whether it is an intermittent creek or perennial. The City also objected to photographs showing the creek at various points in time showing water flowing in the creek. The objections were twofold. First, they were not taken of the subject property and second, they represented a mere snapshot in time, not showing perennial flows. The photographs show the creek flowing during generally dry times of year and they show it flowing both south (upstream) and north (downstream) of the site. Similarly, the City objected to letters from Mr. Fisher who represents the Department of Fish and Wildlife. The letters were submitted for property upstream and across NE 20th street from the subject site. They appear to indicate that the creels was misclassified and that it flows perennially. While not directly observed on the subject site and not submitted for the stretch of the creek on the subject site, the letters demonstrate the creek appears to flow almost immediately upstream of the subject site, state's interest in this creek and suggest its Class and/or significance was not fully understood or examined. 13. The City in its arguments asks that the Examiner consider that the stream was a manmade ditch and should be classified a Class 5 based on the testimony of the applicants, again, lay testimony. The City argues their testimony be given as much credence as the other lay witnesses that the creek is perennial. First, the applicants' knowledge of the stream is much more recent and they do not know its history. Second, and more importantly, the City Council has already determined this issue and rejected it. 14. The City also argues (at page 12 brief) with no persuasive power whatsoever that the Q Map designates the creek in the vicinity of the subject site as a Class 4 waterway. The City indicated (at Page 2 brief) that "it is nearly impossible to exactly pinpoint and identify the Kennydale Creek or stream on Gordley's property" on that very same map. 15. The Renton Water Class Map is Figure Q, Section 4-3-050(Q5). It is quite small and lacks much detail although it probably does show the general area of the creek where the subject site is located and the Map's Legend shows it as a Class 4 Creek in this general location. Actually, such a map lacking in detail might explain why the actual language of the Code says that actual characteristics of the stream prevail over the map. (4-3-050(L)(1)(c) 16. The Cedarock Consultants study done by Carl Hadley states at Page 2 that "Conclusively evaluating the intermittent vs. continuous flow issue is difficult at best and not possible at this time. The stream would most appropriately be examined during the period between late July and late September during a year of normal rain. (it goes on to define "normal rainfall.") Blueberry Haven Short Plat Anneal LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF March 27, 2008 Page 14 The Hadley report then goes on to discuss an Ellisport Engineering report and rainfall during 2004 (considered a normal year) and 2005 (considered a dry year) and the Ellisport report done in October 2004, a normal year but a "relatively dry time of year" with less than normal rainfall, about half of normal. Hadley quoting from the Ellisport report: "South across NE 20th Street is a blueberry farm where the Class 11 stream originates. The stream flows under the street in a culvert, which extends northward onto the Gordly (sic) property. Water was -flowing in the stream at the time of the site inspection." (Emphasis was in the original Hadley report). 17. The Hadley report also references a Watershed Company report. Apparently the waterway was inspected by The Watershed Company on July 18, 2005. Hadley reports that 2005 was a normal but very dry year. The Watershed report contained the following: "standing water was present in the pond and in the main ditch/stream" 1$. The Hadley report also appears to answer a question that this office is still pondering. What is the status of a creek that enters a broad swampy area and flow is not so easily discernable? "While these swampy areas are clearly a type of watercourse with important aquatic habitat functions and values, the question is whether or not they meet the definitions of "naturally defined channel." (italics in original) One could argue that a swamp is a channel and is the only type of channel that would form under the circumstances. The definition in Webster Dictionary defines channel as "the bed of a body of water flowing on the earth." (italics in original). There is no evidence that the site was ever hydraulically isolated. It most likely drained to the north under pre-existing conditions as it does now. The area was clearly a wetland and still contains wetland characteristics. The channel was dug to drain the historic wetland and create 'usable' land. The City of Renton may choose to distinguish between_ wetlands and channels. However, there is no clear dividing line between the two so any distinction would have to be done carefully." (emphasis supplied)." This language does appear to address what happens when a visible stream hits a wetland or bog and discernable flow melds into a marsh, swamp or bog. It becomes hard to distinguish but that does not mean the stream is no longer flowing. 19. Finally, the Hadley report notes: "The perennial stream flow issue (Class 3 vs. Class 4) can only be answered by direct observation of flow characteristics in the channel during the summer. These data could take a few years to gather if this winters heavy rainfall pattern continues." This statement helped inform this office that any immediate study such as that offered during the course of the hearing wherein the City and the applicant requested the appellant to engage and fund a study almost immediately would be meaningless in answering the "intermittent versus perennial" status during the later dry months of summer. This was the information the Examiner used to decide an expert employed by any party for a short period near the hearing time would be fruitless in answering the Blueberry Haven Short Plat Ap----1 LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF March 27, 2008 Page 15 question. So Footnote 5 of the City's Brief is clearly a one-sided, incomplete statement. The issue was not limited to which party should pay for such an expert. The expert would be limited to examining the creek during a very limited time so that nothing definitive could show the flow during the drier months of summer. Any expert hired by any party would only be able to review a snapshot of the creek during the rainy season, leaving doubt about whether it is perennial or not. The City objected to photographs showing the creek flowing as those actual snapshots (photographs) were, as the City maintains, snapshots proving nothing about "perennial flow." 20. A wetland study conducted for the City by Entranco (December 1996) for the Higate Sewage Lift Station found the wetlands in the area of the subject site were a Category 2 wetland including disturbed wetlands near NE 20th Street. Entranco in 1999 confirmed in correspondence with John Hobson the wetland was a headwater wetland. The Watershed Company in 2005 by Hugh Mortenson indicated to. Nancy Weil that they were a Category 2 wetland as they were "the headwaters of a stream system." The Watershed Company, again, in 2007, when asked in a potential corrective review, concluded that the wetland was a headwaters wetland (page 7) and reaffirms "the findings expressed in Mr. Mortensen's 2005 letter to the City of Renton." 21. A number of provisions of the Renton Municipal Code are applicable to this review. They include: Section 4-3-050(L)(1) L Applicability/Lands to Which These Regulations Apply: These stream and lake regulations apply to sites containing all or portions of Class 2 to 4 streams or lakes and/or their buffers as described below. This section does not apply to Class I waters, which are regulated by RMC 4- 3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, or to Class 5 waters which are exempt. All other critical area regulations, including, but not limited to, flood hazard regulations and wetland regulations, do apply to classified streams where applicable. a, Classification System: The following classification system is hereby adopted for the purposes of regulating streams and lakes in the City. Stream and lake buffer widths are based on the following rating system: i. Class 1: Class 1 waters are perennial salmonid-bearing waters, which are classified by the City and State as Shorelines of the State. ii. Class 2: Class 2 waters are perennial or intermittent salmonid-bearing waters which meet one or more of the following criteria: (a) Mapped on Figure Q4, Renton Water Class Map, as Class 2; and/or (b) HistoricaIly and/or currently known to support salmonids, including resident trout, at any stage in the species lifecycle; and/or (c) Is a water body (e.g., pond, lake) between one half (0.5) acre and twenty (20)'acres in size, iii. Class 3: Class 3 waters are non-salmonid-bearing perennial waters during years of normal rainfall, and/or mapped on Figure Q4, Renton Water Class Map, as Class 3. iv. Class 4: Class 4 waters are non-salmonid-bearing intermittent waters during years of normal rainfall, and/or mapped on Figure Q4, Renton Water Class Map, as Class 4. V. Class 5: Class 5 waters are non -regulated non-salmonid-bearing waters which meet one or more of the following criteria: (a) Flow within an artificially constructed channel where no naturally defined channel had previously existed; and/or Blueberry Haven Short Plat Apneal LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF March 27, 2008 Page 16 (b) Are a surficially isolated water body less than one-half (0.5) acre (e.g., pond) not meeting the criteria for a wetland as defined in subsection M of this Section. 4-3-050(L)(1) C. Maps and Inventory: i. Mapped Streams and Lakes: The approximate location and extent of Class 2 to 4 water bodies within the City limits are indicated on a map in subsection Q of this Section, Maps. The map is to be used as a guide to the general location and extent of streams. Specific locations and extents will be determined by the City based upon field review and applicant -funded studies prepared pursuant to subsection L3 of this Section, ii. Reclassification: Where there is a conflict between the Renton Water Class Map in Subsection Q and the criteria in subsection L I of this Section, the criteria in subsection Lla of this Section shall govern. The reclassification of a water body to a lower class (i.e_ 2 to 3, or 3 to 4, etc.) requires administrator acceptance of a supplemental stream or lake study, followed by a legislative amendment to the map in subsection Q of this Section prior to its effect. 4-3-050(M)(I)(a)(ii)(c) ii. Category 2: Category 2 wetlands are wetlands, which meet one or more of the following criteria: (a) Wetlands that are not Category I or 3 wetlands; and/or (b) Wetlands that have heron rookeries or osprey nests, but are not Category I wetlands; and/or (c) Wetlands of any size located at the headwaters of a watercourse, i.e., a wetland with a perennial or seasonal outflow channel, but with no defined influent channel, but are not Category I wetlands; and/or (d) Wetlands having minimum existing evidence of human -related physical alteration such as diking, ditching or channelization; and/or Section 4-3-050(L)(7): "Criteria for Permit Approval — Class 2 to 4: Permit approval by the Reviewing Official for projects on or near regulated water bodies shall be granted only if the approval is consistent with the provisions of this subsection L...", 4-3-050(F)(7)(a): 117_ Independent Secondary Review. The City may require independent review of an applicant's report as follows: a. Aquifer Protection Areas, Flood Hazards, Habitat Conservation, Streams and Lakes, Wetlands: When appropriate due to the type of critical areas, habitat, or species present, or project area conditions, the Reviewing Official may require the applicant to prepare and/or fund analyses or activities, including, but not limited to: i. An evaluation by an independent qualified professional regarding the applicant's analysis and the effectiveness of any proposed mitigating measures or programs, to include any recommendations as appropriate. This shall be paid at the applicant's expense, and the Reviewing Official shall select the third party review professional; and/or Blueberry Haven Short flat Ap LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF March 27, 2008 Page 17 22. After the hearing closed but in the window left open for the City to possibly rebut information contained in the appellant's brief and exhibits, additional correspondence was submitted by a neighbor who left the hearing because her father was in his last illness and subsequently passed away and additional written submittals and photographs by the underlying applicants. The City did not object to these submissions but the appellant did object. This office has reviewed those submissions and finds that they add nothing of substance to the record. 23. There were arguments and issues raised about the Growth Management Hearings Board and the concept of "best available science." The office is not usurping powers jurisdictionally placed in another review body. It does not need Best Available Science to determine this appeal, although this office believes that it would certainly help everyone if some independent expert had assessed both the stream and wetland. 24. The City insinuates that the neighbors have a bias against the development of the subject site and, therefore, their testimony is potentially tainted. The same can be said for those who want to develop the subject site - the underlying applicants. The testimony by all parties appeared credible. CONCLUSIONS: The appellant has the burden of demonstrating that the decision of the City Official was either in error, or was otherwise contrary to law or constitutional provisions, or was arbitrary and capricious (Section 4- 8-110(E)(7)(b). The appellant has demonstrated that the action of the City should be reversed. The decision is reversed. Arbitrary and capricious action has been defined as willful and unreasoning action in disregard of the facts and circumstances. A decision, when exercised honestly and upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances, is not arbitrary or capricious (Northern Pacific Transport Co. v Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, 69 Wn. 2d 472, 478 (1966). 3. An action is likewise clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing body, on the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. (Ancheta v Daly, 77 Wn. 2d 255, 259 (1969). An appellant body should not necessarily substitute its judgment for the underlying agency with expertise in a matter unless appropriate. 4. Section 4-3-050(L)(7) limits the issuance of a permit where property is on or near regulated water bodies. A permit may only be issued if it is consistent with the various critical area regulations including buffer widths based on those water bodies' characteristics. In other words this short plat approval can only be approved if it complies with the appropriate buffer widths required around a Category 2 wetland and a Class 3 stream if the appellant has demonstrated error sufficient to overturn the decision below. This office is not dealing with issues properly before the Growth Management Hearings Board. This office is reviewing an appeal of a short plat where the appellant has alleged that the critical areas buffers were not appropriate since the City used the wrong standards for the two critical areas, a stream and a wetland, on the Gordley property. If the City has wrongly defined those critical areas as the appellant alleges, then it would appear that review of the short plat approval is appropriate. This office does not reach any conclusions nor does it know the impacts on the development potential of the property if it decides that the City was wrong. Blueberry Haven Short Plat A--eal LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF March 27, 2008 Page 18 wetland, on the Gordley property. If the City has wrongly defined those critical areas as the appellant alleges, then it would appear that review of the short plat approval is appropriate. This office does not reach any conclusions nor does it know the impacts on the development potential of the property if it decides that the City was wrong. Code requires an applicant to conduct a standard stream study if the site contains a water body or buffer or is within 100 feet (Section 4-3-050(L)(3)(a)). The City may also require independent review (Section 4-3-050(17)(7)(a). The City may waive such study if it does not think it is necessary (4-8-100(A)(a)(a) and 4-M50(L)(3)(d)(i)(c)). The appellant has demonstrated that an error has been made. The City inappropriately waived a study that might have helped finally decide an issue that has been raised by the appellant and neighbors for a number of years. The record before this office demonstrates that the stream flows perennially as it enters a culvert under NE 20th street and appears to flow as it begins its entry into the subject site, the Gordley property. The record further demonstrates that this same stream flows perennially north of the subject site. The record does not directly show how the stream flows once it disappears from view looking north into the subject site. But the Hadley report coupled with the lay testimony allows one to draw reasonable conclusions. The Hadley report indicates that the demarcation or delineation of a creek as it enters a swamp might not be easy to determine but that does not negate that it flows in some fashion. It is interesting to note that the City opted to accept the Critical Areas Study wetland analysis submitted by the applicants that was contradicted by earlier studies but did not seek a stream review. Not only did the City not seek a stream review by the applicants' awn expert but it did not seek an independent study that might have resolved the contradictions raised by neighbors. It merely weighed the neighbors' concerns and letters and accepted the applicants' study rather than seeking independent confirmation. 7. The City notes that there must be a conflict before the definition of the "class" of a stream takes precedence over the Q Map. The record shows a series of letters addressed to the City raising concerns about the creek's classification. The appeal certainly presents a conflict that allows one to determine if the map or the definition applies to this stretch of the creek. The City has already indicated (at Page 2 brief) that "it is nearly impossible to exactly pinpoint and identify the Kennydale Creek or stream on Gordley's property" on that very same map. If it is nearly impossible to pinpoint the creek from that map it certainly has to be impossible to rate its character by that map. Clearly, the maps are not detailed maps. They don't even purport to be redrawn USGS Topographical reaps showing gullies or ridges. They are basically line reaps which even at large scale shows no real meaningful features. "...the city can reasonably surmise that Kennydale Creek flows along the eastern boundary of the subject site" (page 2, brief) "Reasonably surmising" is not a legal standard that meets the definitions found in code. A stream should be classified based on its real characteristics and not some supposition. The City acknowledges that it did receive "numerous letters" disputing the classification. It dismisses those as "general comments or anecdotal information based on personal observations." Code basically says: "a stream's classification depends on the stream's character." It is a simple proposition - perennial flow, Class 3. Intermittent flow, Class 4. (We will not deal with Class 5 ditches, which can have perennial flow since that had already been decided after an earlier review). The map is not conclusive - rather how a stream flows determines its class. A wrong map designation does not make a stream a Class 4 stream if it in fact flows per the definitions, This office acknowledges that personal observations (so- called lay testimony) of Lake Washington's existence would be much easier to verify. But there are probably sections of the Cedar River that flow through private property that may be harder to observe and would be hard to verify. Clearly, in those instances, the Cedar River is seen flowing toward a property and seen flowing away but might be hidden beyond view on private property. Logic allows some leaps of faith and logic suggests that it might be flowing even where it cannot be observed. In this case, perhaps an independent review could have established what happens 'but of view." Since no one should blindly sacrifice a critical resource without more information, staff had a responsibility to attain Blueberry Haven Short Plat Ap LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF March 27, 2008 Page 19 applicants but the Code requires either the creek be studied or waived unless their is sufficient factual basis for a decision. The City committed error in not requiring a stream study by the applicant and compounded it by not requiring an independent review. 8. This office is left with some unease over how some of these classifications work in real life and maybe those concerns cannot be resolved in a forum like this appeal - But if a perennial stream flows into a mucky wetland or bog or through an area of say, quicksand like substance, given no surface evidence of flow through that "thickened" area, and then perennially flows out say, 50 or 100 or 300 feet away downstream, what is the class or character as it moves imperceptibly though that area? But given the record, this office finds that staff erred in waiving the study. There were too many lay observations to render their observations mere anecdote and the Hadley report even suggests the demarcation in streambed and flow uncertain. What do we have in this case? We have a record that demonstrates that the stream in question flows perennially to and under NE 20th Street from property immediately upstream of the site and we have that same stream flowing perennially north of the subject site. This record seems sufficient to give a reviewer pause. What happens to these perennially flowing waters when they enter, traverse and leave the subject site? Rather than waive requirements for a report, the City should have required the report and probably should have required an independent assessment of this resource. That decision cannot be likened to one which was "exercised honestly and upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances." (Northern Pacific). That is why this office finds that the Q Map is overruled in this conflict by the language making stream characteristics the final arbiter of stream class. 9. In the case of the wetland, if the City had compared the results of the applicants' recent wetland study with results of reports it had on file, as it supposedly did with the creek, it might have found contradictions that may have encouraged it to seek an independent assessment. Studies or reviews in three cases called the wetland a "headwaters wetland" and that means it should be a Category 2 Wetland. Nowhere in the City's analysis of this plat is there any mention of the "headwaters wetland" observations of the past studies or the definition of such wetlands as Category 2 wetlands. In the case of the stream, no stream analysis was provided even with resident evidence that it did flow. On the other hand, in the case of the wetland an analysis was submitted which accounted for its state of degradation but prior reports appear to have called the wetlands, a "headwaters wetland" which by definition is a Category 2 Wetland and its state of degradation would not apparently affect that categorization. The definition though does provide an example, which could confuse the issue: "i.e., a wetland with a perennial or seasonal outflow channel, but with no defined influent channel." It appears that the wetland may be associated with a stream and that stream, may flow into it. But, again, independent analysis was not provided. The lack of such independent review was erroneous unless one concludes that the earlier reviews for City projects or other purposes were independent and then those reviews found it a "headwater wetland, a Category 2 wetland." 10. Now, one does have to decide if the applicants must suffer prolonged delays if answers are needed. The current facts, the anecdotal evidence and the Hadley report show evidence of perennial flow in a normal year. Code proclaims streams with those characteristics a Class 3. This office has to conclude therefore, that the City was wrong based on current knowledge. If the applicants wish to contest the characteristics of this DEFINED Class 3 stream, they would have to produce evidence and have it downgraded per regulations. Upgrading it based on its characteristics is automatic - Code says so. 11. The decision below should not be reversed without a clear showing that the decision is clearly erroneous or arbitrary and capricious. This office concludes that there is sufficient reason to reverse the decision below. Blueberry Haven Short Plat Appeal LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF March 27, 2008 Page 20 have it downgraded per regulations. Upgrading it based on its characteristics is automatic - Code says SO. 11. The decision below should not be reversed without a clear showing that the decision is clearly erroneous or arbitrary and capricious. This office concludes that there is sufficient reason to reverse the decision below. DECISION: The decision is reversed and the appeal is granted. ORDERED THIS 27'h day of March 2008 FRED J. KAUF AN HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 27`n day of March 2008 to the parties of record: Jennifer Henning Ann Nielsen Development Services Assistant City Attorney City of Renton City of Renton Susan Rider Richard and Lauraiee Gordley 1835 NE 20" Street 2010 Jones Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Deanna Dobak William O'Connor 1700 NE 201' Street 921 S Washington Street Renton, WA 98056 Port Angeles, WA 98362 Karen Finnicum Julie Bray 1302 Aberdeen Ave NE 1901 NE 20`s Street Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Christian Denzler Denise Blackmau 1800 NE 20" Street 2100 Jones Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Robert Cave Barbara Hicks 12518 E 17" Street 10402 151" Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98005 Renton, WA 98059 Ashley Peck Gendler and Mann, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Ste. 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Larry Fisher 1775-12" Ave NW, Ste. 201 Issaquah, WA 98027 Paul Watt 2433 Jones Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Erika Conkling Senior Planner Development Services Sue Larson -Kinzer 1733 NE 20ffi Street Renton, WA 98056 Blueberry Haven Short Plat App4-1 LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF March 27, 2008 Page 21 TRANSMITTED THIS 27a' day of March 2008 to the following: Mayor Denis Law Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services Renton Reporter Dave Pargas, Fire Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services Pursuant to Title 1V, Chapter 8, Section 104Gof the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., Apri110, 2008. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be flied in writing on or before 5:00 p.m.. April 10, 2008. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or finalyrocessing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending Iand use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision -maker concerning the proposal. Decision -makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. O N W V `a 0 W a . �m n� _w �o Ldt � o U J�`Y k pz Z40.n „881J W 11� 4Ra<<� � rU� tl4 Q 1/Wy: yi- 1 tiG UUY� �qGG❑K 2 Z ul U z J. jw r` 0 W ,n {W�(TWFJ, eW4` Y�QwZ !-WNW w ssr k.2E. SS. DON o +: 2 M M .�PJIrJ-.o7'FDE 2Y n T�Nb in2N hryG� 'a ew^m «ww w IQ RIX Ell! gjig2�2 I 5 1 lie i Ri7R d2 d F B 41 F- U W O CL Cy esseaass 5 April 15, 2008 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) COUNTY OF KING ) Bonnie 1. Walton, City Clerk for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter. That on the 15th day of April, 2008, at the hour of 5:00 p.m. your affiant duly mailed and placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail to all parties of record, notice of appeal filed by Richard and Lauralee Gordley, represented by Dickson Steinacker LLP, of the Hearing Examiner's decision regarding the Blueberry Haven Short Plat application. (File No. LUA-07-131, SHP-A, ECF) Bonnie 1. Walton, City Clerk SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 15th day of April, 2008. Jaso A. Seth U Not y Public in and for the State of Wa ington, residing in Renton Denis Law, Mayor April 15, 2008 CITY `)F RENTON City Clerk Bonnie I. Walton APPEAL FILED BY: Richard and Lauralee Gordley, represented by Dickson Steinacker LLP RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 3/27/2008 regarding the Blueberry Haven Short Plat located at 2010 Jones Ave. NE (File No. LUA-07-131, SHP-A, ECF) 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 Blueberry Haven Short Plat application has been filed with the City Clerk. In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110F, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal..Other parties of record may submit letters limited to support of their positions within ten (10) days of the date of mailing of the notification of the filing of the appeal. The deadline for submission of additional letters is 5:00 pm, Friday, April 25, 2008. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN 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 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 of the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeals of Hearing Examiner decisions or recommendations. Please note that the City Council will be considering the merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. Unless a showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available at the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, no further evidence or testimony on this matter will be accepted by the City Council. For additional information or assistance, please feel free to call me at 425-430-6502. Sincerely, Bonnie 1. Walton City Clerk Enclosures cc: Council Liaison 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98057 - (425) 430-6510 / FAX (425) 430-6516 9 This paper contahs 50% recycled matedal, 301% "consumer RENTON AHEAD OV THE CURVE City of Renton Municipal Cc. _ ;Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110 — Appea.� 4-8-11 OC4 The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance Nvith RMC 4-1-170, the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-110F: Appeals to City Council — Procedures 1. Time for Appeal: Unless a specific section or State law providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court or any other body, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Council, upon a forma furnished by the City Clerk, within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. 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. Other 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. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report, the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982) 5. 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 unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required, the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence_ The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the applicant. In the absence of an entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 4389, 1-25-1993) 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 submissions by parties. 7. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050F1, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the proceeding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. S. Council Action: If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-05OF2 and F3, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified; the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application. 9. Decision Documentation: In any event, 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. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord 3658, 9-13-1982) 10. 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 G5 of this Section. (Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997) Denise Blackmau Sue Larson -Kinzer Robert Cave 2100 Jones Ave. NE 1733 NE 20" St. 12518 E 17th St. Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Bellevue, WA 98005 Susan Rider 1835 NE 20" St. Renton, WA 98056 Richard & Lauralee Gordley 2010 Jones Ave. NE Renton WA 98056 DeAnna Dobak 1700 NE 20" St. Renton, WA 98056 Barbara Hicks 10402 151 st Ave. SE Renton, WA 98059 Loraine Taylor 2208 Jones Ave. NE Renton WA 98056 Larry Fisher 1775 12" Ave. NW, Ste. 201 Issaquah, WA 98027 William O'Conner 921 S. Washington St. Port Angeles, WA 98362 Ashley Peck Gendler and Mann LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Ste. 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Karen Finnicum 1302 Aberdeen Ave. NE Renton, WA 98056 Julie Bray Paul Watt Christian Denzler 1901 NE 20th St. 2433 Jones Ave. NE 1800 NE 20" St. Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 PPEAL TO RENTON CITY COL L OF REARuiG EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION 6�j: I{_, C ,�-13i, --APPLICATION NAME �lC l l� Al r11il41 t ',//6/ FILE NO.'car LAC -- The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal f om the decision or recommendation of the �i P/ 'Jf' J-em 3 exi Land Use Hearing Examiner, datedAli , 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: Name: .c C, t'd � -l(r1' IL C T d —1 lFi Address: T L 2t Iis i At .__ ",.,r Phone Number: Email: REPRESENTATIVE (]F ANk)rzi -o Name: !tiAk, e' Address: / G,'I'A q6- Phone Number. Dj—? _ S --?-,7 `-166t' Email: Lj��jz L: l'' .1✓<<� �L nLEcl zl'- cc wt 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: Finding of Fact: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's Report) No. ` J Error: _I r� 13, 1 -1- �` - - c �� xa y Correction: Conclusions: No��,-/ Error: -2:11 r} L t-- Correction: Other: No. Error: Correction: 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief:'' ' r- Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Other: A pellant/Representa ive Signature Type/Printed Name Date NOTE: Please refer to Title TV, Chapter 8, of the RReento Municipal Code, and Section j4�-8-1 OF, for specifi appeal procedures, C e ��Ci-fir y, i� J'j� ` ' J i t.`e n.�l�� D DJ,, DICKSON STEINACKER LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW REPLY TO TACOMA OFFICE: 1401 WELLS FARCO PLAZA 1201 PACIFIC AVENUE TACOMA, WA 98402 TELEPHONE: (253) 572-1000 PAX: (253) 572-1300 April 10, 2008 Renton City Council 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 SEATTLE OFFICE: BANK OF AMERICA TOWER 701 FIFTH AVENUE, STE. 4201 SEATTLE, WA 98104 TELEPHONE: (206) 621-1110 FAX: (253) 572-1300 Re.- Blueberry Haven Short Plat Appeal LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF Dear City Council: THOMAS L. DICKSON KEVIN T. STEINACKER SHANE L. YELISH MATTHEW J. SMITH ROBERT P. DICKSON Applicants Richard and Lauralee Gordley hereby appeal the Hearing Examiner decision dated March 27, 2008, regarding the Blueberry Haven short plat application, LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF, a copy of which is attached. A hearing in this matter was held on February 12, 2008. For the reasons set forth below, the Gordleys respectfully request that the decision be reversed. Assignments of Error The Gordleys assign error to the Hearing Examiner's Findings of Fact 12-15, 18-20, and 22, and to all of the Conclusions of Law. Factual Summary The Gordleys are the owners of property located at 2010 .Tones Ave. NE in Renton. In an effort to modify their property, they submitted a short plat application in late 2007 to divide their parcel into two lots. The application was approved by the City on December 10, 2007. A neighbor, Susan Rider, appealed the approval to the Hearing Examiner. The Gordley property is an inverted L-shaped parcel. There is a strearrll running south to north through the property and a wetland just west of the stream in the northeast portion of the property. In an effort to subdivide and eventually sell portions of their property, the Gordleys sought and obtained approval from the City of Renton, for two short plats and a lot line adjustment (this adjustment is not at issue here). The City required the Gordleys to submit a Critical Areas Study to describe and analyze the proposed impact of the requested property action. In this case, the Gordleys produced a report from Steward and Associates which concluded that a portion of their property is a Category 3 wetland, ' Reference to the water body as a "stream" should not be construed as an admission that it is a naturally occurring channel, as opposed to an artificially constructed drainage ditch. Renton City Council Gordley Brief on Appeal Page 2 of 8 mentioning that a small stream exists on the property. This report did not directly address the issue of stream classification. Pursuant to RMC 4-8-100(A)(1)(a) and RMC 4-3-050(L)(3)(d)(ii),2 the City did not require the Gordleys to produce additional studies, including a specific stream study, not because they assumed the Steward and Associates study was sufficient on its face, but because of numerous prior studies dealt with similar issues and contained relevant analysis for stream designation. Only one out of seven studies classified the stream as anything other than a Class 4. The one study that stated the stream may be a Class 3 was later corrected to indicate that the stream was in fact a Class 5. Prior to the Gordleys' efforts to secure a short plat approval, a neighbor (Mr. Dutro) had interest in the area and sought to re-classify the stream to an even lower category, a Class 5. In his efforts, Mr. Dutro secured a study of the area which demonstrated that the stream in question ought to be a Class 5 drainage ditch. The following is a chart with information taken from Figure 1 of the City's brief to the Hearing Examiner, summarizing the various studies that had been done and were reviewed by the City while processing the Gordley short plat application: Company Date Classifications Proper Notes Entranco 12/1996 Stream = NIA Higate Includes Gordley property Wetland = 2 Elisport Engineering -- 10/2004 Stream = 3 Core/Gordley No wetland due to Anne Seethoff Wetland = NIA changing water levels Ellisport Engineering — 4/2005 Stream = 5 Dutro/Gordley Letter to Dutro regarding Anne Seethoff Wetland — N/A analysis (including Gordley parcel), submitted to City for request change to unregulated Class 5 Stream. Watershed — Hugh 4/2005 Stream = 4 Gordley! Analyzed the stream in Mortensen Wetland = 2 Blueberry Farm context of whether it was a Class 4 or Class 5. Operating within its discretionary authority as granted by the Code, the City had a preapplication meeting with the Gordleys in 2005. Based upon further review during the application process, the City affirmed what the Code already indicated for the area: that the stream running across a portion of the Gordley property is a Class 4 stream. The City's decision on the short plat application stated: ' Under this provision, a standard stream or lake study may "be waived by the Administrator when the applicant provides satisfactory evidence that: (a) A road, building or other barrier exists between the water body and the proposed activity, or (b) The water body or required buffer area does not intrude on the applicant's lot, and based on evidence submitted, the proposal will not result in significant adverse impacts to nearby water bodies regulated under this Section; or (c) Applicable data and analysis appropriate to the proposed project exists and an additional study is not necessary." RMC 4-3-050(L)(3)(d)(ii) (emphasis added) 3 Ellisport wrote a letter in June 20505 stating that the Class 3 designation was under the old ordinance. Based on the new Critical Areas Ordinance (passed in 2005), the channel should properly be designated as a Class 5. Exhibit 19. Renton City Council Gordley Brief on Appeal Page 3 of 8 A stream has been identified, which flows along the east border of the project site. The City's Streams and Lakes Map classifies the stream as a Class 4 stream, which is non- salmonid bearing intermittent stream. Class 4 streams require a minimum 35-foot buffer. A stream study prepared by Cedarock Consultants, Inc., dated February 17, 2006 was submitted with the project application. The study was prepared for the City of Renton and was prepared in response to a previous request to reclassify the on -site stream from a Class 4 stream to a Class 5 stream, which is unregulated. In addition, at the time there was also some discussion as to whether the stream should actually be classified as a Class 3 stream. A Class 3 stream is a non-salmonid bearing stream that has perennial flows and requires a 75-foot buffer. The report included a review of the previous documentation that had been prepared regarding the stream, information that had been obtained through a site visit, and a review of the City's Critical Areas Regulations. The report concluded that it is unlikely that the stream is a salmonid bearing stream due to steep slopes that exist downstream towards Lake Washington. The report indicated that no conclusive evidence had been gathered as to whether the stream was perennial or intermittent and that this issue can only be resolved through direct observation of flow characteristics during the summer and that this data can take several years to gather depending on rainfall patterns. Therefore, the report recommended that the stream retain its Class 4 stream classification. Staff has received comments from neighbors regarding the classification of the stream.. The neighbors have indicated that the stream flows perennially and that the stream is misclassified and should be classified as a Class 3 stream. In order to protect the wetland, stream and associated buffer areas, staff recommends as a condition of approval that a Native Growth Protection Easement shall be recorded over the on -site wetland stream and associated buffer areas prior to or concurrent with the recording of the final short map. In order to notify future property owners of the presence of the stream and wetland areas, staff recommends that the edge of the NGPE be delineated with a split rail fence and identified with signage as approved by the Development Services Division Project Manager. A fencing and signage detail shall be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager at the time of Utility Construction Permit Application for review and approval. The fencing and signage shall be installed prior to the recording of the final plat. Exhibit 1, December 10, 2007 Report and Decision, pages 7-8 (emphasis added). It is clear from these passages of the final short plat approval, that the City was not only cognizant of the stream issue, but it took steps to address the issue directly by creating an easement. The decision making process by the City followed stringent and carefully thought-out procedures. Rather than completely ignoring the concerns of the surrounding neighbors, the City mandated that for the final approval for the Short Plat to go through, the Gordley property would be subject to a Native Growth Protection Easement. Much of the evidence submitted by Ms. Rider at the hearing (with the intent to counter the City's decision) was irrelevant and should have been excluded. The photos in Exhibit 10 were not photos of the Gordley property, and are therefore entitled to little, if any weight. For the same reason, the photos Renton City Council Gordley Brief on Appeal Page 4 of 8 in Exhibit 11 are also not photos of the Gordley property, and Ms. Rider had no expert testimony to clarify how the comments and photos of Exhibit 11 affect classification of the stream and wetland on the Gordley property. The Council Meeting Minutes of March 21, 2005 (Exhibit 12) do refer to Kennydale Creek as an example of a Class 3 stream, but the portion of the stream on the Gordley property is not Class 3. Exhibit 12 is certainly not an expert study of the Gordley property. Similarly, the letters in Exhibits 6 and 13 also do not discuss the Gordley property. Authority and Argument The City's decision to approve the short plat application was neither arbitrary and capricious nor clearly erroneous, and the Hearing Examiner's decision must be reversed. The only issue on which the City's decision could be reversed was whether the City properly processed and approved the Gordleys' short plat application, specifically, whether the City's decision to waive the stream study was justified. See Conclusion of Law 6. The Hearing Examiner failed to give proper weight to the prior decision of the City and Ms. Rider did not meet her burden to establish that the City's approval of the short plat application was in error. Ms. Rider argued that the approval was in error because the buffers applied by the City were contrary to existing conditions. However, Ms. Rider had made no formal request to reclassify the stream, and the Hearing Examiner had no authority to sua sponte reclassify the bodies of water on the Gordley property. Furthermore, if the City did not err in waiving the stream study, then its approval of the short plat application based upon the current classification cannot have been an error. weight: The City's procedural determinations and discretionary decisions are both entitled to substantial The procedural determination by the Environmental Review Committee or City staff shall carry substantial weight in any appeal proceeding. The Hearing Examiner shall give substantial weight to any discretionary decision of the City rendered pursuant to this Chapter/Title. RMC 4-8-110(E)(7)(a). Where such deference is mandated, a reviewing tribunal should not "substitute its judgment for the judgment of [the original decision making agency] on a disputed factual issue." Northern Pac. Transport Co. v. Wash. Utilities and Transportation Commission, 69 Wn.2d 472, 477, 418 P.2d 735 (1966). Given this deference, the City staff decision should be presumed to be correct and only overturned on a clear showing that it was in error. Ms. Rider has not met this burden. The City's approval of the Gordley short plat can only be reversed if the decision to waive a stream study and subsequent approval of the application was either "clearly erroneous in view of the entire record as submitted" or "arbitrary or capricious." RMC 4-8-110(E)(7)(b)(v and vi).4 The Hearing Examiner improperly applied these standards. a There can be no argument that the other criteria of RMC 4-8-1 lo(E)(7)(b) are grounds for reversal of the City's decision, Planning clearly had jurisdiction to approve the application, and there was no procedural error in processing the application, especially in light of the specific provision in the Code allowing for waiver of the standard stream study. Renton City Council Gordley Brief on Appeal Page 5 of 8 1. The City Staff Decision Was XotArhitrary or Capricious. The decision to waive the stream study was not arbitrary or capricious. A decision is arbitrary and capricious if it is willful and unreasoning in disregard of the facts and circumstances. Northern Pac. Transport Co., 69 Wn.2d at 478. "Action is not arbitrary and capricious when exercised honestly and upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances." Id. "Where there is room for two opinions, an action taken after due consideration is not arbitrary and capricious even though a reviewing court may believe it to be erroneous." Rios v. Dept. of Labor & Indus., 145 Wn.2d 483, 501, 39 P.3d 961. (2002) (quotation omitted); see also Sparks v. Douglas County, 127 Wn.2d 901, 908, 904 P.2d 738 (1995). Sparks v. Douglas County involved the approval of several plat applications on the condition that the applicant dedicate certain rights of way for road improvements. 127 Wn.2d at 904-05. The applicant appealed the condition several times, arguing in part that the condition was arbitrary and capricious because there was no evidence that the proposed subdivisions would have an adverse impact on the existing traffic sufficient to require widening of the existing roads. The Washington Supreme Court held that the County decision was not arbitrary or capricious because the County properly considered the available facts, including the current road widths and information regarding current and projected road use, even though there was no direct evidence that the proposed subdivisions would have an adversely impact. Id. at 909-10. Because there was substantial evidence to support the County's decision, the decision was not arbitrary or capricious even though additional evidence might have supported a different outcome. Based upon the evidence available, the City's decision to waive further stream studies was justified. The Q Map shows the stream as a Class 4 stream. This is supported by the Cedarrock report of February 2006 (Exhibit 18), the Watershed study of July 2005 (Exhibit 17), and the Seward & Associates CAS submitted as part of the Gordleys' application. The reports and letters by Ellisport Engineering placed the stream in Class 5. Exhibits 14 and 19. It is clear from the Administrative Short Plat Report and Decision (Exhibit 1) that the City considered all of the evidence it had available, including comments from neighbors, and decided to approve the application based on the buffers for a Class 4 stream and Category 3 wetland. The City examined the Cedarrock study. At the time of that study, the City states that "there was also some discussion as to whether the stream should actually be classified as a Class 3 stream." (Exhibit 1, Decision page 8.) The City relied on the study's conclusion that "no conclusive evidence had been gathered as to whether the stream was perennial or intermittent and that this issue can only be resolved through direct observation of flow characteristics during the summer and that this data can take several years to gather depending on rainfall patterns." Id. Therefore, the City adopted the report's recommendation to retain the Class 4 classification. However, in light of comments from neighbors that the stream should be Class 3, the City required a Native Growth Protection Easement to be recorded as a condition of approval, and further required that the casement be delineated with a fence and signage. There was no study available to the City or later submitted by Ms. Rider that indicated the stream was a Class 3. Although it is Class 3 further downstream, Ms. Henning testified that it is not unusual for there to be multiple classifications on any one stream. The City acknowledged receipt of various letters from residents regarding the characteristics of the stream, but the decision to favor expert studies over lay observations cannot be arbitrary and capricious. Those neighbors who testified at the hearing did not Renton City Council Gordley Brief on Appeal Page 6 of 8 have a clear view of the stream due to vegetation, and their testimony was contradicted by the Gordleys who stated that the stream is intermittent and without any sustainable life. The letters of Larry Fisher to the City dated October 12 and 19, 2006, should not have been admitted into evidence because they do not relate to the portion of the stream on the Gordley property. Mr. Fisher admitted that he had never been on the Gordley property. The City's decision not to require an additional stream study was not arbitrary or capricious. The City considered the several studies that had already been done in the area and determined that an additional study was not necessary. Even in light of the City's knowledge of the comments of Larry Fisher and residents of the area, the decision not to require an additional study was not arbitrary or capricious because neither Mr. Fisher nor the residents provided a study that contradicted those already reviewed by the City. Although there may have been conflicting opinions as to whether an additional study would be relevant, this alone does not establish that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. Rather than require a study which would either be inconclusive or take years to complete, the City conditioned approval on the recording of an easement to protect the wetland. The decision of the City staff to approve the application without an additional stream study must be affirmed. 2. The City Staff Decision Was Not Clearly Erroneous._ The Hearing Examiner improperly determined that the decision was clearly erroneous. Under the clearly erroneous standard, a decision can be reversed when the reviewing tribunal, "with good reason therefor, [has] a definite and firm conviction that a mistake of fact [has] been committed." Ancheta v. Daly, 77 Wn.2d 255, 259, 461 P.2d 531 (1966) (emphasis added). Thus, the clearly erroneous standard applies specifically to findings of fact, not to discretionary decisions based on facts. E.g, Port of Seattle v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 151 Wn.2d 568, 588, 90 P.3d 659 (2004); Pitts v. State, Dept. of Social and Health Services, 129 Wn, App, 513, 523, 119 P.3d 896 (2005). A perceived error in judgment alone would not justify reversal under the clearly erroneous standard, because the reviewing body should not substitute its judgment for that of the agency.$ Ancheta, 77 Wn.2d at 259. In Brown v. City of Tacoma, 30 Wn. App. 762, 637 P.2d 1005 (1981), a citizen appealed the city's decision not to require an environmental impact statement for a proposed condominium development near the citizen's home. The city reviewed the environmental checklist submitted by the builder and required certain studies, before issuing a declaration of nonsignificance. Id. at 763-64. Although the appellant argued that the builder's checklist was biased and incomplete, the city's decision was not clearly erroneous because it considered extensive evidence, including comments raised by the appellant during the review process. Id. at 765. The city's threshold determination of nonsignificance was based upon reasonably sufficient information, and was not clearly erroneous. Id. The City's approval of the short plat application was not clearly erroneous. The City reviewed all of the evidence it had available and determined that an additional study of the stream was not necessary. The City was not required to reevaluate the classification of the stream, nor was reclassification justified based on the studies that had been done. Neither the City Council nor the Hearing Examiner can substitute its judgment for the Planning Department. As discussed above, the mere fact that there were conflicting opinions as to the proper classification of the stream is insufficient s An error in judgment would be more properly analyzed under the arbitrary and capricious standard, as discussed above_ Renton City Council GordIey Brief on Appeal Page 7 of 8 to overturn the City's approval of the short plat. There is no study that classifies the stream as a Class 3,6 so the City's decision to rely on the studies and Q Map showing the stream as a Class 4 was not clearly erroneous. 3. The Hearing Examiner Did Not Have Authority_to Reclassify the Stream. The Hearing Examiner's decision must also be reversed because he improperly recategorized the stream. Conclusion of Law 10. Under the Code, the location and extent of Class 2 to 4 water bodies is depicted on the Q Map found in RMC 4-3-050(Q). RMC 4-3-050(L)(1)(c)(i). The Q Map is "a guide to the general location and extent of streams." Id. Specific classification of a particular water body is "determined by the City based upon field review and applicant -funded studies" as described in the Code. Id. Nothing in the Code allows classification of a particular water body by the Hearing Examiner on appeal of a short plat application. A stream can be reclassified to a lower (less restrictive) class based upon "administrator acceptance of a supplemental stream or lake study, followed by legislative amendment to the map in subsection Q of this Section prior to its effect." RMC 4-3-050(L)(1)(c)(ii). Although the Code does not specifically address reclassification to a higher class, any such reclassification should be supported at a minimum by appropriate studies pursuant to the quoted language in RMC 4-3-050(L)(1)(c)(i and ii). Placing a stream in a higher class would also arguably require legislative amendment to the Q Map, just as with a change to a lower class. In any event, the requirement for field review and appropriate studies certainly means that reclassification of a stream based on its characteristics is not "automatic," as the Hearing Examiner claimed without citation to a section of the Code. Conclusion of Law 10. Furthermore, nothing in the Code allows for reclassification of a stream based on the testimony and observations of lay witnesses. Even if the Hearing Examiner did have the authority to reclassify the stream, there was no study submitted as required by the Code that could support a different class. The Q Map conclusively establishes the category of a water body unless there is a conflict between the Q Map and the criteria for classification of a stream. RMC 4-3-050(L)(1)(c)(ii). At the time the short plat application was reviewed, the stream was a Class 4 and the wetland was a Category 3. By approving the Gordley short plat, the City determined either (1) there was insufficient evidence of a conflict to justify changing the Q Map or (2) there was no conflict because the stream was properly Class 4 as depicted on the Q Map. As discussed above, the Code only allows a change to the category of a water body when supported by a proper study. The only reports the City had showed the stream as a Class 4. Thus, if the decision not to require another study was justified, as argued above, it cannot have been error for the City to process the application according to the buffers provided in the Code for the existing classifications. Ms. Rider should not have been allowed to argue the classification of the stream on appeal of the City's approval of the short plat. She had not made a formal request to the Planning Department to reclassify the stream or wetland,' and without an appropriate study to support a change in the classification, no change to the class could be justified under the Code. Ms. Rider's arguments as to the ' The Ellisport Engineering report of October 2004 was prior to enactment of the Critical Areas Ordinance, and was later revised by Ellisport after the CAO was in effect. Exhibit 19. ' It should also be noted that Ms. Rider had an opportunity to present argument regarding proper classification of the stream at the time of Mr. Dutro's application to reclassify the stream. Renton City Council Gordley Brief on Appeal Page 8 of 8 proper classification of the water bodies can only be considered to the extent that they are relevant to determine whether the City's decision to waive the stream study was arbitrary or capricious. If the water bodies were improperly classified by the City, the most that the Hearing Examiner could have done was remand the matter for another study. 4. Conclusion. The critical issue on this appeal is whether the City properly processed the Gordley short plat application in waiving another stream study. If the decision to waive a study was not arbitrary or capricious, then the City approval of the application must be upheld. The short plat was approved subject to buffers for a Class 4 stream and a Category 3 wetland, as the water bodies were categorized at the time of the application. There can be no error by the City in approving the application based upon the existing classification. This is especially true in light of the fact that the City required a Native Growth Protection Easement to protect the wetland, stream, and buffer area. In light of the evidence available to the City, the decision to require an easement rather than engage in a years -long study to evaluate the stream was not arbitrary or capricious. In order to determine whether the waiver of the stream study was justified, it is critical to evaluate the evidence available to the City staff at the time the decision was made. The testimony and exhibits submitted by Ms. Rider at the hearing are only relevant to the extent that that evidence was provided to the City while the Gordley short plat application was pending. The evidence shows that the City had three studies of the area, all showing the stream at Class 4. The only evidence suggesting a Class 3 classification were various letters from residents, and it is not clear what those letters contained other than lay observation. The City also had information to suggest that the stream lacked a natural channel and should therefore be a Class 5. Even assuming that the City should have questioned the established classification of the stream, an additional study at the time of short plat application (Iate 2007) would likely not have conclusively resolved the question. Based on the lack of any study showing the stream as a Class 3 and the other evidence described, the City's decision to waive another study and to process the application based on existing classifications was reasonable. Ms. Rider has not met her substantial burden to establish that the decision was clearly erroneous, arbitrary, or capricious. She also failed to submit sufficient evidence, such as a stream study, to justify reclassification of the stream, assuming that the stream could be reclassified after the short plat was approved. The Hearing Examiner must be reversed, and the City staff decision reinstated. Respectfully submitted, DICKSON STEINACKER LLP Kevin T. Steinacker Attorneys for Richard and Lauralee Gordley 041008 Gordley 8059 zY o CITY OF RENTON G City Clerk Division *_ + 1055 South Grady Way �'nrro Renton, WA 98057 425.430-6510 ❑ Cash 91check No. Description: Funds Received From: ❑ Copy Fee AAppeal Fee Name d S L C Address a i 1 U �. City/Zip � E Amount -- �.: ity Signature r.. n ; t AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. County of King ) Nancy Thompson being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states: That on the 271h day of March 2008, affiant deposited via the United States Mail a sealed envelope(s) containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition. Signature: 4'L" SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 2-L day of , , 2008. Nota# public ind for VS tate pf Washington ResyUmi� at •r-yl , therein. Application, Petition or Case No.: Blueberry Haven Short Plat Appeal LUA 07-131, SHPL-A, ECF The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record. HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT March 27, 2008 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION APPELLANT: Susan Rider APPLICANT: Richard and Lauralee Gordley 2010 Jones Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Blueberry Haven Short Plat Appeal LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Appellant's written requests for a hearing and examining available information on file, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the February 12, 2008 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, February 12, 2008, at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall_ Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Staff file containing the original appeal letter, the plat application and the City's determination. Exhibit No. 2: Vicinity Map Showing the Original Plat Exhibit No. 3: Plat Map Prior to Lot Line Adjustment Exhibit No. 4: Short Plat Map. Shows wetland area in green, buffer area in light green. Exhibit No. 5: City Stream Classification Map Exhibit No. 6: Three Letters from Mr. Fisher dated October 12, 2006, October 19, 2006 and February 20, 2007. Exhibit No. 7: 2005 Packet of Letters From Owners dated Exhibit No. 8: Packet of Letters from Owners dated 2006 Exhibit No. 9: 2008 Packet of Letters From Owners dated Exhibit No. 10 a-r: Photos of the Area Exhibit No. 11. Packet from Randy Corman website (I7-pages)with photos showing foundation filled with water, etc. Exhibit No. 12: City Council Minutes dated March 21, 2005. Blueberry Haven Short Plat hppeal LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF March 27, 2008 Page 2 Exhibit No. 13: Washington Department of Ecology, Wetland Studies dated October 16, 2000. Exhibit No. 14: Ellisport Engineering Packet, Wetland Delineation Report on Gordley and Dutro properties. Exhibit No. 15: Wetland Delineation, Highgate Sewage Lift Station Elimination, December 1996 Exhibit No. 16: Watershed Company Report dated March 2, 2007, to Terry Dutro, regarding wetland determination at the Dutro property. Exhibit No. 17: Letter from Watershed Company to City of Renton dated July 19, 2005 regarding Blueberry Meadows roject for Environmental Review Exhibit No. 18: Letter from Mr. Hadley of Cedarock Consultants to Mr. Dutro dated February 17, 2006 Exhibit No.19: Ellisport Engineering letter to Mr. Dutro dated June 29, 2005 and letter to Lauralee Gordley dated April 25, 2005 also from Ellisport Eng. Exhibit No. 20: May 17, 2005 Masterbuilt Construction letter to the City of Renton. Exhibit No. 21: Easement for Manmade Drainage Ditch. Quit Claim Deed (2 sheets) Exhibit No. 22: Q-Map from Code Reference Map Exhibit No. 23: Letter regarding Terry Dutro study from Ellisport Engineering — Stream Class 5 Exhibit No. 24a-d: Photos of Gordley's home Parties Present: Jennifer Henning, Development Services Ann Nielsen, Assistant City Attorney Ashley Peck, Attorney for Appellant Susan Rider, Appellant Richard and Lauralee Gordley, Applicant Prior to testimony, discussion was had regarding briefs, responses, and testimony of witnesses and determining classifications of creeks and wetlands. Ms. Peck stated that they had eight witnesses, seven are neighbors and have personal knowledge of the creek. The eighth witness was Larry Fisher from the Department of Fish and Wildlife. A list of witnesses was provided to the Examiner. Opening Statement from Ashley Peek. The main issue in Ms. Rider's appeal is the application of the Critical Areas Ordinance to this Short Plat approval. Kennydale Creek flows through the property, there also are wetlands on the site and they believe that the classifications that have been applied in this short plat are contrary to the critical areas criteria as well as the existing conditions. The Kennydale Creek should be classified as a Class 3 perennial stream rather than a Class 4 stream. The buffers applied to this stream are the least restrictive and least protective buffers to a stream. Further, there are issues with the wetland classification, in the past this wetland has been classified as a Category 2 Headwater Wetland because it is located in the headwaters of Kennydale Creek. The Critical Area Study submitted by the applicant shows the creek as a Category 3 Wetland and does not take into consideration that it is located in the headwaters. Blueberry Haven Short Plat Appeal LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF March 27, 2008 Page 3 Jennifer HenninS gave a brief overview of what is proposed and where the property is located, where the creek runs and the associated wetlands. The property is located in the East Kennydale area to the east of I-405 and east of Jones Avenue NE and north of NE 20"' Street. The proposal is to subdivide the property into two lots. The wetland area extends across both parcels. In addition Kennydale Creek is located on the east boundary of the property. It is a drainage channel that feeds into the larger creek downstream. The City has classified the creek as both a Class 3 and a Class 4. As the creek begins to cross under I-405 it converts to a Class 3, at NE 24"' it becomes a Class 4 stream - Julie Bray, 1901 NE 20"' Street, Renton, WA 98056 stated that she has Iived at this address for approximately 20 years, she walks almost every day and the creek has always been running. It runs during the dry summer season, she has never seen it without water. Upon Questioning by Ann Nielsen, Ms. Bray stated that she has worked for the City of Renton for 26 years in the Fire Department. She does have access to City Codes, as well as being aware of and knowing Jennifer Henning and where the Development Services Division is located. She has seen signs on the property, but did not realize that it was going to impact her property. She further stated that she saw the creek on a daily basis, her house is located just south of Lot B and she walks along 20th at a distance of approximately two feet from the creek. Her dog would often go into the creek and play in the water. Larry Fisher, 1775-12"' Ave NW, Ste. 201, Issaquah, WA 98027 stated that he has been with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and has been the area Habitat Biologist for about 17 years. His area of expertise includes all tributaries south of I-90, he is familiar with Kennydale Creek. He received a notice to testify and to his knowledge he is testifying as a State expert. There has been activity around this creek for several years. He has seen the stream during all the months of the year and has never seen it dry. It does not make sense that the headwaters would be classified different than the lower part of the stream. Comment letters have been sent to the City of Renton regarding the Kennydale Blueberry Farm proposal explaining why this stream should be a Class 3 rather than a Class 4. The creek is spring fed and they maintain their flow year around. Upon Questioning by Ms. Nielsen, Mr. Fisher stated that he received the subpoena requesting him to testify approximately two weeks prior to today. He believed that his supervisor was aware that he was present today testifying in his capacity as an employee of the Department of Fish and Wildlife. He has had conversations with Ms. Rider about the application and reviewed materials that she had in her file. The creek does have water running in July, August and September. Ms. Nielsen wanted to establish when exactly he was out there, from what vantage point was he able to observe the creek. Mr. Fisher stated that he was there during the summer in the 90's when the City did a sewer line project, he was also there during the summer reviewing the activity during the Roberson Short Plat extension of the culvert about two years ago. During the normal construction season, usually during the summer, the waters are the lowest and likely to cause the least impact, there has always been water in the creek. His observations of the creek have been from the road (NE 20"'). From this vantage point, he is able to see approximately 100 feet up stream_ Deanna Dobak, 1700 NE 201' Street, Renton, WA 98056 stated she overlooks Lot A and Lot B, they are able to see the wetlands from their house. They have lived there since 2002 and she has never seen the creek dry. They Blueberry Haven Short Plat appeal LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF March 27, 2008 Page 4 walk with their dogs and child at least three times a week. She stops and checks it out and takes the time to look at the water. She has never seen the creek dry during the months of June, July and August. Upon questioning by Ms. Nielsen, Ms. Dobak stated that she was observing the creek from NE 20" Street and can see approximately a third to half of the way up the east property line of Lot B. She has seen ducks swimming in the water during the summer months. William O'Connor, 921 S Washington Street, Port Angeles, WA 98362 stated that he has known Ms. Rider for five to six years. Together they have been watching and studying the creek for some time. Ms. Rider has a ground water pond in her backyard that is level with the stream at the Blueberry Farm. There has been water in the Blueberry Farm stream and at NE 24 h Street on every occasion that they have looked at it. His personal knowledge is that the stream is always flowing during the summer months and that it has never dried up. Paul Watt, 2433 Jones Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98056 stated that he has lived at this address since the 1960's, he is north of 24a' on the west side of Jones. The stream runs on the backside of his property between the freeway and his property. He gets up at 5:00 am and walks to the creek each morning, he has never seen the creek dry. He does not walk to the creek in the winter months, it's too soggy and wet. Karen Finnicum, 1302 Aberdeen Ave NE, Renton, WA 98056 stated that she has lived in the area since 1963, in 1971 her car was driven into the creek. The creek has never been dry. When the property belonged to the Pohls, she rode horseback through the property, the ponies would dump them into the creek in the summer. She has never seen the creek without water. 10-minute recess Susan Rider, 1835 NE 201h Street, Renton, WA 98056 stated that when they first found out about the creek reclassification in 2005 the neighborhood was astonished that there was a claim that the stream was seasonal, because no one had ever seen it go dry. The creek is obviously a Class 3, in 2005, 2006 and 2008 letters and affidavits regarding the stream and the amount of water consistently in the stream were written by the neighbors. A series of photos were introduced by Ms. Rider, they were documented as Exhibit 10a-r: 10a: Shows the grate on the east side of I-405 that takes the water underneath I405 and comes out onto the Kennydale Creek ravine, which flows into Lake Washington, 1 Ob: Shows the same area showing water flowing out of a pipe in the Misty Cove area, 10c: Shows wetlands next to the project (deer in field). She was standing on NE 200' east of the Gordley property when taking these photos, 1 Od: From 24`h and Jones showing creek flowing downstream from the Gordley property, 10e: Shows creek flowing along the west side of the Rider property and continues across the Blueberry property and comes out by Mr. Gordley's R roperty, 10f: Shows where creek comes out on 20 from the Blueberry Farm (looking south), IOg: Shows the creek along NE 201h in front of the Blueberry Farm during the summer, 1 Oh: Shows the creek along NE 20`h in front of the Blueberry Farm during summer flowing to the culvert, IOi: Shows the creek in the Rider backyard during the summer, 1 Oj : Shows the creek coming out under the fence on the Blueberry Farm, lOk: Shows the Rider backyard in July 2006, 10I: Shows the creek in front of the Blueberry Farm on NE 201h in July 2006 during the drought, 1 Om: Shows the creek flowing to the culvert where it goes under NE 20"' and continues to the Gordley property, 10n: Duplicate of 10f, Blueberry Haven Short Plat Appeal LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF March 27, 2008 Page 5 10o: Mr. Zevart in Mr. Watt's yard, shows dog playing in the creek at the end of the longest drought in Washington history. The picture was taken in the vicinity of Jones Avenue between NE 24'h and the grate that goes under I-405, IOp-q-r: Show water flowing in the creek during the summer months. The above photos all depict water north and south of the Gordley property in July, which was one of the driest July's on record. People in the neighborhood have called the City Council with concerns about the creek and headwater wetlands. Recently a foundation was being dug for a house across the street, north of Ms. Rider's house. The water table is on higher ground than the wetlands and creek, the property was entirely spring fed, the contractors had to run pumps 24-hours a day for months. She presented another photograph that was taken by Randy Corman on a visit to the location. City Council minutes from the March 21, 2005 meeting were presented, there were statements in the minutes for the adoption of Kennydale Creek classification as a Class 3 creek. Mr. Rider presented a letter from the Washington State Department of Ecology referring to the wetland and creek issues in this area. As well, Wetland Studies were presented by various professional organizations. They refer to water in the creek, and the creek being perennial if it were down to the ground water level, which it is. Upon questioning by Ms. Nielsen, Ms. Rider stated she had looked at the creek on the Gordley property during the summer of 2007. She had not been on the property since the Gordleys purchased it approximately 10 years ago. She also observed the creek from NE 20`h, she could see approximately 100 feet into the property. She is also able to see the wetlands, the deer in a prior picture were in the wetlands and on the Gordley property. Since then, there has been a lot line adjustment and she was not sure where the Gordley property runs now. Ms. Rider has lived on her property since 1982, she had lived on NE 20` since 1976, sees the creek most every day. In the summer there is more grass, but the creek is fairly open, it can be seen both summer and winter. The mud is really deep, the water on top of the mud is only a few inches, once the kids or dogs get in, they are wet up to their knees. During the Roberson Short Plat planning, it seemed that no one knew anything about that project, then all of a sudden they started doing work on the property_ There was further discussion on how the stream was classified, Exhibit 18 was a stream survey which stated that it was not possible to tell if it was indeed a Class 3 stream because the survey was done during the winter months and the person doing the work did not study the stream in the summer months. Ms. Nielsen went on the clarify that this classification study was submitted as part of the Dutro application, Mr. Dutro came up with his own study, in which he proposed that the classification be evaluated as a Class 5. The City was then left to do a study to evaluate if it truly was a Class 5 or if it was a Class 4 stream. There was never an issue to looking at the stream as a possible Class 3. The requirements of a stream classification study were then discussed, it has to identify the mean high water mark, the functions of the stream and review the criteria in the Code for the classification. Lauralee Gordley, 2010 Jones Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98056 stated that she is the applicant. She started this process began in March of 2005. The short plat was filed based on the current zoning and the current stream classification. Both of those have changed since she started this project. The CAO was adopted in June 2005 and the rezone was adopted in December 2006. The stream has been addressed previously, there has been Blueberry Haven Short Plat Appeal LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF March 27, 2008 Page 6 planning and council meetings regarding the stream. Sue Rider attended those meetings and stated her position. Ms. Gordley feels that she has been at a disadvantage as a property owner, she has put out great expense doing the short plat, this is not a big developer short plat, rather a private short plat. She has been reduced to a two -lot short plat. They have previously gone through a stream classification, the Department of Fish and Wildlife have been to the site, they have said this stream is not significant, it's not even on their radar. She feels she has not been treated fairly by the City and others. The wildlife, deer, ducks and rodents are typical to this area but she has never seen any of them drink out of the "drainage ditch" as it is called on her title report. They will drink surface water. The Monterey Court NE residential neighborhood runoff drains into the Blueberry Farm, the 37-home Westminster development drains all surface water into the entrance of her property, which on her title reports notes that it is a private drainage ditch and was determined to be such in 1958. The sewer line was put in after the purchase of her property and has been addressed in prior meetings that that sewer line changed the hydrology of her property. They created a French drain in order to drain the area of its water. Exhibit 2, the photograph showing a foundation filled with standing water, was discussed regarding the sewer lines that were installed north of 20'h and west/north of the subject site. Surface water runs into the ditch at NE 20'h Street, the pipe from the Blueberry Farm has no water flowing out of it. There could be standing water, but it is not flowing. People testified that they could see 100' up the stream, however, the landscape consists of a row of Poplar trees with blackberry bushes that are overgrown and obstructing. The blackberry bushes begin at the corner of NE 20"' Street and continue back approximately 100 feet. The creek cannot be seen from Jones or NE 20'h, it's private property, once the creek hits the property north of them, it is completely overgrown and cannot be viewed from anywhere. The original owner of the property told her that he and his children dug the ditch, it was also stated in the history of the stream that the Corps of Engineers brought out mules and dug some of the ditch. When Terry Dutro purchased the property he wanted to reclassify the stream to a Class 5, Gordley's said they did not want to be involved in changing anything. In 2004 she went to the City and wanted to know the status of her property, what documentation there was on the wetland, and what could be done. In order to sell part or all of her property, she needed to have that information. She was told that she would have to do a new wetland study, things change and there had been a lot of new development in the area. They agreed to doing a joint wetland study at that time, if the study had shown that there was a wetland, she would not have invested any further money into the development of her property. Ms. Gordley continued with a list of objections that she had with the previous testimony heard. First, Larry Fisher talked about a peat bog, there is no peat bog on her property. The photo of the headwater is far from her property and her understanding is that while there may be some water flowing at that point, it does not get to her property without other surface water taking it there. She further stated that she had never seen any fish or other life form in the stream. They tried to enhance the area by placing frogs in the stream, but they died. She has never seen any animals drinking from the ditch. The deepest level of water has been to the top of the ditch and that was during the monsoon rains. The ditch is approximately 3 feet deep. She has seen the pipe coming from the Blueberry Farm at the entrance of her property with no water coming out. Regarding the photos that were presented earlier, she stated that none of the photos were taken on the Gordley property. The Randy Corman log was not about their property. Exhibit 15 was prior to their ownership and the hydrology has changed since that report was written. She has had two studies done since then. The Ellisport Engineering Report was not accepted by the City, it did state a stream classification but the information was based on a pre- Blueberry Haven Short Plat Appeal LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF March 27, 2008 Page 7 CAO category. A letter following that was submitted, however the referenced area is not in the short plat application, she did offer the letter as an exhibit. Exhibits 16 and 17 were not on their property. If the area were one that needed to be preserved, she would not have gone through this process. The property has been enhanced since their purchase, the neighborhood enjoys their open space. She believes this is an open space issue and that a huge burden has been placed on them by the City Planning Department to provide reports and documents. They have committed money based on the City procedures and zonings. There should be a grandfather clause so they can finish up their project. The area was originally zoned R-8 and was downzoned to R-4. Upon questioning by Ms. Peck, Ms. Gordley stated that the ditch is not continuous, there are culverts that come in above the level of the bottom of the ditch. She has seen that no water is coming from that pipe. People saying that they can see 100' down her property cannot possibly see that far_ The plants and trees would definitely block the view of the stream. She further stated that she has no proof or information that this stream is intermittent rather than perennial. The Cedarock Consultants prepared a stream classification report for the short plat. It was not, however, her burden to prove the stream classification_ Her title report states that it is a drainage ditch, not a stream. It became a Class 4 stream, but that was without best available science, it is a drainage ditch. The City Council decided to send out their own consultant who stated that if the property were to be short platted it could be enhanced in the buffer zone to keep water cool. There is no official stream study report concluding that this stream flows intermittently. Break for Lunch to reconvene at 1:49 p.m. Rick Gordley, 2010 Jones Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98056 stated that he was using Exhibit 3 for reference and gave a description of the terrain between the Blueberry headwaters and the end of his property. All the local neighborhoods built in the 1980's use surface drains, the houses, roads, sidewalks, and driveways have below grade surface drains, which flow downhill to the Blueberry field and into his and the adjacent properties to the north. There are well over 400 houses that drain to these properties. The drainage ditch was dug in 1958, since that time neighborhoods have been developed, roads built and all that water is being directed to the drainage ditch. He further stated that he is a licensed 1CC inspector, most of his fieldwork has been in drainage. Upon. questioning by Ms. Nielsen Mr. Gordle stated that the headwater is at the entrance of his driveway and the creek runs right along the east side of his property. There are lots of large poplar trees and blackberries in the vicinity. At the end of the culvert where the creek dumps into his property from the adjacent neighborhood of 37 homes, it is impossible to see five feet up the creek from the middle of June on. Today you can see maybe 30-feet up stream. He has only seen this ditch with a mud bottom one time, he does not believe it is a creek, he believes it is a drainage ditch. Currently the water is approximately 3-4 inches deep, in the rainy season it can go all the way to the top of the bank. No living critters are in the water, no fish, no frogs, in fact one of his animals died from drinking the stagnant water. Mr. Pohl originally owned the land, he wanted to create a wildlife preserve in the backyard. He brought in the wetland along with trees and bushes and planted them all over the yard. He installed a 25,000-30,000 gallon Blueberry Haven Short Plat , ,ppeal LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF March 27, 2008 Page 8 pond that he pumped from the ditch to his backyard. He has an agreement with the City that he can continue to do that for the next 30-40 years. Mr. Pohl left and the system failed. Uponquestioning by Ms. Peck, Mr. Gordley stated that he has owned this property for approximately 9-10 years. He only knew of the one stream study that was done by Mr. Hadley from Ellisport Engineers. Erika Conkling, Sr. Planner, Economic Development stated that their responsibility is looking at planning and long-range issues. They process plans and programs of a non -project nature where they look at the long term and large view of the City, including the processing of annual comprehensive plan amendments. She was involved with the 2006 updates and managed the Gordley comprehensive plan amendments. This was considered a non -project action because there is not a specific development proposal associated with them, but because they were amending the comprehensive plan. SEPA determinations were made on the proposed comprehensive plan amendments of non -significance. Two separate comment letters were received from Larry Fisher of the Department of Fish and Wildlife on the Blueberry Farm comprehensive plan amendment. There were no comments on the downzone of the larger area. It was not necessary at the time of the SEPA review to look at critical areas that would come at the time of a specific project review. Things are looked at in general, but one can never predict what the specific analysis would be until you have a project. The Examiner reviewed this testimony and finished by asking exactly what is happening on the Gordley property? Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager, Development Services showed the code provision 4-3-050q, the Streams and Lakes map also known as the water class map. She marked the map with various colors to show the different classifications of this stream in question today. The Examiner was given an 1 I x 17-inch copy of the map for his use during this hearing. Ms. Henning continued stating that this map does not include Class 5 streams because they are considered to be unregulated, nor does it include Class 1, which are the shorelines of state by significance and are subject to the shoreline master program. This is for streams in the city that are Class 2, 3, or 4. When initial discussions begin with an applicant, the critical area maps are one of the first things that are looked at, including the stream and water class maps so it can be determined what, if anything, is on the subject property. In this case, the map shows a Class 4 stream going through the property, which begins to the south of this property and extends to the north, crosses under I-405 comes out in a ravine and outlets into Lake Washington. It is not unusual to have multiple classifications on any one stream. The first person in this case that came looking for a downgrade in the classification was Mr. Terry Dutro, he was looking at assembling various parcels in the area including the Gordley's property, the Core property (which Dutro now owns) and one other parcel. He brought in some studies that stated it was a man made drainage ditch and therefore should not be regulated. July 19, 2005 they received correspondence from Hugh Mortenson of the Watershed Company that talked about what it would take to classify the stream as a Class 5 stream, more discussion was had about the wetland system. At the time Mr. Mortenson determined that the recommendation for this stream as a Class 4 should stand. The City held that it was a Class 4 Stream not a Class 5; Mr. Dutro appealed the determination and went before the City Council. (see RMC 4-3-050LIcii — Reclassification) Ultimately Mr. Dutro withdrew his appeal but it became a larger discussion on how these streams get reclassified and what is the proper process. When public notice went out on discussion of this creek, neighbors came, wrote letters or attended committee meetings. The Council decided that they needed to understand better what was going on, they asked that the City pay for a study to evaluate whether this stream should be a Class 5 or remain a Class 4_ They further instructed the City Blueberry Haven Short Plat Appeal LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF March 27, 2008 Page 9 to hire the firm that had put together the City's water classification map originally. That was Cedarock Consulting, Carl Hadley_ After evaluation by Mr. Hadley, he determined that the stream should remain a Class 4. Mr, Hadley only studied the stream as to whether it was a Class 4 or 5 stream, he did not look at the possibility of the stream being a Class 2 or 3. A discussion was had between the Examiner and Ms. Nielsen. Ms. Henning stated that one of the reasons Mr. Dutro asked for this reclassification was because he and the neighbors both presented aerial photographs of the site dating back to 1936 which showed no defined channel until in the 1950's when it was hand dug. Mr. Hadley's conclusions state that he looked at the possibilities of Class 3 and Class 4 and Class 5, those conclusions are in his decision. He does state that "in the absence of conclusive evidence supporting a change from the existing Class 4 water classification, it is my recommendation that this classification stands." Upon questioning by Ms. Peck, Ms. Henning stated that as the current planning manager, she is charged with implementing the codes of the City. There is another group in strategic planning that actually drafts the codes and runs the critical areas program and hires consultants. How information gets translated into these maps is for those experts, she had no working knowledge of how the information came about. The reap that she used is her guidepost, what she uses to implement the code. When an application for a land use project comes in, there is a list of things that might apply. They have the ability to require, modify or waive requirements. The supplemental stream study was waived in this case because they felt that they had the information they needed and it was current based on the Hadley report that the City had paid for. A supplement analysis would only be needed to address the crossing of the stream and if the buffers were to be reduced to 25-feet. Ms. Peck stated that if the stream flows perennially then it would be classified as a Class 3 stream and that is essentially what the Hadley study states. She quoted from the study as follows, "If the water flows continuously during years of normal rainfall, it would be classified as a Class 3 water". He does note that he was not commissioned to address that issue; that he was there in February and that it would take years of study to determine. Nowhere in the letter does he say that this is an intermittent stream. Ms. Nielsen countered with the first paragraph, "water type classification" he says that, "the water course has been classified by the City of Renton, the Q map, as a Class 4 water based on the belief that, 1) the water is not fish bearing, and 2) the water course is intermittent during years of normal rainfall." Discussion continued between Ms_ Peck and Ms. Nielsen. Ms. Henning stated that she had a minimum of six studies for this area that were done in the last 10 years. The reason for so many studies is due to the change of the water over that span of years, development has taken place and caused the water table and drainage patterns to change. She further stated that she has three reports that call the stream a 4, one that calls it a 5 and one that, back in 2004 called it a 3, however there was no classification system in place at that time. She does not have any report that says it is anything other than a 4 or 5. Ms. Peck stated that the applicant did submit a critical area report for the Gordley property_ There are some errors in the report. The Steward & Association Report concludes that this property is a Category 3 wetland and they allude to hydrological changes in the area. There were several wetland studies done and Ms. Peck referred to each showing the various classifications that were given at the specific times. The 1996 report stated that the area should be classified as a Category 2 wetland. The area has been reviewed on three subsequent occasions for the City, the most recent time was 2007 in which it was confirmed as a Category 2 wetland, that report was Blueberry Haven Short Plat Appeal LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF March 27, 2008 Page 10 done by the Watershed Company. There was an additional confirmation by Entranco in 1999 and the Watershed Company in 2005 again confirmed this classification. The initial report goes on the refer to the Kennydale Creek as a seasonal drainage ditch and further refers to the fact that the creek flows north and eventually runs into May Creek. She does not know where that information came from, but this creek does not flow into May Creek, it flows into Lake Washington. A 15-minute break was taken. Testimony resumed at 3.48 p.m. Ms. Nielsen stated that regarding the concerns of the Hearing Examiner over the fact that there has not been an independent study done on this project, which leaves a quandary on any challenger in that they are not allowed on the subject property with an expert in order to try to present a counter study. The City's position is that there should be more than a layperson's information submitted. Therefore, the City proposed to adjourn this hearing and give the appellant an opportunity to bring in their own study performed by an expert, the applicant has agreed to that limited purpose and that an expert would be allowed to come onto their property. The City did request that the consultant not be someone who has previously made a report on this particular project. Secondly, they asked for a list of experts be submitted to the City within two weeks, the City will look at the list and make a determination as to which expert should do the study. Within one month that person would have a report prepared. Finally, there needs to be communication between the appellants' expert and the applicant, they need to set a date and time that they would be on the property to do the study. The Examiner stated that this could take longer than one month, the expert cannot do fair research this time of year. It certainly would be different now than in the dry summer months. Ms. Peck stated that she did not feel that it was the appellant's responsibility to pay for the expert. It is a shame that the appellant has had to hire an attorney to enforce the City's own codes. The Examiner further stated that there are properties that have constraints, it would have been helpful if the Gordleys' had been told about some of the constraints on their property and sometimes it just is not known until the money has been spent and the surveys done. However, in one month could an expert come in and say this creek is intermittent, or this creek flows. If they cannot, then we are back at square one. He also agreed with the appellant, he did not know if it truly was their burden. If the evidence shows that the creek is flowing regularly, then is the map wrong or the text right. The appellants do have the burden to show testimony, lay testimony is permitted, it is not anecdotal. There had even been conflicting lay testimony. Ms. Peck stated that she felt it was not her client's duty to do the work. This is not the first time this has been brought to the City. The City has classified this stream and still cannot produce any scientific evidence that it has ever done a study that proves that this stream is intermittent. The City has had ample notice of this issue. The Examiner decided to go ahead with the hearing, he would make a decision and either party can appeal. He is not totally convinced that the creek is always there. It has to flow and it has to flow more than intermittently, there is a water body out there that contains water. After much discussion on the merits of the offer being presented to the appellants, it was decided that the hearing would continue, the Examiner felt that the offer was not a fair offer. The applicant usually pays the cost for studies and determinations on water situations and the timing would not work. Christian Denzler, 1800 NE 20`h Street, Renton, WA 98056 stated that he lives on NE 20`h immediately east of the Gordley property. He shares the stream with the Gordleys a length of approximately 134 feet. He has lived Blueberry Haven Short Plat Appeal LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF March 27, 2008 Page 11 there 14 years and has the low lot in the area. Springs bubble up and move around to a different part of the yard and then disappear. Several years ago the City took out the Highgate lift station and created a gravity feed sewer line that goes 12 feet deep and then cuts over to Jones and gravity feeds down. This essentially created a French drain, it took about two years and his yard started drying out. Heritage Glen, east of his property, capped a spring and put in a surface water drain for the development, it is a 24-inch diameter pipe that runs in front of his house and dumps into a small pool in the ditch. They were also allowed to put in 3-5 dewatering wells, which changed the entire water table. When that happened, the stream did go dry. Jennifer Henning stated that before the above discussion, Ms. Peck had been asking questions regarding the wetland study that was presented. Ms. Peck stated that the applicant's study does not acknowledge that this is located in the headwaters of Kennydale Creek. Prior studies that were submitted included one done for the City by the Watershed Company dated March 2, 2007, which concluded that these wetlands were Category 2 because they were located in the highwaters of Kennydale Creek. Ms. Henning continued that the Watershed study was done as a result of some grading activity that had happened at the Dutro site, they required a delineation to be done. It does state that it is a Category 2 headwaters wetland. They are still in the process of responding to that study in terms of the restoration that most occur. They have stated that they believe the wetland was disturbed enough, several have called it a Category 3 wetland, two have called it a Category 2 headwater wetland. They are accepting a mixed designation where it appears to have been heavily disturbed. Discussion continued between Ms. Henning and Ms. Peck regarding the headwaters of Kennydale Creek and as to the classification of the wetlands whether they are Category 2 or 3. Regardless of what the wetland is classified as, there are still buffers and the site has development potential. A Category 2 wetland has a 50-foot buffer, a Category 3 wetland has a 25-foot buffer. Before the Critical Areas Ordinance was adopted all creeks and water bodies in the City had a 15-foot buffer. A Class 4 has a 35-foot buffer which can be averaged down to 25 feet, a Class 3 has a 75-foot buffer which can be buffer averaged down to 37.5 feet. The Steward and Associates report was accepted. Exhibit 4 shows the wetland in green with the buffer area in light green and in light yellow a 35-foot buffer from the creek. It is difficult to tell the wetland area because it is a mowed lawn area. Exhibit 24 a-d photos (4 pages) of the Gordleys' home were identified and show the location and condition of the wetland. Lauralee Gordley stated that she believed they had been burdened with going the extra mile on the development of this property. The Preliminary Application response is dated March 2005. They have had to do the best available science, they understand the concern of the people in the area and that they enjoy the open space. There is a great conflict of interest on the part of people walking by and walking their dogs, they are benefiting from this property and to say that it is an independent opinion is not true. if the codes are going to change, the Gordleys should be grandfathered on their original application. Making this process go on for years is not justice to the Gordleys, they have submitted reports they paid for as well as the codes and regulations of the City. She further does not believe that people have a clear view of the stream. The poplar trees are full and there is a heavy growth of blackberries which block view of the stream. Blueberry Haven Short Plat Appeal LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF March 27, 2008 Page 12 The Examiner stated that the record would be kept open for one week for written rebuttal of information presented today. Record will be open until February 15, 2008. Ann Nielsen's brief will be submitted by February 29, 2008 and Ashley Peck's reply will be in March 7, 2008. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 4:38 pm. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The appellant, Susan Rider, hereinafter appellant, filed an appeal of an administrative decision approving a short plat. A brief submitted on behalf of the appellant noted it was filed for "appellants Sue Rider and the Kennydale Critical Areas Alliance." 2. The appeal was filed in a timely manner on December 26, 2007. 3. The appellant lives across the street from the subject site. 4. The City approved a two -lot short plat for property located at 2010 Jones Avenue NE. The short plat is called the Blueberry Haven Short Plat (LUA07-131, SHPL-A). It was an administrative approval. The parcel is an inverted L-shaped parcel with frontage along Jones Avenue NE (its address street) and along NE 20th Street. The subject site is approximately 37,714 square feet. Proposed Lot A would be 17,930 square feet while Proposed Lot B would be 19,784 square feet. Proposed Lot A would contain the existing home and would take its access from Jones. It would be oriented in an east -west direction. Proposed Lot B would be oriented north -south and take its access from the south or NE 20th Street. 6. Proposed Lots 1 and 2 would comply with the R-4 (4 dwelling units per acre) Zoning district. 7. The subject site contains areas defined or limited by City Critical Areas regulations. There is a creek that flows along the eastern margin of the subject site and a wetland just west of the creek in the northeast portion of the subject site. The City has two maps that define or deal with the creek. There is a Water Class Map (Ex 5) and the Streams and Lakes Map found in Section 4-3-050(Q) generally known as the Q Map. Both of those maps appear to show that the stretch of the creek at the subject site is a Class 4 waterway. 9. The applicants submitted a Critical Areas Study prepared at their request by Steward and Associates. That study determined that the wetland on the subject site was a Category 3 wetland. The City determined that an analysis of the creek was unnecessary apparently in the belief that sufficient studies in the area had already been conducted and that the creek was a Class 4 creek given the City's Water Class Map and the Q Map. 10. Staff based its short plan analysis and approval on its review of both the wetland and creek located on the subject site as well as the zoning and comprehensive plan. Staff determined that the wetland is a Category 3 wetland and required a buffer of 25 feet. Certain requirements accompany the preservation or enhancement of such wetlands but those are not at issue in this review. Staff also determined that the Blueberry Haven Short Plat Appeal LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF March 27, 2008 Page 13 or enhancement of such wetlands but those are not at issue in this review. Staff also determined that the stream is a Class 4 stream that requires a 35-foot buffer. Again, issues relating to buffer or stream preservation are not at issue in this review. 11. The appellant alleges that the approval of the short plat violates critical areas regulations by not recognizing the appropriate classification of a stream that runs along the eastern margin of the site and not recognizing the appropriate categorization of a wetland located in the center of the site, generally where Proposed Lots A and B join. The appellant alleges that the stream should be a Class 3 stream with a buffer of 75 feet. The appellant also alleges that the wetland is a Headwaters Wetland and should be a Category 2 with a buffer of 50 feet. 12. The City dismisses the many letters and comments as merely anecdotal and lay observations on the nature of the creek, particularly as to whether it is an intermittent creek or perennial. The City also objected to photographs showing the creek at various points in time showing water flowing in the creek. The objections were twofold. First, they were not taken of the subject property and second, they represented a mere snapshot in time, not showing perennial flows. The photographs show the creek flowing during generally dry times of year and they show it flowing both south (upstream) and north (downstream) of the site. Similarly, the City objected to letters from Mr. Fisher who represents the Department of Fish and Wildlife. The letters were submitted for property upstream and across NE 20th street from the subject site. They appear to indicate that the creek was misclassified and that it flows perennially. While not directly observed on the subject site and not submitted for the stretch of the creek on the subject site, the letters demonstrate the creek appears to flow almost immediately upstream of the subject site, state's interest in this creek and suggest its Class and/or significance was not fully understood or examined. 13. The City in its arguments asks that the Examiner consider that the stream was a manmade ditch and should be classified a CIass 5 based on the testimony of the applicants, again, lay testimony. The City argues their testimony be given as much credence as the other lay witnesses that the creek is perennial. First, the applicants' knowledge of the stream is much more recent and they do not know its history. Second, and more importantly, the City Council has already determined this issue and rejected it. 14. The City also argues (at page 12 brief) with no persuasive power whatsoever that the Q Map designates the creek in the vicinity of the subject site as a Class 4 waterway. The City indicated (at Page 2 brief) that "it is nearly impossible to exactly pinpoint and identify the Kennydale Creek or stream on Gordley's property" on that very same map. 15. The Renton Water Class Map is Figure Q, Section 4-3-050(Q5). It is quite small and lacks much detail although it probably does show the general area of the creek where the subject site is located and the Map's Legend shows it as a Class 4 Creek in this general location. Actually, such a map lacking in detail might explain why the actual language of the Code says that actual characteristics of the stream prevail over the map. (4-3-050(L)(1)(c) 16. The Cedarock Consultants study done by Carl Hadley states at Page 2 that "Conclusively evaluating the intermittent vs. continuous flow issue is difficult at best and not possible at this time. The stream would most appropriately be examined during the period between late July and late September during a year of normal rain. (it goes on to define "normal rainfall.") Blueberry Haven Short Plat -,ppeal LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF March 27, 2008 Page 14 The Hadley report then goes on to discuss an Ellisport Engineering report and rainfall during 2004 (considered a normal year) and 2005 (considered a dry year) and the Ellisport report done in October 2004, a normal year but a "relatively dry time of year" with less than normal rainfall, about half of normal. Hadley quoting from the Ellisport report: "South across NE 20th Street is a blueberry farm where the Class II stream originates. The stream flows under the street in a culvert, which extends northward onto the Gordly (sic) property. Water was flowing in the stream at the time of the site inspection." (Emphasis was in the original Hadley report). 17. The Hadley report also references a Watershed Company report. Apparently the waterway was inspected by The Watershed Company on July 18, 2005. Hadley reports that 2005 was a normal but very dry year. The Watershed report contained the following: "standing water was present in the pond and in the main ditch/stream" 18. The Hadley report also appears to answer a question that this office is still pondering. What is the status of a creek that enters a broad swampy area and flow is not so easily discernable? "While these swampy areas are clearly a type of watercourse with important aquatic habitat functions and values, the question is whether or not they meet the definitions of "naturally defined channel." (italics in original) One could argue that a swamp is a channel and is the only type of channel that would form under the circumstances. The definition in Webster Dictionary defines channel as "the bed of a body of water flowing on the earth." (italics in original). There is no evidence that the site was ever hydraulically isolated. It most likely drained to the north under pre-existing conditions as it does now. The area was clearly a wetland and still contains wetland characteristics. The channel was dug to drain the historic wetland and create 'usable' land. The City of Renton may choose to distinguish between wetlands and channels. However, there is no clear dividing line between the two so any distinction would have to be done carefully." (emphasis supplied)." This language does appear to address what happens when a visible stream hits a wetland or bog and discernable flow melds into a marsh, swamp or bog. It becomes hard to distinguish but that does not mean the stream is no longer flowing. 19. Finally, the Hadley report notes: "The perennial stream flow issue (Class 3 vs. Class 4) can only be answered by direct observation of flow characteristics in the channel during the summer. These data could take a few years to gather if this winters heavy rainfall pattern continues." This statement helped inform this office that any immediate study such as that offered during the course of the hearing wherein the City and the applicant requested the appellant to engage and fund a study almost immediately would be meaningless in answering the "intermittent versus perennial" status during the later dry months of summer. This was the information the Examiner used to decide an expert employed by any party for a short period near the hearing time would be fruitless in answering the Blueberry Haven Short Plat Appeal I_UA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF March 27, 2008 Page 15 question. So Footnote 5 of the City's Brief is clearly a one-sided, incomplete statement. The issue was not limited to which party should pay for such an expert. The expert would be limited to examining the creek during a very limited time so that nothing definitive could show the flow during the drier months of summer. Any expert hired by any party would only be able to review a snapshot of the creek during the rainy season, leaving doubt about whether it is perennial or not. The City objected to photographs showing the creek flowing as those actual snapshots (photographs) were, as the City maintains, snapshots proving nothing about "perennial flow." 20. A wetland study conducted for the City by Entranco (December 1996) for the Higate Sewage Lift Station found the wetlands in the area of the subject site were a Category 2 wetland including disturbed wetlands near NE 20th Street. Entranco in 1999 confirmed in correspondence with John Hobson the wetland was a headwater wetland. The Watershed Company in 2005 by Hugh Mortenson indicated to Nancy Weil that they were a Category 2 wetland as they were "the headwaters of a stream system." The Watershed Company, again, in 2007, when asked in a potential corrective review, concluded that the wetland was a headwaters wetland (page 7) and reaffirms "the findings expressed in Mr. Mortensen's 2005 letter to the City of Renton." 21. A number of provisions of the Renton Municipal Code are applicable to this review. They include: Section 4-3-050(L)(1) 1. Applicability/Lands to Which These Regulations Apply: These stream and lake regulations apply to sites containing all or portions of Class 2 to 4 streams or lakes and/or their buffers as described below. This section does not apply to Class 1 waters, which are regulated by RMC 4- 3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, or to Class 5 waters which are exempt. All other critical area regulations, including, but not limited to, flood hazard regulations and wetland regulations, do apply to classified streams where applicable. a. Classification System: The following classification system is hereby adopted for the purposes of regulating streams and lakes in the City. Stream and lake buffer widths are based on the following rating system: i. Class 1: Class 1 waters are perennial salmonid-bearing waters, which are classified by the City and State as Shorelines of the State. ii. Class 2: Class 2 waters are perennial or intermittent salmonid-bearing waters which meet one or more of the following criteria: (a) Mapped on Figure Q4, Renton Water Class Map, as Class 2; and/or (b) Historically and/or currently known to support salmonids, including resident trout, at any stage in the species lifecycle; and/or (c) Is a water body (e.g., pond, lake) between one half (0.5) acre and twenty (20) acres in size. iii. Class 3: Class 3 waters are non-salmonid-bearing perennial waters during years of normal rainfall, and/or mapped on Figure Q4, Renton Water Class Map, as Class 3. iv. Class 4: Class 4 waters are non-salmonid-bearing intermittent waters during years of normal rainfall, and/or mapped on Figure Q4, Renton Water Class Map, as Class 4. V. Class 5: Class 5 waters are non -regulated non-salmonid-bearing waters which meet one or more of the following criteria: (a) Flow within an artificially constructed channel where no naturally defined channel had previously existed; and/or Blueberry Haven Short Plat appeal LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF March 27, 2008 Page 16 (b) Are a surficially isolated water body less than one-half (0.5) acre (e.g., pond) not meeting the criteria for a wetland as defined in subsection M of this Section. 4-3-050(L)(1) C. Maps and Inventory: i. Mapped Streams and Lakes: The approximate location and extent of Class 2 to 4 water bodies within the City limits are indicated on a map in subsection Q of this Section, Maps. The map is to be used as a guide to the general location and extent of streams. Specific locations and extents will be determined by the City based upon field review and applicant -funded studies prepared pursuant to subsection L3 of this Section. ii. Reclassification: Where there is a conflict between the Renton Water Class Map in Subsection Q and the criteria in subsection L 1 a of this Section, the criteria in subsection Lla of this Section shall govern. The reclassification of a water body to a lower class (i.e. 2 to 3, or 3 to 4, etc.) requires administrator acceptance of a supplemental stream or lake study, followed by a legislative amendment to the map in subsection Q of this Section prior to its effect. 4-3-050(M)(1)(a)(ii)(c) ii. Category 2: Category 2 wetlands are wetlands, which meet one or more of the following criteria: (a) Wetlands that are not Category 1 or 3 wetlands; and/or (b) Wetlands that have heron rookeries or osprey nests, but are not Category I wetlands; and/or (c) Wetlands of any size located at the headwaters of a watercourse, i.e., a wetland with a perennial or seasonal outflow channel, but with no defined influent channel, but are not Category 1 wetlands; and/or (d) Wetlands having minimum existing evidence of human -related physical alteration such as diking, ditching or channelization; and/or Section 4-3-050(L)(7): "Criteria for Permit Approval — Class 2 to 4: Permit approval by the Reviewing Official for projects on or near regulated water bodies shall be granted only if the approval is consistent with the provisions of this subsection L...", 4-3-050(F)(7)(a): "T Independent Secondary Review: The City may require independent review of an applicant's report as follows: a. Aquifer Protection Areas, Flood Hazards, Habitat Conservation, Streams and Lakes, Wetlands: When appropriate due to the type of critical areas, habitat, or species present, or project area conditions, the Reviewing Official may require the applicant to prepare and/or fund analyses or activities, including, but not limited to: i. An evaluation by an independent qualified professional regarding the applicant's analysis and the effectiveness of any proposed mitigating measures or programs, to include any recommendations as appropriate. This shall be paid at the applicant's expense, and the Reviewing Official shall select the third party review professional; and/or Blueberry Haven Short Plat Appeal LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF March 27, 2008 Page 17 22_ After the hearing closed but in the window left open for the City to possibly rebut information contained in the appellant's brief and exhibits, additional correspondence was submitted by a neighbor who left the hearing because her father was in his last illness and subsequently passed away and additional written submittals and photographs by the underlying applicants. The City did not object to these submissions but the appellant did object. This office has reviewed those submissions and finds that they add nothing of substance to the record. 23. There were arguments and issues raised about the Growth Management Hearings Board and the concept of "best available science." The office is not usurping powers jurisdictionally placed in another review body. It does not need Best Available Science to determine this appeal, although this office believes that it would certainly help everyone if some independent expert had assessed both the stream and wetland. 24. The City insinuates that the neighbors have a bias against the development of the subject site and, therefore, their testimony is potentially tainted. The same can be said for those who want to develop the subject site - the underlying applicants. The testimony by all parties appeared credible. CONCLUSIONS: The appellant has the burden of demonstrating that the decision of the City Official was either in error, or was otherwise contrary to law or constitutional provisions, or was arbitrary and capricious (Section 4- 8-110(E)(7)(b). The appellant has demonstrated that the action of the City should be reversed. The decision is reversed. 2. Arbitrary and capricious action has been defined as willful and unreasoning action in disregard of the facts and circumstances. A decision, when exercised honestly and upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances, is not arbitrary or capricious (Northern Pacific Transport Co. v Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, 69 Wn, 2d 472, 478 (1966). 3. An action is likewise clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing body, on the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. (Ancheta v Daly, 77 Wn. 2d 255, 259 (1969). An appellant body should not necessarily substitute its judgment for the underlying agency with expertise in a matter unless appropriate. 4. Section 4-3-050(L)(7) limits the issuance of a permit where property is on or near regulated water bodies. A permit may only be issued if it is consistent with the various critical area regulations including buffer widths based on those water bodies' characteristics. In other words this short plat approval can only be approved if it complies with the appropriate buffer widths required around a Category 2 wetland and a Class 3 stream if the appellant has demonstrated error sufficient to overturn the decision below. This office is not dealing with issues properly before the Growth Management Hearings Board. This office is reviewing an appeal of a short plat where the appellant has alleged that the critical areas buffers were not appropriate since the City used the wrong standards for the two critical areas, a stream and a wetland, on the Gordley property_ If the City has wrongly defined those critical areas as the appellant alleges, then it would appear that review of the short plat approval is appropriate. This office does not reach any conclusions nor does it know the impacts on the development potential of the property if it decides that the City was wrong. Blueberry Haven Short Plat tippeal LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF March 27, 2008 Page 18 wetland, on the Gordley property. If the City has wrongly defined those critical areas as the appellant alleges, then it would appear that review of the short plat approval is appropriate. This office does not reach any conclusions nor does it know the impacts on the development potential of the property if it decides that the City was wrong. 5. Code requires an applicant to conduct a standard stream study if the site contains a water body or buffer or is within 100 feet (Section 4-3-050(L)(3)(a)). The City may also require independent review (Section 4-3-050(F)(7)(a). The City may waive such study if it does not think it is necessary (4-8-100(A)(a)(a) and 4-8-050(L)(3)(d)(1)(c)). The appellant has demonstrated that an error has been made. The City inappropriately waived a study that might have helped finally decide an issue that has been raised by the appellant and neighbors for a number of years. The record before this office demonstrates that the stream flows perennially as it enters a culvert under NE 20th street and appears to flow as it begins its entry into the subject site, the Gordley property. The record further demonstrates that this same stream flows perennially north of the subject site. The record does not directly show how the stream flows once it disappears from view looking north into the subject site. But the Hadley report coupled with the lay testimony allows one to draw reasonable conclusions. The Hadley report indicates that the demarcation or delineation of a creek as it enters a swamp might not be easy to determine but that does not negate that it flows in some fashion. It is interesting to note that the City opted to accept the Critical Areas Study wetland analysis submitted by the applicants that was contradicted by earlier studies but did not seek a stream review. Not only did the City not seek a stream review by the applicants' own expert but it did not seek an independent study that might have resolved the contradictions raised by neighbors. It merely weighed the neighbors' concerns and letters and accepted the applicants' study rather than seeking independent confirmation. 7. The City notes that there must be a conflict before the definition of the "class" of a stream takes precedence over the Q Map. The record shows a series of letters addressed to the City raising concerns about the creek's classification. The appeal certainly presents a conflict that allows one to determine if the map or the definition applies to this stretch of the creek. The City has already indicated (at Page 2 brief) that "it is nearly impossible to exactly pinpoint and identify the Kennydale Creek or stream on Gordley's property" on that very same map. If it is nearly impossible to pinpoint the creek from that map it certainly has to be impossible to rate its character by that map. Clearly, the maps are not detailed maps. They don't even purport to be redrawn USGS Topographical maps showing gullies or ridges. They are basically line maps which even at large scale shows no real meaningful features. "...the city can reasonably surmise that Kennydale Creek flows along the eastern boundary of the subject site" (page 2, brief) "Reasonably surmising" is not a legal standard that meets the definitions found in code. A stream should be classified based on its real characteristics and not some supposition. The City acknowledges that it did receive "numerous letters" disputing the classification. It dismisses those as "general comments or anecdotal information based on personal observations." Code basically says: "a stream's classification depends on the stream's character." It is a simple proposition - perennial flow, Class 3. Intermittent flow, Class 4. (We will not deal with Class 5 ditches, which can have perennial flow since that had already been decided after an earlier review). The map is not conclusive - rather how a stream flows determines its class. A wrong map designation does not make a stream a Class 4 stream if it in fact flows per the definitions. This office acknowledges that personal observations (so- called lay testimony) of Lake Washington's existence would be much easier to verify. But there are probably sections of the Cedar River that flow through private property that may be harder to observe and would be hard to verify. Clearly, in those instances, the Cedar River is seen flowing toward a property and seen flowing away but might be hidden beyond view on private property. Logic allows some leaps of faith and logic suggests that it might be flowing even where it cannot be observed. In this case, perhaps an independent review could have established what happens "out of view." Since no one should blindly sacrifice a critical resource without more information, staff had a responsibility to attain Blueberry Haven Short Plat Appeal LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF March 27, 2008 Page 19 applicants but the Code requires either the creek be studied or waived unless their is sufficient factual basis for a decision. The City committed error in not requiring a stream study by the applicant and compounded it by not requiring an independent review. 8. This office is left with some unease over how some of these classifications work in real life and maybe those concerns cannot be resolved in a forum like this appeal - But if a perennial stream flows into a mucky wetland or bog or through an area of say, quicksand like substance, given no surface evidence of flow through that "thickened" area, and then perennially flows out say, 50 or 100 or 300 feet away downstream, what is the class or character as it moves imperceptibly though that area? But given the record, this office finds that staff erred in waiving the study. There were too many lay observations to render their observations mere anecdote and the Hadley report even suggests the demarcation in streambed and flow uncertain. What do we have in this case? We have a record that demonstrates that the stream in question flows perennially to and under NE 20tb Street from property immediately upstream of the site and we have that same stream flowing perennially north of the subject site. This record seems sufficient to give a reviewer pause. What happens to these perennially flowing waters when they enter, traverse and leave the subject site? Rather than waive requirements for a report, the City should have required the report and probably should have required an independent assessment of this resource. That decision cannot be likened to one which was "exercised honestly and upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances." (Northern Pacific). That is why this office finds that the Q Map is overruled in this conflict by the language making stream characteristics the final arbiter of stream class. 9. In the case of the wetland, if the City had compared the results of the applicants' recent wetland study with results of reports it had on file, as it supposedly did with the creek, it might have found contradictions that may have encouraged it to seek an independent assessment. Studies or reviews in three cases called the wetland a "headwaters wetland" and that means it should be a Category 2 Wetland. Nowhere in the City's analysis of this plat is there any mention of the "headwaters wetland" observations of the past studies or the definition of such wetlands as Category 2 wetlands_ In the case of the stream, no stream analysis was provided even with resident evidence that it did flow. On the other hand, in the case of the wetland an analysis was submitted which accounted for its state of degradation but prior reports appear to have called the wetlands, a "headwaters wetland" which by definition is a Category 2 Wetland and its state of degradation would not apparently affect that categorization. The definition though does provide an example, which could confuse the issue: "Le., a wetland with a perennial or seasonal outflow channel, but with no defined influent channel." It appears that the wetland may be associated with a stream and that stream, may flow into it. But, again, independent analysis was not provided. The lack of such independent review was erroneous unless one concludes that the earlier reviews for City projects or other purposes were independent and then those reviews found it a "headwater wetland, a Category 2 wetland_" 10. Now, one does have to decide if the applicants must suffer prolonged delays if answers are needed. The current facts, the anecdotal evidence and the Hadley report show evidence of perennial flow in a normal year. Code proclaims streams with those characteristics a Class 3. This office has to conclude therefore, that the City was wrong based on current knowledge. If the applicants wish to contest the characteristics of this DEFINED Class 3 stream, they would have to produce evidence and have it downgraded per regulations. Upgrading it based on its characteristics is automatic - Code says so. 11. The decision below should not be reversed without a clear showing that the decision is clearly erroneous or arbitrary and capricious. This office concludes that there is sufficient reason to reverse the decision below. Blueberry Haven Short Plat appeal LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF March 27, 2008 Page 20 have it downgraded per regulations. Upgrading it based on its characteristics is automatic - Code says SO. 11. The decision below should not be reversed without a clear showing that the decision is clearly erroneous or arbitrary and capricious. This office concludes that there is sufficient reason to reverse the decision below. DECISION: The decision is reversed and the appeal is granted. ORDERED THIS 27"' day of March 2008 FRED J. KAUF AN HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 27" day of March 2008 to the parties of record: Jennifer Henning Ann Nielsen Development Services Assistant City Attorney City of Renton City of Renton Susan Rider Richard and Lauralee Gordley 1835 NE 20" Street 2010 Jones Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Deanna Dobak William O'Connor 1700 NE 20'h Street 921 S Washington Street Renton, WA 98056 Port Angeles, WA 98362 Karen Finnicum Julie Bray 1302 Aberdeen Ave NE 1901 NE 20'h Street Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Christian Denzler Denise Blackmau 1800 NE 20'h Street 2100 Jones Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Robert Cave Barbara Hicks 12518 E 17'h Street 10402 15151 Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98005 Renton, WA 98059 Ashley Peck Gendler and Mann, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Ste. 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Larry Fisher 1775-12'h Ave NW, Ste. 201 Issaquah, WA 98027 Paul Watt 2433 Jones Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Erika Conkling Senior Planner Development Services Sue Larson -Kinzer 1733 NE 20'h Street Renton, WA 98056 Blueberry Haven Short Plat Appeal LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF March 27, 2008 Page 21 TRANSMITTED THIS 27`h day of March 2008 to the following: Mayor Denis Law Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services Renton Reporter Dave Pargas, Fire Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100Gof the City's Code, request for reconsideration must he filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., April 10.2008. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title W, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Ball. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., April 10, 2008. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by CityCouncil or final processinji of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions_ This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision -maker concerning the proposal. Decision -makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. Nancy Thompson - That Lift Station Page 1 From: David Christensen To: Thompson, Nancy Date: 3/19/2008 8:22:15 AM Subject: That Lift Station Nancy, Your question on the correct spelling for Highgate Lift Station is that you are correct, historically it has been spelled both as Higate, and as Highgate. The City's Wastewater Management Plan listed it as Highgate, and that is also how the project name that eliminated that station was named. Dave Christensen Wastewater Utility Supervisor CC: Kittrick, Kayren Witness and Exhibit List Julie Bray (call first — she has to leave) Sue Rider 6— William Q'Con4r Paul Watt (maybe — has to work) Dianna Dobak (lives on corner, on the creek) Rick Redfern (lives on NE 20t" up the street, but goes by it every day) Karen Finntcum Larry Fisher, WDFW Area Habitat Biologist Exhibits: City of Renton Water Class Map (get color copy) Cedarock Letter to City re: Classification (Project File) SEPA Comment Letters (Project File) Response Letters (Project File) Recent Affidavits (Sue) Affidavits from September, 2006 (submitted to ) (Sue) Sue's Photos (Sue) Larry's Letter —WDFW Comment Letter Department of Ecology Letter Ellisport Engineering Wetland Delineation for Gordley Properties Watershed Company, July 2005 Letter Critical Areas Study by Steward and Associates (Project File) Entranco Wetland delineation for Higate Sewage Lift Station Entranco Review (1999) Watershed Company Review (July 19, 2005). Watershed Company Review (2007). ' q k M y a � N s ,z` ski lase �°~ State of Washington DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Region 4 Office: 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard - Mili Creek, Washington 98012 - (425) 775-1311 October 12, 2006 Erika Conkling, Senior Planner City of Renton Economic Development Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 Dear Ms. Conkling: SUBJECT: Proposed Determination of Non -significance; Kennydale Blueberry Farm Rezone, File Number CPA 2006-M-02, Kennydale Creek and Its Associated Wetlands, Tributary to Lake Washington The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has reviewed the above -referenced Proposed Determination of Non -significance, and offers the following comments at this time. Other comments may be offered if the project progresses. A Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA; RCW 77.55.021/WAC 220-110; to be issued by WDFW) would be required for activity affecting the natural bed or flow of the stream or its associated wetlands. The stream on the property is the upper end of Kennydale Creek and should be classified at least as a class 2 perennial stream. It supports crayfish and other unidentified fish species. The wetlands are a rare peat soil based system of very high value, especially if restored and given adequate buffering. WDFW believes it is imperative to preserve and protect these wetlands, as directed by the Growth Management Act (GMA), and it would be contradictory to the GM to rezone this property and allow dense residential development, particularly without a carefully planned and implemented mitigation plan. Development of the property without such a plan would result in disruption of the natural drainage and the degradation of the quality of the strearn and wetland system. WDFW also notes the buffers widths being considered are inadequate to protect this very sensitive system. Furthermore, WDFW believes it would be premature to evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed rezone without a proper wetland delineation and a full biological evaluation. The SEPA checklist is lacking key information concerning fish and wildlife use of the site and the area near the site. A variety of wildlife species (including great blue herons, osprey, piieated woodpeckers, deer, ducks, and shorebirds) have been observed using this area for habitat, but Ms. Conkling October 12, 2006 Page 2 that is not mentioned in the SEPA checklist. Nor does the checklist even mention the existence of the wetland. As it is, there is no scientific basis by which to evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed rezone on the wetland or stream system or the fishlife and wildlife which use it for habitat. This proposal should not proceed without further study and a plan to restore the wetland and its buffers. WDF W appreciates the cooperation of the City of Renton in our efforts to preserve, protect, perpetuate, and manage the fish and wildlife resources of the state of Washington. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. If you have any questions, please contact me at (425) 649-7042 or fisheldf@dfw.wa.gov. Sincerely, Larry Fisher Area Habitat Biologist LF:If.CORBlueberryFarm.s.doc cc: WDFW SLPA Coordinator p � £ ' a sin t s �� IdtlR ail?y. State of Washington DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Region 4 Office: 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard - Mill Creek, Washington 98012 - (425) 775-1311 October 19, 2006 Erika Conkling, Senior Planner City of Renton Economic Development Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 Dear Ms. Conkling: SUBJECT: E-mail Concerning WDFW Comments on Proposed Determination of Non - significance; Kennydale Blueberry Farm Rezone, File Number CPA 2006-M- 02, Kennydale Creek and Its Associated Wetlands, Tributary to Lake Washington The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has reviewed the above -referenced e-mail received from you on October 18, 2006. The e-mail provided further information related to the Proposed Determination of Non -significance (DNS). The e-mail stated the WDFW comments were based on "...a clear assumption that the City is planning to allow full development on the site...''. That statement is inaccurate. WDFW comments were based on the information provided in the checklist and accompanying site plan map showing the potentially proposed buffers around the blueberry production (wetland) area. Thank you for providing the information documenting the basis of the City's analysis and staff recommendation for the proposed DNS and rezoning. Based on the City's own analysis, it is evident that the proposed rezone is completely inappropriate, since it is based on speculation that a purchaser of the property would not continue its use in agriculture. Therefore, WDFW now requests the proposed DNS be withdrawn and considered only after the property is sold and it has been documented the property would no longer be farmed. Also, the City needs to amend the stream classification. The stream is perennial (The spring source of the stream is shown on a diagram which accompanied the SEPA checklist.) and should be classified to class 2 or 3 per the City critical areas ordinance to reflect this. The wetland classification is probably also incorrect. The Blueberry Farm area appears to be a part of a larger peat bog wetland which extends north and south of NE 20ti' St. and should be classified as such. As stated in the earlier WDFW comments, this proposal is premature and should not proceed Ms. Conkling October 19, 2006 Page 2 without further study, as has been recommended by the Washington Department of Ecology. Contrary to what was stated in the City's analysis (page 3, paragraph 2 of the Amendment 2006- M-2 — Blueberry Farm), development which has been allowed in the area has degraded and reduced wetland features, functions and values, but it has not eliminated them. Furthermore, if the property were to be rezoned, the available information indicates that R-1, not R-4 and certainly not R-8, would be the appropriate designation. This is because the City's critical areas regulations would not adequately protect the stream and wetland on the site. This can easily be observed from the damage to critical areas occurring near the site and elsewhere in the City where development is ongoing. (One example is to the wetland northeast of the Blueberry Farm where a violation occurred and was permitted after the fact, rather than corrected.) This damage is actually a key part of the basis for the request for the rezone. The configuration of the property outside of the likely critical areas buffers may not even be amenable to formation of additional building lots, since access to additional lots may be unavailable due to the narrow width of the developable area. This would be even more evident if the appropriate buffers, after the wetland is properly classified, were included on the site plan. WDFW appreciates the cooperation of the City of Renton in our efforts to preserve, protect, perpetuate, and manage the fish and wildlife resources of the state of Washington. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. If you have any questions, please contact me at (425) 649-7042 or fisheldf@dfw.wa.gov. Sincerely, Larry Fisher Area Ilabitat Biologist LF:lf: CORBlueberryFarm2. s.doc cc: WDFW: SEPA Coordinator, GMA Biologist WDOE: Robohm I. Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor August 31, 2004 0 015rs -d CITE. F RENTON Planning/Building/PubiicWorks Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator Sue Larson -Kinzer 1733 NE 200' Street ,Renton. WA 98056 SUBJECT: 'WATER LEVEL ISSUES -- KENNYDALF CREEK Dear Ms. Larson -Kinzer: CITY Of- REN-€O 7rori �� c_ 'Zi'`C1 CTY At the August 2" d meeting of the Renton City Council, you spoke .of your concerns regarding fluctuating water levels in Kennydale Creek and ponds in the area. You noted that construction was occurring in the vicinity, and inquired as to the effect that dewatering was having on the groundwater system. I understand that you were also concerned about the effects future plat developments will have on groundwater levels in the area. Let me respond to your comments and tell you what is being done to address these concerns. Heritage Glen, a 37-lot residential subdivision is currently being developed north of your property, the Kennydale Blueberry Farm. As part of this plat, an underground vault is being constructed to retain and release stormwater at pre -construction levels, consistent with the King County Surface Water Design Manual (1990). There is a high water table on site, requiring that the water level be temporarily drawn down to construct the vault and other- site utilities. Pumps were brought on -site in early July to lower the groundwater levels in the area where vault construction was occurring. As noise impacts were anticipated, the contractor used "whisper" generators, and utilized other muffling techniques to decrease the noise level. Groundwater was brought to the surface, then spread on the site via sprinklers, allowing the water to percolate into the soil and recharge the groundwater. An added benefit of this approach was suppression of dust during hot, dry weather. The contractor estimated that thedewatering would need to continue for a minimum of three weeks. On July 15"', staff received a complaint of falling water Ievels in the ponds south of the Heritage Glen. The City's construction inspector was notified immediately and investigated the complaint, confirming the declining water levels. The quantity and duration of dewatering activity combined with warm, dry weather conditions apparently caused the water levels in local ponds to drop noticeably in a short period of time. Within a few hours of receiving the complaint, staff contacted the developer, Cam -West, and the State of Washington Department of Ecology (DOE) in an effort to determine jurisdiction for any possible violations, and to coordinate an appropriate response. Cam -West alerted the contractor and voluntarily ceased dewatering operations. They consulted with the project geologist to produce a strategy to dewater the site in a way that would allow construction to continue, and diminish the impact on local ponds. City construction inspectors met with local property owners and the contractors in an effort to confirm the effects of the dewatering and to coordinate a plan to recharge the ponds. 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 0 This paper conlains5U%recyck;dmalanai.30%post consumer RENTON AHEAD of THE CURVE Sue Larson -Kinzer August 31, 2004 Page 2 During this time, City of Renton staff continued consulting with DOE, which concluded that the impact was temporary and that dewatering could resume. The developer agreed to explore ways provide water to recharge the affected ponds, including trucking some water to the ponds- We understand that Carn-West or their contractor asked individual property owners whether they would accept trucked water to recharge ponds. In addition, on July 29t'', the City's inspector reported that the developer had placed stakes on the blueberry farm,' ; and in the pond east of the farm to allow the property owners tcv ®n .tcrr the water levels. Subsequently, the dewatering has concluded, and the water table has stabilized. Recent storms have helped to further recharge the water table, and the problem of water draw down appears to have been resolved. For future development proposals in this immediate area, staff may request additional hydro - geological studies, if construction activities require extensive dewatering. I encourage you to stay involved in the public process for development proposals in your neighborhood. Please feel free to contact Development Services staff and request to be made a "party of record" when you see notices posted stating that application has been made for land use or environmental permits. Each notice will list a contact person, or you may call Jennifer Henning, Principal Planner, at (425) 430-7286, and she will direct you to the project manager. Sincerely, Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator Planning/Building(Public Works Department Referral #D4053-C cc: Neil watts Jennifer Henning Ron Straka City Clerk GENDLER & MANN, LLP ATTORNEYS -AT -LAW MICHAFL W. GFNDLER* }AVID S. MANN KATHF.,RINF.. A. GEORGF. AsHLLY A, PECK "Also admitted in Oregon Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 1424 FoLRTH AVENUE, SUITE 1015 SEATTLE WA 98101 March 5, 2008 Re; LUA 07-131, Blueberry Haven Short Plat Dear Mr. Kaufman: RECEIVED MAR - 7 2008- CITY OF Rj S$�8 NEARING b2t- 512 as ey I ntann.com www.gendlermanri.com Enclosed please find appellant Sue Rider's Post Hearing Reply Brief due to your office by March 7, 2008. An electronic copy has been e-mailed to Assistant City Attorney Ann Nielsen with a hard copy to follow via U.S. mail per agreement amongst counsel. Very Truly Yours, GENDLER & MANN, LLP wlftv--� Ashley A. Peck 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Regarding Sue Rider's appeal to the Hearing Examiner of the Administrative Short Plat Approval for BLUEBERRY HAVEN SHORT PLAT Hearing Examiner File: LUA 07-131, SHPL-A, ECF APPELLANT'S POST HEARING REPLY BRIEF A hearing was held before the Hearing Examiner on February 12, 2008 concerning application of the City of Renton's critical areas regulations in this short plat decision. Appellant Sue Rider presented witness testimony, several exhibits and a Hearing Brief outlining her issues on appeal. The City filed its Hearing Brief on February 29, 2008. Predictably, the City has not responded to the underlying issue in this appeal or presented any evidence refuting that its application of the critical areas regulations in its decision was anything but arbitrary and capricious. The City's interpretation of the applicable regulations is incorrect and it misconstrues Ms. Rider's burden of proof on appeal. Ms. Rider has indeed shown that the City's decision was arbitrary and capricious. I. HEARING RECORD As a preliminary matter before responding to the City's argument, appellant wishes to address two untimely additions to the record and the City's objections to exhibits GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (2061 621.8868 APPELLANT'S POST HEARING REPLY BRIEF - 1 Fax: 1206) 621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 submitted at hearing. The Hearing Examiner allowed the record to remain open until Friday, February 15, 2008 for the City to submit rebuttal evidence, requesting that if the City intended to submit exhibits that it give notice to appellant's counsel. The City notified the Hearing Examiner and appellant's counsel that it did not intend to submit additional exhibits. However, the applicants, Richard and Lauralce Gordley, apparently submitted additional documents on February 15, 2008 without notice to appellant.I Appellant objects to the submission of these documents as untimely and prejudicial. The Gordleys had notice of Ms. Rider's appeal and of the hearing date for several months, and they both testified at the hearing. Additionally, Sue Larson Kinzer submitted a comment letter on February 25, 2008, nearly two weeks after the hearing. Appellant has objected to this submission as untimely. Kinzer's letter is largely incoherent in its objective, but at one point refers to the City allowing the Cam West development "to dewater the entire basin for their construction needs." This cryptic reference does not give further details on this dewatering event. Appellant is attaching a letter from the City of Renton to Kinzer dated August 31, 2004 that provides context for the situation that Kinzer is apparently referencing.2 Appellant requests that if Kinzer's letter is made part of the record, this letter also be admitted. In addition to being untimely, both the Gordleys' and Kinzer's submissions make inaccurate, prejudicial statements that are irrelevant to this proceeding. Their personal i Appellant was only made aware of this submission on February 28 through correspondence with the City attorney. z The letter responds to Ms. Kinzer's complaints to the City regarding fluctuating groundwater levels and flow in Kennydale Creek resulting from the installation of a stormwater vault nearby. That Ms. Kinzer is complaining about low water in August is further indication that Kennydale Creek does indeed flow year round in normal years and is groundwater fed. GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (2061621-8868 APPELLANT'S POST HEARING REPLY BRIEF - 2 Fax: (206) 621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 attacks on Ms. Rider display their desperation to confuse the simple issues in this appeal. The allegations are also blatantly false -- Ms. Rider does not have a sump pump, nor is she "cneroaching" on a neighboring parcel. While entirely irrelevant to issues before the Hearing Examiner, these false allegations provide insight into the credibility of the applicants and Kinzer. The City has also raised objections to several exhibits timely submitted by Ms. Rider at the hearing. These objections are without merit and should be overruled, as explained below. • Exhibit 10 — Contrary to the City's assertion, these photos are directly relevant to the stream classification because they show water flowing in the drier summer months. That they may show water flowing upstream and downstream of the applicants' property does not negate their relevance. • Exhibit 11 — Appellant submitted these copies of Randy Corman's webpages because they show photos of permitted development adjacent to the Gordley property. They poignantly display the result of allowing developers to build houses in critical areas: a hole dug for a foundation quickly becomes a pond due to the high groundwater table. The City can expect the same result with development on the Gordley property. Exhibit 12 The City's objection is not clear, but the Council minutes are directly relevant because they involve the City's own consultant (Lisa Grueter) referring to Kennydale Creek as being designated Class 3. That she does not distinguish between the upper and lower portions of the creek as having differing classifications further supports appellant's argument that the distinction is arbitrary and unsupported. • Comment Letters from Larry Fisher 3- Appellant specifically offered these letters to show that Mr. Fisher had brought the issue of the misclassification of Kennydale Creek to the City's attention on prior occasions. The City's objection to the letters as irrelevant because they were submitted for a prior administrative process is without merit. 3 The City's Attorney has brought to appellant's counsel's attention that these letters may not be in the Yellow File. Since both parties stipulate that they were submitted, appellant is providing additional copies as attachments to this reply brief. GENPLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle. WA 98101 Phone: (2061621-8868 APPELLANT'S POST HEARING REPLY BRIEF - 3 Fax: 1206) 621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 • Affidavits of December 2005 and September 2006 — Again, the City's objection that these documents are irrelevant because they were submitted in response to a different process fails. On the contrary, appellant submitted them to show that the City has had ample notice of this issue and nonetheless ignored neighbors' concerns prior to this permitting decision. II. REPLY ARGUMENT Ms. Rider outlined the basis for her appeal and supporting evidence in her Hearing Brief submitted on February 12, 2008. This Reply Brief responds to the arguments raised by the City in its post hearing brief and reiterates Ms. Rider's position that the City's application of the critical areas regulations in this short plat decision is arbitrary and capricious and should be reversed. A. Appellant Does Not Challenge the City's Critical Areas Regulations — She Rather Asks the Hearing Examiner to Enforce Them as Written The City confuses the issue in this appeal by arguing that the Hearing Examiner has no jurisdiction to review Growth Management Act (GMA) challenges. Ms. Rider does not dispute the legality of the adopted regulations pursuant to the GMA; she rather cited GMA provisions and case law as providing the context for the City's enactment of its regulations. Ms. Rider also cited stated goals for protecting streams and remaining critical areas in the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan as providing context for this appeal. Ms. Rider agrees that the legal standards directly at issue in this case are set forth in Title 4 of the City's code. The City's creative interpretation and misapplication of these regulations in this short plat decision is the basis for her appeal. APPELLANT'S POST HEARING REPLY BRIEF - 4 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 1206) 621-8868 Fax: (2061 621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The City stated at hearing and in its brief that administrators waived the code's requirement that the Gordleys submit a stream study. RMC 4-3-050 L.3.a.4 Apparently, the City determined that a study would be "redundant and not necessary" due to the number of studies that had been conducted in the area. City's Brief, p. 2. However, the study requirement "[m]ay only be waived ... when the applicant provides satisfactory evidence that ... [a]pplicable data and analysis appropriate to the proposed project exists and an additional study is not necessary." RMC 4-3-050 L.3.d.ii.c (emphasis added). The City still has yet to point to any study substantively supporting its classification of the upper portion of Kennydale Creek as intermittent. The study submitted by the applicants specifically indicated that the stream should be classified as Class 3 if it flows year round. Letter from Carl Hadley to Jennifer Henning (Cedarock, February 17, 2006). The City's decision to waive this requirement notwithstanding its lack of support for the Class 4 designation was arbitrary and capricious. The City also apparently argues that the stream classifications in the Water Class Map, Exhibit 22, are set in stone and entitled to deference despite their lack of any basis, scientific or otherwise. This argument is directly contrary to the code provisions explaining the purpose of the map: i. Mapped Streams and Lakes: The approximate location and extent of Class 2 to 4 water bodies within the City limits are indicated on a map in subsection Q of this Section, Maps. The map is to be used as a guide to the general location and extent of streams. Specific locations and extents will be determined by the City based upon field review and 4 RMC 4-3-050 L.3.a: "When Standard Stream or Take Study is Required: The applicant shall be required to conduct a standard stream of lake study per RMC 4-8-120 if a site contains a water body or buffer area or the project area is within one hundred feet (100') of a water body even if the water body is not located on the subject property. " GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 1206) 621-8868 APPELLANT'S POST HEARING REPLY BRIEF - 5 Fax: 12061 621-0612 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 applicant funded studies prepared pursuant to subsection L3 of this Section. RMC 4-5-050 L.l.c.i (emphasis added). In keeping with the interpretive guidance purposes of the Map, the code further provides that actual presence or absence of the defined criteria is to govern stream classifications for individual sites. RMC 4-5-050 L. l e.ii. If there is a conflict between the observed criteria and map, the regulations require administrative approval and a legislative amendment for a downgrade of a stream class, but do not require this additional procedure for application of greater protections. Id. The City latches on to the term "conflict" and argues there is no conflict here because the Gordley property is within the Class 4 designation area on the map and "mere anecdotal evidence" exists regarding the criteria. The City's argument falls flat and ignores the fact that there apparently has never been a substantive basis for the City's classification in the map. As Ms. Rider outlined in her Hearing Brief and at the hearing itself, the criterion of concern in this case is the presence or absence of water flow in the creek year round, a simple test that can be adequately supported by "anecdotal' evidence. If a stream flows perennially during years of normal rainfall, it is properly classified Class 3. RMC 4-3-050 L. La.iii. if a stream flows only intermittently, or runs dry during the summer in nonnal years, it should be classified Class 4. RMC 4-3-050 L. La.iv. As Ms. Rider also pointed out, the code provides that wetlands located at the headwaters of a watercourse are properly classified as Category 2 wetlands. RMC 4-3-050 M. Ea.ii. Even the City's own Water Class Map, and one of the reports the City GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone, (206) 621-8868 APPELLANT'S POST HEARING REPLY BRIEF - 6 Fax: 1206) 621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 contends supports its decision, indicate that the wetlands on the Gordley property are located at the headwaters of Kennydale Creek. They should be classified accordingly. B. Appellant Has Carried Her Burden in Showing that the City's Application of the Critical Areas Classifications is Arbitrary and Capricious 1, The Citv Misunderstands AUr)cllant'S Burden of Proof on Ameal Pursuant to RMC 4-8-110 E.7.b, an appellant need only show that the City's decision was "clearly erroneous or arbitrary and capricious." Showing that the City's decision was arbitrary does not require Ms. Rider to provide the science supporting the correct stream classification under the City's own regulations. Rather, the City's lack of any basis for its current classification and its unsupported waiver of the stream study requirement is proof enough that its decision was arbitrary and capricious. If the City had evidence supporting its conclusion that Kennydale Creek runs intermittently, the appellant may indeed be required to dispute this with her own science. Yet, the City has provided only the cursory conclusion that "what the Water Class Map says goes" even if it is unsupported and contrary to existing conditions. As earlier explained, this conclusion is contrary to the code provisions establishing that the criteria are to govern and that applicants are to submit studies addressing the criteria. RMC 4-5-050 L.l.c.ii, In response to the City's complete lack of substantive basis supporting its position, Ms. Rider presented the testimony of long time neighbors reporting that they observe the creek regularly and have never seen it run dry. The City berates the testimony of these neighbors as unreliable, "lay" or "anecdotal" testimony. However, it does not take a scientist to observe whether water is consistently flowing in a creek. And who better to GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 1206) 621-8868 APPELLANT'S POST HEARING REPLY BRIEF - 7 Fax: 12061 621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 report on existing conditions in the neighborhood than the City's own citizens who have lived there for decades? The City also curiously points out that these neighbors can only see water upstream, downstream, and 30-50 feet past the Gordley property line. City's Brief, p. 9. The City's apparent contention that water might somehow disappear 30-50 feet north of the property line and then reappear directly downstream hardly negates this testimony. Ms. Rider also presented Larry Fisher, WDFW's area habitat biologist, who testified that the creek runs perennially and should be classified accordingly. Mr. Fisher pointed out that he had attempted to bring this issue to the City's attention in the past. His letters were written during a separate land use process, but this does not make his testimony irrelevant. It was not necessary that Mr. Fisher submit an official comment on the short plat application in order to appear at the hearing. 1t was also not necessary for Mr. Fisher to inspect the Gordley property in order to testify about the creek generally. The City contends that if the Hearing Examiner relies on "mere anecdotal evidence" from neighbors, he should also look to the testimony of the applicants and Kinzer. City's Brief, p. 10. The City fails to acknowledge that unlike the Gordleys and Kinzer, the numerous neighbors who testified and submitted affidavits have no financial motivation behind their testimony. Moreover, at no point did the applicants testify during the hearing that the creek was intermittent — in fact, they were noticeably careful to avoid this direct contention. Instead, Mrs. Gordley reported that at one point she could not see water coming out of the culvert under NE 20`h Street, and Mr. Gordley testified that on one occasion, the creek bottom was only mud. Neither of them could remember when these GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (2061621-8868 APPELLANT'S POST HEARING REPLY BRIEF - 8 Fax; 1206) 621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 miraculous events occurred.5 The applicants also do not dispute that the creek flows year round in their February 14, 2008 letter. The City points out that Sue Larson -Kinzer stated in her untimely letter that she could detect "no flow of water in the ditch" during the Cam West development dewatering event. City's Brief, p. 10, Even if Kinzer's comments are accurate, an artificial dewatering of the basin does not represent a normal year and should not impact the classification. Her complaints to the City about reduced summer streamflow during this event further undermine the intermittent classification. It is important to note that the Gordleys and the Ms. Kinzer are both property owners interested in selling portions of their property for development.' Their financial interest in the outcome weighs against the validity of their testimony. They both complain at length about other developments impacting their property, but they seek to add to that problem by developing their property in violation of the critical areas regulations. 2. The City Has No Support for Its Stream Classification The City contends that the "hard evidence" supporting its decision is (1) the Carl Hadley letter, (2) the Watershed Company July, 2005 letter and (3) the applicant's critical areas study. City's Brief, p. 12. It contends that all of these studies "support the stream as a level 4 class." Id. This is incorrect. In fact, both the Carl Hadley letter and the Watershed Company letter support a Class 3 designation and the Steward and Associates study does not address stream class at all. 5 Mr. Gordley also testified that a representative from the WDFW had visited his property and determined that it was not a "viable waterway" and had no sustainable life forms, Yet he could not remember who visited his property or when and he had no record of this event or the representative's novel conclusions. 6 As referenced at the hearing, Ms. Kinzer owns the Blueberry Farm property recently upzoned to R-4. Ms. Kinzer applied for this rezone in hopes of subdividing her property in the future. GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 1206) 621-8868 APPELLANT'S POST HEARING REPLY BRIEF - 9 Fax: 12061 621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 As discussed at the hearing and in Ms. Rider's Hearing Brief, the letter by Carl Hadley to Jennifer Henning (Cedarock, February 17, 2006) only concluded that the stream should not be downgraded to a Class 5 manmadc waterway and did not substantively support the City's conclusion that it should be classified as intermittent. In fact, Mr. Hadley concluded that if the stream flows year round, it should be Class 3 and pointed out that more information is needed to make this determination. Cedarock, p. 2. Notably, the Watershed Company letter referenced by the City reports water flowing in late July and also only addresses the requested Class 5 designation. Neither of these letters provide any substantive support for the City's intermittent Class 4 designation. 3, The Wetland Classification Applied is Contradicted by Other Studies and the Obvious Location of the Wetland The City contends that the applicant's Critical Areas Study, performed by Steward and Associates, is the only one that matters for the purposes of this decision. City's Brief, p. 13. As Ms. Rider explained at hearing and in her brief, several other studies conflict with the Category 3 designation applied in the decision and conclude that the wetland is more appropriately designated Category 2 because it is located in the headwaters of a stream system. In fact, the Watershed Company letter cited by the City as "hard evidence" supporting its decision specifically concludes: Since this wetland is in the headwaters of a stream system, it would qualify as a Class 2 wetland with a 75-foot buffer. Watershed Company, p. 2-3. APPELLANT'S POST HEARING REPLY BRIEF - 10 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (2061 621-8868 Fax: 1206) 621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 While the Gordleys' study may very well be the most recent, it clearly may not be the most accurate.7 Several previous studies provided as exhibits by Ms. Rider at the hearing also recognized that the wetland is located in the headwaters of Kennydale Creek and should be classified accordingly. That the City does not even recognize the conflict in its own "hard evidence" provides further proof that its decision is arbitrary and capricious. 111. CONCLUSION As amply demonstrated by the record in this appeal, the City of Renton's failure to control development of critical areas in the Upper Kennydale neighborhood has created a quagmire, both in the figurative and literal sense. The applicants and other neighbors complain about drainage from other developments being diverted onto theirs and that the City has not provided a solution to their "drainage problems." Yet the applicants ask the City to exacerbate the problem by permitting more development, and they fail to acknowledge their own responsibility for having purchased property containing wetlands and a stream. These complaints effectively demonstrate the result of allowing unrestricted development to occur in an area with a very high groundwater table and extensive wetlands and riparian areas. The answer is not to keep issuing permits to subdivide and build, in violation of the plain requirements of the adopted regulations. The record effectively shows that the City's application of critical areas buffers in this short plat decision is not supported by any evidence, is refuted by existing conditions, is contrary to the critical areas regulations, and is arbitrary and capricious. The short plat decision should be reversed. 7 The study also incorrectly states that the stream flows into May Creek. GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: APPELLANT'S POST HEARING REPLY BRIEF - 11 Fax: (21061662?05128 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated this �;W day of March, 2008. Respectfully submitted, GENDLER & MANN, LLP By: Ashley A. Peck WSBA No. 39254 Attorneys for Sue Rider and the Kennydale Critical Areas Alliance ',XC.AA(ben)'Tost Hearing Reply Brief 3 05 08 APPELLANT'S POST HEARING REPLY BRIEF - 12 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 1206) 621-8868 Fax: 12061 621-0512 C!'1f Ali- rtE_Iv ; `7;p 1 VFFi /, �, j611. � 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF RENTON 9 10 IN RE THE APPEAL OF BLUEBERRY HAVEN SHORT PLAT NO. LUA 07-131, SHPL-A, ECF 11 12 CITY OF RENTON' S HEARING BRIEF 13 14 15 I. FACTS 16 A, BACKGROUND 17 The subject parcel is located at 210 Jones Avenue NE consisting of a 37,714 square 18 19 feet (.86 acre) lot located between Jones Avenue NE and NE 20`h Street, in Renton, WA. 20 This is the upper kenneydale neighborhood and the subject property along the NE 20rh 21 Street is located across from the Blueberry Farm. This area was down zoned from an R-S 22 to an R-4 over a year ago. 23 Applicants Richard and Lauralee Gordley ("Applicants" or "Gordleys") are seeking 24 to subdivide this parcel into two lots, with Lot A proposed at 17,930 square feet and Lot B 25 proposed at 19,784 square feet. As part of the application process, the Gordley submitted a 26 27 Critical Areas Study ("CAS") prepared by Steward and Associates, dated April 17, 2007 28 CITY OF RENTON'S HEARING BRIEF - 1 WARREN BARBER & FONTES, P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 SOUTH SECOND STRE£T • POST OFFICE SOX 626 RENTON, WASHINGTON 98057 PHONE 4425) 2S5-6678 • FAX (425) 25S.5474 1 (Yellow File -Exhibit 1) The CAS identified a 9,601 square foot wetland on the central 2 portion of the subject site west of an on -site stream as a category 3 wetland. The CAS 3 4 however, did not contain a stream analysis, but the City did not require a separate stream 5 study from the Applicants. Under the City's code provision RMC4-5-100(A)(1)(a), 6 certain submittal requirements may be waived through a pre -application meeting, which 7 the Gordley completed in 2005. Having done so, the code permits the City to waive a 8 articular submittal requirement if "Applicable data and analysis appropriate to the P' q pP � Y � 9 proposed project exists and an additional study is not necessary." RMC 4-3- 10 11 050(1,)(3)(d)(i)(c). Given the number of studies that were previously done in this 12 particular area (including those which covered all or parts of the Applicant's property), 13 which supported the classification of the stream as a level 4, the City determined that a 14 supplemental study would be redundant and not necessary. The City has compiled a chart 15 listing all the prior critical area studies that were done in the vicinity of, and some 16 including, the subject property. This chart is attached to this brief as Figure 1. 17 It is nearly impossible to exactly pinpoint and identify the Kennydale Creek or the 18 19 stream on Gordley's property on either the City's Water Class Map (Exhibit 5) or the 20 Streams and Lakes Map ("Q Map") (Exhibit 22) set forth in RMC 4-3-050Q. Nonetheless, 21 the city can reasonably surmise that Kennydale Creek flows along the eastern boundary of 22 the subject site. (Exhibits 5 & 22.) Accordingly, the City determined that a Class 4 stream 23 exists along the eastern border of the subject site as reflected in the both the Water Class 24 Map and the Q Map. 25 26 27 W CITY OF RENTON'S HEARING BRIEF - 2 WARREN BARBER & FONTES, P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW too SOUTH SECOND STREET POST OFFICE BOX 626 RENTON. WASHINGTON 9WS7 PHONE (425) 255.8679 + FAX 1425) 255-5474 1 With respect to the subject site's wetland and stream, the City acknowledged that it 2 received numerous letters from the area neighbors disputing the City's classification — in 3 4 particular, against the designation of the stream as a class 4. Unfortunately, there was no 5 information other than general comments or anecdotal information based on personal b observations from beyond the subject property to justify disputing the Class 4 designation. 7 Hence, there was no basis for the City to override the established designation of level 4 to 8 the stream and categorization of level 3 to the wetland. The City thus issued its Report and 9 Decision re Blueberry Haven Short Plat, on December 17, 2007, approving the Gordley's 10 11 short plat application subject to buffer setback requirements for a category 3 wetland and a 12 class 4 stream. (Yellow file — Exhibit 1) 13 B. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 14 Appellant Sue Rider ("Appellant" or "Rider") filed a timely appeal on December 15 26, 2007. An appeal hearing was held before the Hearing Examiner on February 12, 2008. 16 At the hearing, Appellant specifically cited two areas as the primary basis of her appeal --- 17 1) the classification of the stream as a level 4; and 2) the designation of the wetland as a 18 19 category 3. Appellant clarified that her appeal did not include a challenge to the SEPA 20 determination. 21 Appellant, Applicants, Larry Fisher, the purported "expert" of Appellant, and 22 numerous members of the public gave testimony. Additionally, over twenty (20) �3 documents, mostly by the Appellant were submitted as exhibits to the record. Although 24 the City objected to the entry of many of the Appellant's submissions, the Hearing 25 Examiner noted the objections for the record but accepted the exhibits into the record. 26 27 Since neither the City nor the Applicants had an opportunity to review the Appellant's 28 CITY OF RENTON'S HEARING BRIEF - 3 IARREN BARBER 6 FONTES, P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 626 RENTON, WASHINGTON 9W57 PHONE f4251 255-8678 • FAX U251 255-5{74 I numerous submissions prior the hearing, the Hearing Examiner allowed the record to 2 remain open until Friday, February 15, 2008. 91 4 On February 15, 2008, Applicants submitted an additional document. This 5 submission was a letter to the Hearing Examiner accompanied by copies of photos and 6 maps. In the City's opinion, this appears to be more consistent with a form of hearing 7 brief, submitted by Appellants. Thus, the City has no objection to this additional 8 submission. On February 25, 2008, Sue Larson Kinzer submitted a Letter to the Hearing g Examiner as a comment letter to be made a part of the official file. The City has no 10 11 objection to this submission, and given Ms. Larson Kinzer's extenuating circumstance, 12 requests that the Hearing Examiner accept this submission despite the passed deadline. 13 After reviewing the various exhibits submitted by Appellant, the City notified the 14 parties that it did not intend to submit any further documents prior to the close of the 15 official record. However, the City noted is right to reserve objections to some of 16 Appellant's submissions and now hereby submits its specific objections to the following 17 Exhibits: 18 • Exhibit 10 — all photos (not relevant — Appellant acknowledged that none of the 19 photos depict an area on the subject property. Moreover, photographs depicting a 20 scene of one moment of time is not evidence of whether a stream may be perennial or intermittent. It is however, prejudicial and misleading.) 21 • Exhibit I — copies of web pages from Councilman Randy Corman's website www.randycortnan.com (not relevant) 22 • Exhibit 12 — Renton City Council Minutes of March 21, 2005 Session (not relevant, 23 misleading - the referenced section of testimony by Lisa Grueter regarding Kennydale Creek involved the proposed rezone of Blueberry Farm and the 24 Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Furthermore, the alleged reference to the Kennydale creek classification is misleading in that the subject property is not 25 26 ' Sue Larson Kinzer owns the Blueberry Farm property which is directly across from the subject parcel. Ms. Kinzer was present on the day of the scheduled hearing but had to leave midway through the hearing due 27 to a family emergency. She did contact the City on the February 15, 2008, indicating that she would be submitting a comment letter but due to having to attend her father's funeral, she would be late with her 28 submission. CITY OF RENTON'S HEARING BRIEF - 4 WARREN BARBER & FONTES, P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW l06 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 626 RENTON, WASH ON 9Bp57 PHONE (425) 255-9fi7B • FAX 1425) 255-S474 I located in the headwaters of Kennydale creek which does has a higher 2 classification. • Exhibit 4 unknown - Comment Letters by Larry Fisher (not relevant and 3 misleading. As shown in cross examination and rebuttal evidence, these letters 4 were submitted directly in response to SEPA review of proposed rezone of the Blueberry Farm during the 2006 Comprehensive Plan Update Process.) 5 0 Exhibit 4 unknown — Affidavits of September 2006 (not relevant --- concerns Kenny -dale Creek/Blueberry farm Comprehensive Plan Amendment re proposed 6 rezone.) • Exhibit # unknown — Affidavits of December 2005 (not relevant — pertains to 7 process of City evaluation of Terry Dutro's submission to City to reclassify stream 8 as a Class 5.) g At the close of the appeal hearing, Appellant submitted her Hearing Brief. The City's 10 Response Brief now follows: 11 ❑ 1. ARGUMENT 12 A. HEARING EXAMINER'S A UTHORITY AND JURISDICTION 13 The Hearing Examiner's lacks jurisdiction to review alleged violations of' 14 the Growth Management Act and insofar as the Appellant challenges the 15 use of Best Available Science in the creation of the buffer requirements for the City's stream, those issues should be precluded from review 16 The Hearing Examiner's authority is vested in RMC 4-8-070H2 and the jurisdiction 17 18 for hearing appeals based on a City's decision regarding a short plat is contained in RMC 19 4-8-110A.3 The parameters governing the Hearing Examiner's authority is fairly specific 20 and limited. There is nothing in the City's code that allows the Hearing Examiner to 21 review Growth Management Act ("GMA') issues. In fact, both caselaw and statute clearly 22 state that challenges which implicate alleged violations of GMA issues must be brought 23 before the Growth Management Hearings Board ("GMHB"). "Under RC W 24 25 26 Z 4-8-070H states in relevant part: 1. Authority: The Hearing Examiner shall review and act on the following: a. Appeals of administrative decisions/determinations... 27 4-8-110A states in relevant part: 2. Appeals to Hearing Examiner of administrative decisions and 28 environmental determinations; CITY OF RENTON'S HEARING BRIEF - 5 WARREN BARBER & FONTES, P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 SOUTH SECOND STREET POST OFFICE 9OX ax6 RENTON, WASHINGTON W57 PHONE (42D 255.8678 • FAX 4425) 255-5474 1 36.70A.280(1)(a) the growth management hearings board shall hear petitions alleging that 2 a state agency, county, or city is not in compliance with the requirements of the GMA." 3 4 Whidbey v. Island Co., 122 Wn, App 156, 179, 93 P.3d 885 (2004). 5 In the Whidbey case cited by Appellant, the Court enumerates the various goals and 6 purposes governing the GMA. "The GMA requires communities to coordinate 7 comprehensive land use planning and counties to adopt comprehensive land use plans and 8 development regulations in accordance with the GMA." Whidbey, 122 Wn. App. at 163. 9 But this same Court also expresses the deference that must be given to the government to 10 11 implement these policies. "The legislature granted wide latitude to local governments to 12 customize their comprehensive plans according to local growth patters, resources and 13 needs." Id. In doing so, "when balancing those goals in the process of adopting a plan or 14 development regulation under GMA, a local jurisdiction must consider BAS regarding 15 protection of critical areas." Id. at 173. "Whether scientific evidence is respectable and 16 authoritative, challenged or unchallenged, controlling or of no consequence when balanced 17 against other factors, goals and evidence to be considered, is first in the province of the city 18 19 or county to decide." Then, if challenged, it is for the Growth Management hearings Board 20 to review." HEAL v. GMHB, 96 Wn. App 522, 533, 979 P.2d 864 (1999). 21 In her brief, Appellant sets forth her position regarding the applicable laws in 22 "Section II APPLICABLE LAW." The City agrees that it must adhere to the GMA �3 principles regarding not only the Best Available Science but all the GMA mandates. 24 Moreover, the City is more keenly aware of the requirements of its development 25 regulations set forth in Title 4, and in general, agrees with most of the recantations of the 26 27 code provisions set out in Appellant's "Section IL APPLICABLE LAW." However, 28 CITY OF RENTON'S HEARING BRIEF - 6 WARREN BARBER & FONTES, PS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 626 RENTON, WASHINGTON 98057 PHONE (425) 255-8679 • FAX (425) 255-5474 1 Appellant, by virtue of her own cited cases, must acknowledge that GMA issues are not 2 properly before the Hearing Examiner. 3 4 The statutory references and case law presented by the Appellant is misleading in 5 that it deals with the applicability of the GMA. The authority cited by Appellant concerns 6 review of whether a particular City or Municipality's development regulations complies 7 with the GMA. The GMHB's jurisdiction is specifically limited to whether there is GMA 8 compliance, and has specific standards and burden in making that assessment which are 9 different from that of the Hearing Examiner. kill 11 The Hearing Examiner is precluded from reviewing whether the stream and 12 wetland classification complies with BAS or any with GMA principles. In fact, the City is 13 fairly confident that the Hearing Examiner would agree that he does not have the 14 jurisdiction to determine whether any of the City's code provisions does or does not 15 comply with the GMA. Accordingly, all the testimony and argument regarding Best 16 Available Science should be disregarded and stricken from the record. 17 B. BURDEN OF PROOF/STANDARD OF REVIEW 18 19 Deference should he given to the City's decision and Appellant bears the burden to show that the decision was clearly erroneous or arbitrary and 20 capricious. 21 In an administrative appeal, the Appellant bears the burden of showing that the 22 decision by the City was in clear error, or contrary to law or arbitrary and capricious. RMC �3 4-8-110(E)(7)(b). "Arbitrary and capricious action on the part of an administrative agency 24 is willful and unreasoning action in disregard of facts and circumstances. Action is not 25 arbitrary and capricious when exercised honestly and upon due consideration of the facts 26 27 and circumstances." Northern Pacific Transport Co. v. Wash. Util. & Transp. Comm., 69 28 CITY OF RENTON'S HEARING BRIEF - 7 WARREN BARBER 6 FOIE TES, P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 626 RENTON. WASH,NGTON 98057 PHONE (42Sy 255-8678 • FAX (425) 255-5474 1 Wn.2d 472, 478, 418 P.2d 735 (1966) (citations omitted.) "Where there is room for two 2 opinions, an action taken after due consideration is not arbitrary and capricious even 3 4 though a reviewing court may believe it to be erroneous." Whidbey, 122 Wn. App at 165. 5 "A finding is'clearly erroneous' when although there is evidence to support it, the 6 reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that 7 a mistake has been committed." Ancheta v. Daly, 77 Wn.2d 255, 259-60, 461 P.2d 531 8 (1969). 9 The February 12, 2009 hearing before the Hearing Examiner was brought by 10 11 Appellant, who resides near the subject property. In her capacity as the Appellant, Ms. 12 Rider had the burden to show that the City's decision regarding the Applicant's short plat 13 was clearly erroneous or arbitrary and capricious. The decision by the City is to be given 14 great deference, and unless Ms. Rider meets her burden, the decision by the City must 15 stand. The offering of lay testimony of resident in the neighborhood falls far short of 16 meeting that burden. 17 Assuming the Hearing Examiner disagrees with this position, the City provides f3 19 further substantive analysis of how Appellant fails in her challenge. Although the actual 20 appeal is a challenge to the site plan, as stated by Appellant at the hearing, the primary 21 basis of the challenge lies in the designations given to 1) the stream and 2) the wetland. 22 Both issues are discussed separately as follows: 23 24 25 26 27 28 1. STREAM CLASSIFICATION RMC 4-3-050(L)(1)(c)(fi) states in relevant part. Reclassification: Where there is a conflict between the Renton Water Class Map in Subsection Q and the criteria in subsection Lla of this Section, the criteria in subsection Ll a of this Section shall govern. The reclassification of a water body to a lower class (i.e. 2 to 3, or 3 to 4, etc.) requires administrator acceptance of a supplemental stream or lake study, CITY OF RENTON'S HEARING BRIEF - 8 WARREN BARBER & FONTES, P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE ROIL 626 RENTON. WASHINGTON 59057 PHONE 1425) 255.067H FAX (425) 255 5474 I followed by a legislative amendment to the map in subsection Q of this 2 Section prior to its effect. (emphasis added.) 3 This provision is premised upon fact that a "conflict" must exist in order to invoke 4 the criteria set forth in the Classification system sections. Those sections, RMC 4-3- 5 05OL(1) are as follows: 6 7 a. Classification System: The following classification system is hereby adopted for the purposes of regulating streams and lakes in 8 the City. Stream and lake buffer widths are based on the following rating system: 9 iii. Class 3: Class 3 waters are non-salmonid-bearing 10 perennial waters during years of normal rainfall, and/or 11 mapped on Figure Q4, Renton Water Class Map, as Class 3. i2 iv. Class 4: Class 4 waters are non-salmonid-bearing intermittent waters during years of normal rainfall, 13 and/or mapped on Figure Q4, Renton Water Class Map, as Class 4. 14 15 Much testimony was presented and many exhibits were submitted by Appellant 16 regarding her challenge to the City's classification of the stream located on the subject 17 18 property as a class 4 stream. Almost all of Appellant's witnesses were individuals who 19 reside or have resided in the vicinity of the subject property. These witnesses stated that 20 they have walked passed the subject site over the course of many years, and never saw the 21 stream dry up. These same witnesses conceded that they did not observe the creek directly 22 from Applicant's property and that their view was approximately 30-50 feet up the stream 23 from the vantage point of the public road on NE 20"' street, and depending on the time of 24 the year, their view was obscured by vegetation. 25 26 27 28 CITY OF RENTON'S HEARING BRIEF - 9 WARREN BARBER 6 FON`II'ES, P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW i 00 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 626 RENTON, WASH TON 98057 PHONE (425) 255-867H • FAX (42.5) 2SS.5474 Conversely, Applicants presented testimony at the hearing that the stream was 2 intermittent and arguably, as owners of the property, the Applicants would be in the best 3 4 position to have continuous observation of the stream. Applicants testified that not only is 5 the stream intermittent, there is no sustainable life forms present in the stream. Ms. Larson 6 Kinzer, in her February 25, 2008 letter referred to it as a "ditch" and indicated that she 7 detected "no flow of water in the ditch" during the Cam West development stage. If lay 8 testimony presented by Appellant is sufficient to query whether the stream merits a level 3 9 classification, arguably, the evidence presented by Applicants would suggest the 10 possibility of it being a class 5 stream.4 Therein lays the quandary of relying on the 11 12 unsubstantiated, non -scientific lay testimony to override the established standards set forth 13 in the City's own code maps. 14 Appellant's also offered the testimony of Larry Fisher, from Fish and Wildlife as 15 her expert witness. In support of his testimony, Appellant offered into evidence, two 16 letters written by Mr. Fisher to Erika Conkling, Senior Planner for the City of Renton dated 17 October 12, 2006 and October 19, 2006, Exhibits 4s Unknown. The City objected to those 18 19 letters and maintains its objecting to these exhibits. As Ms. Conkling testified in rebuttal 20 to Mr. Fisher, those letters were comment letters received by Mr_ Fisher during the 2006 21 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Update Process and was specific to the then -proposed 22 rezone of Blueberry Farm. Therefore, these letters are not relevant to this appeal. 23 24 4 In 2006, Terry Dutro another adjacent property owner submitted a study by Ellisport Enginnering dated June 2005 (Exhibit 19) in support of his request for a change in stream classification from a level 4 to a level 5. This Ellisport Engineering study found that the stream in Mr. Dutro's property should be a level 5. 25 Ellisport Engineering had also previously evaluated the Gordley's property and in a letter dated April 2005, reported to the Gordleys that the stream on their property should be classified as a level 5 (Exhibit 19). In 26 reponse to Mr. Dutro's request with the Ellisport Engineering analysis, the City commissioned an expert to re -review the stream but only in the limited context of determining whether it was a level 5 (as Mr. Dutro 27 claimed) or a level 4 (as was Mapped in the City's Q Map.) Cedarrock Consultants, the third party 28 CITY OF RENTON'S HEARING BRIEF - 10 WARREN BAR]BEIt 6 FONTES, P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 626 RENTON. WASH 'TON 98057 PHONE (425) 255.8679 • FAX 1425) ISS-5474 1 Mr. Fisher admitted that he had never been on the subject property. Mr. Fisher was 2 somewhat quixotic about whether or not he was appearing in his official capacity as a 3 4 representative of the Department of Fish and Wildlife. He was uncertain as to whether his 5 supervisors were aware of his presence on the date of the hearing, and only indicated that 6 he had learned about this appeal from Appellant a couple of weeks prior to his appearance 7 at the hearing. Mr. Fisher did concede that as an official at Dept of Fish and Wildlife, he 8 was aware of the proper procedures and processes for making comments on proposed 9 projects but that he did not make an official comment on the Gordley's short plat 10 11 application. Accordingly, Mr. Fisher's testimony should be disregarded, or in the 12 alternative, the City submits that the information proffered by Mr. Fisher be given little 13 weight. 14 During its presentation, the City offered to present information regarding the 15 history of the area which would have shown that the stream was manmade and did not 16 exist prior to 1950s. However, the Hearing Examiner disallowed that information holding 17 that the only issue for the hearing was weather the stream classification was a level 3 or a 18 19 4. Although the City did not belabor this issue with the Examiner, the City submits that if 20 the Hearing Examiner is inclined to rely upon "lay" testimony by the residents attesting to 21 the stream exhibiting characteristics of a class 3 stream, query whether the Applicant's 22 information lending support to position that the stream is in fact, nothing other than a �3 manmade ditch, with no sustainable life forms, should be given equal merit. Given both 24 sides of the equation with conflicting testimony going to support either class 3 or class 5, 25 26 27 consultant, produced a report in Feb 2006 which found that the streams did not meet a level 5 classification 28 and thus, should maintain its level 4 rating. (Yellow file — Exhibit 1). CITY OF RENTON'S HEARING BRIEF - I I WARREN BARBER & I;ONTES, P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 626 RENTON. WASHINGTON 48057 PHONE 1425) 155-8678 • FAX (425) 255-5474 I the City submits that neither rises to the requisite level to overcome the Class 4 designation 2 as set forth in the City's Water Class and Q maps. 3 u The City still maintains its position that the stream on the subject property is a class 5 4 stream. The crux of the City's argument lies in the Q Map, which shows that the likely 6 position of the subject property's stream is on a section clearly mapped as a class 4 level. 7 (Exhibit 22) Further downstream, as it approaches Lake Washington, the Q Map shows 8 Kennydale Creek to rise to a class 3 level. However, the location of the subject property is 9 situated well within the portions as depicted on the Q Map as a Level 4. Given this, there 10 is no conflict between the Q Map and the criteria set forth in the section. In order for a 11 12 conflict to exist, there must be something other than lay testimony which is nothing other 13 than anecdotal evidence. The hard evidence supporting the City's Ievel 4 classification is 14 in the Cedarrock, February 2006 report (Yellow File -- Exhibit 1), the Watershed, July 5, 15 2005 study (Exhibit 14) as well as the Seward & Associates CAS submitted by the 16 Applicants as part of their application. These expert studies all support the stream as a 17 level 4 class. (Figure 1_) The lay testimony of neighbors who clearly are opposed to the 18 19 development of a neighbor and who may or may not have personal prejudices toward the 20 Applicant cannot be held to the same weight as an expert analysis.s 21 Again, keeping in mind the deference given to the City's decision, mere anecdotal 22 evidence presented by residents galvanized by Appellant cannot be deemed to rise to the 23 level needed to create a "conflict." Absent such a conflict, the Q Map is not superseded by 24 25 s The Hearing Examiner indicated that he believed it was inherently unfair to the Appellant who could not have their expert or independent analysis done regarding the stream or wetland because Appellant was not 26 allowed on Applicant's property to have such a study completed. However, it is noteworthy that when Applicants then offered to grant permission for the Appellant to have an independent expert come onto their 27 property to conduct their own study, Appellant declined the offer. The Hearing Examiner appeared to concur with the Appellant stating that he did not believe it fair to force the Appellant to incur the costs of an 28 independent analysis, The City countered that since it is Appelant's burden, she should bear the costs. CITY OF RENTON'S HEARING BRIEF - 12 WARREN BARBER & EONTES, P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW too SOUTH SEC:ONO STREET POST OFFICE ROX 626 RENTON, WASHINGTON 98057 PHONE 14253 255-8678 • FAX 1425) 255.5474 1 the criteria set forth in the Section Lla provisions, and therefore, the inquiry into whether 2 or not the stream is intermittent or perennial need not arise. 3 2. WETLAND CLASSIFICATION 5 Renton Municipal Code 4-3-050(M)(3)(a)(i) sets forth when a wetland 6 study is required: 7 Wetland Classification: The applicant shall be required to conduct a 8 study to determine the classification of the wetland if the subject property 9 or project area is within one hundred feet (100') of a wetland even if the wetland is not located on the subject property but it is determined that 10 alterations of the subject property are likely to impact the wetland in question or its buffer. If there is a potential Category 1 or 2 wetland within 11 three hundred feet (300') of a proposal, the City may require an applicant to conduct a study even if the wetland is not located on the subject 12 property but it is determined that alterations of the subject property are 13 likely to impact the wetland in question or its buffer. (Emphasis added) 14 As part of its application, the Applicants submitted its CAS. The Steward & Associates 15 CAS is the official study on file, and Appellant has presented no testimony or evidence 16 which is sufficient to meet her burden. Again as set forth in Figure I, the CAS has 17 analyzed the wetland on the Gordley property and determined it to be a category 3 wetland. 18 Though there have been other studies which also analyzed that wetland, this CAS is the 19 20 most recent and direct evaluation of the subject property. Appellant has merely submitted 21 the various other studies as her basis for challenging the level 3 status given to the wetland 22 This falls far short of meeting the necessary burden to overcome the City's decision. 23 24 25 26 27 28 CITY OF RENTON'S HEARING BRIEF - 13 WARREN BARBER & FONTES, RS. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 626 RENTON. WASHINGTON 98057 PHONE (4251 255 8678 • FAX (425) 255-5474 1 2 IV. CONCLUSION This case presents the Hearing Examiner with the unenviable tasks of having to 3 4 reconcile competing interests — the right of property owners to develop their property as 5 zoned versus the rights of others to derive maximum enjoyment of their properly which 6 may include the desire to preserve the nearby environment. However, the Hearing 7 Examiner is bound by the City's code provisions which clearly place the burden on the 8 Appellant to justify overriding the City's determination. unless the Applicant can show 9 that the City acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner, in approving the short plat of the 10 11 Applicants, or the Hearing Examiner finds an error of law, the decision by the 12 Administrator and City Staff must be given great deference. kMC 4-5-100(E)(7)(a). 13 Appellant has failed to meet that burden, and therefore, the decision to approve the short 14 plat should stand and the Appellant's appeal should be denied. 15 16 DATED this 29th day of February, 2008 17 18 19 WARREN BARBER & FONTES, PS 4 20 21 Ann Nielsen, WSBA #31425 Attorney for City of Renton 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CITY OF RENTON'S HEARING BRIEF - 14 WARREN BARBER & FONTES, P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW i W SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 626 RENTON. WASHI (;TON 98OS7 PHONE (42S) Z55-8678 FAX (4Z5) Z55,S474 l FIGURE 1 Company/Consultant pate Classification lPropertylExh. # Notes stream = n/a Entranco Dec-96 wetland = 2 Hi ate 15 includes Gordley Property Ellisport Engineering - stream = 3 Anne Seethoff Oct-04 wetland = n/a Core/Gordley 14 no wetland due to changing water levels Ellisport Engineering - stream = 5 Anne Seethoff A r-05 wetland = n/a Gordley 19 letter to Gordley re analysis letter to Dutro re analysis (incl Gordley Ellisport Engineering - stream = 5 parcel), submitted to City for request change Anne Seethoff Jun-05 wetland = n/a Dutro/Gordley 19 to unre ulated 5 stream Watershed - Hugh stream = 4 Gordley/Blueber Mortensen Jul-05 wetland = 2 ryFarm 14 analyzed stream in context of 4 vs. 5 Gordley, hired by COR for independent evaluation Umbedacht, on stream in context of 4 vs. 5 only (did Cedarock - Carl Hadley Feb-06 stream = 4 Dutro Y file not eval for class "3" stream = n/a critical area study submitted by Gordley as Steward & Associates A r-07 1wetland = 3 IGordley Y file part of submittal requirements a Feb. 25, 2008 Subject: Blueberry Haven Short Plat LUA07-131-SHPL-A, ECF Mr. Kaufmann, hearing examiner, RECEIVED FEB 3 5 2008 CITY OF RENTON NEARING EXAMINER First I would like to express my sympathy to you for the job you do. After sitting through the first half of the recent marathon hearing (1 left at the lunch break, I simply couldn't listen to it any more) I can not imagine how you could ever get very excited about coming to work. Wouldn't it be wonderful if people could get to the point in a brief fashion and also be truthful in their statements? Ah to dream! A ditch is a ditch in my opinion, hand dug by local land owners. The course of the ditch has changed over the years as property owners altered the course to suit their purposes. Once there was even a law suit over it. This area is flat so the flow is slow. Some sections have been maintained and other areas have become silted up and plugged with vegetation. Perhaps it becomes a stream when the elevation begins to fall near the freeway. The problem is exacerbated by the added runoff from new development. The ditch could not handle the runoff in storm events before the development began. To the east of the blueberry faun is a greenbelt that once had a detention pond for the development next to it that was built in the 70's. It no longer exists. It was filled in with yard waste and dirt. The city has a utility easement through the area but claims to have no jurisdiction over the detention pond situation. They however sent out letters to all the property owners of said development of which Ms Rider is considered part of even though she has an older, pre-existing home, to rebuild the retention pond to the cities engineering standards. Like that is ever going to happen! I detected no flow of water in the ditch when the city allowed the Cam -West develop- ment to dewater the entire basin for their construction needs. Would a sewer lift station be built in the middle of a creek? That was the case until a couple years ago when it was removed and the sewer put in a gravity flow line that went through the middle of a wetland area. Of course the calling it a wetland depends on which study you read. Each wetland determination has been different. I am certainly for people becoming environmentally conscious. However, Ms Rider seems to have become so only recently, For many years she dumped the gray water from her basement laundry room that was not connected to the sewer, directly in to the ditch on my property. She has always had water problems in her basement. She dealt with this by putting in a pond (no permit) and putting in a drain line onto my property, into the ditch. She has no drainage easement, I get the feeling her appeals are somewhat self- serving. If there were to be changes in this area perhaps the city would finally look at some of the encroachments that Ms Rider has done into the greenbelt and easement area. There are no easy answers to this situation. My suggestion is that you actually visit the area to get a good visual of what is occurring. In closing I would like to state that the ditch is already rated too high and certainly shouldn't go to an even higher rating. I have always felt that the city has made some poor choices or refused to look at certain situations that impact people's property or in our case our business. I do not feel it is in any way fair that a few people's properties should become the dumping ground for drainage as more and more impervious surfaces are created. We have no storm drains in this area. Perhaps it is time. Sue Larson- inter The X Kenadale Blueberry Farm 1733 NE 20t St. Renton,WA 98056 Darrell E. Kinzer Sue Larson -Kinzer 1733 N.E. 20tb St. Renton, WA 980S6 ;,, fY OF REFm r(ya RECENED ITw CI F.RW.9 r)FFIC:F 446_� , PZ dir Dec 26, 2007 Mr. Fred Kaufinan Hearing Examiner City of Renton RE: LUA 07-131 Blueberry Haven Short Plat Mr. Kaufman RECENED C;iTY CLERK'S OrFI Y I am appealing the erroneous decision by City administration to grant a short plat application presented by Mr. and Mrs. Gordley at 2010 .Zones Ave NE I believe the City has failed to follow it's own guidelines in the granting of this MDNS and short Plat, due to the fact that Kennydale Creek remains mis-classified as a Class IV stream, even though it is perennial and is classified correctly as a Class III a short way downstream. The City has ignored a request by the jurisdictional state agencies that the Creek and wetlands be reclassified correctly to reflect their status as headwaters of the state. The City has offered no process to upgrade the classification while receiving support for a downgrade has been ridiculously easy for the prospective developers. The City has not followed up on numerous statements, photos, affidavits, wetland studies, anecdotal evidence or visual proof that the creek runs year around, even in the driest of summers. They have failed to ascertain the status of this creek by using Best Available Science, which would include an objective assessment by a qualified expert at the driest times of the summer. They have accepted a wetland report provided by the applicant, which refers pejoratively to a "seasonal drainage ditch" when referring to this section of Kennydale Creek, when there is abundant proof that this is incorrect. City staff has failed on two different occasions (2006, 2007) to provide any evidence supporting the original Class IV designation of this creek. Due to the fact that Class III creek buffers, and Class II wetland buffers are significantly large, the importance of this issue cannot b ignored. The City's own policy states that when there is a conflict between the mapped designation and the criteria, the criteria rules. It is time to step up and follow the criteria, classify the creek and wetlands correctly, and sto ,..wing to appease the builders who would prefer the less stringent designations Susan Rider 1835 NE 20t` Street Renton, WA 98056 (425) 228-8711 i fY CITY OF RENTON Cj ark City Clerk Division + 4 + 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 425-430-6510 Cash Check No. Description: 1 S� _. ❑ Copy Fee ❑ Appeal Fee Funds Received From; Name x_ fie: r-N k� k A Address��%�-]]((yy N I S ♦ U..._ Receipt '- 0 998 Date ❑ Notary Service Amount $ City�teignatore' f `1 FEB-07-2008 00:54AM FROM- 206-621-0512 T-345 P 001/002 F-672 GENDLER & MANN, LLP ATTORNEYS-AT-LAw Michael W. Gendler- David S. Mann 1424 FOURTH AVENUI=, SUIFE 10 15 Karhenne A. Gcorgc SF.A'Vf i.E WA 98101 Ahlcy A. Peck 'AW xaM-14 W 0r ;0u FAX TRANSMITTAL MEMO DATE: February 7, 2008 TOTAL PAGES (including cover sheet): 2 ORIGINALS WILL NOT FOLLOW. TO: Fred J. Kaufman FROM: Ashley A, Peck CASE NAME: KCAA COMMENTS: (206)621-a868 Fax (206) 621 OS 12 FAX NUMBER: 425.430.6523 CASE NUMBER: LF YOU DO NOT RECEiV E ALL OF THE PAGES OR IF TRANSMISSION IS NOT CLEAR PLEASE CALL (246) 621-8968 Txlr INFORMATION COnTAJNFD IN THIS COMMMCATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE VSE of ThIE ADDRF.SSEE(s) AND MAY BE CONFIDE NTIAL OR CONSIDERED ATTORNEY -CLIENT INFORMATION, IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR PLEASE K$ INFORMED 'THAT ANY UNAIITHoRiZ£D USE INCLINING COPYING, DISTE OUTIaN OR DISCI-OSUIZE IS STRIC11V runmSIrVv- PLPAS!' NOTIFY ITS tmnV01AT9LY ATTtJE,QSOV8 TELEPnONE DIUMIIER IF YOU HAVE RI.CF:IVLDTHIS IN ERROR, FEB-07-2008 09:54AM FROM- 206-621-0512 T-345 P.002/002 F-679 GENDLER & MANN, LLP AITORNR YS-AT-LA W M10Inl=1-w. GENDLEIZ- DAViD S. MANN 4424 FOURTH AVENUE, SLUTS 1015 KAT31HRiN£ A. GEORGE SEATTLE WA 99101 ASHLEY A. PECK 'Also a=4[jed in Oregon February 7, 2008 Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washinglon 98057 Re: Notice of Appearance - LUA 07-131, Blueberry Haven Short Plat Dear Mr. Kaufman: (206) 621-sa68 Pda (206) 621-0512 ,UWeyQgeG41ern3nn-c0rn www.gendlermam.Coin Our firm has been retained to represew Sue Rider and the Kennydale Critical Areas Alliance in the appeal of the above -referenced administrative short plat decision and SEPA determination of non -significance scheduled to be heard Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 9:00am. All communications concerning this matter should be directed to me at the address listed above. Very Truly Yours, GENDLER & MANN, LLP -�ftriA�Xft�L- Ashley A. Peck Y T •' r' `" i Denis Law, Mayor January 10, 2008 Susan Rider 1835 NE 20`h Street Renton, WA 98056 RE: Blueberry Haven Short Plat LUA 07-131 Dear Ms. Rider: This office has received your appeal letter on the above referenced matter. Hearing Examiner Fred J. Kaufman Please be advised that the appeal hearing has been scheduled for Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. The hearing will take place in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. The address is 1055 S Grady Way in Renton. If this office can provide any further assistance, please address those comments in writing. Sincerely, Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton Encl: Copy of Appeal Letter cc: Ann Nielsen Assistant City Attorney Neil Watts, Development Services Director Stacy Tucker, Development Services Parties of Record: Denise Blackmau Sue Larson -Kinzer Robert Cave Barbara Hicks William O'Connor Richard & Lauralee Gordley 1055 South Grady Way -,Renton, Washington 98057 - (425) 430-6515 RThis pa;_r contains 50", recvc'Pd matero 30' nose WnsLImei RENT t_.`'. Dec 26, 2007 Mr. Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton RE: LUA 07-131 Blueberry Haven Short Plat Mr. Kaufman ;tG t?Vt3 I am appealing the erroneous decision by City administration to grant a short plat application presented by Mr. and Mrs. Gordley at 2010 ]ones Ave NE I believe the City has failed to follow it's own guidelines in the granting of this MDNS and short Plat, due to the fact that Kennydale Creek remains mis-classified as a Class IV stream, even though it is perennial and is classified correctly as a Class III a short way downstream. The City has ignored a request by the jurisdictional state agencies that the Creek and wetlands be reclassified correctly to reflect their status as headwaters of the state. The City has offered no process to upgrade the classificationjwhile receiving support for a downgrade has been ridiculously easy for the prospective developers. The City has not followed up on numerous statements, photos, affidavits, wetland studies, anecdotal evidence or visual proof that the creek runs year around, even in the driest of summers. They have failed to ascertain the status of this creek by using Best Available Science, which would include an objective assessment by a qualified expert at the driest times of the summer. They have accepted a wetland report provided by the applicant, which refers pejoratively to a "seasonal drainage ditch" when referring to this section of Kennydale Creek, when there is abundant proof that this is incorrect. City staff has failed on two different occasions (2006, 2007) to provide any evidence supporting the original Class IV designation of this creek. Due to the fact that Class III creek buffers, and Class II wetland buffers are significantly large, the importance of this issue cannot b ignored. The City's own policy states that when there is a conflict between the mapped designation and the criteria, the criteria rules. It is time to step up and follow the criteria, classify the creek and wetlands correctly, and stop Uying to appease the builders who would prefer the less stringent designations Susan Rider 1835 NE 20's Street Renton, WA 98056 (425)228-8711 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING NOTICE December 3, 2007 To: Gregg Zimmerman, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator Terry Higashiyama, Community Services Administrator I. David Daniels, Fire Chief Alex Pietsch, EDNSP Administrator From: Jennifer Henning, Development Planning Meeting Date: Monday, December 3, 2007 Time: 3.00 PM Location: Sixth Floor Conference Room #620 Agenda listed below. Blueberry Haven Short Plat (Dina) LUA07-131, SHPL-A, ECF The applicant is requesting Short Plat approval and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the subdivision of a 37,714 square foot site into two lots in the Residential - 4 dwelling unit per acre (R-4) zone. An existing single family residence is proposed to remain on Lot A. Lot A is proposed at 17,930 square feet and Lot B is proposed at 19,784 square feet in area_ Access to Lot A would be provided off of Jones Avenue NE and access to Lot B would be provided off of NE 20th Street. A 9,601 square foot category 3 wetland and a class 4 stream have been identified on the project site. cc: K. Keolker, Mayor J. Covington, Chief Administrative Officer S. Dale Estey, EDNSP Director@) C. Walls, Fire Prevention N. Watts, PlB/PW Development Services Director rJ F. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner B. Van Horne, Fire Prevention Q J. Medzegian, Council P. Hahn, PIBIPW Transportation Systems Director R. Lind, Economic Development L. Warren, City Attorney CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING February 12, 2008 AGENDA COMMENCING AT 9.00 AM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7TH FLOOR, RENTON CITY HALL The application(s) listed are in order of application number only and not necessarily the order in which they will be heard. Items will be called for hearing at the discretion of the Hearing Examiner. PROJECT NAME: Blueberry Haven Short Plat Appeal PROJECT NUMBER: LUA07-131, SHPL-A, ECF PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Appeal of the City's approval of a 2-lot short plat in the R-4 Zone. Appellant contends that the City erred in granting the short plat approval due to the presence of a stream and wetland on the property, which they maintain have not been properly classified. HEX Agenda 2-12-48.doc Fred Kaufman - Exhibits/Open Record Page 1 From: "Ann Nielsen" <asnielsen@seanet.com> To: <fkaufman@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 2/15/2008 3:24:20 PM Subject: Exhibits/Open Record Mr. Examiner, Pursuant to the agreement at Tuesday hearings, the record was going to be kept open for possible additional submissions, etc. On behalf of the City, I have reviewed the exhibits and the City will NOT be submitting any additional documents, However, it has come to our attention that Sue Larson Kinzer, (who is a party of record) was present early at Tuesday's hearing and wanted to testify. However, she had to leave due to a family emergency. Jennfer Henning and since learned that her father(?) has passed away and I believe she is tending to services related to it today. She did however, call Jennifer and indicate that she wished to submit a comment letter. Given the reason for why Ms. Larson Kinzer had to leave and her current situation, the City would have NO objection to allowing her to submit her comments/letter prior to the closing of the record in the Blueberry Haven/Gordley Short Plat Appeal, LUA 07-131- I have cc'd Ashley Peck (Appellant's attorney) on this email. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me - Ann Nielsen Asst. City Attorney Renton (425) 255-8678 asnielsen@seanet.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail, including any attachments, is confidential and may include privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe you have received this e-mail in error, please do not copy, print, forward, re -transmit, or otherwise disseminate this e-mail, its contents, or any of its attachments. Please delete this e-mail. Also, please notify the sender that you have received this e-mail in error. Thank you. Fred Kaufman - Exhibits/Open Record Page 2 CC: <nthompson@ci.renton.wa.us>, "'Ashley A. Peck "' <ashley@gendlermann.corn>, "'Jennifer Henning"' <Jhenning@ci.renton.wa.us>, "'Ann Nielsen"' <asnielsen@seanet.com> Fred Kaufman - Re: Exhibits/Open Record From: Fred Kaufman To: Ann Nielsen Subject: Re: Exhibits/Open Record All correspondence with this office regarding pending land use applications must be part of the public record. Your email and this response will be placed in the official file. Please refrain from replying to this email as that would generate another series of printouts and replies. >>> "Ann Nielsen" <asnielsen@seanet.com> 02/15/08 3:23 PM >>> Mr. Examiner, Pursuant to the agreement at Tuesday hearings, the record was going to be kept open for possible additional submissions, etc. On behalf of the City, have reviewed the exhibits and the City will NOT be submitting any additional documents. However, it has come to our attention that Sue Larson Kinzer, (who is a party of record) was present early at Tuesday's hearing and wanted to testify. However, she had to leave due to a family emergency. Jennfer Henning and since learned that her father(?) has passed away and I believe she is tending to services related to it today. She did however, call Jennifer and indicate that she wished to submit a comment letter. Given the reason for why Ms. Larson Kinzer had to leave and her current situation, the City would have NO objection to allowing her to submit her comments/letter prior to the closing of the record in the Blueberry Haven/Gordley Short Plat Appeal, LUA 07-131. have cc'd Ashley Peck (Appellant's attorney) on this email. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me. Ann Nielsen Asst. City Attorney Renton (425) 255-8678 asn ielsen C@§eanet. cam CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail, including any attachments, is confidential and may include Page 1 Fred Kaufman - Re: Exhibits/Open Record Wage 2 privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe you have received this e-mail in error, please do not copy, print, forward, re -transmit, or otherwise disseminate this e-mail, its contents, or any of its attachments. Please delete this e-mail- Also, please notify the sender that you have received this e-mail in error. Thank you. _._ ..._.._. ---.........� _ __........... . Fred Kaufm.an.-..RE.:.-Exhib..it..s./Open--Record.-- Pagel From: "Ashley A. Peck " <ashley@gendlermann.com> To: "'Ann Nielsen"' <asnielsen@seanet.com>, <fkaufman@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 2/19/2008 8:53:33 AM Subject: RE: Exhibits/Open Record Mr. Examiner: Ms. Rider does object to additional comments as untimely. If additional comments are admitted before the close of the record, we respectfully request the opportunity to submit rebuttal evidence depending on the content. Best, Ashley A. Peck Attorney at Law Gendler & Mann, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 (206) 621-8868 (206) 446-5379 (mobile) (206) 621-0512 (fax) ashley@gendlermann.com<mailto:gendler@gendlermann.com> www.gendlermann.com <http://www.gendlermann.com/> This message may contain information that is confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or information contained in the message. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender and delete the message. Thank you. From: Ann Nielsen [mailto:asnielsen@seanet.com] Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 3:24 PM To: fkaufman@ci.renton_wa.us Cc: nthompson@ci.renton.wa.us; 'Ashley A. Peck'; 'Jennifer Henning'; 'Ann Fred Kaufman - RE: Exhibits/Open Record Page 2 Nielsen' Subject: Exhibits/Open Record Importance; High Mr. Examiner, Pursuant to the agreement at Tuesday hearings, the record was going to be kept open for possible additional submissions, etc. On behalf of the City, I have reviewed the exhibits and the City will NOT be submitting any additional documents. However, it has come to our attention that Sue Larson Kinzer, (who is a party of record) was present early at Tuesday's hearing and wanted to testify. However, she had to leave due to a family emergency. Jennfer Henning and since learned that her father(?) has passed away and I believe she is tending to services related to it today. She did however, call Jennifer and indicate that she wished to submit a comment letter. Given the reason for why Ms. Larson Kinzer had to leave and her current situation, the City would have NO objection to allowing her to submit her comments/letter prior to the closing of the record in the Blueberry Haven/Gordley Short Plat Appeal, LUA 07-131. I have cc'd Ashley Peck (Appellant's attorney) on this email. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me. Ann Nielsen Asst. City Attorney Renton (425) 255-8678 asnielsen@seanet.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail, including any attachments, is confidential and may include privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe you have received this e-mail in error, please do not copy, print, forward, re -transmit, or otherwise disseminate this e-mail, its contents, or any of its attachments. Please delete this e-mail. Also, please notify the sender that you have received this e-mail in error. Thank you. Fred Kaufman - RE: Exhibits/Open Record Page 3 CC: <nthompson@ci.renton.wa.us>, "'Jennifer Henning"' <Jhenning@ci.renton.wa.us> Fred Kaufman - RE Exhibits/Open Record Page 1 From: Fred Kaufman To: Ashley A. Peck Date: 2/21 /2008 8:21:14 AM Subject: RE: Exhibits/Open Record All correspondence with this office regarding pending land use applications must be part of the public record. Your email and this response will be placed in the official file. Please refrain from replying to this email as that would generate another series of printouts and replies. >>> "Ashley A. Peck " Lashley@gendlermann.com> 02/19/08 8:52 AM >>> Mr. Examiner: Ms. Rider does object to additional comments as untimely. If additional comments are admitted before the close of the record, we respectfully request the opportunity to submit rebuttal evidence depending on the content. Best, Ashley A. Peck Attorney at Law Gendler & Mann, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 (206) 621-8868 (206) 446-5379 (mobile) (206) 621-0512 (fax) ashle endlermann.com <mailto:gendler@-gendlermann.com> www.gendlermann.com <http://www.gendlermann.com/> This message may contain information that is confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or information contained in the message. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender and delete the message. Thank you. Fred Kaufman - RE: Exhibits/Open Record Page 2 From: Ann Nielsen Imailto:asnieisen@seanet.com] Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 3:24 PM To: fkaufmaneci,renton.wa.us Cc: nthompsonCa)ci.renton.wa.us; 'Ashley A. Peck'; 'Jennifer Henning'; 'Ann Nielsen' Subject: Exhibits/Open Record Importance: High Mr. Examiner, Pursuant to the agreement at Tuesday hearings, the record was going to be kept open for possible additional submissions, etc. On behalf of the City, I have reviewed the exhibits and the City will NOT be submitting any additional documents. However, it has come to our attention that Sue Larson Kinzer, (who is a party of record) was present early at Tuesday's hearing and wanted to testify. However, she had to leave due to a family emergency. Jennfer Henning and since learned that her father(?) has passed away and I believe she is tending to services related to it today- She did however, call Jennifer and indicate that she wished to submit a comment letter. Given the reason for why Ms. Larson Kinzer had to leave and her current situation, the City would have NO objection to allowing her to submit her comments/letter prior to the closing of the record in the Blueberry Haven/Gordley Short Plat Appeal, LUA 07-131. I have cc'd Ashley Peck (Appellant's attorney) on this email. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me. Ann Nielsen Asst, City Attorney Renton (425) 255-8678 asnielsena, eanet.com --------------- Fred Kaufman - RE: Exhibits/Open Record Page 3 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail, including any attachments, is confidential and may include privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe you have received this e-mail in error, please do not copy, print, forward, re -transmit, or otherwise disseminate this e-mail, its contents, or any of its attachments. Please delete this e-mail. Also, please notify the sender that you have received this e-mail in error. Thank you. CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING February 12, 2008 AGENDA COMMENCING AT 9:00 AM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7TH FLOOR, RENTON CITY HALL The application(s) listed are in order of application number only and not necessarily the order in which they will be heard. Items will be called for hearing at the discretion of the Hearing Examiner. PROJECT NAME: Blueberry Haven Short Plat Appeal PROJECT NUMBER: LUA07-131, SHPL-A, ECF PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Appeal of the City's approval of a 2-lot short plat in the R-4 Zone. Appellant contends that the City erred in granting the short plat approval due to the presence of a stream and wetland on the property, which they maintain have not been properly classified. HEX Agenda 2-12-08.ddc "�L + Denis Law, Mayor January 30, 2008 CIT'V 3F nENTON Planning/Building/PublieWorks Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator Richard & Lauralee Gordley 2010 Jones Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 SUBJECT: Blueberry Haven Short Plat LUA07-131,' SHPL-A Dear Mr. & Mrs. Gordley: Please find enclosed, comments from the City's Property Services Division.. These comments will guide you in the .preparation of the Short Plat for recording. If you have any questions feel free to contact me at (425) 430-7286. Sincerely, Jennifer Toth Henning, A1CP Planning Manager Enclosure cc: Same as above / Owiie.r Sartre as above / Applicant 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98057 : R E lv 1 0 N This paperoontains 50% recycled material, 30%postconsumer AHEAD OF T II E CURVE -Y O PLANNING/BUILDING/ PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: January 28, 2008 TO: Jennifer Henning FROM: Karen McFarland, x7209 SUBJECT: Gordley (aka Blueberry Haven) Short Plat, LUA-07-131-SHPL Format and Legal Description Review Technical Services staff have reviewed the above referenced short plat submittal and have the following comments: Comments for the Applicant: The indexing information noted at the top of the preliminary drawing, is incorrect. The subject property falls within the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 5, not the SE %4 of the NE 1/4. Note the addresses for the two lots as follows: Lot A is 2010 Jones Ave NE, and Lot B is 1712 NE 20th Street. Note both addresses on the final short plat drawing. Ties to two City- of Renton Survey Control Network horizontal control monuments are needed. Monument #334 is a benchmark only. Make a tie to a second City of Renton Survey Control Network horizontal monument. When said tie(s) is provided, the city will check the geometry_ Information needed for final short plat approval includes the following: Note the City of Renton land use action number and land record umber, LUA-07-131-SHPL and LND-20-0509, respectively, on the drawing. The type size used for the land record number should be smaller than that used for the land use action number. Indicate what has been, or is to be, set at the corners of the proposed lots. Note discrepancies between bearings and distances of record and those measured or calculated, if any. Item No. 2, under the "SURVEYOR'S NOTES" block, states that no current title report was used in preparing the subject short plat submittal, and further, any easements may not be shown on said submittal. Do use a current title report and show all pertinent easements, agreements, covenants, conditions, restrictions, etc. on said short plat. Remove said Item No. 2 from the short plat submittal. L: LND-20 - short Plats105091RV080122.doc Addressee Name Page 2 of 2 January 28, 2008 Include a dedication/certification block on the drawing. Note all easements, covenants and agreements of record on the drawing, if any. Note the plat name and tract numbers of the properties surrounding the subject short plat parcel. On the final short plat submittal, remove all references (including in the "LEGEND") to utilities facilities, gravel, rockery, topog lines, asphalt, concrete, stairs, trees and other items not directly impacting the subdivision. These items are provided only for preliminary short plat approval. Remove the building setback lines noted on the final short plat lots. Setbacks will be determined at the time that building permits are issued. Because the subject property falls within Zone 2 of the City of Renton Aquifer Protection Area, the Aquifer Protection Notice needs to be noted on the drawing. See the attachment. Required City of Renton signatures, on the final plat drawing, include the Administrator of Planning/Building/Public Works, the Mayor and the City Clerk. In addition, an approval block for the city's Finance Director is required. The appropriate King County approvals need to be provided for also. All vested owner(s) of the subject final short plat need to sign the final short plat drawing. Include notary blocks as needed. Note that if there are easements, restrictive covenants or agreements to others (City of Renton, etc.) as part of this subdivision, they can be recorded concurrently with the final short plat. The short plat drawing and the associated document(s) are to be given to the Proicct Manager as a package. The short plat will be recorded first (by King County). The recording number(s) for the associated document(s) are to be referenced on the short plat drawing_ Provide spaces for the recording numbers thereof. It appears that the title report provided with this submittal is out of date. Please provide the City with a current title report. The legal description is missing and needs to be noted on the drawing. LALND-20 - Short P1ats105091RV080122.doc w GeoDimensions Inc. 1-425-396-0732 Friday, January 04, 2008 10:01:03 AM PROJECT: GORDLEY SHORT PLAT JOB NO. 6309 CLOSURE REPORT Coordinate values shown are computed based on the rounded bearing and distance, or chord bearing and chord lengths as indicated herein. Boundary Name: LOT A AREA Point Number Description Sta Northing Easting Bearing Distance ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 0 0+00.00 5301.660 10027.281 N89029100"E 255.50 ft 0 2+55.50 5303,964 10282.771 S00035132"E 70.00 ft 0 3+25.50 5233.968 10283.494 S89029100"W 255.60 ft 0 5+81.10 5231.663 10027.904 N0003110011W 70.00 ft 0 6+51.10 5301,660 10027.273 Closing latitude Closing departure Closing bearing Closing distance Total traverse length Total error of closure Error of closure in latitude Error of closure in departure Area Area =-0.00001 =-0.00769 = N89°56'12"E = 0.00769 = 651.10 (651.10) = 1/84649 = 1/76630525 = 1/84649 = 17888. 42 SQ FT = 0.41 ACRES DEVELOPMENT PLANNING ,,11Y OF RFh,; r7N JAN 11 2008 RECEIVED GeoDimensions Inc. 1-425-396-0732 Friday, January 04, 2008 10:03:37 AM PROJECT: GORDLEY SHORT PLAT JOB NO. 6309 CLOSURE REPORT Coordinate values shown are computed based on the rounded bearing and distance, or chord bearing and chord lengths as indicated herein. Boundary Name: LOT B AREA Point Number Description Sta Northing Easting Bearing Distance ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 0 0+00.00 5233.061 10182.901 N89029100"E 100.60 ft 0 1+00.60 5233.968 10283.497 S001135132"E 195.34 ft 0 2+95.94 5038,638 10285,516 S88°1611411W 100.88 ft 0 3+96.82 5035.594 10184.682 N00031,0011W 197.48 ft 0 5+94.30 5233.066 10182,907 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Closing latitude = 0.00501 Closing departure = 0.00015 Closing bearing = S01040'38"W Closing distance 0.00501 Total traverse length = 594.30 (594,30) Total error of closure = 1/118634 Error of closure in latitude = 1/118685 Error of closure in departure = 1/4053193 Area = 19784.36 SQ FT Area = 0.45 ACRES GeoDimensions Inc. 1-425-396-0732 Friday, January 04, 2008 10:01:03 AM PROJECT: GORDLEY SHORT PLAT JOB NO. 6309 CLOSURE REPORT Coordinate values shown are computed based on the rounded bearing and distance, or chord bearing and chord lengths as indicated herein. Boundary Name: LOT A AREA Paint Number Description Sta Northing Easting Bearing Distance ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 0 0+00.00 5301.660 10027.281 N89029100"E 255.50 ft 0 2+55.50 5303,964 10282,771 S00035132"E 70.00 ft 0 3+25.50 5233.968 10283.494 S89029100"W 255.60 ft 0 5+81.10 5231.663 10027.904 N0003110011W 70.00 ft 0 6+51.10 5301.660 10027.273 Closing latitude Closing departure Closing bearing Closing distance Total traverse length Total error of closure Error of closure in latitude Error of closure in departure Area Area =-0.00001 =-0.00769 = N89°56'12"E = 0.00769 = 651.10 (651.10) = 1/84649 = 1/76630525 1/84649 = 17888.42 SQ FT = 0.41 ACRES GeoDimensions Inc. 1-425-396-0732 Friday, January 04, 2008 10:03:37 AN PROJECT: GORDLEY SHORT PLAT JOB NO, 6309 CLOSURE REPORT Coordinate values shown are computed based on the rounded bearing and distance, or chord bearing and chord lengths as indicated herein. Boundary Name: LOT B AREA Point Number Description Sta Northing Easting Bearing Distance ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 0 0+00.00 5233.061 10182.901 N891129100"E 100.60 ft 0 1+00.60 5233.968 10283.497 S0003513211E 195.34 ft 0 2+95.94 5038.638 10285.516 S8B°1611411W 100.88 ft 0 3+96.82 5035.594 10184,682 N0003110011W 197.48 ft 0 5+94.30 5233.066 10182.901 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Closing latitude = 0.00501 Closing departure = 0.00015 Closing bearing = S0104013811W Closing distance = 0.00501 Total traverse length = 594.30 (594.30) Total error of closure = 1/118634 Error of closure in latitude = 1/118685 Error of closure in departure = 1/4053193 Area = 19784.36 SQ FT Area = 0.45 ACRES 4L GeoDimensions Inc. 1-425-396-0732 Friday, January 04, 2008 10:01:03 AM PROJECT: GORDLEY SHORT PLAT JOB NO. 6309 CLOSURE REPORT Coordinate values shown are computed based on the rounded bearing and distance, or chord bearing and chord lengths as indicated herein. Boundary Name: LOT A AREA Point Number Description Sta Northing Easting Bearing Distance ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 0 0+00.00 5301.660 10027.281 N89029100"E 255.50 ft 0 2+55.50 5303.964 10282.771 S00°35132"E 70.00 ft 0 3+25.50 5233.968 10283.494 S89029100"W 255.60 ft 0 5+81.10 5231.663 10027.904 N00031'0011W 70.00 ft 0 6+51.1c 5301.660 10027.273 Closing latitude Closing departure Closing bearing Closing distance Total traverse length Total error of closure Error of closure in latitude Error of closure in departure Area Area =-0.00001 =-0.00769 = N89056'12"E = 0.00769 = 651.10 (651.10) = 1/84649 = 1/76630525 = 1/84649 = 17888.42 SQ FT = 0.41 ACRES GeoDimensions Inc. 1-425-396-0732 Friday, January 04, 2008 10:03:37 AM PROJECT: GORDLEY SHORT PLAT JOB NO. 6309 CLOSURE REPORT Coordinate values shown are computed based on the rounded bearing and distance, or chord bearing and chord lengths as indicated herein. Boundary Name: LOT B AREA Point Number Description Sta Northing Easting Bearing Distance ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 0 0+00.00 5233.061 10182.907 N89029'00"E 100.60 ft 0 1+00.60 5233.968 10283.497 S00035132"E 195.34 ft 0 2+95.94 5038,638 10285.516 S88016'14"W 100.88 ft 0 3+96.82 5035.594 10184.682 N00031'00"W 197.48 ft 0 5+94.30 5233.066 10182.901 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Closing latitude = 0.00501 Closing departure = 0.00015 Closing bearing = SO1040'38"W Closing distance = 0.00501 Total traverse length = 594.30 (594.30) Total error of closure = 1/118634 Error of closure in latitude = 1/118685 Error of closure in departure = 1/4053193 Area = 19784.36 SQ FT Area = 0.45 ACRES N o CITE- _)F RENTON + + Hearing Examiner MA Denis Law, Mayor Fred J. Kaufman l �l_ —L I January 10, 2008 Susan Rider 1835 NE 20"' Street Renton, WA 98056 RE: Blueberry Haven Short Plat LUA 07-131 Dear Ms. Rider: This office has received your appeal letter on the above referenced matter. Please be advised that the appeal hearing has been scheduled for Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. The hearing will take place in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. The address is 1055 S Grady Way in Renton. If this office can provide any further assistance, please address those comments in writing. Sincerely, Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton Encl: Copy of Appeal Letter cc: Ann Nielsen Assistant City Attorney Neil Watts, Development Services Director Stacy Tucker, Development Services Parties of Record: Denise Blackmau Sue Larson -Kinzer Robert Cave Barbara Hicks William O'Connor Richard & Lauralee Gordley 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98057 - (425) 430-6515 MThls paper contains 50% recvc[ed material. 30 %post consumer REN'T'ON AHEAD OF THE CURVE Denis Law, Mayor January 2, 2008 Richard & Lauralee Gordley 2010 Jones Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 SUBJECT: Blueberry Haven Short Plat LUA07-131, SHPL-A, ECF Dear Mr. & Mrs. Gordley: CITY )F RENTON Planning/Building/PubIicWorks Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator This letter is to inform you that the appeal period ended December 26, 2007 for the Environmental Review Committee's (ERC) Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated and the Administrative Short Plat approval for the above -referenced project. An appeal has been filed on the ERC Determination and/or the Administrative Short Plat approval, therefore, a Hearing Examiner Public Hearing will be scheduled and all parties will be notified. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant are required to be present at the public hearing. Enclosed is a copy of the submitted appeal for your review. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (425) 430-7286. For the Environmental Review Committee, Jennifer Henning, AICP Current Planning Manager Enclosure cc: Denise Blackmau, Sue Larson -Kinzer, Robert Cave, Susan Rider, .Barbara Hicks, William O'Connor / Party(ies) of Record I055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98057 R E N T Q N .ARFAD of THE CURVE This pap-rcontains 50% recyded material, 30%post consumer - - I-XTY OF RENTON Dec 26, 2007 Mr. Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton RE. LUA 07-431 Blueberry Haven Short Plat Mr. Kaufman DEC 2 G 2007 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE I am appealing the erroneous decision by City administration to grant .a short plat application presented by Mr. and Mrs. Gordley at 2010 Jones Ave NE I believe the City has failed to follow it's own guidelines in the granting of this MDNS and short Plat, due to the fact that Kennydale Creek remains mis-classified as a Class IV stream, even though it is perennial and is classified correctly as a Class III a short way downstream. The City has ignored a request by the jurisdictional state agencies that the Creek and wetlands be reclassified correctly to reflect their status as headwaters of the state. The City has offered no process to upgrade the classificationiwhile receiving support for a downgrade has been ridiculously easy for the prospective developers. The City has not followed up on numerous statements, photos, affidavits, wetland studies, anecdotal evidence or visual proof that the creek runs year around, even in the driest of summers. They have failed to ascertain the status of this creek by using Best Available Science, which would include an objective assessment by a qualified expert at the driest times of the summer. They have accepted a wetland report provided by the applicant, which refers pejoratively to a "seasonal drainage ditch" when referring to this section of Kennydale Creek, when there is abundant proof that this is incorrect. City staff has failed on two different occasions (2006, 2007) to provide any evidence supporting the original Class IV designation of this creek. Due to the fact that Class III creek buffers, and Class 11 wetland buffers are significantly large, the importance of this issue cannot b ignored. The City's own policy states that when there is a conflict between the mapped designation and the criteria, the criteria rules. It is time to step up and follow the criteria, classify the creek and wetlands correctly, and sto ' g to appease the builders who would prefer the less stringent designations Susan Rider 1835 NE 20'h Street Renton, WA 98056 (425) 228-8711 �y CITY OF RENTON City Clerk Division + 1055 South Grady Way �0 Renton, WA 98055 INV425-430-6510 Cash Check No. Description: j-o"- Funds Received From: ❑ Copy Fee ❑ Appeal Fee Name t , Address City/Zip Receipt N w 0998 Date ❑ Notary Service VICIIJ City REPORT city of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public Works DECISION ADMINISTRATIVE SHORT PLAT REPORT & DECISION A. SUMMARYAND PURPOSE OF REQUEST. - REPORT DATE: December 10, 2007 Project Name Blueberry Haven Short Plat Owner/Applicant/ Richard A & Lauralee Gordley Contact: 2010 Jones Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 File Number LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF I Project Manager Jill K. Ding, Senior Planner Project Description The applicant is requesting Short Plat approval and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the subdivision of a 37,714 square foot site into two lots in the Residential - 4 dwelling unit per acre (R-4) zone. An existing single family residence is proposed to remain on Lot A. Lot A is proposed at 17,930 square feet and Lot B is proposed at 19,784 square feet in area. Access to Lot A would be provided off of Jones Avenue NE and access to Lot B would be provided off of NE 20th Street. A 9,601 square foot category 3 wetland and a class 4 stream have been identified on the project site. Project Location 2010 Jones Avenue NE16 Project Location Map AdrooRPT Blueberry Haven Short Ph[dor REPORT City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public Works DECISION ADMINISTRATIVE SHORT PLAT REPORT & DECISION A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST: REPORT DATE. December 10, 2007 Project Name Blueberry Haven Short Plat Owner/Applicant/ Richard A & Lauralee Gordley Contact: 2010 Jones Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 File Number LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF Project Manager Jill K. Ding, Senior Planner Project Description The applicant is requesting Short Plat approval and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the subdivision of a 37,714 square foot site into two lots in the Residential - 4 dwelling unit per acre (R-4) zone. An existing single family residence is proposed to remain on Lot A. Lot A is proposed at 17,930 square feet and Lot B is proposed at 19,784 square feet in area. Access to Lot A would be provided off of Jones Avenue NE and access to Lot B would be provided off of NE 20th Street. A 9,601 square foot category 3 wetland and a class 4 stream have been identified on the project site. Project Location 2010 Jones Avenue NE Project Location Map AdminRPT Blueberry Naven Shor, Plat doc City of Renton PIBIPW Department Administrative Land Use Action REPORT AND DECISION DATED December 10, 2007; PROJECT LUA-07-131, 5HPL-A, ECF Page 2 B. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owners of Record: Richard A & Lauralee Gordley, 2010 Jones Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98056 2. Zoning Designation: Residential — 4 du/ac (R-4) 3. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: Residential Low Density (RLD) 4. Existing Site Use: Once existing single family residence is proposed to remain. 5. Neighborhood Characteristics: North: Single Family Residential (R-4 zone) East: Single Family Residential (R-4 zone) South: Single Family Residential (R-4 zone) West: Single Family Residential (R-4 zone) 6. Access: Lot A would access directly off of Jones Avenue NE and Lot B would access directly off of NE 201h Street 7. Site Area: 37,714 square feet/0.86 acres C. HISTORICAUBACKGROUND: Action Comprehensive Plan Zoning Annexation Lot Line Adjustment D. PUBLIC SERVICES: Land Use File No. N/A N/A N/A LUA07-090 Ordinance No. Date 5099 11 /01/2004 5100 11 /01 /2004 1827 5/03/1960 N/A N/A 1. Utilities Water: There is an existing 6-inch water main fronting the site in NE 20th Street and an 8-inch main in Jones Ave NE. Derated fire flow from the 6-inch is approximately 1,150 gpm. Static water pressure in the area is approximately 70 psi. The proposed project is located in the 435 Water Pressure Zone and is inside Aquifer Protection Zone 2. Sewer: There is an existing 8-inch sewer main in NE 20'h Street. Surface Water/Storm Water: There is no storm system in NE 20th Street. Streets: There is no sidewalk, curb, and gutter fronting the site in NE 201h Street or in Jones Ave NE. 2. Fire Protection: City of Renton Fire Department E. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE: 1. Chapter 2 Land Use Districts Section 4-2-020: Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts Section 4-2-070: Zoning Use Table Section 4-2-110_ Residential Development Standards 2. Chapter 4 Property Development Standards Section 4-4-030: Development Guidelines and Regulations 3. Chapter 6 Streets and Utility Standards Section 4-6-060: Street Standards 4. Chapter 7 Subdivision Regulations Section 4-7-070: Detailed Procedures for Short Subdivisions Section 4-7-120: Compatibility with Existing Land Use and Plan -General Requirements and Minimum Standards AdminRPT Blueberry Haven Short Plat. doc City of Renton P1B1PW Department Administrative land Use Action REPORT AND DECISION DATED December 10, 2007; PROJECT LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF Page 3 Section 4-7-150: Streets -General Requirements and Minimum Standards Section 4-7-170: Residential Lots -General Requirements and Minimum Standards 5. Chapter 9 Procedures and Review Criteria F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: 1. Land Use Element — Residential Low Density 2. Community Design Element 3. Environmental Element G. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1. Proiect Description/Background The applicants, Richard and Lauralee Gordley, are proposing to subdivide a 0.86-acre (37,714 square foot) parcel zoned Residential — 4 dwelling units per acre (R-4) into two lots. The project site would be created after the recording of the Gordley/Denzler Lot Line Adjustment (LUA07-090, LLA), which is being reviewed concurrently. An existing residence is proposed to remain on Lot A and a new residence would be constructed on Lot B. The required front yard setback is 30 feet, the required side yard is a 15-foot combined setback with a minimum of 5 feet for any side yard, and the required rear yard setback is 25 feet. Proposed lot sizes are: Lot A at 17,930 sq. ft. and Lot B at 19,784 sq. ft. The proposal for two new lots would arrive at a density of 3.55 dwelling units per net acre (du/ac). The maximum density permitted in the R-4 zone is 4.0 dwelling units per acre and the proposed density does not exceed the maximum density permitted. Access to proposed Lot A would remain off of Jones Avenue NE and access to Lot B is proposed off of NE 20th Street. A 9,601 square foot Category 3 wetland has been identified and delineated on the project site. A Category 3 wetland requires a minimum 25-foot buffer. Category 3 wetland buffers of 25 feet required the buffers be fully vegetated with native species or restored; otherwise increased buffer widths to protect functions and values may be required. A stream (Kennydale Creek) flows along the eastern boundary of the project site. The City's Critical Areas Maps classify the stream as a Class 4 stream. A Class 4 stream is a non-salmonid bearing intermittent stream and requires a minimum 35-foot buffer_ Staff has received comment letters from neighbors who dispute the Class 4 classification of the stream. The letters indicate that the stream is not intermittent, but is perennial and should therefore be classified as a Class 3 stream, which requires a minimum 75-foot buffer. 2. Environmental Review Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21 C, 1971 as amended), on December 3, 2007, the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M) for the Blueberry Haven Short Plat. The DNS-M included 1 mitigation measure. A 14-day appeal is running concurrently with the appeal period for the Administrative Short Plat decision. 3. Compliance with ERC Conditions Based on an analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued the following mitigation measure with the Determination of Non -Significance — Mitigated: 1. The proposed short plat shall comply with the recommendations found in the Critical Areas Study prepared by Steward and Associates, dated April 17, 2007. 4. Staff Review Comments 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 the report. AdminRPT Blueberry Haven Short Plat.doc City of Renton P181PW Department Administrative Land Use Action REPORT AND DECISION DATED December 10, 2007; PROJECT LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF Page 4 5. Consistency Short Plat Criteria Approval of a plat is based upon several factors. The following short plat criteria have been established to assist decision -makers in the review of the plat: a) Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan Designation The site is designated Residential Low Density (RLD) on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, Lands in the RLD designation are intended to guide development on land appropriate for a range of low intensity residential and employment where land is either constrained by sensitive areas or where the City has the opportunity to add larger -lot housing stock, at urban densities of 4-du/net acre, to its inventory. The proposal is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Community Design Element policies: Policy LU-143. Within the Residential 4 du/acre zoned area allow a maximum density of 4 units per net acre to encourage larger lot development and increase the supply of upper income housing consistent with the City's Housing Element. The proposed project for two lots would arrive at a net density of 3.55 dwelling units per net acre, which is less than the maximum density permitted. Policy LU-?46. Interpret development standards to support provision of landscape features as well as innovative site planning. Criteria should include: 1) Attractive residential streetscapes with landscaped front yards that are visible from the street; 2) Landscaping, preferably with drought- resistant plant materials; 3) Large caliper street trees; 4) Irrigated landscape planting strips; 5) Low -impact development using landscaped buffers, open spaces, and other pervious surfaces for surface water runoff; and 6) Significant native tree and vegetation retention and/or replacement. A detailed landscape plan will be required with the submittal of the building permit materials. A minimum of 5 feet of landscaping will be required along the NE 201h Street frontage and 2 trees will be required within the front yard area of the proposed lot. A minimum of 25 percent of the existing trees will be required to be retained or replaced. Objective CD-C: Promote reinvestment in and upgrade of existing residential neighborhoods through redevelopment of small, underutilized parcels with infill development, modification and alteration of older housing stock, and improvements to streets and sidewalks to increase property values. The proposed short plat would result in the creation of a new lot for the future construction of a single family residence. In addition, frontage improvements would be constructed along Jones Avenue NE and NE 201h Street or a fee in lieu of construction the improvements would be paid. Policy CD-12: Infill development, defined as new short plats of nine or fewer lots, should be encouraged in order to add variety, update housing stock, and increase vitality of neighborhoods. The proposed short plat would result in the creation of two lots. An existing residence would remain on Lot A and a new residence would be constructed on Lot B, updating the housing stock in the existing neighborhood. Policy CD-13: Infill development should be reflective of the existing character of established neighborhoods even when designed using different architectural styles, and /or responding to more urban setbacks, height or lot requirements. Infill development should draw on elements of existing development such as placement of structures, vegetation, and location of entries and walkways, to reflect the site planning and scale of existing areas. Construction of a new single family residence would be required to comply with the R-4 development standards for setbacks, lot coverage, and building height. AdminRPT Blueberry Haven Short Plat.doc City of Renton PIB/PW Department Administrative Land Use Action REPORT AND DECISION DATED December 10, 2007; PROJECT LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF Page 5 Policy CD-13.1: Project design, including location of access and dimensions of yards and setbacks, should address privacy and quality of life on existing improved portions of sites. Rear and side yard setbacks should be maintained and not reduced to facilitate increased density. The proposed lots would be adequately sized to provide the required setback areas established for the R-4 zone. No reductions in the required yards are proposed. Objective EN-C: Protect and enhance the City's rivers, major and minor creeks and intermittent stream courses. The on -site stream is currently classified as a class 4 stream. A class 4 stream requires a minimum 35400t buffer, a buffer reduction down to a minimum of 25 feet maybe permitted if the applicant elects to enhance the buffer, The proposed development would not encroach into the required buffer area. Policy EN-8. Achieve no overall net loss of the City's remaining wetlands base. The proposed short plat would not impact the on -site category 3 wetland or its buffer. Policy EN-9. In no case should development activities decrease net acreage of existing wetlands. The proposed short plat is not proposing any impacts to the size of the on -site wetland. Policy EN-10. Establish and protect buffers along wetlands to facilitate infiltration and maintain stable water temperatures, provide for the biological regime, reduce amount and velocity of run-off, and provide for wildlife habitat. The proposed development would maintain the minimum 25-foot buffer from the edge of the category 3 wetland. b) Compliance with the Underlying Zoning Designation The subject site is designated Residential — 4 Dwelling Units per Acre (R-4) on the City of Renton Zoning Map. An existing single-family residence is proposed to be retained. The project site would be created after the recording of the Gordley/Denzler Lot Line Adjustment (LUA07-090, LLA). Staff recommends as a condition of approval that the GordleylDenzler Lot Line Adjustment be recorded prior to the recording of the Blueberry Haven Short Plat. The maximum density permitted in the R-4 zone is 4.0 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. After the deduction of the 900 square foot access easement and 12,254 square foot critical areas, the proposal for two lots arrives at a net density of 3.55 dwelling units per acre (37,714 square feet — 900 square feet — 12,254 = 24,560 square feet/0.56 acres, 2 lots / 0.56 acres = 3.55 duiac), which is less than the maximum density permitted for the R-4 zone. The allowed building lot coverage in the R-4 zone is 35 percent or 2,500 square feet whichever is greater for lots over 5,000 square feet in size. The existing residence has a building footprint of 1,742 square feet, which would result in a building lot coverage of 10 percent on Lot A. The building lot coverage for Lot 2 would be reviewed during the building permit review. The required setbacks in the R-4 zone are as follows: front yard is 30 feet, side yard is 15 feet combined with a minimum of 5 feet, and the rear yard is 25 feet. Based on the proposed subdivision, proposed Lot A would have its front yard oriented to the west towards Jones Avenue NE and proposed Lot B would have its front yard oriented to the south towards NE 201h Street. The existing residence does not comply with the required 30-foot front yard setback, however this is an existing non -conforming situation and the non -conformity would not be increased by the approval of the proposed short plat. The existing residence would comply with the remaining rear and side yard setbacks. The parking regulations require that detached or semi -attached dwellings provide a minimum of 2 off-street parking spaces. As proposed, each lot would have adequate area to provide two off- street parking spaces. Both lots contain adequate area to provide the required parking areas. c) Community Assets The entire site is vegetated primarily with grass, ornamental landscaping, and 40 trees (2 of which are located outside critical areas and their associated buffers). The regulations regarding tree AdminRPT Blueberry Haven Short Plat. doc City of Renton PIBJPW Department Administrative Land Use Action REPORT AND DECISION DATED December 10, 2007; PROJECT LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF Page 6 protection and retention require that trees on lots being developed be maintained to the maximum extent feasible. They permit the City to require the replacement of trees that would implement the intent of the regulations. The Development Services Director has made a determination that to comply with these requirements, 25 percent of all protected trees (located outside of critical areas and their associated buffers) shall be retained or replaced. One of the two trees located on the project site outside of any critical areas and buffers would be required to be retained or replaced. The applicant submitted and tree cutting plan that indicates both of the trees located outside of the critical areas and associated buffers would be required to be removed due to their locations within the proposed building envelope. One tree with a minimum caliper of 2 inches would be required to be planted in order to comply with the tree retention requirements. Staff recommends as a condition of approval that a tree planting plan be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit showing the location of a minimum 2-inch caliper tree on the project site. The plan shall be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager for review and approval. The City's landscaping regulations require the installation of landscaping within the public right-of- way. The minimum amount of landscaping required for sites abutting a non -arterial public street is 5 feet provided that if there is additional undeveloped right-of-way in excess of 5 feet, this shall also be landscaped. A determination has been made that if no additional area is available within the public right-of-way due to required improvements, the 5-foot landscaped strip may be located within private property abutting the public right-of-way. The landscaping proposed shall either consist of drought resistant vegetation or shall be irrigated appropriately. In addition, the applicant will be required to plant two ornamental trees, a minimum caliper of 1-1l2 inches (deciduous) or 6 — S feet in height (conifer), within the 30-foot front yard setback area for the proposed lots. Existing landscaping may be used to augment the required landscaping. A minimum 5-foot wide landscape strip is required along the project site's Jones Avenue NE and NE 201h Street frontage. The applicant is proposing to retain the existing landscaping with the existing residence along the Jones Avenue NE frontage. The applicant included a note on the preliminary short plat map indicating that the front yard of proposed Lot B (along NE 20th Street) would be landscaped by a future owner during the building permit review process. It appears that at least 7 trees are proposed to be retained within the front yard area of Lot B due to their location within the class 4 stream buffer. Therefore, other than the one tree required to be planted for compliance with the significant tree retention requirements, no additional trees are required to be planted. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted with the building permit applications. All landscaping shall be installed prior to the issuance of occupancy for the buildings. dj Compliance with Subdivision Regulations Streets: No new public streets would be created as part of the proposed short plat. Jones Avenue NE and NE 201h Street are classified as a Residential Access Street on the City's Arterial Street Map. There are no existing frontage improvements along the parcel's Jones Avenue NE or NE 201h Street frontages. Half street improvements including sidewalk, curb, gutter, paving and storm drainage are required to be installed fronting the site in NE 2& Street and Jones Avenue NE. The applicant may submit an application requesting to pay a fee in lieu of installing the improvements to Development Services for consideration prior to the recording of the final short plat. The proposed short plat is anticipated to generate additional traffic on the City's street system. In order to mitigate transportation impacts, staff recommends a condition of approval be placed on the project requiring a Transportation Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per net new average daily trip attributed to the project. One new lot is expected to generate approximately 9.57 new average weekday trips. The fee for the proposed short plat is estimated at $717.75 ($75.00 x 9.57 trips x 1 lots = $717.75) and is payable prior to the recording of the short plat. Blocks: No new blocks will be created as part of the proposed short plat. Lots: The size, shape, orientation, and arrangement of the proposed lots comply with the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations and the development standards of the R-4 zone. Each lot is rectangular in shape the front yard of Lot A would remain oriented towards Jones AdminRPT Blueberry Haven Short Plat. doc City of Renton PJB1PW Department Administrative Land Use Action REPORT AND DECISION DATED December 10, 2007; PROJECT LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF Page 7 Avenue NE and the front yard of Lot B would be oriented to the south towards NE 20th Street. Each of the proposed lots would have direct to a public street (Lot A would retain access off of Jones Avenue NE and Lot B would access off of NE 20' Street). The minimum lot size in the R-4 zone is 8,000 square feet. Lot area is calculated after the deduction of private access easements and pipestems from the gross lot area. There are no access easements or pipestems proposed that would be required to be deducted from the gross lot area. The proposed lot sizes are 17,930 square feet for Lot A, and 19,784 square feet for Lot B. The proposed lot sizes exceed the minimum lot size requirements. The minimum lot width required in the R-4 zone is 70 feet for interior lots. Proposed Lot A would have a lot width of 70 feet and Lot B would have a lot width of 100 feet. The minimum lot depth required in the R-4 zone is 80 feet. Proposed Lot A has a lot depth of 255 feet and Lot B has a lot depth of 197 feet. The dimensions of the proposed lots meet the minimum width and depth requirements and are compatible with other existing lots in this area under the same R-4 zoning classification. In addition, the lots appear to contain adequate building areas to allow for the retention of the existing single family residence and the construction of a new single family residence when taking setbacks and lot coverage requirements into consideration. e) Reasonableness of Proposed Boundaries Access: Each lot would have access to a public right-of-way (Lot A would retain its access off of Jones Avenue NE and Lot B would access off of NE 20`h Street) via single family residential driveways. Topography: The topography of the subject site is relatively flat with a gradual slope to the northeast. A Critical Area Study (including a wetland delineation) was prepared by Steward and Associates, dated April 17, 2007, A Category 3 wetland was identified on the central portion of the project site west of an on -site stream. The report notes that the wetland likely continues to the east of the stream, however this wetland was not required to be delineated as it is unlikely that any development on the project site would adversely impact a wetland or associated buffer area located to the east of the stream. According to the report, the on -site wetland totals approximately 12,632 square feet in area, however the survey of the wetland that was submitted as part of the GordleylDenzler Lot Line Adjustment and the preliminary short plat map identified the wetland area as 9,601 square feet. As the 9,601 square foot area of the wetland is based on a survey this is the area that is accepted for the purpose of reviewing the short plat application. A Category 3 wetland requires a minimum 25-foot buffer. The City's Critical Areas Regulations require that Category 3 wetland buffers of 25 feet shall be fully vegetated with native species or restored; otherwise increased buffer widths to protect functions and values may be required. The submitted preliminary short plat map identifies a 25-foot wetland buffer from the edge of the on -site wetland. The buffer area is currently vegetated with mowed lawn, which is not considered a native plant species. Therefore, staff recommends as a condition of approval that if the applicant proposes to provide a minimum 25-foot buffer from the edge of the on -site wetland, then a wetland buffer enhancement plan shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. If the applicant does not want to enhance the 25-foot buffer, the wetland buffer area will need to be increased to an appropriate width as determined utilizing best available science. The submitted study recommends that a final Critical Areas Study be prepared prior to the approval of any development on the project site including an enhancement or mitigation plan a necessary. The ERC adopted a SEPA mitigation measure requiring compliance with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Critical Areas Study. A stream has been identified, which flows along the east border of the project site. The City's Streams and Lakes Map classifies the stream as a Class 4 stream, which is a non-salmonid bearing intermittent stream. Class 4 streams require a minimum 35-foot buffer. A stream study prepared by Cedarock Consultants, Inc., dated February 17, 2006 was submitted with the project application. The study was prepared for the City of Renton and was prepared in response to a previous request to reclassify the on -site stream from a Class 4 stream to a Class 5 stream, which is unregulated. In addition, at the time there was also some discussion as to whether the stream should actually be classified as a Class 3 stream. A Class 3 stream is a non-salmonid bearing stream that has perennial flows and requires a 75-foot buffer. The report included a review of the AdminRPT Blueberry Haven Short Pfat.doc City of Renton P1BlPW Department Administrative Land Use Action REPORT AND DECISION DATED December 10, 2007; PROJECT LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF Page 8 previous documentation that had been prepared regarding the stream, information that had been obtained through a site visit, and a review of the City's Critical Areas Regulations. The report concluded that it is unlikely that the stream is a salmonid bearing stream due to steep slopes that exist downstream towards Lake Washington. The report indicated that no conclusive evidence had been gathered as to whether the stream was perennial or intermittent and that this issue can only be resolved through direct observation of flow characteristics during the summer and that this data can take several years to gather depending on rainfall patterns. Therefore, the report recommended that the stream retain its Class 4 stream classification. Staff has received comments from neighbors regarding the classification of the stream. The neighbors have indicated that the stream flows perennially and that the stream is misclassified and should be classified as a Class 3 stream. In order to protect the wetland, stream, and associated buffer areas, staff recommends as a condition of approval that a Native Growth Protection Easement shall be recorded over the on -site wetland, stream, and associated buffer areas prior to or concurrent with the recording of the final short plat map. In order to notify future property owners of the presence of the stream and wetland areas, staff recommends that the edge of the NGPE be delineated with a split rail fence and identified with signage as approved by the Development Services Division Project Manager. A fencing and signage detail shall be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager at the time of Utility Construction Permit Application for review and approval. The fencing and signage shall be installed prior to the recording of the final plat. Relationship to Existing Uses: The properties surrounding the subject site are single-family residences and are designated Residential — 4 dwelling units per acre (R-4) on the City's zoning reap. 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. 0 Availability and Impact on Public Services (Timeliness) Police and Fire: Police and Fire Prevention staff indicate that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development, subject to the condition that the applicant provide Code required improvements and fees. A Fire Mitigation Fee, based on $488.00 per new single-family lot, is recommended in order to mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to City emergency services. The fee is estimated at $488.00 ($488.00 x 1 new lots = $488.00) and is payable prior to the recording of the short plat. Schools: According to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the City of Renton Land Use Element (January 16, 1992), the City of Renton has a student generation factor of 0.44 students per single-family residential dwelling. Based on the student generation factor, the proposed short plat would result in 0.44 additional students to the local schools (Kennydale Elementary, McKnight Middle School, and Hazen High School). Storm Water: A drainage report was not required to be submitted with the project application and the requirement was waived by the Development Services Director. There is no storm drainage system located within NE 201" Street. Staff from the City's Plan Review Section reviewed this project for compliance with the adopted 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual. This project is exempt from stormwater detention and water quality requirements per the 1990 King Count Surface Water Design Manual. Roof drains shall be tightlined to the City's storm system whenever feasible. Infiltration may be permitted if the soils are acceptable. Due to the potential for erosion and sedimentation to occur during project construction, staff recommends as a condition of approval that erosion control be installed and maintained during construction in accordance with the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements as outlined in the 2005 Stormwater Management Manual. A temporary erosion control plan will be required and shall be installed and maintained to the satisfaction of the representative of the Development Services Division for the duration of the project. Surface Water System Development Charges of $759 per new single family parcel will be required for this short plat. This fee must be paid prior to issuance of the construction permit for the short plat. AdminRPT Blueberry Haven Short Plat.doc City of Renton PIBIPW Department Administrative Land Use Action REPORT AND DECISION DATED December 10, 2007; PROJECT LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF Page 9 Utilities: There is an existing 6-inch water main fronting the site in NE 20th Street and an 8-inch main in Jones Ave NE. Derated fire flow from the 6-inch is approximately 1,150 gpm. Static water pressure in the area is approximately 70 psi. The proposed project is located in the 435 Water Pressure Zone and is inside Aquifer Protection Zone 2. The required fire flow for single-family residences is 1,000 gpm, and a fire hydrant is required to be located within 300 feet of all single-family residences. If the building square footage (including garage area) exceeds 3,600 square feet in area, the minimum fire flow increases to a minimum of 1,500 gpm and requires 2 hydrants within 300 feet of the structure. This distance is measured along the travel route. Existing and new hydrants will be required to be retrofitted with Storz "quick disconnect" fittings if not existing. All short plats shall provide a separate water service stub to each building lot prior to recording of the plat. Separate permits and fees for water meters will be required. There is an existing 8-inch sewer main in NE 201h Street. The applicant is responsible for providing sanitary sewer to serve the lots with a minimum slope of 2 percent. Dual side sewers will not be allowed. This parcel is subject to two Special Assessment Districts, the NE 20'h & Jones SAD and the West Kennydale SAD. The fee for the NE 20th & Jones SAD is based on square footage. The rate is site square footage x a rate of 0.27926559. The fee for the West Kennydale SAD is based on a rate of # new lots x $1,050. Payment of these fees will be required prior to issuance of utility construction perm it. System Development Charges of $1017 per each new lot are required. These fees are collected prior to the issuance of a construction permit and prior to the recording of the short plat. H. Findings: Having reviewed the written record in the matter, the City now enters the following: Request: The applicant has requested Administrative Short Plat Approval for the Blueberry Haven Short Plat, File No. LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF. 2. Application: The applicant's short plat application complies with the requirements for information for short plat review. The applicant's short plat plan and other project drawings are contained within the official land use file. 3. Comprehensive Plan: The subject proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designations of the Residential Low Density (RLD) land use designation. 4. Zoning: The proposal as presented complies with the zoning requirements and development standards of the Residential - 4 (R-4) zoning designation, provided all advisory notes and conditions of approval are complied with. 5. Subdivision Regulations: The proposal complies with the requirements established by the City's Subdivision Regulations provided all advisory notes and conditions of approval are complied with. 6. Existing Land Uses: Land uses surrounding the subject site include: North: Residential Single Family (zoned R-4); East: Residential Single Family (zoned R-4); South: Residential Single Family (zoned R- 4); and West: Residential Single Family (zoned R-4). 7. Setbacks: The setbacks for future development on the proposed lots would be evaluated based on the standards applicable to lots along streets existing as of March 1, 1995. The front yard area of proposed Lot A faces to the west towards Jones Avenue NE and the front yard area of proposed Lot B faces to the south towards NE 20th Street. An existing residence is proposed to be retained on Lot A. The existing residence does not comply with the required 30-foot front yard setback, however this is an existing non -conforming situation and the non -conformity would not be increased by the approval of the proposed short plat. The existing residence would comply with the remaining rear and side yard setbacks. 8. System Development Charges: A Water System Development Charge, a Surface Water System Development Charge and a Sewer System Development Charge, at the current applicable rates, will be required for the new single-family residence as part of the construction permit. AdminRPT Blueberry Haven Short Plat.doc City of Renton P!BlPW Department Administrative Land Use Action REPORT AND DECISION DATED December 10, 2007; PROJECT LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF Page 10 9. Public Utilities: The applicant will be required to install individual water and sewer stubs to serve the new lots_ In addition, any existing and new fire hydrants must be fitted with 5" quick disconnect Storz fittings. 1. Conclusions: 1. The subject site is located in the Residential Low Density (RLD) comprehensive plan designation and complies with the goals and policies established with this designation. 2. The subject site is located in the Residential — 4 Dwelling Units Per Acre zoning designation and complies with the zoning and development standards established with this designation provided all advisory notes and conditions of approval are complied with. 3. The proposed two lot short plat complies with the subdivision regulations as established by city code and state law provided all advisory notes and conditions of approval are complied with. 4. The proposed two lot short plat complies with the street standards as established by City Code, provided the project complies with all advisory notes and conditions of approval contained herein- J. DECISION: The Blueberry Haven Short Plat, File No. LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF is approved subject to the following conditions: Z. The Gordley/Denzler Lot Line Adjustment shall be recorded prior to the recording of the Blueberry Haven Short Plat. �j2. A tree planting plan shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit showing the location of a minimum 2-inch caliper tree on the project site. The plan shall be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager for review and approval. 3. The applicant shall be required to pay a Transportation Mitigation Fee at the rate of $75.00 per net new average daily trip attributable to the project (estimated at $717.75). The Transportation Mitigation Fee shall be paid prior to the recording of the final short plat. 4. If the applicant proposes to provide a minimum 25-foot buffer from the edge of the on -site wetland, then a wetland buffer enhancement plan shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit by the Development Services Division project manager. If the applicant does not want to enhance the 25-foot buffer, the wetland buffer area will need to be increased to an appropriate width as determined utilizing best available science. 5. A Native Growth Protection Easement (NGPE) shall be recorded over the wetland, stream, and associated buffer areas prior to or concurrent with the recording of the final plat map. y The edge of the NGPE shall be delineated with a split rail fence and identified with signage as approved by the Development Services Division Project Manager. A fencing and signage detail shall be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager at the time of Utility Construction Permit Application for review and approval. The fencing and signage shall be installed prior to the recording of the final plat. 7. The applicant shall be required to pay a Fire Mitigation Fee at the rate of $488.00 per new single-family lot (estimated at $488). The Fire Mitigation Fee shall be paid prior to the recording of the final short plat. Erosion control shall be installed and maintained during construction in accordance with the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements as outlined in the 2005 Stormwater Management Manual. DATE OF DECISION ON LAND USE ACTION: SIGNATURES: � f Gregg A. Z comer l an, PIBIPW Administrator decision date AdminRPT Blueberry Haven Short Pat. doc City of Renton P/BIPW Department Administrative Land Use Action REPORT AND DECISION DATED December 10, 2007; PROJECT LUA-07-131, SHPL•A, ECF Page 11 TRANSMITTED this 10t" day of December, 2007 to the Owner/ApplicantlContact Richard and Lauralee Gordley 2010 Jones Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 TRANSMITTED this Id" day of December, 2007 to the Parties of Record: Denise Blackmau 2100 Jones Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Sue Larson -Kinzer 1733 NE 20th Street Renton, WA 98056 Robert Cave 12518 E 17th Street Bellevue, WA 98005 Susan Rider 1835 NE 20th Street Renton, WA 98056 Barbara Hicks 10402 151 st Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 William O'Conner 10402 151 st Avenue SE Reton, WA 98059 TRANSMITTED this 10`t' day of December, 2007 to the following: Larry Meckling, Building Official Bob Van Horne, Deputy Fire Chief Neil Watts, Development Services Director Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager Jan Conklin Carrie Olson Renton Reporter Land Use Action Appeals & Requests for Reconsideration The administrative land use decision will become final if the decision is not appealed within 14 days of the effective date of decision. An appeal of the decision must be filed within the 14-day appeal period (RCW 43.21.C.075(3); WAC 197- 11-680). RECONSIDERATION. Within 14 days of the effective date of the decision, any party may request that a decision on a short plat be reopened by the Administrator. The Administrator 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 finds insufficient 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 following appeal timeframe. 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 December 26, 2007. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. Appeals must be filed in writing, together with the required $75.00 application fee, to: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. EXPIRATION DATE: The Short Plat approval will expire two (2) years from the date of approval. An extension may be requested pursuant to RMC section 4-7-080.M. AdminRPT Blueberry Haven Short Ptat.doc City of Renton Pl81PW Department Administrative Land Use Action REPORT AND DECISION DATED December 10, 2007; PROJECT LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF Page 12 ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions. Planning: Fire 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved 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 between 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 plant an 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 1 st and March 31 st of each year_ The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit_ 4. Two ornamental trees, a minimum caliper of 1-112 inches (deciduous) or 6 — 8 feet in height (conifer), shall be planted or retained within the 15-foot front yard setback area for the proposed lots. 5. The minimum amount of landscaping required for sites abutting a non -arterial public street is 5 feet provided that if there is additional undeveloped right-of-way in excess of 5 feet, this shall also be landscaped. A determination has been made that if no additional area is available within the public right- of-way due to required improvements, the 5-foot landscaped strip may be located within private property abutting the public right-of-way. The landscaping proposed shall either consist of drought resistant vegetation or shall be irrigated appropriately. 6. A detailed landscape plan complying with the requirements set forth under RMC 4-8-120D shall be submitted at the time of Final Plan review for review and approval by the Development Services Division Project Manager. 1. The minimum fire flow required is 1,000 gpm for dwellings up to 3,600 square feet in area. One fire hydrant is required within 300 feet of the structure. For dwellings over 3,600 square feet (including garage and basement area), fire flow increases to 1,500 gpm and a minimum of two fire hydrants within 300 feet area required. Plan Review— Water 1. Fire flow available to the site is 1,150 gpm. Due to the limited fire flow available, construction of a residence larger than 3,600 square feet may not be feasible. Contact Corey Thomas of the Renton Fire Department at (425) 430-7024 for more information. 2. Water System Development Charges are based on a rate of $1,956.00 per new single-family lot. Fees based on the proposed short plat are $1,956.00. Credit is given for the existing home. Payment of this fee will be required prior to the issuance of a utility construction permit. 3. Existing hydrants to be counted as fire protection will require the installation of a "stortz" quick disconnect fitting if not already in place. 4. Separate water service stub is required to be provided to each new lot prior to recording of the short plat. Plan Review — Sewer 1. Sanitary Sewer System Development Charges are based on a rate of $1,017.00 per new single-family lot. Fees based on the proposed short plat are $1,017.00. Payment of this fee will be required prior to issuance of utility construction permit. 2. This parcel is subject to two Special Assessment Districts (SAD). NE 10th and Jones SAD is based on AdminRPT Blueberry Maven Short Plat. doc City of Renton P/BIPW Department Administrative Land Use Action REPORT AND DECISION DATED December 10, 2007; PROJECT LUA-07-131, SHPL-A, ECF Page 13 square footage. The rate is the square footage of the site multiplied by a rate of 0.27926559. The West Kennydale SAD is based on a rate of the number of new lots multiplied by $1,050. Payment of these fees will be required prior to the issuance of a utility construction permit. 3. A separate sewer stub is required to be provided to each new lot prior to recording of the short plat. Minimum slope for side sewers is 2%. Plan Review — Surface Water 1. The Surface Water System Development Charges are based on a rate of $759.00 per new single-family lot. Estimated fees based on the proposed short plat are $759.00. Payment of this fee will be required prior to the issuance of a utility construction permit. 2, Roof drains shall be tightlined to the storm system whenever feasible. Infiltration is allowed if soils are acceptable. 3. A conceptual drainage narrative has been submitted and reviewed. This project is exempt from detention and water quality per the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual. 4. A temporary erosion control plan will be required and shall be installed and maintained to the satisfaction of the representative of the Development Services Division for the duration of the project. Plan Review — Transportation 1. Half street improvements including sidewalk, curb, gutter, paving, and storm drainage are required to be installed fronting the site in NE 20 Street and .tones Avenue NE. The applicant may submit an application requesting to pay a fee in lieu of installing the improvements to Development Services. 2. Street lighting is not required. 3. The applicant will be required to comply with the City of Renton's Trench Restoration and Street Overlay Requirements, 4. A traffic control plan, approved by the City will be required for any construction impacting the City's right- of-way. Plan Review —Miscellaneous 1. Separate permits and fees for side sewers, water meters, and storm drainage connections are required. 2. Applicant shall be responsible for securing all necessary public and/or private easements. 3. Proposed new rockeries or retaining wails to be constructed that are greater than four feet in height will require a separate building permit for structural review. A geotechnical report is required with the submittal. 4. All wire utilities shall be installed underground per the City of Renton Under Grounding Ordinance. If three or more poles are required to be moved by the development design, all existing overhead utilities shall be placed underground. Additional under grounding may be required by Puget Sound Energy, AdminRPT Blueberry Haven Snort P1at.doc CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NOWSIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA07-131, SHPL-A, ECF APPLICANT: Richard and Lauralee Gordley PROJECT NAME: Blueberry Haven Short Plat DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Short Plat approval and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the subdivision of a 37,714 square foot site into two lots in the Residential - 4 dwelling unit per acre (R-4) zone. An existing single family residence is proposed to remain on Lot A. Lot A is proposed at 17,930 square feet and Lot B is proposed at 19,784 square feet in area. Access to Lot A would be provided off of Jones Avenue NE and access to Lot B would be provided off of NE 20th Street. A 9,601 square foot category 3 wetland and a class 4 stream have been identified on the project site. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL LEAD AGENCY: MITIGATION MEASURES: 2010 Jones Avenue NE The City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section 1, The proposed short plat shall comply with the recommendations found in the Critical Areas Study prepared by Steward and Associates, dated April 17, 2007. ERC Mitigation Measures Page 1 of 1 ERC City of Renton REPORT Department of Planning / Building / Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT ERC MEETING DATE: December 3, 2007 Project Name: Blueberry Haven Short Plat Owner: Richard and Lauralce Gordley, 2010 Jones Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98056 Applicant: Same as above Contact: Lauralee Gordley, 2010 Jones Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98056 File Number: LUA07-131, SHPL-A, ECF Project Manager: Jill K. Ding, Senior Planner Project Summary: The applicant is requesting Short Plat approval and Envirom-nental (SEPA) Review for the subdivision of a 37,714 square foot site into two lots in the Residential - 4 dwelling unit per acre (R-4) zone. An existing single family residence is proposed to remain on Lot A. Lot A is proposed at 17,930 square feet and Lot B is proposed at 19,784 square feet in area. Access to Lot A would be provided off of Jones Avenue NE and access to Lot B would be provided off of NE 20th Street. A 9,601 square foot category 3 wetland and a class 4 stream have been identified on the project site. Project Location: 2010 Jones Avenue NE Exist. Bldg, Area SF,- NIA Proposed New Bldg. Area (footprint): NIA Proposed New Bldg. Area (gross): NIA Site area: 37,714 square feet Total Building Area GSF: NIA STAFF Staff recommends that the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issue a RECOMMENDATION: Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M) for the proposal. Project Location Map F.RC Report 07-131.doc City of Renton P/S/PW Depurtmen Environ al Review Committee Staff Report BL UEBERR Y HA VEN SHOR T t _i LUA07-13I, SHPL-A, ECF Report of December 3, 2007 Page 2 of 5 PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION / BACKGROUND The proposal includes the subdivision of a 37,717 square foot parcel into two lots. The project site would be created after the recording of the Gordley/Denzler Lot Line Adjustment (LUA07-090, LLA), which is being reviewed concurrently. An existing residence is proposed to remain on Lot A and a new residence would be constructed on Lot B. A 9,601 square foot Category 3 wetland has been identified and delineated on the project site. A Category 3 wetland requires a minimum 25-foot buffer. Category 3 wetland buffers of 25 feet required the buffers be fully vegetated with native species or restored, otherwise increased buffer widths to protect functions and values may be required. A stream (Kennydale Creek) flows along the eastern boundary of the project site. The City's Critical Areas Maps classify the stream as a Class 4 stream. A Class 4 stream is a non-salmonid bearing intermittent stream and requires a minimum 35-foot buffer. Staff has received comment letters from neighbors who dispute the Class 4 classification of the stream. The letters indicate that the stream is not intermittent, but is perennial and should therefore be classified as a Class 3 stream, which requires a minimurn 75-foot buffer. PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In compliance with RCW 43.21C.240, the following environmental (SEPA) review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. A. Environmental Threshold Recommendation Based on analysis of probably impacts from the proposal, staff reconunends that the Responsible Officials: Issue a DNS-M with a 14-day Appeal Period. B. Mitigation Measures 1. The proposed short plat shall comply with the reconnrnendations found in the Critical Areas Study prepared by Steward and Associates, dated April 17, 2007, C. Exhibits Exhibit 1 Preliminary Short Plat Map (dated 6/28/2007) l xbibit 2 Zoning Map sheet D 4 east % (dated 2/28/2007) Exhibit 3 Comment Letters from Neighbors D. Environmental Impacts The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions to determine whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development. Staff reviewers have identified that the proposal is likely to have the following probable impacts; 1. Water a. Wetland, Streams, Lakes Impacts: A Critical Area Study (including a wetland delineation) was prepared by Steward and Associates, dated April 17, 2007. A Category 3 wetland was identified on the central portion of the project site west of an on -site stream. The report notes that the wetland likely continues to the east of the stream, however this wetland was not required to be delineated as it is unlikely that any development on the project site would adversely impact a wetland or associated buffer area located to the east of the stream. According to the report, the on -site wetland totals approximately 12,632 square feet in area, however the survey of the wetland that was submitted as part of the Gordley/Denzler Lot Line Adjustment and the preliminary short plat map identified the wetland area as 9,601 square feet. As the 9,601 square foot area of the wetland is based on a survey this is the area that is accepted for ERCReport 07-131.doc City of Renton PIBIPW Departmen Enviror. tal Review Committee Staff Report BLUEBERRYHAVENSHORTPL,,_ LUA07--131, SHPL A, ECF Report of December 3, 2007 Page 3 of 5 the purpose of reviewing the short plat application_ A Category 3 wetland requires a minimum 25-foot buffer. The City's Critical Areas Regulations require that Category 3 wetland buffers of 25 feet shall be fully vegetated with native species or restored; otherwise increased buffer widths to protect functions and values may be required. The submitted preliminary short plat map identifies a 25-foot wetland buffer from the edge of the on -site wetland. The buffer area is currently vegetated with mowed lawn, which is not considered a native plant species. Therefore, a wetland buffer enhancement plan will need to be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit or the wetland buffer area will need to be increased. The submitted study recommends that a final Critical Areas Study be prepared prior to the approval of any development on the project site including an enhancement or mitigation plan a necessary_ Staff recommends as mitigation that the development of the proposed short plat comply with the recommendations found in the Critical Areas Study prepared by Steward and Associates. A stream has been identified, which flows along the east border of the project site. The City's Streams and Lakes Map classifies the stream as a Class 4 stream, which is a non-salmonid bearing intermittent stream. Class 4 streams require a minimum 35-foot buffer. A stream study prepared by Cedarock Consultants, Inc., dated February 17, 2006 was submitted with the project application. The study was prepared for the City of Renton and was prepared in response to a previous request to reclassify the on -site stream from a Class 4 stream to a Class 5 stream, which is unregulated. In addition, at the time there was also some discussion as to whether the stream should actually be classified as a Class 3 stream. A Class 3 stream is a non-salmonid bearing stream that has perennial flows and requires a 75- foot buffer. The report included a review of the previous documentation that had been prepared regarding the stream, information that had been obtained through a site visit, and a review of the City's Critical Areas Regulations. The report concluded that it is unlikely that the stream is a salmonid bearing stream due to steep slopes that exist downstream towards Lake Washington. The report indicated that no conclusive evidence had been gathered as to whether the stream was perennial or intermittent and that this issue can only be resolved through direct observation of flow characteristics during the summer and that this data can take several years to gather depending on rainfall patterns. Therefore, the report recommended that the stream retain its Class 4 stream classification. Staff has received comments from neighbors regarding the classification of the stream. The neighbors have indicated that the stream flows perennially and that the stream is misclassified and should be classified as a Class 3 stream. Mitigation Measures: The proposed short plat shall comply with the recommendations found in the Critical Areas Study prepared by Steward and Associates, dated April 17, 2007. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations, City of Renton Critical Areas Regulations E. Comments of Reviewing Departments The proposal has been circulated to City Department and Division Reviewers. Where applicable, their comments have been incorporated into the text of this report and/or "Advisory Notes to Applicant." V Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File and may be attached to this report. Environmental Determination Appeal Process Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, December 26, 2007. Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner. Appeals must be filed in writing at the City Clerk's office along with a $75.00 application fee. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City hall - 7th Floor, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton WA 98057. ERCReport 07-131.doe City ofRenton P/BIPW Departmen Enviror tal Review Committee Staff Report BLUEBERRYHAVENSHORTP..,__ LUA07-131, SHPL-A, ECF Report of December 3, 2007 Page 4 of 5 ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not. subject to the appeal process for the land use actions. Planning: Fire 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved 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 between 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 plant an 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 1 st and March 31 st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit_ 4. Two ornamental trees, a minimum caliper of 1-1/2 inches (deciduous) or 6 — 8 feet in height (conifer), shall be planted or retained within the 15-foot front yard setback area for the proposed lots. 5. The minimum amount of landscaping required for sitcs abutting a non -arterial public street is 5 feet provided that if there is additional undeveloped right-of-way in excess of 5 feet, this shall also be landscaped. A determination has been made that if no additional area is available within the public right- of-way due to required improvements, the 5-foot landscaped strip may be located within private property abutting the public right-of-way. The landscaping proposed shall either consist of drought resistant vegetation or shall be irrigated appropriately. 6. A detailed landscape plan complying with the requirements set forth under RMC 4-8-120D shall be submitted at the time of Final Plan review for review and approval by the Development Services Division Project Manager. 1. The minimum fire flow required is 1,000 gpm for dwellings up to 3,600 square feet in area. One fire hydrant is required within 300 feet of the structure_ For dwellings over 3,600 square feet (including garage and basement area), fire flour increases to 1,500 gpm and a minimum of two fire hydrants within 300 feet area required. Plan Review — Water 1. Fire flow available to the site is 1,150 gpm. Due to the limited fire flow available, construction of a residence larger than 3,600 square feet may not be feasible. Contact Corey Thornas of the Renton Fire Department at (425) 430-7024 for more information. 2. Water System Development Charges are based on a rate of $1,956.00 per new single-family lot. Fees based on the proposed short plat are $1,956.00. Credit is given for the existing home_ Payment of this fee will be required prior to the issuance of a utility construction permit. 3. Existing hydrants to be counted as fire protection will require the installation of a "stortc' quick disconnect fitting if not already in place. 4. Separate water service stub is required to be provided to each new lot prior to recording of the short plat_ Plan Review — Sewer Sanitary Sewer System Development Charges are based on a rate of $1,017.00 per new single-family lot. Fees based on the proposed short plat are S 1,017.00. Payment of this fee will be required prior to issuance of utility construction permit. 2. This parcel is subject to two Special Assessment Districts (SAD). NE 10"' and Jones SAD is based on ERC Report 07 131.doc City of Renton PIBIPW Departmen Enviro; tal Review Committee Staff Report BLUEBERRYHAVENSHORT P—,_. f LUA07-I3I, SHPL-A, ECF Report of December 3, 2007 Page 5 of 5 square footage. The rate is the square footage of the site multiplied by a rate of 027926559. The West Kennydale SAD is based on a rate of the number of new lots multiplied by $1,050. Payment of these fees will be required prior to the issuance of a utility construction permit. 3. A separate sewer stub is required to be provided to each new lot prior to recording of the short plat. Minimum slope for side sewers is 2%. Plan Review — Surface Water 1 _ The Surface Water System Development Charges are based on a rate of $759.00 per new single-family lot. Estimated fees based on the proposed short plat are $759.00. Payment of this fee will be required prior to the issuance of a utility construction permit_ 2. Roof drains shall be tightlined to the storm system whenever feasible. Infiltration is allowed if soils are acceptable. 3. A conceptual drainage narrative has been submitted and reviewed. This project is exempt from detention and water quality per the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual. 4. A temporary erosion control plan will be required and shall be installed and maintained to the satisfaction of the representative of the Development Services Division for the duration of the project. Plan Review — Transportation 1. Ilalf street improvements including sidewalk, curb, gutter, paving, and storm drainage are required to be installed fronting the site in NE 20"' Street and Jones Avenue NE. The applicant may submit an application requesting to pay a fee in lieu of installing the improvements to Development Services. 2. Street lighting is not required_ 3. The applicant will be required to comply with the City of Renton's Wrench Restoration and Street Overlay Requirements. 4. A traffic control plan, approved by the City will be required for any construction impacting the City's right-of-way. Plan Review — Miscellaneous 1. Separate permits and fees for side sewers, water meters, and storm drainage connections are required. 2. Applicant shall be responsible for securing all necessary public and/or private easements. 3. Proposed new rockeries or retaining walls to be constructed that are greater than four feet in height will require a separate building permit for structural review. A geotechnical report is required with the submittal. 4. All wire utilities shall be installed underground per the City of Renton Under Grounding Ordinance. If three or more poles are required to be moved by the development design, all existing overhead utilities shall be placed underground. Additional under grounding may be required by Puget Sound Energy. ERC Report 07-131.doc CITY F RENTON # Kathy Keolker, Mayor December 6, 2007 Richard & Lauralee Gordley 2010 Jones Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 SUBJECT: Blueberry Haven Short Plat LUA07-131, SHPL-A, ECF Dear Mr. & Ms. Gordley: Planning/Building/PublicWorks Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) to advise you that they have completed their review of the subject project and have issued a threshold Determination of Non -Significance -Mitigated with Mitigation Measures. Please refer to the enclosed ERC Report and Decision, Part 2, Section B for a list of the Mitigation Measures. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on December 26, 2007. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by .City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8- 1103, Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, a public hearing date will be set and all parties notified. The preceding information will assist you in planning for implementation of your project and enable you to exercise your appeal rights more fully, if you choose to do so. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (425) 430-7219. For the Environmental Review Committee, Jill K. Ding Senior Planner Enclosure cc: Denise Blackmau, Sue Larson -Kinzer, Robert Cave, Susan Rider, Barbara Hicks, William O'Connor 7 Party(ies) of Record 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98057 RE .N T O N AHEAD OF THE CURVE This paper contains50% recyGedmateria1,30%postoonsumer CITY IF RENTON +� '} + Planning/Building/PublieWorks Department Kathy Keolker, Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator December 6, 2007 Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Subject: Environmental Determination Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on December 3, 2007: DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED PROJECT NAME: Blueberry Haven Short Plat PROJECT NUMBER: LUAA07-131, SHPL-A, ECF LOCATION: 2010 Jones Avenue NE DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Short Plat approval and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the subdivision of a 37,714 square foot site into two lots in the Residential - 4 dwelling unit per acre (R-4) zone. An existing single family residence is proposed to remain on Lot A. Lot A is proposed at 17,930 square feet and Lot B is proposed at 19,784 square feet in area. Access to Lot A would be provided off of Jones Avenue NE and access to Lot B would be provided off of NE 20th Street. A 9,601 square foot category 3 wetland and a class 4 stream have been identified on the project site. Appeals of the environmental determination most be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on December 26, 2007. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required .$75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110,B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. If you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-7219. For the Environmental Review Committee, Jill K. Ding Senior Planner Enclosure cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division WDFW, Stewart Reinbold David F. Dietzman, Department of Natural Resources WSDOT, Northwest Region Duwamish Tribal Office Karen Walter, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Melissa Calvert, Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program US Army Corp. of Engineers Stephanie Kramer, Office'of Archaeology & Historic Preservation RENTaN AHEAD OF THE CURVE 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98057 This papercontains 50% recycled material. 30% post consumer fe'ry Higastiiyama, Administrator Date Community Services CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) APPLICATION NO(S): LUA07-131, SHPL-A, ECF APPLICANT: Richard and Lauralee Gordley PROJECT NAME: Blueberry Haven Short Plat DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Short Plat approval and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the subdivision of a 37,714 square foot site into two lots in the Residential - 4 dwelling unit per acre (R-4) zone. An existing single family residence is proposed to remain on Lot A.- Lot A is proposed at 17,930 square feet and Lot B is proposed at 19,784 square feet in area. Access to Lot A would be provided off of Jones Avenue NE and access to Lot B would be provided off of NE 20th Street. A 9,601 square foot category 3 wettand and a class 4 stream have been identified on the project site. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 2010 Jones Avenue NE LEAD AGENCY: The City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). Conditions were .imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process: Appeals of the environmental determination moat be filed in Writing on or before 5:00 PM on December 26, 2007. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75M application fee with. Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1.055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code. Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: -December 8, 2007 DATE OF DECISION: December 3, 2007 SIGNATURES: D,;o Gregg r2uilding/Public er n, A inistrator ate I. David Daniels, Fire Chief Date Plannin Works Fire Department qDe c Aie Pietsch, Ad inistrator . EDNSP CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA07-131; SHPL-A, ECF APPLICANT: Richard and Lauralee Gordley PROJECT NAME: Blueberry Haven Short Plat DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The. applicant is requesting Short Plat approval and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the subdivision of a 37,714 square foot site into two lots in the Residential - 4 dwelling unit per acre (R-4) zone. An existing single family residence is proposed to remain on Lot A. Lot A is proposed at 17,930 square feet and Lot B. is proposed at 19,784 square feet in area. Access to Lot A. would be provided off of Jones Avenue NE and access to Lot B would be provided off of. NE 20th Street. A 9,601 square foot category 3 wetland and a class 4 stream have been identified on the project site. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 2010 Jones Avenue NE LEAD AGENCY: The City of'Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. The proposed short plat shall comply with the recommendations found in the Critical Areas Study prepared by Steward and Associates, dated April 17, 2007: ERC Mitigation Measures Page 1 of 1 . CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA07-131, SHPL-A, ECF APPLICANT: Richard and Lauralee Gordley PROJECT NAME: Blueberry Haven Short Plat DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Short Plat approval and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the subdivision of a 37.714 square foot site into two lots in the Residential -. 4 dwelling unit per acre (R-4) zone. An existing single family residence is proposed to remain on Lot A. Lot A is proposed at 17,930 square feet and Lot B is proposed at 19,784 square feet in area. Access to Lot A would be provided off of Jones Avenue NE and access to Lot B would be provided oft of NE 20th Street. A 9,601 square foot category 3 wetland and a class 4 stream have been identified on the project site. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 2010 Jones Avenue NE LEAD AGENCY: The City of Renton Department of Planning/BuildinglPublic Works Development Planning Section ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions. Planning: 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours' between 830 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved 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 between 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 plant an 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 3.1st of, each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the' permit. 4. Two ornamental trees, a minimum caliper of 1-112 inches (deciduous) or 6 - 8 feet -in height (conifer), shall be planted or retained within the 15-foot front yard setback area for the proposed lots. 5. The minimum amount of landscaping required for sites abutting a non -arterial public street is 5 feet provided that if there is additional undeveloped right-of-way in excess of 5 feet, this shall also be landscaped. A determination has been made that if no additional area is available within the public right-of- way due to required improvements, the 5-foot landscaped strip may be located within private property abutting the public right-of-way. The landscaping proposed shall "either consist of drought resistant . vegetation or shall be irrigated appropriately. ERC Advisgry Notes Page. 1. of 3 6. A detailed landscape plan complying with the requirements set forth under RMC 4-5-120D shall be submitted at the time of Final Plan review for review and approval by the Development Services Division Project Manager. Fire 1. The minimum fire flow required is 1,000 gpm for dwellings up to 3,6.00 square feet in area. One fire hydrant is required within 300 feet of the structure. For dwellings over 3,600 square feet (including garage and basement area), fire flow increases to 1,500 gpm and a minimum of two fire hydrants within 300 feet area required. Plan Review —Water 1. Fire flow available to the site is 1,150 gpm. Due to the limited fire flow available, construction of a residence larger than 3,600 square feet may not be feasible. Contact Corey Thomas of the Renton Fire Department at (425) 430-7024 for more information. 2. Water System Development Charges are based on a rate of $1,956.00 per new single-family lot. Fees based on the proposed short plat are $1,956.00. Credit is given for the existing home. Payment of this fee will be required prior to the issuance of a utility construction permit. 3. Existing hydrants to be counted as fire protection will require the installation of a "stortz" quick disconnect fitting if not already in place. 4. Separate water service stub is required to be provided to each new lot prior to recording of the short plat. Plan Review — Sewer 1. Sanitary Sewer System Development Charges are based on a rate of $1,017.00 per new single-family lot. Fees based on the proposed short plat are .$1,017.00. Payment of this fee will be required prior to issuance of utility construction permit. 2_ This parcel is subject to two Special. Assessment Dstricts (SAD). NE Ioth and Jones SAD is based on square footage. The rate is the square footage of the site multiplied by a rate of 0.27926559. The West Kennydale SAD is based on a rate of the number of new lots multiplied; by $1,050. Payment of these fees will be required prior to the issuance of a utility construction permit. 3. A separate sewer stub is required to be provided to each new lot prior to recording of the short plat. Minimum slope for side sewers is 2%. Plan Review - Surface Water 1. "The Surface Water System Development Charges are based on a rate of $759.00 per new single-family lot. Estimated fees based on the proposed short plat are $759.00. Payment of this fee will be required prior to the issuance of a utility construction permit. 2 Roof drains shall be tightlined to the storm system whenever feasible. Infiltration is allowed if soils . are acceptable. 3. A conceptual drainage narrative has been submitted and reviewed. This project is exempt from detention and water quality per the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual 4. A temporary erosion control plan will be required and shall be installed and maintained to the satisfaction of the representative of the Development Services Division for the duration of the project. Plan Review -- Transportation 1. Half street improvements includinsidewalk, curb, gutter, paving, and storm drainage are required to be installed fronting the site in NE 20' Street and Jones Avenue NE. The applicant may submit an application requesting to pay a fee in lieu of installing the improvements to Development Services. ERGAdvisory Notes Page 2 of 3 2. Street lighting is not required. 3. The applicant will be required to comply with the City of Renton's Trench Restoration and Street Overlay Requirements. 4. A traffic control plan, approved by the City will be required for any construction impacting the City's right-of- way. Plan Review — Miscellaneous 1. Separate permits and fees for side sewers, water meters, and storm drainage connections are required. 2. Applicant shall be responsible for securing all necessary public and/or private easements. 3. Proposed new rockeries or retaining walls to be constructed that are greater than four feet in height will require a separate building permit for structural review. A geotechnical report is required with the submittal. 4. All wire utilities shall be installed, underground per the City of Renton Under Grounding Ordinance. If three or more poles are required to be moved by the development design, all existing overhead utilities shall be placed underground. Additional under grounding may be required by Puget Sound Energy. CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) APPLICATION NO(S): LUA07-131, SHPL-A, ECF APPLICANT: Richard and Lauralee Gordley PROJECT NAME: Blueberry Haven Short Plat DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Short Plat approval and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the subdivision of a 37,714 square foot site into two lots in the Residential - 4 dwelling unit per acre (R-4) zone, An existing single family residence is proposed to remain on Lot A. Lot A is proposed at 17,930 square feet and Lot B is proposed at 19,784 square feet in area_ Access to Lot A would be provided off of Jones Avenue NE and access to Lot B would be provided off of NE 20th Street. A 9,601 square foot category 3 wetland and a class 4 stream have been identified on the project site. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 2010 Jones Avenue NE LEAD AGENCY: The City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43,21 C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on December 26, 2007. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110,B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: SIGNATURES: December 8, 2007 December 3, 2007 17, M Gregg Z' er n, Affninistrator Date I. David Daniels, Fire Chief Date Plannin ! ui[ding/Public Works Fire Department r Te y Higastiiyama, Administrator Date "Pietsch,trator D e Community Services EDNSP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING NOTICE December 3, 2007 To: Gregg Zimmerman, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator Terry Higashiyama, Community Services Administrator I. David Daniels, Fire Chief Alex Pietsch, EDNSP Administrator From: Jennifer Henning, Development Planning Meeting Date: Monday, December 3, 2007 Time: 3:00 PM Location: Sixth Floor Conference Room #620 Agenda listed below. Blueberry Haven Short Plat (Ding) LUA07-131, SHPL-A, ECF The applicant is requesting Short Plat approval and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the subdivision of a 37,714 square foot site into two lots in the Residential - 4 dwelling unit per acre (R-4) zone. An existing single family residence is proposed to remain on Lot A. Lot A is proposed at 17,930 square feet and Lot B is proposed at 19,784 square feet in area. Access to Lot A would be provided off of Jones Avenue NE and access to Lot B would be provided off of NE 20th Street. A 9,601 square foot category 3 wetland and a class 4 stream have been identified on the project site. cc: K. Keolker, Mayor J. Covington, Chief Administrative Officer S. Dale Estey, EDNSP Director Q C. Walls, Fire Prevention N. Watts, P;B/PW Development Services Director O F. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner B. Van Horne, Fire Prevention J. Medzegian, Council P. Hahn, PIBIPW Transportation Systems Director R. Lind, Economic Development L. Warren, City Attorney O 4 "ZZZ m a w o �LL o 4- �' w hn Gi � w �j VCJ NWa4 ry � � o� o$ 04 on .�ok yzN uj i� ki ti t2 mad' ti�'S oFw � Uu- w> � I gk wi4�, � �uux iWd H uFry Y o n ¢y� ❑. ]'Y� fZ € rn3n.iir� e�6 1 JW wn ¢ -2E, SE. OQM z 1 � Si u ti w wwm w= tiMe w�`= - w LLL �2N��N _ z � o � z Q �y K. zs° s Cs w�W r a:y U zN `a �:�` Q� 7OO ®®i2.r C99I1 _ a —.00'GL M.0 rF.4 ry tt�¢ M-L e S lL0�43P-'tl.45 E°-[fLll 'r,"('sv3 .C9 LF2r M_po. rE. OOKA' DIM IHGtltl M G 1 \W 11 e C c --. del K t } { > —L3N3AVSXor `zh�rn 2 0 M1 � zw' b1RW$ wNa � v`�¢L'ti �V4114M JV C4 • 32 T24N R5E E 1/2 U E4 - 8 T23N RSE E 1/2 x�0 s 4 ZONING -- -- - � city i te :.eoo riarnw a toms. MRVK es �,m 5 T23N R5E E 1/2 7'")N I NG MAP B01"( 74 92 93 455 456 459 i 461 w B B2. Mo: 77 =B 7, 26 T24N R4E 25 T24N R4E 90 T24N RSE 9724N R5 28-T24N 195E, 27 T24N RSE 28 T24N R5E 81 94W' "' 455V11 457_ I 458 460 464 C11 C2' "C C4, C5 C& C17 35 T24N R4E: 36 T24N 194E 31 T24N R5E 32 T24N R5E 320 c4N fi 35 Ti24N R5E 306 307 ; 4308 309 3 L 8 801 1— D3 '�4 D D I.. C7 2"T23N;R4E 1 R4E,.6.T23N R5E723N R5E 4 T23N R5E 3 T23N R5E --: 2 T23N R5E 316 ;'Z 31 --='" 31 36J : is 805 806 E 7 ES�,, E2� E4, __ .... :. T23N R5E $T23N R5E 9 T23N R5E 10 T 11..T 3N-R4E 12 T23N R4E q 23N E. 11 T2 N R5E 32!�326 ; 27 328 370 810 : _ 8 F1' F - 4"' F5 4 T23N R4E :.13 T23N R4E 1 BT23N RSE 17 T23N R5E 16 T23N R5E 1 T23N- " '14 T23N R5E T 33435 336 337 371 81.5 , _; 816 f G1 2 G G4,G G7 3 T23N WE 24 T23 1 R4E 19 T23N R5E 20 T23N A5E ` - '21 T23N 22 T23N R5E- 23 T23N R5E 2. 44 34 600 601 1.602 829 821 1 2 H3—; H5 H5 H 7 T23N R4E 2572A R4E 30 T23N R5E = -Z9 23N A5E 28 T23N R5E ' 27 T23N:RSE 26 T23N'<R5E . 25 50 °351 _ 603 4 605 825 82$ 8 --- 4,12 :4 � 3 E 3fi T23N NE 91 T23 R5E 92 T23N R5E 33 T23N R 34 T23N RSE 35 T23N 95E 36 607 608 it 609% 61'Q 632 833 1 J2 J ^). J.4 J.5:. JJ:7.�] 22N R4E T T22N WE 6 T22N R5E 5 T22N R5E 4 T22N 135E 3 T22N R5E 2 T22N R5E 1 T2 RESEDENTI MDZD119 R R SN➢tlSTRSAL Resource Conservation CV Center Village IR Industrial - Heavy R-1 Residential 1 du/ac UC-Nk Urban Center - North 1 IM Industrial - Medium R-K Residential 4 du/ac uC-R2 Urban Center - North 2 4 Industrial - Light R-B Residential 8 du/ac CD Center Downtown' (P) Publicly owned RMH Residential Manufactured Homes t Commercial/Office/Residential _____ Renton City Limits i Residential 10 du/ac CIAL COMMER -- Adjacent City Limits R I'l Residential 14 du/ac CA Commercial Arterial Hook Pages Boundary Ff Residential Multi -Family CO Commercial Office- --- , Residential Multi -Family Traditional Cnl Commercial Neighborhood KROLL PAGE RM-ll Residential Multi -Family Urban Center* INDEX + May include Overlay Districts. See Appendix PAGE# maps. For additional regulations in (yvrrlay Districts, please see RMC 4-3. srcmmawsnu,Rce Printed by Print & Mail Services, City of Renton STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF DING } AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Linda M Mills, being first duly sworn on oath that she is the Legal Advertising Representative of the Renton Reporter a bi-weekly newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continuously as a bi-weekly newspaper in King County, Washington. The Renton Reporter has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the Renton Reporter (and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a: Public Notice was published on December S, 2007. The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $105.00 Ai`rrrr\\\41t114j1t %�i� �� 'COY Linda M. Mills Legal Advertising Representative, Renton Reporter <u +0T4'P '•y Gt Subscribed and sworn to me this 12th day of December;-�2. A m s 4L • _ _7� A 70 'C'$ LSD` —Aat Dal otary Public r the State of Washington, RNi qSH'� in Covington, Washington I i �, \ V,` ` P. O. Number: NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee has issued a determination of Non - Significance -Mitigated for the following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. Blueberry Haven Short Plat [-UA07-131, SHPL-A, ECF location: 2010 Jones Avenue NE. The applicant is requesting Short Plat approval and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the subdivision of a 37,714 square foot site into two lots in the Residential 4 dwelling unit per acre (R-4) zone. An existing single family residence is proposed to remain on Lot A. Lot A is proposed at 17,930 square feet and Lot B is proposed at 19,784 square feet in area. Access to Lot A would be provided off of Jones Avenue NE and access to Lot B would be provided off of NE 20th Street. A 9,601 square foot category 3 wetland and a class 4 stream have been identified Oil the project site. Appeals of the environmental determination must he filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on December 26, 2007. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75,00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA %057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.13. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 4.30-6510. Published in the Renton Reporter on December 8, 2007. #27064 TV �jL91 COA 16, ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED (DNS-M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECTNAME: Blueberry Haven Short Plat PROJECT NUMBER: LUAW-1N, SHPL-A, ECF LOCATION: 2010 Janes Avenue NE DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Short Plat approval and Environmental ($EPA( Review for the subdivision of a 37.714 square foot site into two lots in the Resldentlai - 4 dwelling unit per acre (R-0( zone. An existing single family residence is proposed to remain an Lot A. Lot A Is proposed at 17,930 square feet and Lat B fs proposed at 19,784 square feet in area. Access to Lot A would be provided off of Jones Avenue NE and access to Lot R would be provided off of NE 20th Street. A 9,601 square root category 3 wetland and a class 4 stream have been identified on the project site. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on December 26, 2007. Appeals must be filed In writing together with the required $711.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1056 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 9BO57. Appeals to the Examb— are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110_8, Additional Information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (42S( 430-6510. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 15 APPEALED, A PUBLIC HEARINGYALL dE SET ANO ALL PARTIES NOTIFIER �,,,> C .1 ail;. -; � fX FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACTTHE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT (425) 430-7200. N• CERTIFICATION TION I, Jill D i YkA , hereby certify that copies of the above d rneo-fl .; were posted by FVe in conspicuous places or nearby the described prop DATE: 10 (9 0-7 SIGNED: ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn before e, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington resid+nip;, ru f j fi&U,tva on the Lii day of l \ NOTARY PUBLIC SIG URE: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED (DNS-M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: Blueberry Haven Short Plat PROJECT NUMBER: LUA07-131, SHPL-A, ECE LOCATION: 2010 Jones Avenue NE DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Short Plat approval and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the subdivision of a 37,714 square foot site into two lots in the Residential - 4 dwelling unit per acre (R4) zone. An existing single family residence is proposed to remain on Lot A. Lot A is proposed at 17,930 square feet and Lot B is proposed at 19,784 square feet in area. Access to Lot A would be provided off of Jones Avenue NE and access to Lot B would be provided off of NE 20th Street. A 9,601 square foot category 3 wetland and a class 4 stream have been identified on the project site. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on December 26, 2007, Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE SET AND ALL PARTIES NOTIFIED. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT (425) 430-7200, DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file ident- ication. O c oQJ ' � g S " a a LJU WW 'm a \fin �2L 11 5 h rY 4.. J¢io 22 o ¢W "I { O Z5 (n ti U LLL...JJJ C] N N LL LL • ' q � boa Q 4 N ab N Q �o � Lij y ana" wgn ¢w2 �WW U 4�bOY `fig a� Q a. q�aw �i c W\ xa go go; 4.2f, sf.00 00'L `-L -- .-OF. SE. Odv n _ F Q$ w 2 �. 41S ti m ¢ ti q $ [ n � I I Z Z J� �R� Wn y1 U ,G b n a dal q�U� ,Yln 42, h�i� -P, r.N �:k` /�,y. co mad"a—snn�°n t/7z`wigx Oil lI i�xW �ff2A�� _— N�a OZ y gag M wi�4. 2 vai oW w U�� i64 x[nk2n WG • ej 1 I %� o ¢o DU $If®A:e��e[1Lf�Llll MOtld N V r lHJ!!Q H3+V �[' -- ab �3'N 34_V S3; 0 a m $ J�W y" �xWJ w'z • �J LLego r7 __ I �4�W92W W W 4 (L2FV9V-idl[5 E3 .E2rJ b "per E9'�E2! H. 00. if. 0'M � 1' �qm^ •� Z yo .CarV'_Ic30 A i'_'f'.Wb.. ��^^ y i M1 w x:'c1°vN i�ry t!� y N2'lk. x 'd4! s a 1 V 2 C4 - U T24N R5E E 1/Z a a z H 2 C N z C Y E4 ' $T23N R5E E 1/2 u® o ZONING smton city umiu t:aoo D4 PIWVW Tft-9MC`'L RRVWM - 5 T23N ME E 1/2 5 "-)N I NG MAP B01_ 7 92 93 455 456 459 461 L._-..--. 81 B2 B3, �� . B_ 86 7 ?6 T24N R4E 25 T24N R4E 30T24N"R5E Pnc4 9T24N R5 28 T24N R5E 27,T24N R5E > 26 T24N R5E 31 94W 4457., 'I 458 460, 464.E _ __ C2 _ _ 35 TNN R4E;; 36 T24N R4E 31 T24N R5E 32 T24N`R5 3 N RW� '1�w 7 35 -lb4N R5E 306 307 , . W8 309 3 t- 8 l W 801 Q �D D 'j Dw �I.7 D 1 3 ,D 2 T23N R4E 1 23N R4E 5.723N R5E T23N R5E 4 TM R5E 3 T23N R5E �- 2 T23N R5E 316 31 ;. - 31 369 8Q5 14: 7 1�3 E4... 11.T 3N"R4E 12'T23N P4,E �?' T23N R5E 15T23N R5E 9T23N R5E 10T23N E1S "' 11 T2 N R5E 1 32\� ` . . 326 27.. 328 37a 81 a 8rt�1 1 4 FMau I 4 T23M R41<-13.T23N R4E i B T23N.RSE 17 T23N R5E 16 T23N "RS 1 T23N 14 T23N R5E . 1' 334 %335 336 337 371 815 `tip 816 f G �2Gal NW-1 G3... G4,1:",,A�� R& 3 T23N R4E 2.4 T23N R4E 1 g T23N RSE 20 T23N RJG.6., G7. 22 T23N 5 23 T23N R5E 2, 44 34 600 601 J 602 820 821 f 1 H3 MI5 H KTT. . T23N R4E 25 i231 R4E ' _ 30 T23tf R5E' : ; , 29 23N R5E 2H-T23N R5E - 27 T23N-R5E 26 T23N F35E, . " 25 50 351 . w_ __ 603'4 605. 825 826 8 4: 15, '.16, 17' 3 E--- 36 T23N R4E 91 T231 RSE 32 T23N RSE 33 T23N R5E '34 T23N R5E 35 T23N R5E 3E 607 608; 609 610 632 : 8'J'10. 3377J 1 J2 J a' 22N R4E i T22N R4 6 T22N R5E 5 T22N R5E 4 T22N FfSE 3 T22N RSE 2 T22N R5E RFcT1ALmEN �^ CV Center Village Irl Industrial - Heavy RC Resource Canaervation R-1 Residential I du/ac OC-N1 Urban Center - North 1 ]M Industrial - Medium R-a Residential 4 du/ac uC-N� Urban Center - North 2 = Industrial - Light R-e Residential 5 du/ac CD Center Duwnto-n' (P) Publicly owned RMH Residential Manufactured Homes COR Commercial/Office/Residential --- �� -- Renton City Limits R-10 Residential 10 du/ac LOKMER-_- "-Adjacent Citp Limits R-14 Residential 14 du/no CA Commercial Arterial' saaaa,= Hoak Pages Boundary RM-F Residential Multi -Family CO Commercial Office* RM-T Residential Multi -Family Traditional CN Commercial Neighborhood KRQLL (� PAGE RM-u Residential Multi -Family Urban Center* PAVE# INDEX • May include Overlay Districts, See Appendix maps. For additional regulations in Overlay Districts. please see RMC 4-3. 5E CrROwa%uNGE Printed by Print & Mail Services, City of Renton November 21 st, 2007 Jill Ding, Senior Planner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Dear Ms. Ding Nov 212007 RECEIVEU This letter is intended to provide comments on the proposed SEPA Determination of Non -Significance for the Gordley Short plat LUA 07-131, involving property at 2010 Jones Ave NE. On November 20"i, I visited your office and attempted to review the Critical Area Study for the property. The copy of the study available for public viewing did not include Figure 3, which the report noted as locating the area noted as identified wetlands in the report. The lack of this figure or some other method of locating the sample points made it impossible to fully evaluate the wetland delineation. It was also noted there was no map of the wetland area, prepared by a licensed land surveyor, available in the project file. Other maps in the file were confusing as they noted a new Lot "C" which apparently is not included in the proposed short plat. The Study also mentions a "lined pond" to the southwest. I was unable to determine where this pond might be located. The area to the southwest would apparently be the uplands along Jones Ave NE. I surmise that they may have meant to the southeast, which would possibly be the excavation of the foundation for the house presently under construction at 1824 NE 20th Street. That excavation revealed an extremely high water table which required a very expensive foundation to allow continuation of the house construction. The existence of the high water table supports my belief that the low area both north and south of NE 20`h Street supports storage of large amounts of water. This leads into my contention that Kennydale Creek, mentioned in the Study as an "unnamed seasonal drainage/stream" is clearly misclassified as it is not seasonal. There is considerable evidence on the record that the creek flows year around, and NO first hand evidence that the creek has ever dried up. Since 1988 when this area was subdivided (see recorded map 8805099006) the City has recognized that the Kennydale Creek is a creek requiring a defined easement through the property. Also it is clear from that 1988 action that the City felt that the majority of the property was not suitable for development and should be retained as an open area. If there has been degradation of the property since that time I would feel that the City was negligent in their obligation to protect this "jurisdictional wetland" as noted in the Study. In conclusion, I would request that the missing documentation be obtained from the applicant, any ambiguities be removed from the existing maps, the issues I have raised SEPAComments regarding the stream classification and the extent of the wetland area be resolved, and then the public comment period for this project be reopened for an additional 10 days. Thank you for allowing me to comment on this matter. I understand I will be made a party of record for further actions involving this property. Sincerely �0 William E_ O'Connor 10402 151" Ave SE Renton, WA 98059 SEPAComments November 21, 2007 Jill Ding, Sr. Planner City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Dear Ms Ding: This letter is to address public comments on the proposed SEPA Determination of Non - Significance for the Gordley Short Plat LUA 07-131, property at 2010 Jones Ave NE. I have reviewed the Critical Area Study for the property); the copy of the report available for purview is lacking Figure 3, which the report noted as locating the identifying wetlands. I also note that no licensed land surveyor's map delineating the wetland is available in the project file? Was a licensed land surveyor used as is required? There is no way to correlate the field observations with the alleged wetland boundary. In Table 3 a listing of 12,632sq ft of wetland is identified, in the narrative posted for public notice there is a 9,601 sq_ ft wetland noted; why the discrepancy of 3,031 sq. ft. There are declarations on file that the stream previously designated a Class IV is not seasonal, no evidence has been provided except for a statement by the current owner that the stream dried up once decades ago. It appears that the critical areas review is lacking on several important items both to the extent of the wetlands and the classification of Kennydale Creek. I would request that the applicant be required to provide supplemental information so that these issues can be totally resolved. Sincerely, ` Barbara P. Hicks 10402 151st Ave SE Renton WA 98059 November 21, 2007 Ms. Jill Ding City of Renton LUA-07-131 Hello, Ms. Ding. I would like to take this opportunity to comment on the proposal for the Blueberry Haven short plat. Many neighbors have taken the time to provide the City with affadavits verifying that Kennydale Creek has never gone dry in their lifetimes. Many of them have lived near the creek for most of their lives. To this day , we have never received a satisfactory response on this matter from anyone at City Hall. Kennydale Creek is used as an EXAMPLE of a Class III stream in Renton's own stream classification criteria! Yet, they were ready to grant Mr. Gordley's request to downgrade the creek to a drainage ditch on the flimsiest of hearsay evidence, with no meaningful investigation of the facts. Now, the City seems ready to accept this misleading and inaccurate wetland study as the basis for granting permission to build directly adjacent to the creek. The report continuously refers to the creek as a "seasonal un-named drainage ditch" and downplays the fact that this spring -fed wetland valley is a significant wildlife corridor. The authors repeat verbatim many of the Gordley's unscientific opinions as facts, which I am amazed would be allowed by a professional wetland expert. There are also discrepancies in the total square footage of the reported wetland area, much documentation seems to be missing, and the Creek is misclassified. Thank you for considering these issues. Susan Rider 1 I35 �� s+ 1 11 � " a v Mix, iz� � 1 MASON i L► .� 1 �� Mr, olm�._ _IN � 4 �a� 1 + �► � ��rl�� \ * ' it � ♦ �\ � 1 'I Nov.21, 2007 RE: LUA07-131, SHPL-A, ECF Blueberry Haven Short Plat From: Sue Larson -Kinzer 1733 NE 20' St. Kennydale Blueberry Farm Renton,WA 98056 The storm water issue in this area needs to be addressed before any further development occurs. The city has utility easements in this area for sewer lines. It is long past time that the storm water issue is addressed. In the past three years 36 houses in the Camwest development have had their drainage directed into the ditch/now creek that runs through the project property. An older development known as Highgate to the east of the blueberry farm no longer has a functioning detention pond. That drainage all comes onto the blueberry farm. Now we have the McMansion that is being built to the east of subject property. All this impervious surface is going to create major drainage problems. The ditch/creek is so silted up that it cannot handle the extra drainage. The property owners in this area know this is a drainage basin but the problem is exacerbated every time new development occurs. How is it that the city can put a sewer line through the middle of a so called wetland area and the property owners can't touch a thing? We all pay every month with our utility bills the storm water fees yet we have no storm water management in our area. The property owners in this area have become the owners of a huge retention pond. Lucky us!! I am certain I am just beating my head against a brick wall in trying to communicate with the city of Renton. This has been going on for years but I figured it was worth another try. I recently read of Ordinance No. 5312 being adopted. It would be nice if some of that $3,173,000 dollars were directed to this area to resolve the drainage issues. Thank You. f � � Sue Larson -.Kinzer CITY F RENTON N Kathy Keolker, Mayor November 26, 2007 Sue Larson -Kinzer Kennydale Blueberry Farm 1733 NE 20`" Street Renton, WA 98056 PIanning/Building/PublicWorks Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator RE: Blueberry Haven Short Plat (LUA07-131, SHPL-A, ECF) Dear Ms. Larson -Kinzer; Thank you for your comment letter, dated November 21, 2007, regarding the above referenced project. Your comments have been included in the Blueberry Haven official file and you have been made a party of record for this project. As a party of record you will receive copies of any decisions that are made on this project. Your comments will also be included with other comments that I've received on this project for consideration by the decision makers (Environmental Review Committee and Director of Development Services). In your letter you commented that the proposed development should not be permitted due to the potential f6r the exacerbation of an existing stormwater problem. The City has adopted the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual, which the proposed short plat will be required to comply with, The proposed short plat has been routed to the appropriate department for a review of the submitted drainage information to ensure the development will comply with the City's adopted standards. If you have any further questions, feel free to contact me at (425) 430-7219. Sincerely, Jill K. -Ding Senior Planner 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98057 SThis paper contains 50%recyciedmaterial,30%post consumer RENTON AHEAD OF THE CURVE Y CITY IF RENTON +�+ �� ,. Kathy Keolker, Mayor November 26, 2007 Robert Cave 12518 E 17"' Street Bellevue, WA 9.8005 Planning/Building/PublicWorks Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator RE: Blueberry Haven Short Plat (LUA07-131, SHPL-A, ECF) Dear.Mr. Cave: Thank you for your comment letter, dated November 21, 2007, regarding the above referenced project. Your comments have been included in the Blueberry Haven official file and you have been made a party of record for this project. As a party of record you will receive copies of any decisions that are made on this project. Your comments will also be included with other comments that I've received on this project for consideration by the decision makers (Environmental Review Committee and Director of Development Services). In your letter you commented on the classification of Kennydale Creek as a Class 4 intermittent stream. You indicated that the stream is not intermittent, but is in -fact a perennial stream and should be regulated accordingly as a Class 3 stream. This information will be presented to the Environmental Review Committee and the Development .Services Director prior to any decisions being issued on the proposed development. The proposed short plat will be reviewed by the City's Environmental Review Committee on December 3rd. Once a decision is made on the proposal a copy will be mailed to you and a 14-day appeal period will be held. If you have any further questions, feel free to contact me at (425) 430-7219.. Sincerely, 5 Jill K. Ding Senior Planner 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98057 This papercontains50%recycled material, 30) upost.consumer RENTON AHEAD OF THE CURVE Y p� CITY F RENTON 4 ' + PlanningBuilding/PublicWorks Department November 26, 2007 Susan Rider 1835 NE 20th Street Renton, WA 98056 RE: Blueberry Haven Short Plat (LUA07-131, SHPL-A, ECF) Dear Ms. Rider: Thank you for your comment letter, dated November 21, 2007, regarding the above referenced project. Your comments have been included in the Blueberry Haven official file and you have been made a party of record for this project. As a party of record you will receive copies of any decisions that are made on this project. Your comments will also be included with other comments that I've received on this project for consideration by the decision makers (Environmental Review Committee and Director of Development Services). In your letter you commented on several issued with regards to the proposed development. I will attempt to address those issued based on information provided in the City's Development Regulations as well as information contained within City files. In your letter you wanted clarification as to the correct size of the wetland. The 12,632 square foot area provided in the table of the wetland report is an estimation that was provided by the wetland biologist and was estimated before a survey was conducted. The 9,601 square foot area was the area provided once a survey of the delineated wetland was conducted. As the 9,601 square foot area is based on a survey that is the area that is used for the review of the proposed development. You also commented on the classification of Kennydale Creek as a Class 4 intermittent stream. You indicated that the stream. is not intermittent, but is in -fact a perennial stream and should be regulated accordingly as a Class 3 stream. This information will be presented to the Environmental Review Committee and the Development Services Director prior to any decisions being issued on the proposed development. 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98057 This papercahtains 50% recycled mate", 30%post consumer RENTON AHFAD OF THE GUR'VE The proposed short plat will be reviewed by the City's Environmental Review Committee on December 3rd. Once a decision is made on the proposal a copy will be mailed to you and a 14-day appeal period will be held. If you have any further questions, Feel free to contact me at (425) 430-7219. Sincerely, 6/`7 Z Jill K. Ding Senior Planner CITY OF RENTON Kathy Keolker, Mayor November 26, 2007 William E. O'Connor 10402 15151 Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 Planning/Building/PublicWorks Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator RE: Blueberry Haven Short Plat (LUA07-131, SHPL-A, ECF) Dear Mr. O'Connor: Thank you for your comment letter, dated November 21, 2007, regarding the above referenced project. Your comments have been included in the Blueberry Haven official file and you have been made a party of record for this project. As a party of record you will receive copies of any decisions that are made on this project. Your comments will also be included with other comments that I've received on this project for consideration by the decision makers (Environmental Review Committee and Director of Development Services). In your letter you commented on several issued with regards to the proposed development. I will attempt. to. address those issued based on information provided in the City's Development Regulations as well as information contained within City files. In your letter you commented on the wetland delineation that was submitted and requested a survey of the wetland. The wetland report prepared by Steward and Associates that was submitted with the application was originally submitted as part of the Gordley/Denzler Lot Line Adjustment that is being reviewed concurrently. The wetland was surveyed by a licensed land surveyor and is included on the Gordley/Denzler Lot Line Adjustment map (see the LUA07-090 file). As the information that was submitted with the short plat application was consistent with the surveyed delineation, the materials were accepted for review. You also indicated that you were unsure as to what Lot C was as identified on the short plat map. Lot C is the proposed lot that will result once'the Gprdley/Denzler Lot Line Adjustment is recorded. The portion of the Gordley's property located east of Kennydale Creek will become part of the Denzler's backyard. You also commented on the whereabouts of the location of the lined pond that was discussed in the submitted wetland report. The lined pond is located southwest of the delineated wetland within the rear yard areas of one of the abutting lots fronting on Jones 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98057 R E N T O N - AHEAD OF THE CURVE This papercordains 50%recycled material, 30 % post consumer Avenue NE. As it is a lined, artificial pond it would not be considered a regulated wetland. You also commented on the classification of Kennydale Creek as a Class 4 intermittent stream. You indicated that the stream is not intermittent, but is in -fact a perennial stream and should be regulated accordingly as a Class 3 strewn. This information will be presented to the Environmental Review Committee and the Development Services Director prior to any decisions being issued on the proposed development. In addition, your final request was for a 10 day.extension of the comment period. The comment period will not be extended as the 14-day comment period that was held complied with the City's adopted regulations regarding public notification. The proposed short plat will be reviewed by the City's Environmental Review Committee on December 3rd. Once a decision is made on the.proposal a copy will be mailed to you and a 14-day appeal period will be held. If you have any further questions, feel free to contact me at (425) 430-7219. Sincerely, Jill K. Ding Senior Planner Y. CITY IF RENTON 7-R� Kathy Keoiker, Mayor November 26, 2007 Barbara Hicks 10402 151" Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 Planning/Building/PublicWorks Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator RE: Blueberry Haven Short Plat (LUA07-131, SHPL-A, ECF) Dear Ms. Hicks: Thank you for your comment letter, dated November 21, 2007, regarding the above referenced project. Your comments have been included in the Blueberry Haven official file and you have been made a party of record for this project. As a party of record you will receive copies of any decisions ,that are made on this project. Your comments will also be included with other comments that I've received on this project for consideration by the decision makers (Environmental Review Committee and Director of Development Services). In your letter you commented on several issued with regards to the proposed development. I will attempt to address those issued based on information provided in the City's Development Regulations as well as information contained within City files. In your letter you commented on the wetland delineation that was submitted and requested a survey of.the wetland. The wetland report prepared by Steward and Associates that was submitted with the application was originally submitted as part of the Gordley/Denzler Lot Line Adjustment that is being reviewed concurrently. The wetland was surveyed by a licensed land surveyor and is included on the -Gordley/Denzler Lot Line Adjustment map (see the LUA07-090.file). As the information that was submitted with the short plat application was consistent with the surveyed delineation, the materials were accepted for review. You also wanted clarification as to the correct size of the wetland. You indicated there was a discrepancy between the 12,632 square feet indicated on Table 3 of the report versus the 9,601 square feet as indicated per the Notice of Application.. The 12,632 square foot area provided in the table of the wetland report is an estimation that was provided by the wetland biologist and was estimated before a survey was conducted. The 9,601 square foot area was the area provided once a survey.of the delineated wetland was conducted. As the 9,601 square foot area is based on a survey that is the area that is used for the review of the proposed development. 1055 South Grady Way -Renton, Washington 98057 This paper cordains 50% recycled material, 3M. post consumer RENTON AHEAD OF THE CURVE You also commented on the classification of Kennydale Creek as a Class 4 intermittent stream. You indicated that the stream is not intermittent, but is in -fact a perennial stream and should be regulated accordingly as a Class 3 stream. This information will be presented to the Environmental Review Committee and the Development Services Director prior to any decisions being issued on the proposed development.. The proposed short plat will be reviewed by the City's Environmental Review Committee � L •amp 4 Evill�l 1 0 November 21, 2007 Jill Ding, Sr. Planner City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Dear Ms Ding: This letter is to address public comments on the proposed SEPA Determination of Non - Significance for the Gordley Short Plat LUA 07-131, properly at 2010 Jones Ave NE. I have reviewed the Critical Area Study for the property); the copy of the report available for purview is lacking Figure 3, which the report noted as locating the identifying wetlands. 1 also note that no licensed land surveyor's map delineating the wetland is available in the project file? Was a licensed land surveyor used as is required? There is no way to correlate the field observations with the alleged wetland boundary. In Table 3 a listing of 12,632sq ft of wetland is identified, in the narrative posted for public notice there is a 9,601 sq. ft wetland noted; why the discrepancy of 3,031 sq. ft. There are declarations on file that the stream previously designated a Class IV is not seasonal, no evidence has been provided except for a statement by the current owner that the stream dried up once decades ago. It appears that the critical areas review is lacking on several important items both to the extent of the wetlands and the classification of Kennydale Creek. I would request that the applicant be required to provide supplemental information so that these issues can be totally resolved. Sincerely, Barbara P. Hicks 10402 151" Ave SE Renton WA 98059 November 21 st, 2007 Jill Ding, Senior Planner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Dear Ms. Ding This letter is intended to provide comments on the proposed SEPA Determination of Non -Significance for the Gordley Short plat LUA 07-131, involving property at 2010 Jones Ave NE. On November 20`h, I visited your office and attempted to review the Critical Area Study for the property. The copy of the study available for public viewing did not include Figure 3, which the report noted as locating the area noted as identified wetlands in the report. The lack of this figure or some other method of locating the sample points made it impossible to fully evaluate the wetland delineation. It was also noted there was no map of the wetland area, prepared by a licensed land surveyor, available in the project file. Other maps in the file were confusing as they noted a new Lot "C" which apparently is not included in the proposed short plat. The Study also mentions a "lined pond" to the southwest. I was unable to determine where this pond might be located. The area to the southwest would apparently be the uplands along Jones Ave NE. I surmise that they may have meant to the southeast, which would possibly be the excavation of the foundation for the house presently under construction at 1824 NE 20t'' Street. That excavation revealed an extremely high water table which required a very expensive foundation to allow continuation of the house construction. The existence of the high water table supports my belief that the low area both north and south of NE 201h Street supports storage of large amounts of water. This leads into my contention that Kennydale Creek, mentioned in the Study as an "unnamed seasonal drainage/stream" is clearly misclassified as it is not seasonal. There is considerable evidence on the record that the creek flows year around, and NO first hand evidence that the creek has ever dried up. Since 1988 when this area was subdivided (see recorded map 8805099006) the City has recognized that the Kennydale Creek is a creek requiring a defined easement through the property. Also it is clear from that 1988 action that the City felt that the majority of the property was not suitable for development and should be retained as an open area. If there has been degradation of the property since that time 1 would feel that the City was negligent in their obligation to protect this "jurisdictional wetland" as noted in the Study. In conclusion, I would request that the missing documentation be obtained from the applicant, any ambiguities be removed from the existing maps, the issues I have raised SEPAComments regarding the stream classification and the extent of the wetland area be resolved, and then the public comment period for this project be reopened for an additional 10 days. Thank you for allowing me to comment on this matter. I understand 1 will be made a party of record for further actions involving this property. Sincerely �Atll Cy U' aAX,� William E. O'Connor 10402 15 1"Ave SE Renton, WA 98059 SEPAComments November 21, 2007 Ms. Jill Ding City of Renton LUA-07-131 Hello, Ms. Ding. I would like to take this opportunity to continent on the proposal for the Blueberry Haven short plat. Many neighbors have taken the time to provide the City with affadavits verifying that Kennydale Creek has never gone dry in their lifetimes. Many of them have lived near the creek for most of their lives. To this day , we have never received a satisfactory response on this matter from anyone at City Hall. Kennydale Creek is used as an EXAMPLE of a Class III stream in Renton's own stream classification criteria! Yet, they were ready to grant Mr. Gordley's request to downgrade the creek to a drainage ditch on the flimsiest of hearsay evidence, with no meaningful investigation of the facts. Now, the City seems ready to accept this misleading and inaccurate wetland study as the basis for granting permission to build directly adjacent to the creek. The report continuously refers to the creek as a "seasonal un-named drainage ditch" and downplays the fact that this spring -fed wetland valley is a significant wildlife corridor. The authors repeat verbatim many of the Gordley's unscientific opinions as facts, which I am amazed would be allowed by a professional wetland expert. There are also discrepancies in the total square footage of the reported wetland area, much documentation seems to be missing, and the Creek is misclassified. Thank you for considering these issues. Susan Rider I f? 1 Nov.21, 2007 RE- LUA07-131, SHPL-A, ECF Blueberry Haven Short Plat From: Sue Larson -Kinzer 1733 NE 20"' St. Kennydale Blueberry Farm Renton,WA 98056 The storm water issue in this area needs to be addressed before any further development occurs. The city has utility easements in this area for sewer lines. It is long past time that the storm water issue is addressed. In the past three years 36 houses in the Camwest development have had their drainage directed into the ditch/now creek that runs through the project property. An older development known as Highgate to the east of the blueberry farm no longer has a functioning detention pond. That drainage all comes onto the blueberry farm. Now we have the McMansion that is being built to the east of subject property. All this impervious surface is going to create major drainage problems. The ditch/creek is so silted up that it cannot handle the extra drainage. The property owners in this area know this is a drainage basin but the problem is exacerbated every time new development occurs. How is it that the city can put a sewer line through the middle of a so called wetland area and the property owners can't touch a thing? We all pay every month with our utility bills the storm water fees yet we have no storm water management in our area. The property owners in this area have become the owners of a huge retention pond. Lucky us!! I am certain I am just beating my head against a brick wall in trying to communicate with the city of Renton. This has been going on for years but I figured it was worth another try. I recently read of Ordinance No. 5312 being adopted. It would be nice if some of that $3,173,000 dollars were directed to this area to resolve the drainage issues. Thank You. Sue Larson -Kinzer CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: November 19, 2007 TO: Jill Ding FROM: Jan Illian x 7216 SUBJECT: BLUEBERRY HAVEN SHORT PLAT LUA 07-131 2010 — Jones Avenue NE I have reviewed the application for this short plat located 2010 — Jones Ave NE and have the following comments: EXISTING CONDITIONS WATER There is an existing 6-inch water main fronting the site in NE 20`h Street and an 8-inch main in Jones Ave NE. Derated fire flow from the 6-inch is approximately 1,150 gpm. Static water pressure in the area is approximately 70 psi. The proposed project is located in the 435 Water Pressure Zone and is inside Aquifer Protection Zone 2. SEWER There is an existing 8-inch sewer main in NE 20 Street. STORM There is no storm system in NE 20'h Street. STREET There is no sidewalk, curb, and gutter fronting the site in NE 201h Street or in Jones Ave NE. CODE REQUIREMENTS WATER 1. Water System Development Charges are based on a rate of $1,956.00 per new single-family lot. Fees based on the site plan are $1,956.00. Credit is given for the existing home. Payment of this fee will be required prior to issuance of utility construction permit. 2. Fire flow requirement for single-family residences under 3,600 square feet is 1,000 gpm. A hydrant is required within 300 feet of the structure. New single-family residences including garage cannot exceed 3,600 square feet. Fire flow increases to 1,500 gpm and an additional hydrant will be required. 3. Existing hydrants counted, as fire protection will require installation of a "storz" quick disconnect fitting if not already in place. 4. Separate water service stub is required to be provided to each new lot prior to recording of the short plat. SANITARY SEWER I . Sanitary Sewer System Development Charges are based on a rate of $1,017.00 per new single-family lot. Fees based on the site plan are $1,017.00. Payment of this fee will be required prior to issuance of utility construction permit. 2. This parcel is subject to two Special Assessment Districts. NE 20`' & Jones SAD is based on square footage. The rate is site square footage x a rate of 0.27926559. West Kennydale SAD is based on a rate of # new lots x $1,050. Payment of these fees will be required prior to issuance of utility construction permit. Bluehciry Haven 2 lol Short Plat Page 2 of 2 November 13, 2007 3. A separate sewer stub is required to be provided to each new lot prior to recording of the short plat. 4. Minimum slope for side sewers shall be 2%. SURFACE WATER 1. The Surface Water System Development Charges are based on a rate of $759.00 per new single-family lot. Estimated fees based on the site plan is $759.00. Payment of this fee will be required prior to issuance of utility construction permit. 2_ Roof drains shall be tightlined to the storm system whenever feasible. Infiltration is allowed if soils are acceptable. 3. A conceptual drainage report and narrative has been submitted. and reviewed. This project is exempt from detention and water quality per the 1990 KCSWM. 4. A temporary erosion control plan will be required and shall be installed and maintained to the satisfaction of the representative of the Development Services Division for the duration of the project. TRANSPORTATION 1, Half street improvements including sidewalk, curb, gutter, paving and storm drainage are required to be installed fronting the site in NE 20 Street and Jones Ave NE. Applicant may submit an application requesting to pay a fee in lieu of installing the improvements to Development Services. 2. Street lighting is not required. 3. Applicant will be required to comply with the City of Renton's Trench Restoration and Street Overlay Requirements. 4. A traffic control plan, approved by the City will be required for any construction impacting the City's right of way. MISCELLANEOUS 1. Separate permits and fees for side sewers, water meters, and storm drainage connections are required. 2 Applicant shall be responsible for securing all necessary public and/or private easements. 3. Proposed new rockeries or retaining walls to be constructed that are greater than four feet in height will be require a separate building permit for structural review. A geotechnical report is required with the submittal. 4. All wire utilities shall be installed underground per the City of Renton Under Grounding Ordinance. If three or more poles are required to be moved by the development design, all existing overhead utilities shall be placed underground. Additional undergrounding may be made by required by Puget Sound Energy. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS Traffic mitigation fee for each new single-family residence is $717.75. The rate is based on 9.57 trips x $75 x I new lot. Total fees are $717.75. This is payable prior to recording of the short plat. 2. Staff recommends a condition to require this project to design and comply with Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements as outlined in Volume II of the current edition of the Stormwater Management Manual_ cc: Kayren Kittrick City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Ran COMMENTS DUE: NOVEMBER 21, 2007 APPLICATION NO: LUA07-131, SHPL-A, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: NOVEMBER 7, 2007 APPLICANT: Richard & Lauralee Gordley PROJECT MANAGER: Jill Din PROJECT TITLE: Blueberry Haven Short Plat PLAN REVIEW: Jan Lilian SITE AREA: 37,714 square feet BUILDING AREA (gross): NIA LOCATION: 2010 Jones Avenue NE WORK ORDER NO: 77838 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Short Plat approval and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the subdivision of a 37,714 square foot site into two lots in the Residential - 4 dwelling unit per acre (R-4) zone. An existing single family residence is proposed to remain on Lot A. Lot A is proposed at 17,930 square feet and Lot B is proposed at 19,784 square feet in area. Access to Lot A would be provided off of Jones Avenue NE and access to Lot B would be provided off of NE 20th Street. A 9,601 square foot category 3 wetland and a class 4 stream have been identified on the project site. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Earth Air . Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary i i0U5in Aesthetics Light/Glare Recreation uNities Transportation Public Services HistoricXaltv,al Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14, 000 Feet We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where di zonal information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signaturepf aFredtor of Authorized Representative Date City of Renton Department of Planning/ Building / Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: I _ -� COMMENTS DUE: NOVEMBER 21, 2007 APPLICATION NO: LUA07-131, SHPL-A, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: NOVEMBER 7, 2007 APPLICANT: Richard & Lauralee Gordley PROJECT MANAGER: Jill Din PROJECT TITLE: Blueberry Haven Short Plat PLAN REVIEW: Jan Illian R EC E IV E C SITE AREA: 37,714 square feet BUILDING AREA (gross): NIA NOV 2007 LOCATION: 2010 Jones Avenue NE WORK ORDER NO: 77838 Q(,if1L;XtYU U?V10fQ1%4 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Short Plat approval and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the subdivision of a 37,714 square fool site into two lots in the Residential - 4 dwelling unit per acre (R-4) zone. An existing single family residence is proposed to remain on Lot A. Lot A is proposed at 17,930 square feet and Lot B is proposed at 19,784 square feet in area. Access to Lot A would be provided off of Jones Avenue NE and access to Lot B would be provided off of NE 20th Street. A 9,601 square foot category 3 wetland and a class 4 stream have been identified on the project site. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmentai Health Energy/ Nalura l Resources T-Lt�- S00--T A 76 1/ J? 3 INX-L'7- B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Housir Aesthetics Light/Glare Recreation Utilities Transportation Public Services Historic/Cuitural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14.000 Feet We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date zi# 78 A� + *iR IN Project Name: Tk)E:S � kNICL 50t, Project Address: 2OI'D _�ONes. kq tov — i.1 Contact Person: c_((-r8v'L' LAu21 w�LL t,�l Permit Number: LUA Off- 131 Project Description: .'� 1,; 'f&CIC �1 00 aLk i� vov f � Land Use Type: ,EMesidential ❑ Retail ❑ Non -retail Calculation: ,S-7 A� 77'�; Transportation Mitigation Fee: Method of Calculation: lTE Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition ❑ Traffic Study ❑ Other 9 —7 , ov x 177. 5 7 Calculated by: J Date: Date of Payment: GY o CITY OF RENTON FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU MEMORANDUM DATE: November 8, 2007 TO: Jill Ding, Senior Planner FROM: Corey Thomas, Plans Review Inspector SUBJECT: Comments for Blueberry Haven Short Plat Environmental Impact Comments: 1. The fire mitigation fees are applicable at the rate of $488 per new lot. This fee is payable prior to recording of the plat. Code -Related Comments: 1. The minimum fire flow required is 1,000 gpm for dwellings up to 3,600 square feet in area. One fire hydrant is required within 300-feet of the structure. For dwellings over 3,600 square feet minimum fire flow is 1,500 gpm and a minimum of two fire hydrants within 300-feet is required. (Square footage for dwellings include garage and basements areas.) 2. Fire apparatus access road is adequate. CT:ct C..2��4,, ,p3 City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: 4 COMMENTS DUE: NOVEMBER 21, 2007 APPLICATION NO: LUA07-131, SHPL-A, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: NOV APPLICANT: Richard & Lauralee Gordley PROJECT MANAGER: Jill Vin I PROJECT TITLE: Blueberry Haven Short Plat PLAN REVIEW: Jan Illian SITE AREA: 37,714 square feet BUILDING AREA (gross): N/A NOV $ i LOCATION: 2010 Jones Avenue NE WORK ORDER NO: 77838 �. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Short Plat approval and Environmental (SEPA) 13eview for the subdivisL'OR _ of a 37,714 square foot site into two lots in the Residential - 4 dwelling unit per acre (R-4) zone. m existing single family residence is proposed to remain on Lot A. Lot A is proposed at 17,930 square feet and Lot B is proposed at 19,784 square feet in area. Access to Lot A would be provided off of Jones Avenue NE and access to Lot B would be provided off of NE 20th Street. A 9,601 square foot category 3 wetland and a class 4 stream have been identified on the project site. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources B_ POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS A/o� Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Housing Aesthetics Light/Glare Recreation Utilities Transportation Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet CL U We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess his proposal. f 7 Signature of Director or Authorized Represen ative Date Jill Ding � Re. Blueberry Haven Short Plat, ' "A07-131, SHPL A, ECF, Notice of Application and Proposed Determination Page 1 From: Jill Ding To: Walter, Karen Date: 11/19/2007 7:34:29 AM Subject: Re: Blueberry Haven Short Plat, LUA07-131, SHPL-A, ECF, Notice of Application and Proposed Determination Karen, My responses to your questions are below, >>> "Karen Walter" < Karen.Walter@muck) es hoot. nsn.us> 11/15/2007 3:38 PM >>> Jill, The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division has reviewed the threshold determination and the environmental checklist for the above referenced project. We have several questions. 1. How was the water typing for the stream on site determined? (The answer may be found within the stream classification review; however, we did not receive a copy of this document or report). The stream was classified during the City's inventory of the streams within the City as a Class 4 stream (you may contact Rebecca Lind in our Long Range Planning group at (425) 430-6588 for additional information on this study). A subsequent request was filed to reclassify the stream as a Class 5 (unregulated) stream, which went before the City Council. The City hired a consultant (Carl Hadley) to go out to determine if the stream should be classified as a Class 5 stream and he determined that it should not. Therefore, the stream is still classified as a Class 4 stream. 2. Is the response to 3.a.2 correct in that no aspect of this project will occur within 200 feet of the Category 4 stream or the wetland shown on the site plan that is not discussed in the checklist? The site plan shows a wooden bridge, will this be removed? There are no plans to remove the wooden bridge. The proposed short plat would result in the creation of one new building lot. Eventually a new single family residence would be constructed on this lot that would be within 200 feet of the stream and wetland, however no work is proposed within the wetland or stream buffer (the wetland is a Category 3 with a 25-foot buffer and the stream is a Class 4 with a 35-foot buffer) 3. How will the wetland and the stream be protected from lots A, B and C? No constructed would occur within the required wetland or stream buffer areas. We would appreciate any information that may be available to answer these questions. Thank you very much, Ji!! Dingw Re: Blueberry Haven Short Plat, 'A07-131, SHPL-A, ECF, Notice of Application and Proposed Determination Page 2 Karen Walter Watershed and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division 39015 172nd Ave SE Auburn WA 98092 City of Renton Department of Planning I Building 1 Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: NOVEMBER 21, 2007 APPLICATION NO: LUA07-131, SHPL-A, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: NOVEMBER 7, 2007 APPLICANT: Richard & Lauralee Gordley PROJECT MANAGER: Jill Din PROJECT TITLE: Blueberry Haven Short Plat PLAN REVIEW SITE AREA: 37,714 square feet BUILDING AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: 2010 Jones Avenue NE WORK ORDER NO: 77838 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Short Plat approval and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the subdivision of a 37,714 square foot site into two lots in the Residential - 4 dwelling unit per acre (R-4) zone. An existing single family residence is proposed to remain on Lot A. Lot A is proposed at 17,930 square feet and Lot B is proposed at 19,784 square feet in area. Access to Lot A would be provided off of Jones Avenue NE and access to Lot B wouid be provided off of NE 20th Street. A 9,601 square foot category 3 wetland and a class 4 stream have been identified on the project site. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Mayor Impacts More Information Necessary Earth Air water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Housin Aesthetics Light/Glare Recreation unfities Trans ortatioo Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Alrport Environment 10,000 Feet 14.000 Feet We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additiogal kformation is needed to property assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authoriz8d Representative "_ -_ _. Date City of Renton Department of Planning I Building I Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Ruyk-S COMMENTS DUE: NOVEMBER 21, 2007 APPLICATION NO: LUA07-131, SHPL-A, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: NOVEMBER 7, 2007 APPLICANT: Richard & Lauralee Gordley PROJECT MANAGER: Jill Din PROJECT TITLE: Blueberry Haven Short Plat PLAN REVIEW: Jan Illian SITE AREA: 37,714 square feet BUILDING AREA (gross): NIA LOCATION: 2010 Jones Avenue NE WORK ORDER NO: 77838 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Short Plat approval and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the subdivision of a 37,714 square foot site into two lots in the Residential - 4 dwelling unit per acre (R-4) zone. An existing single family residence is proposed to remain on Lot A. Lot A is proposed at 17,930 square feet and Lot B is proposed at 19,784 square feet in area. Access to Lot A would be provided off of Jones Avenue NE and access to Lot B would be provided off of NE 20th Street. A 9,601 square foot category 3 wetland and a class 4 stream have been identified on the project site. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land/Shorekne Use Animals Environmentaf Health Energy/ Natural Resources B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary HoLlSln Aesthetics Li ht/Glare Recreation Utilities Transportation Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Envirornrnent 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet /C� 1 " , C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Xt, We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where Oditional information isaRgded to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Auth6rized Representative dZ Date City of Renton Department of Planning/ Building / Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: 1� COMMENTS DUE: NOVEMBER 21, 2007 APPLICATION NO: LUA07-131, SHPL-A, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: NOVEMBER 7, 2007 APPLICANT: Richard & Lauralee Gordley PROJECT MANAGER: Jill Din PROJECT TITLE: Blueberry Haven Short Plat PLAN REVIEW: Jan Illian SITE AREA: 37,714 square feet UO Y ill hLNIQN BUILDING AREA ross : N/A LOCATION: 2010 Jones Avenue NE WORK ORDER NO: 77838 1.1^%t r, 0 nnn-f Nu V .a V LUU1 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Short Plat approval and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the subdivision of a 37,714 square foot site into two lots in the Residential - 4 dwelling unit per acre (R-4) zone. An exitng �ir,gle,family r�idence is proposed to remain on Lot A. Lot A is proposed at 17,930 square feet and Lot B is proposed at 19,784 ccess to Lot A would be prodded off of Jones Avenue NE and access to Lot B would be provided off of NE 20th Street. A 9,601 square foot category 3 wetland and a class 4 stream have been identified on the project site. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More information Necessary Earth Air Water Plants LancVShoretine Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Naturai Resources B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS Alo ILL C_ CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Housing Aesthetics Light/Glare Recreation utilities Transportation Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10, 000 Feet 14, 000 Feet We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where dditional information is needed t0 roperly assess this proposal. I L ? Si ature o Director Authorized Representative Date CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 7th day of November, 2007, 1 deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Acceptance Letter, NOA, Environmental Checklist & PMT's documents. This information was sent to'. Name Representing Agencies See Attached Lauralee Gordley Owner/Applicant/Contact Surrounding Property Owners See Attached (Signature of Sende STATE OF WASHINGTON ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy Tucker signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. ��►►►� Dated: �-,-�. .r �:- •„��.� Notary Public in and/to/ the Sate of Notary (Print): My appointment expires: �I R Project Name: Blueberry Haven Short Plat Project Number: LUA07-131, SHPL-A, ECF r2 '!l, o l�We: �``�k template - affidavit of service by mailing AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) Dept. of Ecology * WDFW - Larry Fisher* Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. Environmental Review Section 1775 12th Ave. NW Suite 201 Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer PO Box 47703 Issaquah, WA 98027 39015 — 172"d Avenue SE Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Auburn, WA 98092 WSDOT Northwest Region ` Duwamish Tribal Office * Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program " Attn: Ramin Pazooki 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015 172rd Avenue SE PO Box 330310 Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers ` KC Wastewater Treatment Division * Office of Archaeology & Historic Seattle District Office Environmental Planning Supervisor Preservation* Attn: SEPA Reviewer Ms. Shirley Marroquin Attn: Stephanie Kramer PO Box C-3755 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 PO Box 48343 Seattle, WA 98124 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Boyd Powers ' Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Serv. City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: SEPA Section Attn: Mr. Micheal E. Nicholson Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director Renton, WA 98055-1219 13020 SE 72"d Place 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Metro Transit Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Senior Environmental Planner Municipal Liason Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Gary Kriedt Joe Jainga 6300 Southcenter Blvd. 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01W Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Seattle Public Utilities State Department of Ecology Real Estate Services NW Regional Office Title Examiner 3190 160'h Avenue SE 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 Bellevue, WA 98008-5452 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the checklist, PMT's, and the notice of application. * template - affidavit of service by mailing 334450012003 334390268202 334450018307 BANES DENNIS R BRAY JULIE BRENDEMIHL FRITZ W 1909 JONES AVE NE 1901 NE 20TH ST 2116 HIGH AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 929086003001 929086038007 929086001005 BUEHLER THOMAS M+ERIN CAMWEST WESTCHESTER LLC CHOI JAE HO+BONG HEE 2023 KENNEWICK PL NE 9720 NE 120TH PL STE 100 2011 KENNEWICK PL NE RENTON WA 98056 KIRKLAND WA 98034 RENTON WA 98056 929086035003 334390352105 334390356106 CRELENCIA JOSHUA+DERE JUDIE CROOKS BRIAN R DE SALVATORE OLGA 2013 LINCOLN PL NE 1916 JONES AVE NE 2100 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 334390320003 334390356007 334450013001 DENZLER CHRISTIAN R DOBAK ROBERT M DOBSON WYMAN 1800 NE 20TH ST 1700 NE 20TH ST 821 N 1ST ST RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98055 334390320102 929086037009 334450012607 DUTRO TERRY+SIRI C ENG LISA C FANNING GEORGE A 10711 SE 30TH ST 2001 LINCOLN PL NE 2021 JONES AVE NE BELLEVUE WA 98004 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 334390356304 334450018000 334450016608 GORDLEY RICHARD+ LAU RALEE GRAPES NATHAN D+ARCELIE HA CELINA+HO CYNTHIA 2010 JONES AVE NE 2124 HIGH AVE NE 2033 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 334390353004 929086013000 334450016509 HO JOHN JAMES BRIAN T+STEPHANIE L JANE RUTH D 1725 NE 20TH ST 1816 NE 21ST ST 2100 HIGH AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 334390352501 334390324005 929086014008 JOHNSON BARBARA JOY KINZER DARRELL E KLEINER HEATHER L+EDWARD G 1824 JONES AVE NE LARSON-KINZER SUSAN C 1822 NE 21ST ST RENTON WA 98056 1733 NE 20TH ST RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 334450014009 929086005006 929086006004 KOHLMEIER RONALD &ANNETTE M LEE YONG J+PAULINE J CHO LIMING EDWARD+MAGGIE 2420 NE 25TH ST 2103 KENNEWICK PL NE 2109 KENNEWICK PL NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 929086004009 334390268103 929086033008 MUNOZ MARLON R+TSUNEHARA RA NELSON JAMES A NGUYEN HUNG+MYANH DOAN 2029 KENNEWICK PL NE 1905 NE 20TH ST 1465 EVERGREEN POINT RD RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 MEDINA WA 98039 929086032000 334390320201 327618016007 NGUYEN LAM T+LAN T LE NGUYEN TINH V+PHAN AN THI RIDER SUSAN E 1817 NE 21ST ST 1824 NE 20TH ST 1835 NE 20TH RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 334450012508 SCHUMSKY DONALD 2019 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98055 929086007002 SMITH MICHAEL A+SEBERO JER 2115 KENNEWICK PL NE RENTON WA 98056 929086012002 TAT RAEANNE 2114 KENNEWICK PL NE RENTON WA 98056 334390356205 UDEZE IKEMEFUNA 0 2004 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 334390320300 VU TRINH 2120 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 929086034006 SELSET ELIZABETH A+GUILBEAU 2019 LINCOLN PL NE. RENTON WA 98056 334450018109 SPARROW WILLIAM M 2115 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 334390352808 TOMCHICK JOHN A+LAUREL S 1900 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 334450018208 ULRICH DANIEL 2125 ]ONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 929086008000 WALSH JAMES+ELIZABETH 2121 KENNEWICK PL NE RENTON WA 98056 929086036001 929086002003 WICKS MARK N+JULIE M WILMOT KENTON JOHN 2007 LINCOLN PL NE 2017 KENNEWICK PL NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 929086009008 SHAN TONY Y K+SHU-JEN 2127 KENNEWICK PL NE RENTON WA 98056 334450012102 SYRBU VYACHESLAV G+NATALYA 1917 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 334390272204 TORBENSON WILLADENE M PO BOX 59984 RENTON WA 98058 334450011906 VOROBYEV SERGEY+IRINA 1925 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 334390352907 WALZ MYTIEN 1703 NE 20TH ST RENTON WA 98056 tit' o Proposed Mitigation Measures: Toe following Mitigation Measures will Ilkely be mposed on the pracosed oro!ect } ! y These tecommanaed Mitigation Idea sires address pruiect Impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as.:red above. he applrcarlt,vir,!oe requ!red In pay the appmpriere Transponahorr i"Nigalion Fee, NOTICE OF APPLICATION • The app,icanl mh be rogonod to pap the apprcpdi FIm 1,40gotron Fee, AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF • 7ha applicant tvnl be requnro-a !r� pay me apPmpnare Parks MoirgaGon Fee: ant.' Em5ie1,ecric'zii;r,r;e„rvin!is,2095ocparr,rrn,rin1tpo,n�,sr.nwaterMr�ge ©,I!,titanpalforeirT, ; NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-IUI) and seaimen! cpn!mt regi'remenLs Comments an the above application must he submitted in writing to Jill Ding, Senior Planner, Development Services Division, 1455 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 96457. by 5:00 PM on November 21, 2007. If yoi. have DATE: November 7. 200i questons aoout this proposal, or wish 1, be made a nsrty of record and eceve addibunal notification by mad, —act the Project Manager. Anyone no subr-rlls :vntten coi will automarico!ty become a parry o' record and will be notified of LAND USE NUMBER: LUA07 131, SHPL-A ECr any deci—n no this project PROJECT NAME: Rlr,eberry Haven shad Plat CONTACT PERSON: Jill K. Ding, Senior planner: Tel; (425) 430-7219; Eml: jding@cj.renton.w8.us vironental (SEPA] PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The apptcart :s requestino Short Pia: approval and Environmental Review for the subdivision of a 37 714 squa:e fee! stte into t.vo late in the Residentia - 4 dwelling unit per acre (R-4) zone. Lct A A is 17,530 feet Let B is PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION An existing single family residence is propcsee to remain on I-ot proposed at sonars, and or. Posed at 1g,784 square fser o atea Access to Lot A would be provided off d Jones Avenue NE and access to Lot 8 would hu ided aror off of NE 2h.h Street .4 9.501 square fact category 3 wetland and a class 4 stream have been identified on tire project sit e e, � II PROJECT LOCATION: 2C'0 . ces Avenue NE � •`-�-� "� OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NOWSIGNIFICANCE MITIGATED IONS-M). As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton T J has determined Insi sgdfcart env rorment - sat a unlikely to result Torn the proposed crxeC Therefore, as permitted under ;he RC Je' 43.2. 0.117 the City of I -s osrng the Cphorai DNS h1 process to gi nclica that a DNS- M is likely la be issued. Comment perods forIn' p j ct and tire oroaosed DNS -AA are integrated into a single comment $ (. period There will be no common: pe,od folly ring the Issuance of the Threshold Determination of Nan -Significance- ,j Er MNfgated (DNS-fu1j. A 14-day Ali Dered will follow the issuance of the ONS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: November 1 201 '( � NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION, Novernoer' 2007 - •i �j� �� { - � APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON Lauraleo Gordil Tel- (425) 22a-9917; Em1: gordtey1 @edmcai.net •� � E PermiWRavlaw Requested: Environmental (SEPA) Review, Administrative Short Plat approval Lo Other Permits which may be required: h' Gonsiructlon, ire anBuilding Fire Permits Utility Y� 1f 'er .eiwYe. O �6eS I Requested Studies Wetland end Stream Studies lit LJ ' I ' bid �`•+�+r� Loe.flon who application mayrim �'9!�I be reviewed: PlanningfBuildinglPuhlic Works Cepamnent, Development Services PUBLIC HEARING: CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: ZoningiLand Use: Environmental Documents final Evaluate the Proposed Project,. Development Regulations used For Project Mitigation: Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 'Jl The subje<A ste i, designated Ras denDal Lcw Densrl' (RLD) on ;re City of Renton Cwuprehi Lard Use Map and Residenda-4 fR-4j on ti e City s Zoning Map. cnvirrnmental ,SEPAL Checklist The proien e: ill be srJrect IC tie Cit's SEPA ordnance, RMC 1.-4-0 1) Development Regulations and Guidelines and ocher applicable codes and If you would like to be made a party of record to reserve further information on this proposed project, cemplele regulations as appropriate. this form and return to: City of Renton, Development Planning, 1055 So. Grady Way. Renton. WA 98057. NamelFile No Blueberry Haven Sher. PIe ILUA07-131, SHPL-A, ECF NAME' MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NO.: CERTIFICATION I , hereby certify that were posted by me in conspicuous places or coati DATE: It"_' _ SIGNED: ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public, in and for ( t +. A + r NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M) lar1114 LAND USE NUMBER PROJECT NAME: November 7, 2007 LUA07-131, SHPL-A, ECF Blueberry Haven Short Plat PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Short Plat approval and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the subdivision of a 37,714 square foot site into two lots in the Residential - 4 dwelling unit per acre (R-4) zone. An existing single family residence is proposed to remain on Lot A Lot A is proposed at 17,930 square feet and Lot B is proposed at 19,784 square feet in area. Access to Lot A would be provided off of Jones Avenue NE and access to Lot B would be provided off of NE 20th Street. A 9,601 square foot category 3 wetland and a class 4 stream have been identified on the project site. PROJECT LOCATION: 2010 Jones Avenue NE OPTIONAL_ DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (DNS-M): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS-M process to give notice that a DNS- M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a singie comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: November 7, 2007 APPLICANTIPROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Lauralee Gordley; Tel: (425) 228-9937; Eml: gordleyl@comcast.net Permits/Review Requested: Environmental (SEPA) Review, Administrative Short Plat approval Other Permits which may be required: Utility Construction, Fire and Building Permits Requested Studies: Wetland and Stream Studies Location where application may be reviewed: PlanninglBuildinglPublic Works Department, Development Services Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 PUBLIC HEARING: N/A [.Ii]:Eli [It 1ZIi! WK@1►/;;l:ATMAY; Zoning/Land Use: The subject site is designated Residential Low Density (RLD) on the City of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map and Residential-4 (R-4) on the City's Zoning Map. Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Environmental (SEPA) Checklist Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: The project wili be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance, RMC 4-4-030 Development Regulations and Guidelines and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. Proposed Mitigation Measures: The following Mitigation Measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project. These recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above. ■ The applicant will be required to pay the appropriate Transportation Mitigation Fee, ■ The applicant will be required to pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee; ■ The applicant will be required to pay the appropriate Parks Mitigation Fee; and ■ Erosion control shall comply with the 2005 Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for erosion and sediment control requirements. Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Jill Ding, Senior Planner, Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, by 5:00 PM on November 21, 2007. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact the Project Manager. Anyone who submits written comments will autornaticafly become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Jill K. Ding, Senior Planner; Tel: (425) 430-7219; Eml: jding@ci.renton.wa.us PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, Development Planning, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Name/File No.: Blueberry Haven Short Plat/LUA07-131, SHPL-A, ECF NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NO.: Y CIT- OF RENTON �j Kathy Keolker, Mayor 7 November 7, 2007 Lauralee Gordley 2010 Jones Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Subject: Blueberry Hagen Short Plat LUA07-131, SHPL-A, ECF Dear Ms. Gordley. Planning/Building/PublicWorks Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator The Development Planning Section of the City of Renton has determined that the subject application is complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, is accepted for review. It is tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Environmental Review Committee on December 3, 2007. Prior to that review, you will be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your application: Please contact me at (425) 430-7219 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Jill K. Ding Senior Planner 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98057 This paper oontains 500/o recycled material. 30%post consumer RENTON AHEAD OF THE CURVE Kathy Keolker, Mayor N CITY )F RENTON Planning/Building/PublicWorks Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator November 7, 2007 Michael Fortson Department of Transportation Renton School District 1220 N 4`h Street Renton, WA 98055 Subject: Blueberry Haven Short Plat LUA07-131, SHPL-A, ECF The City of Renton Development Services Division has received an application for a 2-lot single-family subdivision located at 2010 Jones Avenue NE. Please see the enclosed Notice of Application for further details. In order to process this application, the Development Services Division needs to know which Renton schools would be attended by children living in residences at the location indicated above. Please fill in the appropriate schools on the list below and return this letter to my attention, Development Services Division, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98057 by November 21, 2007. Elementary School: r Middle School: High School: Will the schools you have indicated be able to handle the ifnpact of the additional students estimated to come from the proposed development? Yes No Any Comments: Thank you for providing this important information. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact me at (425) 430-7219. Sincerely, Jill K. Ding Senior Planner Encl. 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98057 ® This paw contam50% recycled material, 30°r6post consumer RENTON AHEAD OF THP. (AIRVF 7 C;,- ? City of Renton Gov zaa� LAND USE PERMITOtt; t vacHIV ASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER(S) NAME: i ADDRESS. 1 _ CITY: ZIP:. TELEPHONE NUMBER. _ APPLICANT (if other than owner) NAME. COMPANY (if applicable): ADDRESS CITY: ZIP: TELEPHONE NUMBER CONTACT PERSON NAME: ii ,,'' / . COMPANY (if applicable): ADDRESS. CITY: ZIP: TELEPHONE NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS: PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: i PROJECT/ADDRESS(SY/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): L4 71 1. _J EXISTING LAND USE(S): 9'.5s d'f Vl h�� PROP,9,5SED LAND USE(§): I S c) t "A C' YA f-1` c: EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: �Y PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable): N EXISTING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): SITE AREA (in square feet): 1� 3 1 -1! 4 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED: SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIeTE ACCESS EASEMENTS: PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEN_3TY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable): k r� �7 NUMBER OF PROP S D LOTS (if applicable): NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): Qarcblp«idevserti�flt�ri�i��lanni�tg+m�siciapp.�loc I (M 19,�05 PR _ - ECT INFORMA NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): N % /j� .r SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): .3 2 C-1 C, SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicabie): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): NET FLOOR AREA OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): -' NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EM�OYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable). Jrjf'1j�`, TION continual PROJECT VALUE: IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): © AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA ONE jKAQUIFFR PROTECTION AREA TWO U FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. ft. • GEOLOGIC HAZARD sq. ft. 7�HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. ft. 6� SHORELINE TREAM AND LAKES �0-;Osq. it. 44VETLANDS r sq. ft. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (Attach (legal description on separate sheet with the following information included) SITUATE IN THE .f QUARTER OF SECTION � , TOWNSHIP'2- , RANGE _J, IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES List all lard use applications being applied for: 1. Tre I tyl Iin Plat- /OQ7 2.wqlaj � '. Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage: $ I AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I I, (Print Namels) bpi-o Ia.), declare that I am (please check one) the current owner of the property Involved In this application or e authorized representative to ct for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that _ signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be hislherltheir free and voluntary act for ttre uses an rposes mentioned in the instrument. {Signature of Owner/Representative) LEI/ 17 V,i. Ndkvy iPutft CHRt$T1N A WA7501y MY APpOftnorlt Expkw.M 27. 2010 Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Notary (Print), ' My appointment expir. V Commitment No. 6364084-1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION SCHEDULE A CONTINUED The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows.- Lot(s) 4, City of Renton Short Plat Number SHPL-060-87, recorded under Recording Number 8805099006, in King County, Washington, and that portion of Lot 2 of said short plat, lying southerly of the following described line: Beginning at the northeast corner of said Lot 4; thence north 8W29'00" east on the easterly projection of the north line of said Lot 4 a distance of 226.50 feet to a point on the easterly boundary of said Lot 2; said point being south 00235'32" east a distance of 326.88 feet from the mast northeasterly corner of said Lot 2, and the terminus of the herein described line; (BEING KNOWN AS Lot B, City of Renton Lot Line Adjustment Number LUA 95-093 recorded under Recording Number 951 1299005), DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISIO1 WAIV . OF SUBMITTAL REQUI. _-MENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services Section PROJECT NAME 2. Public Works Plan Review Section 3. Building Section DATE: ` k 4. development Planning Section jeVF_LOPMENT pLANNR CITY OF RENTON Nov -1 2007 0.1VVES1P1MDEVSERV1FormslPlanninglwaiverotsubmittalregs_9-06.xls RECEIVED09106 t 'VEI_OPMENT SERVICES DIVISION WAIVER .,F SUBMITTAL REQUIRE.-ENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS ,4 This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services Section 2_ Public Works Plan Review Section 3. Building Section 4. Development Planning Section PROJECT NAME: DATE,% Q:IWEB%PWIDEVSERV1Forms\Planninglwaiverofsubmittalregs_9-o6.xis 09/06 C4 - 32, I P-1 �4 ZI Q; ME E 117, —8 st n 1 F-7?116 Ni924th S t 2BT -IT- R —81 st- -co co 14NE nbfi 8t� FF co Rc Al 1,90 R t 'h WE RI co� L _jSt -LJSt.L r 0 mp') !---I R — 8 D I :!c I 16th s N &Ei CD oll cc) DIE/� L C R. 8L L Mr R-8(pn NE 12th St,-- R-6 R -R-8 10 E4 -8 T23N RSE E 1/2 a 4 0 -POL R'E'F A V-ro 2007 ;DIVED ZONING LM plamw TZCMnCAL URVICU 5 T23N R5E E 1/2 OtA 11 - n4,,� PRE-APPLICATION COMMENTS PROJECT: Blueberry Haven Short Plat 2010 Jones Ave NE PRE OS-031 DATE: March 24, 2005 @ 11:00 p.m. STAFF COMMENTS: FIRE PREVENTION — Jinn Gray PUBLIC WORKS/UTILITIES — Jan Illian CONSTRUCTION SERVICES — Larry Meckling- NO COMMENT PLANNING/ZONING -- Nancy Weil SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: ZONING MAP SITE ARIAL SUBMITTAL WAVIER FORM CITY OF RENTON FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU MEMORANDUM DATE: March 10, 2005 TO: Nancy Well, Senior Planner FROM: Jim Gray, Assistant Fire Marshal SUBJECT: Blueberry Haven Short Plat, 2010 Jones Ave. NE Fire Department Comments: 1. A fire hydrant with 1000 GPM fire flow is required within 300 feet of all new single-family structures. if the building square footage exceeds 3600 square feet in area, the minimum fire flow increases to 1500 GPM and requires two hydrants within 300 feet of the structure. 2. A fire mitigation fee of $488.00 is required for all new single-family structures. 3. Fire Department access roadways require a minimum 20 Foot paved roadway with an approved fire department turnaround. A full 90 foot diameter cul-de-sac is required. See attached diagram. 4. All building addresses shall be visible from the public street Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS .s RENTON FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU x +1S-yg0-7pp0 ��r !�'i{��.� i.a. �a _ ta,. Ytiis �"'� �•r5�•.<� ''��'i. i-}4,�Zi"�,�y � :..^� -•�"'""`,�.�. fr111w� K''-i'�.r wf--ttx IZiF ,� �h-R...�d'�i 3- �rwj� �•�L7.�• 'F - ,�i �� '"%.'�•'�>.;�J �. �� ,.. Ott � ?'q�i`a �Saf� ��03'�^�'�'�y��s• — � x - e. �.-7,• �3„� - n :.t .Y a}* Wiz,-!_l";�r�-i•12*-�er,r tit .� r_.��1i .z.��YI,. K ,--Q EMERGENCY VEHICLE TURNAROVNe — GV1.-DE-SAC CITY OF RENTON MEMO PUBLIC WORKS TO: Nancy Weil FROM: Jan Illida DATE: March 202005 SUBJECT: PREAPPLICATON REVIEW COMMENTS PREAPP NO. 05-031 BLUEBERRY HAVEN SHORT PLAT 2010 — Jones Ave NE NOTE ON PRELIMINARY REVIEW COMMENTS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT: The following comments on development and permitting issues are based on the pre - application submittals made to the City of Renton by the applicant. The applicant;is cautioned that information contained in this summary may be subject to modification. and/or concurrence by official decision makers (e.g. Hearing Examiner, Boards of Adjustment, Board of Public Works and City Council). Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by the City or made by the applicant. WATER 1. There is an existing 6-inch water main in NE 201h Street and an 8-inch water main in Jones Ave NE. Available fire flow in NE 20th Street is 1,100 gpm. 2. Extension of an 8-inch water main will be required onsite. Extension of an 8-inch in NE 20"' may be required fronting the site. 3. All new construction must have a fire hydrant capable of delivering a minimum of 1,000 gpm and must be located within 300 feet of each structure. New hydrants will be required to be installed as part of the water main extension on site. 4. The proposed project is located in the 435 Water Pressure Zone and is inside Aquifer Protection Zone 2. Static pressure in the area is approximately 70 psi. 5. The Water System Development Charges (SDC) are $1,525 per new building lot. These are payable at the time the utility construction permit is issued. Credit will be given for the existing residence connected to water. SANITARY SEWER 1. There is an existing 8-inch sewer main fronting the property in NE 20th Street. 2. An 8-inch sewer main will be required to be extended within the plat. 3. Separate side sewers are required. Minimum slope shall be 2%. Blueberry Haven Short PI 4. The Sanitary Sewer System Development Charges (SDC) is $900 per new building lot. These are payable at the time the utility construction permit is issued. Credit will be given for existing residence connected to sewer. 5. This parcel is subject to two Special Assessment Districts. NE 20t' & Jones SAD is based on square footage. The rate is site square footage x a rate of 0.27926559. West Kennydale SAD is based on a rate of # lots x $1,050. Payment of these fees will be required prior to issuance of utility construction permit. SURFACE WATER 1. A preliminary drainage plan and drainage report will be required for the site plan application. The drainage plan shall include provision for detention and water quality. treatment in compliance with the requirements of the 1990 KCSWM. 2. Applicant shall submit separate structural plans for review and approval under a separate building permit for proposed vaults. Special inspection from the building department is required_ 3. The preferred method of storm discharge in Aquifer Protection Zone 2 is infiltration, if soils permit. A geotechnical report is required. 4. Roof drains are required to be tightlined to the storm system within the short plat :if infiltration is not feasible. 5. The Surface Water System Development Charges (SDC) are $715 per new building. lot. These are payable at the time the utility construction permit is issued. Credit will be given for existing residence. TRANSPORTATION 1. The traffic mitigation fee of $75 per additional generated trip shall be assessed per new single family home at a rate of 9.57 trips. ($75 x 9.57 x = $ ) 2. Half street improvements in NE 20m including, but not limited to paving, sidewalks, curb & gutter, storm drainage, street signs, and streetlights are required. 3. Private streets are allowed up to six lots or less with not more than 4 lots not abutting the right of way. A 26-foot easement with 20 feet of pavement is required. This site plan exceeds 4 lots. Applicant will be required to meet public street improvement requirements of 32 feet of pavement with sidewalk, curb, and gutter. A request for code modification may be submitted for consideration. 4. Roadways in excess of 150 feet, requires a fire department approved turnaround. 5. All wire utilities shall be installed underground per the City of Renton Undergrounding Ordinance. If three or more poles are required to be moved by the development design, all existing overhead utilities shall be placed underground. GENERAL COMMENTS 1. All plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. 2. When approval of preliminary plat is granted, please submit permit application, three (3) copies of utility drawings, two (2) sets of street lighting plans, two (2) copies of the drainage report, an itemized cost of construction estimate and application fee at the counter on the sixth floor. A fee worksheet is attached for your use, but prior to Blueberry Haven Short Pla preparing a check, it is recommended to call 425-430-7266 for a fee estimate as generated by the permit system. The fee for review and inspection of these improvements is 5% of the first $100,000 of the estimated construction costs; 4% of anything over $100,000 but less than $200,000, and 3% of anything over $200,000. Half the fee must be paid upon application. 3. Separate permits for water meters, side sewers, irrigation meters and storm drainage connections are required. 4. The site is located in Aquifer Protection Zone 2 and may be subject to additional requirements per City code. Constructed_ secondary containment may, be required if more than 20 _gallons of regulated hazardous materials will be present at the new facility (RMC 4-3-050H2d(i)). Certain uses require operating pests (RMC 4-9-015). A fill source statement (RMC 4-4-0601-4) is required if more than 100 cubic yards of fill material will be imported to the project site. Construction Activity Standards (RMC 4- 4-03007) shall be followed if during construction, more than 20 gallons of hazardous materials will be stored on site or vehicles will be fueled on site. Surface Water Management Standards (RMC 4-6-030E2 and 3)--Blofilters, stormwater conveyance, and water quality ponds may require a groundwater protection liner. Impervious surfaces shall be provided for areas subject to vehicular use or storage of chemicals. 5. Rockeries/Retaining Walls. All rockeries or retaining walls, greater than 4 feet in height to be constructed as part of this site will require a separate building permit and shall have the following separate note be included on the civil plan: "A licensed engineer with geo technical expertise must be retained for proposed rockeries greater than four feet in height. The engineer must monitor rockery construction and verify in writing that the rockery was constructed in general accordance with ARC standards and with his/her supplemental recommendations, in a professional manner and of competent and suitable material. Written verification by the engineer must be provided to the City of Renton public works inspector prior to approval of an occupancy permit or plat approval for the project. A separate. building permit will be required." ca Kayren Kittrrick CITY OF RENTON PlanninglBuilding/Public Works MEMORANDUM DATE: March 24, 2005 TO: Pre -Application File No. 05-031 FROM: Nancy Weil, Senior Planner, 425-430-7270 SUBJECT: Blueberry Haven Short Plat General: We have completed a preliminary review of the pre -application for the above -referenced development proposal. The following comments on development and permitting issues are based on the pre -application submittals made to the City of Renton by the applicant and the codes in effect on the date of review. The applicant is cautioned that information contained in this summary may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision -makers (e.g_, Hearing Examiner, Zoning Administrator, Board of Adjustment, Board of Public Works, and City Council). Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by City staff or made by the applicant. The applicant is encouraged to review all applicable sections of the Renton Municipal Code. The Development Regulations are available for purchase for $50.00 plus tax, from the Finance Division on the first floor of City Hall or on-line at www.ci.renton.wa.us. Project Proposal: The subject site is addressed 2010 Jones Ave NE and is 1.47 acres. The site has one single-family residence, which is proposed to remain. The parcel has an unusual shape with public road frontage on both Jones NE and NE 20'h St. both is not a corner lot, The site is zoned Residential —8 (R-8) which is single-family use. The proposal is to subdivide the site into 7 lots for the eventual construction of 6 single-family residences as the existing residence will remain on one of the lots. A stream and possibly two drainage ditches bisects the site, flowing from south to north and east to west respectively. In addition, portion of a wetland is indicated on the site according to the City's Critical Ares map. The applicant provided wetlands delineation report with the pre -application, which is discussed later in this report. A City of Renton Utility easement crosses the eastern section of the parcel, north to south. Site History: It appears this parcel was part of a short plat, 5P 60-87 to create 4 lots. This parcel appears to include lot 4 and portion of lot 2 of that short plat. Two lot line adjustments have been done involving this site, LUA-95-093 LLA and LLA-014-85 for the property owner at that time, Charles A Pohl. Zoning/Density Requirements: The subject property is located within the Residential - 8 dwelling units per acre (R-8) zoning designation. The density range required in the R-8 zone would be a minimum of 4.0 to a maximum of 8.0 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). The method of calculating net density is as follows: A calculation of the number of housing units and/or lots that would be allowed on a property after critical areas and public rights -of -way and legally recorded private access easements are subtracted from the gross area (gross acres minus public streets, easements and critical areas multiplied by allowable housing units per acre). Required critical area buffers and public and private alleys shall not be subtracted from gross acres for the purpose of net density calculations, The applicant did not provide a net density for this site. Due to the unusual shape of the parcel, critical areas and the proposed lot configuration as well as the proposal does not comply with Blueberry Haven Short Plat Pre -Application Meeting March 24, 2005 Page 2 of 6 City street regulations; staff was unable to estimate a net density. The applicant would be required to submit an accurate net density including all deduction as part of the land use application. All square footages of areas to be deducted (i.e. public right-of-way, private access easements, and critical areas -protected slopes, wetlands) must be provided at the time of formal land use application in order to determine density. Development Standards: The R-8 zone permits one residential structure/unit per lot. Detached accessory structures are permitted at a maximum number of two per lot at 720 square feet each, or one per lot at 1,000 square feet in size. Minimum Lot Size Width and Depth — The minimum lot size that would permitted in the R-8 zone is 4,500 sq. ft. for parcels greater than 1 gross acre and 5,000 sq, ft. for parcels less than 1 acre -gross. The site is greater than one (1) acre -gross; therefore, a minimum lot size of 4,500 sq. ft. (net area -after easement deductions, if applicable) would be required. 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. Lot width of Lots 1 and 2 was not shown, the rest of the lot dimensions appear to comply as proposed for the pre -application. Land area included in private access easements must not be included in lot area calculations. Please provide both the gross and net square footage of each lot at the time of formal land use application. For the formal land use application, all lots must be fully dimensioned to determine compliance. Building Standards -- The R-8 zone would allow a maximum building coverage of 35% of the lot area or 2,500 square feet, whichever is greater for lots 5,000 square feet in size or greater. Lots less than 5,000 square feet in size would permit a maximum building coverage of 50% of the lot area. In the R-8 zone, building height is restricted to 30 feet and two stories. Detached accessory structures must remain below a height of 15 feet and one-story with a gross floor area that is less than the primary structure_ Accessory structures are also included in building lot coverage calculations_ Square footages of buildings to remain, if any, must be provided at the time of formal land use application. Also, any buildings that are to be removed/demolished must obtain a demolition permit and be removed and inspected prior to recording the final plat. Setbacks — Setbacks are the minimum distance required between the building footprint and the property line or private access easement. The required setbacks are 15 ft. for the primary structure and 20 ft. for attached garages accessed from the front yard in the front, 20 ft. in the rear and 5 ft. on interior side yards. The side yards along a street setback is 15 ft. for the primary structure and 20 ft. for the attached garages which access from the side yard along a street. Setbacks are not provided in the pre -application information. As part of the Land Use Application submittal, setbacks including the existing residence shall be required. Setbacks are to be shown from the access easement and critical area buffer. AccesslParking: Access to the development is proposed along the existing drive off of NE 201h St and extending east across the stream. The existing residence fronting Jones Ave NE is to remain. Proposed lot 1 through 6 will gain access via the private access easement off of NE 201h St. The proposal did not indict the width of the easement. The access easement needs to comply with street and critical areas requirements. Proposal shows the access within the stream buffer and serving 5 lots. Private streets are allowed for access to six or less lots, with no more than 4 of the lots not abutting a public right-of-way. The street is to include a minimum easement width of 26 feet with 20 feet of paving. Private driveways may serve a maximum of two lots and must have a minimum easement width of 20 feet with 12 feet of paving. Blueberry Haven Short Plat Pre -Application Meeting March 24, 2005 Page 3 of B Each lot is required to accommodate off street parking for a minimum of two vehicles per lot. In addition, appropriate shared maintenance and access agreement/easements will be required between lots with shared access. Private streets and private driveways are easements_ The land area of the easement is to become part of the abutting lots. Addresses of lots along private streets/driveways are to be visible from the public street by provision of a sign stating all house numbers and is to be located at the intersection of the private street and the public street. Driveway Grades: The maximum driveway slopes cannot exceed fifteen percent (15%), provided that driveways exceeding eight percent (8%) are to provide slotted drains at the lower end of the driveway. If the grade exceeds 15%, a variance from the Board of Adjustment is required. Landscaping and Open Space: For plats abutting non -arterial public streets, the minimum off -site landscaping is a five (5 ft.) wide irrigated or drought resistant landscape strip provided that if there is additional undeveloped right-of-way in excess of 5 ft., this also must be landscaped. For plats abutting principal, minor or collector arterials, the width increases to 10 ft. unless otherwise determined by the reviewing official during the subdivision process. Tree requirements for plats include at least two (2) trees of a City approved species with a minimum caliper of 1 '/z inches per tree must be planted in the front yard or planting strip of every lot prior to building occupancy. A landscape plan must be provided with the formal land use application as prepared by a registered Landscape Architect, a certified nurseryman or other certified professional. Sensitive Areas: Based on the City's Critical Areas Maps and available information, the site is located within critical areas, including: landslide hazards, stream and wetlands. Geologic Hazards — The site appears to contain areas of 15% to 40% slopes as shown on the City's Slope Analysis map. Sensitive slopes have grades from 25% to 40%. Specific standards also apply for development located within sensitive slopes, landslide and erosion hazard areas. Protected slopes are defined as topographical features that slope in excess of 40% and have a vertical rise of 15 feet or more. Pursuant to the Renton Municipal Code (RMC4-3-050J) the applicant will be required to obtain a geotechnical report stamped and signed from a Geotechnical Engineer stating that the proposed development is suitable with respect to the current site conditions for soils, slopes, landslides, erosion, seismic, etc. In addition, the report would need to address any special construction requirements deemed necessary by the Geotechnical Engineer. Through the plat review process, the City may condition the approval of the development in order to require mitigation of any potential hazards based on the results of the studies. In addition, pursuant to RMC section 4-3-050.J.3, the geotechnical report submitted with the application may be required to undergo independent secondary review by a qualified specialist selected by the City at the applicant's expense. Wetlands — Wetlands are known to exist on the subject plat. The applicant provided a wetland delineation report prepared by Ellisport Engineering, Inc. October 20, 2004 addressing the quality and size of the wetlands, streams and classification. The report concluded from 3 soil test pits the site did not meet the three criteria for a wetland. The site also contains a stream, which the report classified as a Class 3 requiring 25-foot buffer. The required buffers will need to be shown. The proposal shows the access easement in the buffer and crossing the buffer and stream. Any proposed modifications to the requirements must be clearly identified and written request with justification provided by the applicant would be required. The wetland report will need to be prepared by a qualified wetlands biologist and submitted with the formal land use application. Based on the current code, for wetlands present, the applicable buffer widths based on the category of the wetland are required (Category 1 — 100 ft.; Category 2 — 50 ft.; and Category 3 — 25 ft.). Please see Renton Municipal Code 4-3-050 for current regulations. Blueberry Haven Short Plat Pre -Application Meeting March 24, 2005 Page 4 of 6 The new Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO), which is tentatively proposed to be adopted in April/May 2005, may affect the subject plat in terms of the wetland buffer widths. Streams/creeks - The current code requires a 25-foot setback from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the Category 3 stream However the new Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO), which is tentatively proposed to be adopted in April/May 2005, outlines new regulations for streams and creeks. According to the wetland delineation submitted with the pre -application (prepared by Ellisport Engineering, Inc dated October 20, 2004) a Class 3 Stream, which would require a 25-foot buffer on each side of the OHWM. The City's website provides additional information on the proposed CAO. See www.ci.renton.wams. Variance: Per RMC Section 4-4-130 a variance from tree cutting and land clearing regulations may be required for proposed impact to critical area (i.e. stream). Environmental Review: The project requires SEPA review due to the number of lots of the proposed plat (greater than four dwelling units and critical areas). The proposal would be brought to the Environmental Review Committee for review, as it is their charge to make threshold determinations for environmental checklists. Typically, mitigation of impacts is accomplished through fees related to issues such as transportation, fire and parks as well as measures to reduce impacts to environmental elements such as soils, streams, water, etc. Permit Requirements: The project would require Hearing Examiner Short Plat review and Environmental (SEPA) Review. With concurrent review of these applications, the process would take an estimated time frame of 12 weeks. After the required notification period, the Environmental Review Committee would issue a Threshold Determination for the project. When the required two -week appeal period is completed, the project would go before the Hearing Examiner for a recommendation to the City Council on the Short Plat. The Hearing Examiner's recommendation, as well as the decision issued by the City Council, would be subject to two -week appeal periods. The application fee would be $1,000 for the Short Plat and % of full fee for SEPA Review (Environmental Checklist) which is dependent on project value: less than $100,000 is $200 (112 of $400.00 full fee) and project value over $100,000 is a $500.00 fee (112 of $1000.00 full fee) plus first class postage per mailing label required for notification to surrounding property owners within 300 feet of the site_ The estimated fees for the land use applications are $1,500,00 plus postage costs. The applicant will be required to install a public information sign on the property. Detailed information regarding the land use application submittal requirements is provided in the attached handouts. Once Short Plat approval is obtained, the applicant must complete the required improvements and dedications, as well as satisfy any conditions of the preliminary approval before submitting for Short Plat Recording. The newly created lots may only be sold after the plat has been recorded. Fees: In addition to the applicable building and construction permit fees, the following mitigation fees would be required prior to the recording of the plat. A Transportation Mitigation Fee based on $75 per each new average daily trip attributable to the project; A Parks Mitigation Fee based on $530, 76 per new single family residence; and, A Fire Mitigation Fee based on $468 per new single-family residence. A handout listing all of the City's Development related fees is included in the packet for your review. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The existing development is located within the Residential Single Family (RSF) Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation. The following proposed objectives and policies are applicable to the proposal: Land Use Element Objective LU-FF: Encourage re -investment and rehabilitation of existing housing, and development of new residential plats resulting in quality neighborhoods that: I. Are planned at urban densities and implement Growth Management targets, Blueberry Haven Short Plat Pre -Application Meeting March 24. 2005 Page 5 of 6 2. Promote expansion and use of public transportation, and 3. Make more efficient use of urban services and infrastructure. Policy LU-147. Net development densities should fall within a range of 4.0 to 8.0 dwelling units per acre in Residential Single Family neighborhoods. Policy LU-148. A minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet should be allowed on in -fill parcels of less than one acre (43,560 sq. ft.) in single-family designations. Allow a reduction on lot size to 4,500 square feet on parcels greater than one acre to create an incentive for aggregation of land. The minimum lot size is not intended to set the standard for density in the designation, but to provide flexibility in subdivisionlplat design and facilitate development within the allowed density range. Policy LU-149. Lot size should exclude private sidewalks, easements, private road, and driveway easements, except alley easements. Policy LU-150. Required setbacks should exclude public or private legal access areas, established through or to a lot, and parking areas. Policy LU-152. Single-family lot size, lot width, setbacks, and impervious surface should be sufficient to allow private open space, landscaping to provide buffers/privacy without extensive fencing, and sufficient area for maintenance activities. Environmental Element Objective EN-C: Protect and enhance the City's rivers, major and minor creeks and intermittent stream courses. Objective EWD: Preserve and protect wetlands for overall system functioning. Policy EN-8. Achieve no overall net loss of the City's remaining wetlands base. Policy EN-10. Establish and protect buffers along wetlands to facilitate infiltration and reduce amount and velocity of run-off, and provide for wildlife habitat_ Policy EN-76. Design, locate, and construct utility systems in a manner which will preserve the integrity of the existing land forms, drainage ways, and natural systems. Community Design Element Objective CD -A: The City's unique natural features, including land form, vegetation, Lakeshore, river, creeks and streams, and wetlands should be protected and enhanced as opportunities arise. Policy CD-1: Integrate development into natural areas by clustering development and/or adjusting site plans to preserve wetlands, steep slopes, and notable stands of trees or other vegetation. Natural features should function as site amenities. Use incentives such as flexible lot size and configuration to encourage preservation and add amenity value. Policy CD-13. Infill development, defined as new short plats of nine or fewer lots, should be encouraged in order to add variety, updated housing stock, and new vitality to neighborhoods. Policy CD-13. Infill development should be reflective of the existing character of established neighborhoods even when designed using different architectural styles, and /or responding to more urban setbacks, height or lot requirements. Infill development should draw on elements of existing development such as placement of structures, vegetation, and location of entries and walkways, to reflect the site planning and scale of existing areas. Policy CD-17. Development should be designed to result in a high quality development as a primary goal, rather than to maximize density as a first consideration. Blueberry Haven Short Plat Pre -Application Meeting 't March 24, 2005 Page 6 of 6 Additional Comments: It is likely that the new Critical Areas Ordinance would be effective at the time that this plat is submitted to the City. Staff recommends that the applicant verify the final regulations of the ordinance prior to submitting the formal land use application. In advance of submitting the full land use application package, applicants are strongly encouraged to bring in one copy of each application material for a pre-screening to the customer service counter to help ensure that the application is complete prior to making all copies. cc; Jennifer Henning DENSITY f 'OP p of Nov _ "" WORKSHEET Recamn, City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way -Renton, WA 98055 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 1. Gross area of property: 1, square feet 2. Deductions: Certain areas are excluded from density calculations. These include: Public streets" Private access easements** Critical Areas* Total excluded area: 3. Subtract line 2 from line 1 for net area 4. Divide line 3 by 43,560 for net acreage 6. Number of dwelling units or lots planned 6. Divide line 5 by line 4 for net density: square feet square feet / square feet 2. 0 i square feet 3_ 7 _5-457square feet 4. acres 6. units/lots 6. 3. 65 = dwelling units/acre *Critical Areas are defined as "Areas determined by the City to be not suitable for development and which are subject to the City's Critical Areas Regulations including very high landslide areas, protected slopes, wetlands or floodways." Critical areas buffers are not deducted/excluded. ** Alleys (public or private) do not have to be excluded. http://rentonwa.gov/uploadedFiles/Business/PBPW/IIE;VSERV,/FORMS_I'LANNIN(iidcnsity.doe I Last updated of Ro ttntG November 1, 2007 - 1 2W7 Preliminary flat Application Project Narative Blueberry Haven/Gordley Short Plat — 2 lot short plat 2010 Jones Ave NE Renton, WA Required Lane use permits — Master Application & Environmental Review Zoning designation — R4 for properties and surrounding properties Current site is a single family residence abutting Jones Ave with the most south property line abutting 201h Ave NE. The property is currently surrounded by five privately owned single family dwelling properties. The south side of the property is 100' wide at 20th street and there is a private easement drainage ditch of 4' width taken over by the city as a category 4 stream running south to north in approximately the most east property line with the submitted lot line adjustment, Gordley/Denzler. A private ingress egress 10' easement running west to east for the purpose of the neighbor to pump in and out of the what the city has labeled a Category 4 stream. The property is mowed lawn with trees used for a family backyard. The Gordley primary residence faces Jones Ave. Site area for short plat is a mostly flat site with a slope at the southwest corner. Soil type is sand and relic agricultural per the wetland report with drainage run off sloped towards the drainage ditch. This short plat proposal is for the purpose of lot development .for one future building site and the remaining existing personal residence. The applicant is not anticipating applying for building construction permits. The site area is 37,714 sq ft. Deductions include 12254.4sq ft 1-or wetland and drainage ditch easement category 4 stream, 900 sq ft for ingress/egress easment for purpose of pumping water in and out of ditch. Total excluded area 13154.4 sq ft. Net area is calculated as 24,559.6 sq ft. Net acreage is .5638 acres. Two lots are proposed. 3.55 is the calculation for net density. The proposed lots are existing Single Family residence accessed from Jones ave (Lot A) 17,930 sq ft and new buildable lot accessed from 20`h St NE (Lot B) 19784 sq ft. Access is proposed from 20`h street for Lot B, as access exists currently with 100 ft of street frontage. The new.lot proposed is currently mowed lawn and used for family residential purposes. No landscaping required for purposes of this short plat. A wetland delination has been done by Stewart & Associates per the City Planning department request as the previous wetland delination report had been rejected. A category 111 wetland was then identified in the northeast portion of the property in lots A&B. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST JNl•11 City of Renton Development Services Division CITY Q� RE ON 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 58055 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 NOV - 12097 PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions_ An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal_ Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later_ Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you_ The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NONPROJECT PROPOSALS: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D)_ For nonproject actions (actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs), the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. R:IPw1DEV SERVIFortnslPianni nglenvchisl.doc09l24103 A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: 2. Name of applicant: 5 � d/yklr ( A ei rc d-ee' G o rctl 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Lam ro_1,e-e C7uOrd I e_� zS 2 ,W�v� 4. Dated hecklist prepared. 5. Agency requesting checklist: C i `� o 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): -A SA-0 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. N D 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. \nl eA l kv-L 0 rD k. � in e ;rn Af)'Or- -. SA-y-e- ro �A a. s s V i�C ccao e V 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. �JD 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known _ UNv-no4)n 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. a +e.V L- t) Ind I % kY 2l er- J o f l-1 �3 64-Ct S G Nut es �^ y -�. R.1Pw1DEV5E RV1FormsTianninglenvchlst.doc 2 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. i r) qpk-ca;h� B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one) fiat, lling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other 51 b 0�- S+i n j y-es U cL k vice b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?) l °1 D 0-+ LoeS- - S� di e G)+ Pro f-r +-� C,+ + �-� r�c� re 5 ur�Q ice S C'or(1e-r a-- Zb"' S+ VQ5 t D ' ) o I to f v 6- raa.ct . C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, and, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland_ end, 9 (avj ) 4� ) I d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. IJ D e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. IJ l A f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. 'Pro , s nA 0-41 + -net-+ g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? s 0�o h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: R:%PVADEVSERVkFormsXPlanningXenvchist.doc 3 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. 010 b. Are there any off -site sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. � R C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emis�sioons or other impacts to air, if any: 3. WATER a. Surface Water: 1 } Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year- round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. �r� �>�t✓ y� Cry.+e�oru� S 0-611 C'-U a,l Irl S +C) 1-Zfl rl J6&t, 5 fY LOAIY2 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or Aacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. �JtA 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. D 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. rf DNC- 1`1 0(&)A/ 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year flood plain? If so, note location on the site plan. N0 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. �J0 R:1Pw1aEVSERVIFormslPtanninglenvchlst.doc 4 b. Ground Water: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. NONC 40w 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. 911 C. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters, If so, describe. 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. 1 /4 d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: + ` !A 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: ✓deciduous tree• a er maple, aspen other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other —� shrubs ✓ grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? "/1,o C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. k1b At L' d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: R:%Pw1DEVSERV\FomtslPfanninglenvchlst.doc 5 5. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, liii4 other CluL—s ��, 6 (Tt �0)roG S Mammal =-n, ,f`Cecar, elk, beaver, other oor1s Fish: bastrout, herring, shellfish, other b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. N a IV1 C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain SIR d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: N /-� 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed projects energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. All j k C. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: If Ik 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a_ Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. iv /'q 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. N /-/� 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: N ).P- R:1PW\DEVSER\AFormsTianning\envchist.doe 6 b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site_ 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: t� 1 A- 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. C. Describe any structures on the site. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? �A bV� L e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? f `. - f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? �JIp- h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. A r i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? C�- R:1PMDEVSERV\Forms\Planninglenvchlst.doc 7 j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: AJ/19- I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: /V1� 9. HOUSING a_ Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: �VI,4 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed. /u /,4 b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? ni D n -e. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: / V lh 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? f/l_ R-.VWDEVSERVIForms\Planninglenvchist,doc 8 C. What existing off -site sources of light �or/glare Jmay affect your proposal? / v l/ d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: A 14 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. A Q C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: It l4q 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. /Vd b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. 1Y 0 C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: /V 114- 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. C V�Aws ra��rrn �bn s orb`` Sf b. Is site currently servo by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? � 4 pis C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? �'o�fL R:1PW1bEVSER\AFormslPlanninglenvchist.doc 9 d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private? / iV e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. It/0 f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. /v/p- g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: a W / f- 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. A/0 b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. A/ 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities currentl available at the site electrici , atural ga a efuse service ane, rntary sewer ptic system, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Al /,q- CSIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non -significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full Proponent: Name Printed: Date: R:1PWtDEV5ERV\Forms%Planninglenvchlst.doc 5UP t8, 2W7 1 10 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEETS FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (These sheets should only be used for actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs. You do not need to fill out these sheets for project actions.) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? I V Ik Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Mk Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, flood plains, or prime farmlands? k /fi- Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? N,I,q- Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: R:iPwtt7EVSERVtForms%Planniriglenvehist.doc 11 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? ry V / Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. r fI IA - SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non -significance that it might issue in reliance on this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclpsure o my part. Proponent: Name • CtTI.'�[MliilffiM!iWi Date, l EN VCHi ST.DOC REVISED 6W R:1PW\DEV5ERVIFormslPlanningWnvMst.doc 12 V C CEDAROCK CONSUETAN'TS, INC. 00 February 17, 2006��G Jennifer Henning`�� City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Subject: Upper Kennydale Creek Basin Water Classification Gordley, Umbedacht, Dutro Properties Dear Ms Henning: At your request I am providing an independent third party review of water type classification for the upper Kennydale Creek headwaters area. As you know, I was a consulting aquatic biologist for the streams and lakes portion of the new City Code, thus I am familiar with the intent behind the code. It is my understanding that there is disagreement as to the appropriate classification for the existing watercourse. This watercourse starts in the area southeast of the blueberry farm and continues north and west eventually passing under Jones Ave NE near NE 24'h Street. I have also provided an assessment of existing functions and values of the ditched watercourse. As part of the review I examined a number of documents and visited the site. The documents include: • A copy of RMC 4-3-050(L) (revised 6/05) • Figure 4-3-050Q4 Streams and Lakes • A copy of Section 4-11-190, of Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260. • A letter from Jennifer Henning (City of Renton) to Terry Dutro (Masterbuilder Construction) dated December 1, 2005 regarding a reclassification request. • A memo from Gregg Zimmerman (City of Renton) to Terri Briere (City of Renton) dated November 10, 2005 regarding reclassification. • A letter from Neil Watts (City of Renton) to Terry Dutro dated July 29, 2005 regarding a reclassification request. • A letter from Terry Dutro to City of Renton Hearing Examiner dated August 12, 2005. • A letter from Nancy Weil (City of Renton) to Terry Dutro dated July 22, 2005 regarding a reclassification request. • A letter from Hugh Mortensen (Watershed Company) to Nancy Weil dated July 19, 2005 regarding a Blueberry Meadows environmental review. • A letter from Anne Seethoff (Ellisport Engineering) to Terry Dutro dated July 29, 2005 regarding a critical areas evaluation. • A letter from Anne Seethoff to Lauralee Gordley (homeowner) dated April 25, 2005 regarding a stream classification. Jennifer Henning Kennydale Headwaters February 17, 2006 • A letter from Terry Dutro to the City of Renton dated May 17, 2005 regarding reclassification. • A report entitled Wetland Delineation, Gordly and Core Properties by Anne Seethoff of Ellisport Engineering dated October 20, 2004. • A letter from Ken Sargent to John Hobson (City of Renton) dated August 16, 1999 regarding a wetland delineation. • A report entitled Wetland Delineation, Higate Sewage Lift Station Elimination, Renton, Washington by Entranco dated December 1996. • Various aerial photos from 1936, I946, 1960, and 2002. I visited the site on the afternoon of January 27, 2006. The weather was dry but an unusually high amount of rainfall had fallen over the previous month. I reviewed the blueberry farm from off -site locations on NE 2e Street and NE 192' Place. I reviewed the Gordley property together with Mr. Rick Gordley, I reviewed the Dutro property by myself. I was not allowed access to the Umbedacht property but was able to see parts of it from other locations. The watercourse in question was flowing strongly in all areas visited and much of the area adjacent to the watercourse was saturated. Water Type Classification The watercourse has been classified by the City of Renton (Figure 4-3-050Q4) as a Class 4 water based on their belief that: 1) the watercourse is not fish -bearing, and 2) the watercourse is intermittent (i.e. stops flowing in the summer) during years of normal rainfall. There is no disagreement regarding fish -bearing status. If indeed the stream is intermittent, even just occasionally, then fish from populations in Lake Washington would have to recolonize the channel each winter. It is believed that the steep slope of the channel as it approaches Lake Washington historically prevented fish from migrating past this point. Currently there is also a manmade dam in this area. There has been discussion of whether or not the watercourse is intermittent in normal years. If the watercourse flows continuously during years of normal rainfall, it would be classified as a Class 3 water. Conclusively evaluating the intermittent vs. continuous flow issue is difficult at best and not possible at this time. The stream would most appropriately be examined during the period between late July and late September during a year of normal rainfall. Normal Rainfall is defined under Section 4-11-140 as "Rainfall that is at the mean or within one standard deviation of the mean of the accumulated annual rainfall record, based upon the water year for King County as recorded at the Seattle -Tacoma International Airport". This year looks like it might be unusually wet with rainfall currently almost 40 percent above the mean. Water year 2005 was unusually dry (about 20 percent below normal) but just barely met the definition of Normal Rainfall. Water Year 2004 was near normal being about 10 percent over the average. The wetland delineation conducted by Ellisport Engineering was completed on October 6, 2004, typically a relatively dry time of the year. Records indicate that only 0.24 inches of rain had fallen in the previous I0 days. Normal would have been about 0.50 inches during the same period. Under Existing Conditions, Ellisport Engineering staff state: Page 2 of 5 Jennifer Henning Kennydale Headwaters February 17, 2006 "South across NE 20`4 Street is a blueberry farm where the Class H stream originates, The stream flows under the street in a culvert which extends northward onto the Gordly property. Water was flowing in the stream at the time a the site ins ection". (underline added for emphasis). The Watershed Company inspected the ditch on July 18, 2005, a normal but very dry year. They reported "standing water was present in the pond and in the main ditchlstream". Recollections of a past landowner in the area was provided by Mr. Dutro in his letter of August 12, 2005. A previous owner of the Blueberry Meadows Property told Mr. Dutro that "he thought that the ditch on the blueberry farm to the south dried up in the summer at that time." He was apparently referring to 1958 when he dug the ditch. Anecdotal evidence indicates the watercourse may flow seasonally during some years and be perennial during others. The most credible report was provided by the homeowners consultants (Ellisport Engineering) which provided some evidence that the stream may flow year-round during normal years. It is possible that previous to human disturbance the historic swamp dried up each year on the surface. The ditch system may have cut into an elevation of perennial groundwater. This would cause the ditch to be perennial where historically the ground water receded below the ground surface elevation during normal years. The second issue is whether or not the channel was artificially constructed in an area where no naturally defined channel had previously existed. Certainly the existing channel is manmade. Aerial photos from as early as 1936 show no obvious channels in the area. However, the area in question has a very low gradient slope and one would not necessarily expect a well defined channel to naturally develop under this situation. The historic area was described as more of a swamp with very soft soils. In my experience, watercourses in these relatively flat headwater valleys consist primarily of wide, swampy, and densely vegetated areas. Defined flow patterns are difficult to discern with hydrology mainly controlled by groundwater levels. High groundwater in the area was evidenced in wells dug for the Higate lift station, local private wells, and the wetland pits. Many examples of this type of feature can still be found throughout King County. While these swampy areas are clearly a type of watercourse with important aquatic habitat functions and values, the question is whether or not they meet the definition of "naturally defined channel". One could argue that a swamp is a channel and is the only type of channel that would form under the circumstances. The definition in the Webster Dictionary defines channel as "the bed of a body of water .flowing on the earth". There is no evidence that the site was ever hydraulically isolated. It most likely drained to the north under pre-existing conditions as it does now. The area was clearly a wetland and still contains wetland characteristics. The channel was dug to drain the historic wetland and create "usable" land. The City of Renton may choose to distinguish between wetlands and channels. However, there is no clear dividing line between the two so any distinction would have to be done carefully. Page 3 of 5 Jennifer Henning Kennydale Headwaters February 17, 2006 Conclusion Available evidence supporting each Water Class is presented below: Class 3 Water • Two recent reports during years meeting the definition of Normal Rainfall reported observations of water in the ditch during the summer. One report was made relatively early in the season, the other relatively late. However, no observations were made during the driest time of the year and it is possible the stream dried up at some point one or both years. Class 4 Water • One anecdotal statement about the creek going dry in 1958 was reported. Before the ditch was dug, the "swamp" may have dried up each year. A wide watercourse (swamp) meeting the dictionary definition of a channel was present across the area in the past. Class 5 Water • Aerial photos show no well defined channel in 1936 though this was subsequent to human disturbance. The perennial stream flow issue (Class 3 vs. Class 4) can only be answered by direct observation of flow characteristics in the channel during the summer. These data could take a few years to gather if this winters heavy rainfall pattern continues. The presence or absence of a previous naturally defined channel (Class 5 vs. Class 4) depends in part on the definition of channel that is acceptable to the City. Evidence provided by the applicant to date only addresses the absence of a well defined "classic" stream channel with clearly identifiable banks. As this type of feature would not naturally be expected in this area, it is not surprising one wasn't observed by early residents. In the absence of conclusive evidence supporting a change from the existing Class 4 water classification, it is my recommendation that this classification stands. Functions and Values Non fish -bearing stream channels and their riparian buffers are important to the contribution of clean, cool, and productive flows to fish habitat downstream as well as providing wildlife habitat and migration corridors. Vegetation in riparian areas shades streams and maintains cool water temperatures needed by most fish. Plant roots stabilize stream banks and help control erosion and sedimentation. Riparian habitat contributes leaves, twigs, and insects to streams, thereby providing basic food and nutrients that support downstream fish and aquatic wildlife. Riparian vegetation, litter layers, and soils filter incoming sediments and pollutants, thereby assisting in the maintenance of high water quality. Riparian habitat moderates stream volumes by reducing peak flows during flooding periods and by storing and slowly releasing water into streams during low flows. Page 4 of 5 Jennifer Henning Kennydale Headwaters February 17, 2006 The existing ditch on the Gordley property provides little in the way of riparian vegetation beneficial to aquatic habitat. A single line of poplars planted along the west bank are dead. Though they still provide a minor amount of shade, their organic nutrient contribution will soon cease, as will any bank stability or wildlife functions. The maintained turf grass on either side of the channel and down into the watercourse does little to protect water quality or remove biological and chemical contaminants from upslope runoff. Existing conditions are somewhat better on the portions of the Umbedacht property that could be evaluated. Native vegetation including a dense willow thicket have returned to some of the riparian corridor. Most of the Dutro property appeared to have been kept cleared of vegetation in the past though exotic grasses and blackberry are beginning to take over. Overall, the three properties provide minimal to moderate riparian functions under existing conditions. Should the City approve moving all or parts of the watercourse, it is possible that a riparian buffer could be created that would increase the overall functions and values of the corridor in comparison to existing conditions. With an appropriate planting design the channel could be enhanced to protect water quality, improve shade, increase organic input and aquatic productivity, provide channel stability, and prevent human access. These values would be important to fish populations in Lake Washington which depend to large extent on input from lake tributaries for food and nutrients. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Carl . Hadley Principal Biologist Cedarock Consultants, Inc. Page 5 of 5 RobertM. Pride, Inc. May 23, 2005 Mr. Terry° Dutro 10711 SE 30cn Street Bellevue, WA 98004 Re: Report on Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Residential Development Jones Avenue and NE loth Street Renton, Washington I MP Project No. 05-194-01 Dear Mr. Dutro, Consulting Engineer DEV EL.OPMEN-1 PLAN' LING CITY OF REM O N NOV - 1 2097 - This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation of theproperty located on the north side of NE loth Street and just east of Jones Avenue Road in Renton. It is understood that 27 single family residences will be built on the parcel that is currently occupied by existing residential structures. The purpose of this report is to provide a description of the site and subsurface conditions, and to present geotechnical recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed residences. USGS mapping for this area of King County and preN ious experience in the Renton area were used as references for this report. A preliminani site plan for Plat #1 provided by your office was used as a reference for our geotechnical study. Site Conditions The near rectangular property is situated within developed residential properties to the west, north and east of this site. Surface elevations, are relatively flat over the property, which is covered with grass, vines and miscellaneous trees. 'There is a small creek on the westerly side of the site that is fed by surface water runoff from the south and a 24 inch diameter storm drain pipe leading from the new subdiN ision to the east. The creel: lends to a pond near the northwest corner of the plat. An existing residence is located on the easterly side of the property. Field exploration included the excavation of six test pits to depths ranging from 7 to 9 feet. All of these test pits encountered an upper organic silt./sand topsoil layer that was about one foot in depth. Below the topsoil were Lacustrine and Outwash deposits consisting; of stiff clayey silts and medium dense sands. Groundwater was found in all of the test pits at depths ranging from 6 to S feet below existing grade. Locations of these test pits are sho' w%m on the attached Drawing No. 1, and the summary logs for these explorations are included in Appendix A. —� _---- ---...... __.. 1 320' Holmes Point Drive NE Kirkland, WA 98034 Phone: 425-814-,3970 Fax_ 425-814-5672 May 23, 2005 Mr. Terry Dutro Page 2 Geotechnical Recommendations Based on the results of our site investigation and on review of your plan for the proposed residentiat development, the existing native Lacusteine or Outwash deposits Will provide satisfactory support for the planned single family structures. Depth to bearing soils across the site Arill be about one foot below existing grade, but could be deeper if building pad elevations are raised. Imported granular fill soils should be used to create elevated building pad areas, and these soils should be compacted to at least gof of their maxirnurn density. ThP upper topsoil layer should he removed prier to placing compacted fill. Storm water infiltration through the lacustrine silts on this site will be inhibited. by these low permeability soils. bundations A majority of the foundations will consist of continuous bearing gall footings that mill extend onto the stiff silts or medium dense silt/sand layer or on properly compacted granular fill. Depths of these footings should be a minimum of 18 inches below existing grade for frost protection. An allowable soil bearing value of z000 psf may be used in the design of these footings. This value may be increased,33% for short durations of loading due to wind or seismic forces. Estimated settlement of these footings will be in the range of 1/4 to 1/2 inch under the anticipated structural loads. Resistance to lateral loading on the structure can he provided by passive earth pressure on the foundation ;walls. An allowable passive pressure of 200 pef may be used for resisting these forces as long as the footings are backfilled with compacted fill. The potential for site liquefaction is consideredvery low-. Concrete Slabs -on. -Grade interior floor slabs should be underlain by compacted granular fill after the one foot topsoil layer has been removed. The topsoils can be used in landscape areas of the site, and the onsite Outwash deposits are considered excellent for structural fill. Import pit - run may be used for the interior floor slab fill. It is recommended that all building pad fill be placed in thin lifts and compacted to a uniformly high density° to minimize settlement of the interior floor slab and/or foundations. All granular fill soils should be compacted to at least gol as determined by ASTM D1557 test method. Exterior slabs on grade should also be underlain by compacted granular fill after removal of the topsoils. All concrete slabs should be reinforced to minimize shrinkage cracking, and control joints in these slabs should be at 8 to io foot centers. 13203 Holmes Point Drive NE Kirkland, WA 98034 _ .... Phone: 425-814-3970 Fax: 425-814-5672 May 23, 2005 Mr. Terry Dutro Page 3 Retaining Walls Retaining walls may be designed for an active pressure of 30 pcf for level backfill. Resistance to lateral soil pressures may be provided by a passive earth pressure of zoo pcf when the footing is supported by native soils or properly compacted backfdl. Drain gravel and a perforated subdrain v,-ill be required at the base of perimeter residential footings and the rear of retaining walls due to the presence of the impervious Lacustrine silt deposits. Site Drainaye Surface water runoff from house roof areas or the hardscape around the residence should he c.ollorted by tightlines anti area drains that lead to a street storm drain system. Foundation subdrains should be separate from roof dmA-n drains, but they may be connected ten feet away frorn the roof tightlines. &IMma-rr = Construction monitoring and consultation sen ices should also be provided to verify that subsurface conditions are similar to those described in this report. Should conditions be revealed during construction that vary from the anticipated subsurface profile, we will evaluate those conditions and provide alternative recommendations where appropriate. Our findings and recommendations in this report were prepared in accordance v,ith generally accepted principles of geotechnical engineering as practiced in the Puget Sound area at the time our work Nvas performed. We make no warranty, either express or implied. Please call me if there are any questions regarding this report. L ctfully°, Robert M. Pride, P. E. Principal Gcotechnical Ei dist: (3) addressee encl: Drav6ng No. 1 Appe ncl tX A rnip: DutrolZentoni _J -, ,J �XPiRE S i32o3 Holmes Point Drive NE Kirkland, WA 98034 Phane. 425-814-3970 Fax' IV5-81.4-5672 Pat # I 12 23 r I� 4 L LJ , b 24 22 (f 1 e ti - F 25 21 16 Urj 1. xp 4t )-100 i �..� 3 JJ 27 19 18 I 4.975sr. 2 t NE 2[th Ref. Site Plan for Pi a *i SITE PLAN ProTosed Resident f.d Development .loafs Avenue and s'- E 2ot', Street Renton, Washingti Z k Robert M. Pride Lne. Project No. o5-j94-0: Drawing Nm 1 APPENDIX A Summary Logs of Test Fits LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-1 Surface Conditions: dry flat, moderately wooded with alders and low Elevation (Approx.): brush �— I his luu is part of the report prcpared b% Y'nncmilsu oeoto6it al Srrn ices (YG.S) Ior the named Piand shuuld ."m rtad t4optper mth that report for cowplett ittterpretation. I his Sttmmdn ap a: c ppies onk at the location n this trem;h at the bole of excav iam Su. surface 4ondltians may li F U o cf'angc al ha:ativta with the ptassagc of time 'Ih4 data prvsantnet ure a sintp[ification oractuat i 4 i cundttions cncountcrod z L DESCRIPTION Topsoil SANDY SILT; dark brown. fine to medium, trace organics and scattered roots; )oo_se _Moist j SiLTV SANK reddish brown, fine to medium, trace roots to 2,0 feet; loose to mecliurn dense. moist 2 -- mmCil3CiC1-I,[3CUStrlr]e [)Cp C1tilf5 - - CLAYEY SILT gray brown mottled reddish brown, thinly laminated with 3 sandy silt; stiff to very stiff i wet Glacial Outwash Deposits SAND;gray brown , tine to medium, thinly bedded with coarse sand; medium dense, wet 6 - Caving had], at,; feet 7- Bottom of#est pit at 9.0 feet; complered and Groundwater encountered at depth 6.0 feet I PROPOSED MASTERBUILDER DFVFLOPMENT Renton, Washington 05-10019 For Robert M. Pride ngitree�ing Cieningy t' 3° ` YanemltSu Geological Services (YGd Applied Earth sciences 1 LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-2 Surface Conditions: dry ,flat, rnoderatety wooded with filbert trees Elevation (Apprux.): I hid log is Part of the report pTCpp aced by Y-nncmiisu {jeological Seniccs I Y (.iS) lur the named e w w u ❑; � N _- ,� pro ct and should be read tp ether with that report for complete intcrprrtaGorc. I his summary 4, z gpplics unly at the location ofthis trench at the time of excavaion. SuosortaLc wndiumts may "'Q "" change at loention with the jmssage of time. The dutu presented arc a zioupfitication of actual " 'U.u �a Q" conditions enwunlered. DESCRIPTION Topsoil SANDY SILT: dark brown, fine to medium, trace organics and scattered roots; Loose_ rrictist Glacto-Lacttstrine Deposits 2 %%!;�,',,i CLAYEY SILT, gray brown mottled reddish brown, thinly laminated with " sandy silt; stiff to very stiff wet 3 4 / f 5— Trench walls standing vertical to7.5 feet b Glacial Outwash Deposits SAND.gray brown , fine to medium, thinly bedded with coarse sand: trtediurtt 7 I dense. wet Bottom of test pit at 7.5 feet; completed and backf lled on 5i 16 `R5. Groundwater g encountered at depth 7.5 feet I �II t PROPOSED MASTERBUILDER DEVELOPMENT Renton, Washington 015-14019 For Robert M. Pride ngineering Cseo100 Yonemi#su Geological Services (YG d Applied Earth Sciences 2 LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-3 Surface Conditions. dry flat, moderately wooded with alders and tow Elevation (Approx.): brush �- This lop is part ortht report prer�ared h Yonemil,u Cieolovical Srrviues tl'Ci51 for the named project and shnuld he read toget )er 11ith that report for complete int.arprctatiUN. Thissummaryapplies only at the locaunn sy this trench al the; linic of uxcav atir,n. Su surfA" ccmdiouns nrav .r; 0 ehangk4 tti location with the rasgage of time Th^ data presented are a simplification of actual conditions eneounteredILI (.D' DESCRIPTION Topsoil - I f SILTY SAND, dark brown, tine to medium, trace organics and scattered roots; I - loose, moist Glacial Outwash Deposits -- — — i r - SAND- gray brov:n tine to mediurnn thinl ' bedded with coarse sand: medi urn i dense,xvet �I 3 j 4 5 7 8- Trench walls standing vertical i Bottom of test pit at dcpth of 8.5 feet: completed anti backfiiled on 5/18/0.1. Strong seepage depth 8.0 feet. u:. PROPOSED MAST GRBUILDFR DEVELOPMENT Renton, Washington 05-10019 For Robert M. Pride nglrlctring Geology YonSmltSu Geological Services IjYGS%d Applied Earth Sciences 3 LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-4 Surface Conditions: dry flat, moderately wooded with alders and low Elevation (Approx.): brush 1J ! rizis log is part orthC rCport prepared by Yonemilua 0cofogiCal Services (N"GSj for the named prpleci and should be read tim etl,�er s+itfi that report ror 4amplete interpretation. This sumnmar} h r ap llic. only at the 10"Lion u rhs trc;rch at the time of excavanai. 5uhsurf8ce conditions mask' - i L r_ C nnge nt 1ne.nion with the pnssage oftmmc. The data prescnlcd are a simplification ut'actual .r.., umn(titinns cncauntered. a oc ++1 DESCRIPTION � Topsoil! Forest Duff Organic SILT; dark brown. fine, roots, very soft, very moist it Glacio-Lacustnne bzpost€s CLAYEY SILT, gray brown mottled reddish brown, thinly laminated with 2-sandy silt; stiff to very stiff wet Glacial Outwash Deposits SAND} gray brawn , fine to medium, thinly bedded with coarse sand; medium dense, wet 2 font boulder Trench walls standing vertical Bottom of lest pit at depth 8.5 feet; completed and backftlled on V1 91'05, fierpirlg strongly at 7.0 feet. PROPOSER !MASTERBUILDER DEVELOPMENT Renton, Washington For Robert M. Pride YonemitsU Geological Services (YO�jngkrl2erlilg Geology `Wi Applied Earth Sciences 05-10019 4 LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-5 Surface Conditions: moist to wet, tTat, low brush, and grasses F,levation (Approx.): Iliti log is part of The report pre ared hr Ynnemimi (3ealogica1 � r4'Ices IYCr.S) for the named w w pp �;. pro eu and sltuuld N, read together n'iih that rk:porl for complete imerpretation. This sumrnan- a' s; A Rirs unt) at the loUllkm of (1115 treelcll at the tit I of cxcavalion. Su surl'kv condirions mai N — L c nn .eat fo:^aiiOtl x'itit t},r assa >e of Gme, 'I hC data resented Pro a sum litic rtixrn ot'acfual "A u�[tcl�Culns encountered P t P P DESCRIPTION Topsoili Forest Duff f Organic SILT, dark brown, fine.. roots. Very soft, very moist 2- 4- 5- i%ir,�= Glacio-LacustCme Deposits CLAYEY SILT; gray brown mottled reddish brown, thinly laininated with sandy silt: stiff to very stiff %- , wet seepage at 2.5 feet %> Becomes gray in color Glacial Ou[wash Deposits SILTY SAND,gray brown mottled reddish brown, fine, thinly bedded with sandy silt; medium dense, wet trench walls standing vortical to a depth of 8.0 feet SAND WITH SIUIgray brown, fine to tnedium; medium dense. wet SAND; gray, fine to coarse, trace silt, scattered layers of coarse sand; medium dense to dense, wet I Bottrnn of test pit at depth of 9.0 feet; completed and backfilled on 51181'05. Groundwater encountered at depth of 7 feet. L i t: .. r; PROPOSED MASTF_11BUILDER DEVELOPMENT Renton, Washington pS-14019 For Robert M. Pride gy Yonemitsu Geological Services (YG4d Applied Farth Sc 5 d Applied Earth Sciences LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-6 Surface Candiiions: areas orstanding water, tlat, low Inrush, and grasses Elevation (Approx.): This log is part oftbc rerxlrt preppared hv Y'nnernit.,u Cic�loeic.al Senr:!c. ()'(iS) for the named FtT" ° pro ccl and should be read together with Ihm report for complete rote retation. This summarS n u , 11 rrpp n; agues onls' at the location o. this trench at ttic time of emcat�a3i(n. Subsurfacc conditions mas i.1 a) m i D ehhange m l6c.,ition with the pu,sagc oftimc. The daia preserved are a sunplificatinn orautuul U �, cond,fiam encountered DESC'RIPHON "Topsoil` Forest Duff �- Ij Organic SIL"I; dark brown, fine, roots, very soft. very njoist Glaeidl Outwash Deposits SILTY SAND gray brown mottled reddish brown, thinly bedded, medium Z dense, wet _ I f SAND; gray brown, fine to medium, trace silt, scattered layers of 0oa.rse sand, medium dense, wet 3 - Caving badly between 3 to 7 feet. I i q 5 6- 77 Bottom of test pit at depth of 7.0 Feet; completed and baclrfiI led on 5' 18/05. Groundwater encountered at depth of 6,0 feet. PROPOSED MASTERBUILDER DEVELOPMENT Renton, Washington O-S-10019 For Robert M. Pride ngineering Geology' -`= �'' YOltlelTlltSU Geological.�+ ?�l'VIC@S (YGd Applied Earth Sciences 6 9, TICOR TITLE COMPANY 600 SW 39th Street, #100, Renton, WA 98055 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING (425)255-7575 FAX (425)255 0285 CITY OF RENTON Toll Free Number: 1-800-2I5-8404 COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE NO. 6364084-1 THIRD REPORT INOUIR1ES SHOULD BE MADE TO: UNIT 1 425-255-7472 Donna Roetter RoetterD@ticortitle.com Arlene Naputi Unitl.Renton@TicorTitle,com Effective Date: October 10, 2006 at 08:00 AM 1 _ Policy or policies to be issued 1992 ALTA Owner's Policy Coverage: Standard Liability- $ 998,000.00 Premium: $ 1,750.00 Tax : $ 154. 00 Proposed Insured: Silverstar Homes LLC 1992 ALTA Loan Policy Coverage: Extended Liability: $ 0.00 Premium: $ 0.00 Tax. $ 0.00 Proposed Insured: TO FOLLOW SCHEDULE A TO FOLLOW Customer Reference: Gordley/LLC RECEIVED 2. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this commitment and covered herein is a Fee Simple. 3. TICOR TITLE COMPANY agrees to issue on request and on recording of appropriate documents, its policy or policies as applied for, with coverage as indicated, based on the preliminary commitment; title to the property described herein is vested, on the date shown above, in: Richard Gordiey and Lauralee Gordley, husband and wife subject only to the exceptions shown herein and to the terms, conditions, and exceptions contained in the policy form. 4. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: SEE SCHEDULE A CONTINUED Commitment Schedule A Commitment No, 6364084-1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION SCHEDULE A CONTINUED The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: Lot(s) 4, City of Renton Short Plat Number SHPL-060-87, recorded under Recording Number 8805099006, in King County, Washington, and that portion of Lot 2 of said short plat, lying southerly of the following described line: Beginning at the northeast corner of said Lot 4; thence north 89429'00" east on the easterly projection of the north line of said Lot 4 a distance of 226.50 feel to a point on the easterly boundary of said Lot 2; said point being south 00°35`32" east a distance of 326.88 feet from the most northeasterly corner of said Lot 2, and the terminus of the herein described line; (BEING KNOWN AS Lot 8, City of Renton Lot Lime Adjustment Number LUA 95-093 recorded under Recording Number 951 1299005). Commitment No. 6364084-1 SCHEDULE B Schedule 6 of the policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following matters unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: GENERAL EXCEPTIONS: A. Rights or claims disclosed only by possession, or claimed possession, of the premises. B. Encroachments and questions of location, boundary and area disclosed only by inspection of the premises or by survey. C. Easements, prescriptive rights, rights -of -way, streets, roads, aNeys or highways not disclosed by the public records. D. Any lien, or right to a lien, for contributions to employee benefit funds, or for state workers' compensation, or for services, labor, or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, ali as imposed by law, and not shown by the public records- E. Taxes or special assessments which are not yet payable or which are not shown as existing liens by the public records. F. Any service, installation, connection, maintenance, tap, capacity or construction charges for sewer, water, electricity, natural gas or other utilities, or garbage collection and disposal. G. Reservations and exceptions in United States Patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof. H. Indian tribal codes or regulations, Indian treaty or aboriginal rights, including easements or equitable servitudes. 1. Water rights, claims or title to water- J. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this commitment. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: 1. AN EASEMENT AFFECTING A PORTION OF SAID PREMISES FOR THE PURPOSES STATED THEREIN: FOR: Existing drainage ditch DISCLOSED BY INSTRUMENT RECORDED: March 21, 1958 RECORDING NUMBER: 4884438 and 4884439 AFFECTS: Easterly portion of Tract 293 of C.D- Hillman's Lake Washington Garden of Eden Div. No. 4 lying within Lot 2 of property herein described 2. AN EASEMENT AFFECTING A PORTION OF SAID PREMISES FOR THE PURPOSES STATED THEREIN: IN FAVOR OF: City of Renton FOR: Public utilities (including water and sewer) DISCLOSED BY INSTRUMENT RECORDED: June 29, 1981 RECORDING NUMBER: 8106290604 AFFECTS: The north 15 feet of Tract 293 and the west 15 feet of Tract 284 of C.D. Hillman's Lake Washington Garden of Eden, Division No. 4, tying within Lot 2 of property herein described AN EASEMENT AFFECTING A PORTION OF SAID PREMISES FOR THE PURPOSES STATED THEREIN: IN FAVOR OF: City of Renton FOR: Public utilities (including water, wastewater and surface water) DISCLOSED BY INSTRUMENT RECORDED: November 6, 1995 Commitment Schedule 13 RECORDING NUMBER AFFECTS: Commitment No. 6364084-1 SCHEDULE B (Continued) 9511060098 Portion of Lot 2 AN EASEMENT AFFECTING A PORTION OF SAID PREMISES FOR THE PURPOSES STATED THEREIN. FOR: Ingress, egress and utilities for the purposes of uf0izing Grantee's water rights from an unnamed creek Short Plat Number SHPL-060-87 DISCLOSED BY INSTRUMENT RECORDED: July 28, 1995 RECORDING NUMBER: 9507281245 AFFECTS: A 10 foot strip of Lot 2 adjacent to Lot 1 5. AGREEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: RECORDED: May 9, 1988 RECORDING NUMBER: 8805090391 6. AGREEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: RECORDED: January 14, 1991 RECORDING NUMBER: 9101140962 7_ COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS AND EASEMENTS CONTAINED IN SHORT PLAT: RECORDED: May 9, 1988 RECORDING NUMBER: 8805099006 The utilities easement noted on said short plat over Lot 2 has been released by Recording Number 9604170909. 8. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS AND EASEMENTS CONTAINED IN LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, COPY ATTACHED: RECORDED: November 29, 1995 RECORDING NUMBER: 9511299005 9, DEED OF TRUST, AND THE TFRMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTOR: Richard Gordley and Lauraiee Gordley TRUSTEE: George C. Reinmiller Trustee, Inc. BENEFICIARY: Source One Mortgage Services Corporation ADDRESS: 27555 Farmington Road, #300, Farmington Hills, MI 48334-3357 LOAN NO.: Not disclosed AMOUNT: $240,000.00 DATED: March 17, 1999 RECORDED: March 19, 1999 RECORDING NO.: 9903192831 THE BENEFICIAL INTEREST OF SAID DEED OF TRUST HAS BEEN ASSIGNED: TO: Fleet Mortgage Corp. ADDRESS: 1333 Main Street, #700, Columbia, SC 29211 RECORDING NO.: 19990922001469 Commitment Schedule B Commitment No. 6364084-1 SCHEDULE B (Continued) 10. DEED OF TRUST, AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTOR: Richard Gordley and Lauralee Gordley, husband and wife TRUSTEE: Chicago Title Insurance Company BENEFICIARY: King County Credit Union, a corporation ADDRESS: 801 2nd Avenue, #100, Seattle, WA 98104 LOAN NO.: Not disclosed AMOUNT: $30,000.00 DATED: August 30, 2004 RECORDED: September 3, 2004 RECORDING NO.: 20040903002252 1 t . General property taxes and spec:4 district charges, as follows, together with interest, penalty and statutory foreclosure costs, if any, after delinquency: (1st half delinquent on May 1st; 2nd Half delinquent on November 1st) Total Taxes for Year 2006 Amount Billed: $4,586.55 Amount Paid: $2,293.28 Amount Due: $2,293.27 Tax Account Number: 334690-3563-04 Levy Code: 2100 Current Assessed Value: Land: $167,000.00 Improvements: $216,000.00 12, Payment of Real Estate Excise Tax, if required. The property described herein is situated within the boundaries of local taxing authority of the City of Renton. Present Rate of Real Estate Excise Tax as of the date herein is 1.78% plus $5.00 additional county surcharge. 13. ANY CONVEYANCE OR MORTGAGE by Siiverstar Homes, LLC, a Washington limited liability company, must be executed in accordance with the Limited Liability Company Agreement and by all the members and their respective spouses as the date of acquisition, or evidence must be submitted that certain designated managers/members have been authorized to act for the Limited Liability Company. A copy of the Limited Liability Company Agreement and amendments thereto, if any, must be submitted. 14. The policy requested in the application for insurance is ALTA Homeowner's Policy of Title Insurance - One -to -Four Family Residence_ Said policy is not available for this property and the ALTA Owner's Policy as identified in Schedule A hereof will be issued instead. Contact your title officer if there are any questions. END OF SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS NOTES: A. The language contained in the printed Exceptions from coverage and Conditions and Stipulations of the Policy committed for may be examined by inquiry at the office which issued the Commitment, and a specimen copy of the insurance Policy Form(s) referred to in this Commitment will be furnished promptly upon request. Crmmitment Schedule B Commitment No. 6364084-1 SCHEDULE B (Continued) B. Investigation should be made to determine if there are any service, installation, maintenance, or connection charges for sewer, water, electricity or Metro Sewer Treatment Capacity Charge. C. In the event the transaction fails to close and this commitment is cancelled, a fee will be charged to comply with the State Insurance Code and the filed schedule of this Company. 0. Abbreviated Legal for purposes of King County Recorders Office is: Lt 4 and ptn Lt 2, SP #060-87, Rec #8805099006. E. The records of King County and/or our inspection indicate that the address of the improvement located on said 4and is: 2010 Jones Avenue Northeast Renton, WA 98056 A Single Family Residence According to the King County Tax Rolls the dwelling was built in 1995. F. All matters have been cleared for ALTA Extended Loan Policy coverage and/or Homeowners Endorsement coverage. G. The Loan Policy to be issued will contain a Form 8.1 (Environmental Protection Lien) Endorsement. H. There have been no conveyances of record within the last 24 months other than the deed through which title is claimed. I. We find no adverse matters affecting the name(s) of Silverstar Homes, LLC, in the King County records. j h/ga/01 /04/2006/pe/08/21 /2006/pc/10/ 16!2006 cc: The Talon Group Windermere Reai Estate/S.C.A., Inc. Kennydale Realty END OF SCHEDULE B Commit ent Schedule B Commitment No. 6364084-1 COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE TICOR TITLE COMPANY. a California corporation, by TICOR TITLE COMPANY, a Washington corporation, its authorized agent, herein called the Company, for a valuable consideration, hereby commits to issue the policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule A, in favor of the proposed insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the estate or interest covered hereby in the land described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and charges therefor; all subject to the provisions of Schedules A and B and to the Conditions and Stipulations hereof. This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the proposed insured and the amount of the policy or policies committed have been inserted in Schedule A hereof by the Company, either at the time of the issuance of this Commitment or by subsequent endorsement. This Commitment is preliminary to the issuance of such policy or policies of title insurance and ail liability and obligations hereunder shall cease and terminate one hundred eighty (180) days after the effective date hereof or when the policy or policies committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs, provided that the failure to issue such policy or policies is not the fault of the Company. TICOR TITLE COMPANY Authorized Signatory 1 a STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING being first duly swam on oath, 1. On the ;R 7:_ day of 14 V-zt," AtL. 20_. I Installed Cf, pUblie information sign(s) and plastic flyer box on the property located at .�.C)1P _ ,3nyes A/e.4k for the fotE mftProject. Project name /-.2 f, L Owner Name 2. 1 have attached a copy of the neighborhood detail map marked with an "X" to indicate the laration of the installed sign. 3. ThIsAhmm public information sir(s) was/were constructed and installed In locations. In con ce th t e requirements of er T TI of ton Municipal Code_ 01 Installer Signatur$ SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this Z— day of , 20 . NOT Ill and State of Washington, res at My commission expires on r ' 11/24/2006 12;12 2538S37615 GFC KENT SIGNS PAGE 01 PC Jones A:�e I NE ljR, 8 - Kennewick 'A'v-e--., -N Incon 03 e,ey .Monterey -I Ave: n Atr;e IM ve. 60 -N I nt�6re --Ct*. E 7 BI'6ine Ave. cc QD � .'a'y 'a WyL o� rn Da Ey6 . . . . . . Dayton �00 C yyton NE AVe r.71 iAve. NE CD R-10 MF z Ed ve.INE— ml NE V I Jones Ave. 1, Lit 7- ��; ►-t --- - — 1 co 'd t=� cla 2/1 A& mu bicu V tid M Z Printed: 11-01-2007 CITY OF RENTON 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Land Use Actions RECEIPT Permit#: LUA07-131 Payment Made: 11/01/2007 12:22 PM Total Payment: 1,500.00 Current Payment Made to the Following Items: " G10? Ov SFKT N tNG Receipt Number: Nov - 120 fkECEN ED R0705903 Payee: PINPOINT INSPECTIONS, INC Trans Account Code Description Amount ------ 5008 ------------------ 000.345,81.00.0004 ------------------------------ Binding Site/Short Plat ---------------- 1,000.00 5010 000.345.81.00.0007 Environmental Review 500.00 Payments made for this receipt Trans Method Description Amount ---------- -------- --------------------------- --------------- Payment Check 3342 1,500.00 Account Balances Trans Account Code Description Balance Due ------ 3021 ------------------ 303.000.00.345.85 ------------------------------ Park Mitigation Fee --------------- .00 5006 000.345.81.00.0002 Annexation Fees .00 5007 000.345.81.00.0003 Appeals/Waivers .00 5008 000.345.81.00.0004 Binding Site/Short Plat .00 5009 000.345,81.00.0006 Conditional Use Fees .00 5010 000.345.81.00.0007 Environmental Review .00 5011 000.345.81.00.0008 Prelim/Tentative Plat .00 5012 000.345.81,00.0009 Final Plat _00 5013 000.345.81.00.0010 PUD .00 5014 000.345.81.00.0011 Grading & Filling Fees .00 5015 000.345.81.00,0012 Lot Line Adjustment .00 5016 000.345.81.00.0013 Mobile Home Parks _00 5017 000.345.81.00.0014 Rezone .00 5018 000,345,81.00.0015 Routine Vegetation Mgmt .00 5019 000.245.81.00.0016 Shoreline Subst Dev .00 5020 000.345.81.00.0017 Site Plan Approval .00 5021 000.345.81.00.0018 Temp Use, Hobbyk, Fence .00 5022 000,345.81.00.0019 Variance Fees .00 5024 000.345.81.00.0024 Conditional Approval Fee .00 5036 000.345.81.00,0005 Comprehensive Plan Amend .00 5909 000.341.60.00.0024 Booklets/EIS/Copies .00 5941 000.341.50.00.0000 Maps (Taxable) .00 5954 650.237.00.00.0000 Special Deposits .00 5955 000.05.519.90,42.1 Postage .00 5998 000.231.70.00.0000 Tax .00 Remaining Balance Due: $0.00 i December 5, 2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 432 growing in the community, and it provides opportunity for the preservation of the community's character and quality of life. Garrett Huffman, South King County Manager of the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties, 335 116th Ave. SE, Bellevue, 98004, stated that extending the moratorium has consequences in that he is aware of one particular developer who wants to develop a property, and does not know whether Renton or King County development standards will apply. Mr. Huffman asked the City to expedite the process. Fred Herber, Bennett Development, 12011 NE 1st St., Suite 201, Bellevue, 98005, indicated that he is the developer referred to by the previous speaker, and stated his preference for developing to Renton's standards, Mr. Herber expressed concern regarding the amount of time needed for the annexation process, which delays his project. In response to Councilman Clawson's inquiries, Mr. Herber stated that sewer hook-up should be available for his project by next summer, and he confirmed that the project delay is also a result of not knowing on which development standards to base the design. There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. (See page 437 for resolution.) ADMINISTRATIVE Economic Development Administrator Alex Pietsch reviewed a written REPORT administrative report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2005 and beyond. items noted included: Join in the holiday spirit and share in the Angel Tree Program, which helps children and families who are less fortunate. Trees with tags representing requests from families screened by the Renton Salvation Army are available this year at City Iocations, including the Community Center, City Hall, and Carco Theatre. The annual Candy Cane Canine Fun Run and Walk will be held on December I Ith at the Community Center. AUDIENCE COMMENT Barbara Hicks, 1835 NE 20th St., Renton, 98056, spoke on the topic of the Citizen Comment: Hicks - proposed stream reclassification, located in the vicinity of Jones Ave. NE and Stream Reclassification, Jones NE 20th St., that was referred to Planning and Development Committee on Ave NE & NE 20th St 11128/2005. She stated that reclassifying the stream to Class 5, which is an ��lj� = artificial stream where no natural channel existed before, is inconsistent with her personal knowledge of that stream. Ms. Hicks noted the lack of notification regarding this matter and another matter related to the NE 20th St. area. She requested that action not be taken on the stream reclassification without further study. Citizen Comment: Cook - F. Jay Cook, 14012 SE 133rd St., Renton, 98059, stated that he lives in the Mosier II Annexation, 140th Puget Colony Homes area, for which Renton's R-8 zoning is proposed as part of Ave SE & SE 136th St the Mosier II Annexation. He indicated that he submitted an application to change the zoning from R-8 to R-4, and requested a waiver of the associated fee. However, Mr. Cook pointed out that the subject ordinance establishing R- 8 zoning is scheduled for second reading this evening. 15ecember 5, 2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 433 Economic Development Administrator Alex Pietsch explained that the Puget Colony Homes development is part of the expanded Mosier 11 Annexation area, and Mr. Cook has submitted an application for a 2006 Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the area's land use designation to Residential Low Density which allows R4 zoning. Noting that the Comprehensive Plan designates the subject area as Residential Single Family, which only allows R-8 zoning, Mr. Pietch stated that by law, the area can only be annexed to Renton if it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's land use designation. Mr. Pietch pointed out that Council does have the ability to waive the $3,000 application fee. Mr. Cook said that it is more difficult to first establish R-8 zoning for the area, and then change the zoning to R4. Councilman Persson noted that the roadways are not designed to handle R-8 zoning. Stating that he does not want to delay the annexation, Mr. Persson suggested further discussion about R4 zoning at a later time. Mr. Pietsch explained that if the annexation is adopted this evening, the next step is for either Mr. Cook to pay the fee or the City waive the fee for a possible Comprehensive Plan Amendment to downgrade the zoning. He noted the presence of restrictive covenants for most of the homes in the development that limit the ability of the homeowners to subdivide. Discussion ensued regarding the restrictive covenants, Council's ability to waive the Comprehensive Plan Amendment fee, and the setting of a precedent by waiving the fee. Mayor Keolker-Wheeler asked that staff compile more information regarding this matter in time for next week's meeting. Citizen Comment: Finnicum - Karen Finnicum, 1302 Aberdeen Ave. NE, Renton, 98056, also commented on Stream Reclassification, Jones the proposed stream reclassification, stating that she grew up at a house located Ave NE & NE 20thh St at 2001 NE 20th St. She pointed out that the house backed up to wetlands that helped feed the blueberry farm and Kennydale Creek, and she described how the area has changed over the years. Ms. Finnicum emphasized that the stream runs year-round and is natural, and she asked for further review of the matter. Councilman Clawson reported that the Planning and Development Committee met on this issue on December 1st, and he indicated that this is not the type of action that requires notification. He stated that he plans on leaving the item in committee for further review, and inquired about the urgency of the matter. Jennifer Henning, Principal Planner, stated that the developer is eager for an answer; however, she acknowledged the interest of the community members. She explained that the City recently adopted critical areas regulations that classify streams as Class 1 through Class 5, and the inventoried streams are shown on a Water Class Map. Ms. Henning noted that each stream class has a different buffer requirement. Ms. Henning reported that the subject stream is located on three properties, and a pre -application meeting was held to discuss possible subdivision of the properties. The properties contain a water feature that is considered to be part of Kennydale Creek, and Kennydale Creek is mapped as a Class 4 stream in this area. She indicated that the developer has requested a reclassification of the stream from Class 4 to Class 5 through these properties, and has submitted evidence showing that the stream qualifies for Class 5 designation. December 5, 2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 434 Citizen Comment: Rider - Stream Reclassification, Jones Ave NE & NE 20th St Citizen Comment: Nelson - Stream Reclassification, Jones Ave NE & NE 20th St Citizen Comment: Gordley - Stream Reclassification, Jones Ave NE & NE 20th St CONSENT AGENDA Council Meeting Minutes of 11121/2005 Council Meeting Minutes of 11/28/2005 In response to Councilman Corman's inquiry, Ms. Henning confirmed that a Class 5 stream has no setback requirements. Susan Rider, 1835 NE 20th St., Renton, 98056, emphasized that the Kennydale wetland system is dying, and the stream reclassification is yet one more blow to the system. She stated that no one profits from this action but the developer. Pointing out that the regulations are supposed to protect the environment, Ms. Rider stressed that the creek does not meet the definition of a Class 5. She requested further study, and notification of upcoming related meetings. James Nelson, 1905 NE 20th St., Renton, 98056, stated that he grew up in the area of the subject stream reclassification, and noted that he has never seen the creek run dry. He expressed his concern that future development will destroy the entire natural area. Lauralee Gordley, 2010 Jones Ave. NE, Renton, 98056, stated that she is the property owner of the stream reclassification area. Ms. Gordley pointed out that a lot of work has been done for the reclassification, and all of the critical area regulation requirements have been fulfilled. She reviewed the reports that were prepared, and noted that aerial photographs show the creek was not present before the ditch was dug. Ms. Gordley acknowledged people's concerns, but stressed that the area has changed in many ways and cannot return to the way it was. Mayor Keolker-Wheeler stated that the concerned parties will be notified of the next committee meeting. Councilman Clawson reiterated that this issue merits further review. Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Approval of Council meeting minutes of 11/21/2005. Council concur. Approval of Council meeting minutes of 11/28/2005. Council concur. Community Services: Tiffany Community Services Department requested authorization to reallocate $95,220 Park Recreation Building, from Fund 316, Major Maintenance Public Buildings, to support the Fund 316 Reallocation replacement of the Tiffany Park Recreation Building. Refer to Finance Committee. Community Services: Tri-Park Community Services Department recommended approval of a contract in the Master Plan, JGM Landscape amount of $84,190 with JGM Landscape Architects to develop a tri-park master Architects plan for the integrated use of Liberty Park, Cedar River Park, and the Narco property. Council concur. Utility: King Conservation Utility Systems Division recommended approval of an agreement with King District Grant Conservation District Number 9 to accept the City's share of the King Conservation District's 2002-2005 assessments in the amount of $59,953.85, and approval to use $4,869 for the Black River Channel Restoration Project sponsored by the Black River Watershed Alliance. Council concur. (See page 437 for resolution.) MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. November 28, 2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 422 The Washington State Department of Transportation will host an open house related to the Renton I-405 Nickel improvement Project on December 8th at the Renton Housing Authority. Community Services: City Mayor Keolker-Wheeler pointed out that on December 3rd, commissioned art Center Parking Garage at the City Center Parking Garage will be dedicated at 5:00 p.m., followed by Artwork, Richard C Elliott the annual tree lighting celebration at the Piazza. AUDIENCE COMMENT Arland "Buzz" Johnson, 334 Wells Ave. S., #306, Renton, 98055, expressed his Citizen Comment: Johnson - appreciation for all those who assisted with the Thanksgiving Day dinner that Senior Center, Thanksgiving was served at the Senior Center. Dinner CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Council Meeting Minutes of Approval of Council meeting minutes of 11/14/2005, Council concur. 11/14/2005 Development Services: Stream Development Services Division recommended the reclassification of a stream Reclassification, Jones Ave located in the vicinity of Jones Ave. NE and NE 20th St. from Class 4 to Class NE & NE 20th St Lk 1` -t 7131 5. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. CAG: 04-103, 2004-2005 Utility Systems Division recommended approval of an amendment to CAG-04- Waste Reduction & Recycling 103, King County Waste Reduction and Recycling Grant interlocal agreement, Grant Agreement, King which provides $104,296 in funding to implement Special Recycling Events, a County Business Recycling Program, the Natural Yard Care Program, and costs associated with the Reuse It± Renton event. Council concur. (See page 424 for resolution.) MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report regarding the Issaquah Finance Committee School District mitigation fee. The Committee recommended that a public Finance: Issaquah School hearing be held on 12/12/2005 to consider adoption of a $5,115 impact fee for District Impact Fee new single-family homes within the Issaquah School District in the City of Renton. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Finance: Vouchers Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report recommending approval of Claim Vouchers 243018 - 243439 and two wire transfers totaling $2,962,435.44; and approval of Payroll Vouchers 60885 - 61085, one wire transfer, and 599 direct deposits totaling $1,897,829.78, MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Lease: Renton Housing Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report recommending Authority, Edlund Property concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve a five-year lease with the House Renton Housing Authority for the house on the City -owned Edlund property located at 17611 103rd Ave. SE at a lease rate of $1.00 per year. The Committee recommended that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to sign the lease.* Councilman Persson stated that the Renton Housing Authority will pay to improve and maintain the house, and a family of ten will live there. C ' OF RENTON COUNCIL AGEND2 LL Al #: Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board.. Planning/Building/Public Works Department — Development Services Division Staff Contact...... Jennifer Henning Subject: Reclassify a Stream in the vicinity of Jones Ave. NE and NE 20th St. from Class 4 to Class 5 Exhibits: Issue Paper with Exhibits A - E For Agenda of: November 28, 2005 Agenda Status Consent .............. Public Hearing.. Correspondence.. Ordinance, ............ Resolution ............ Old Business........ New Business....... Study Sessions...... Information........ . Recommended Action: Approvals: Refer to Planning & Development Committee Legal Dept......... Finance Dept...... Other ............... Fiscal Impact: N/A Expenditure Required... NIA Trans fer/Amendment....... N/A Amount Budgeted....... NIA Revenue Generated......... NIA Total Project Budget N/A City Share Total Project.. NIA SUMMARY OF ACTION: Recently adopted Critical Areas Regulations (RMC 4-3-050.L.) classify stream types within the City as Class 1 through Class 5. The inventoried streams are shown on a Water Class Map. The owner of a property with a stream designated as Class 4 (35 foot buffer required) has requested reclassification of the stream through parcel numbers 3343903201, 3343903203 (portion), and 3343903563 (portion) in the vicinity of Jones Avenue NE and NE 201h Street from Class 4 to Class 5. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Council reclassify the stream through the subject site from Class 4 to Class 5. X Rentonnetlagbill/ bh O PLANNINGBUILDING/ ♦ PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT �Iellv&'/ M E M O R A N D U M DATE: November 10, 2005 TO: Terri Briere, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: ,,,w�Kathy Keolker-Wheeler,Mayor FROM: Gregg Zimmermap,'7PW Administrator STAFF CONTACT: Jennifer Henning, Principal Planner (x7286) SUBJECT: Reclassification of a Category 4 Stream in the Vicinity of Jones Avenue NE & NE 20n' Street ISSUE: Should a mapped stream be reclassified from Class 4 ( 35-foot buffer required) to Class 5 (unregulated) through properties in the vicinity of Jones Avenue NE and NE 20`h Street? RECOMMENDATION: Approve the stream reclassification for the subject property (APN 3343903201, 3343903203 (portion), and 3343903563 (portion) in the vicinity of Jones Avenue NE and NE 20a' Street. The stream classification would change from Class 4 (35-foot buffer required) to Class 5 (unregulated). BACKGROUND SUMMARY: Recently adopted Critical Areas Regulations (RMC4-3-050L) classify stream types within the City as Class 1 through Class 5. The inventoried streams are shown on a Water Class Map (Exhibit A). A property owner has property with a stream designated as Class 4 (35 foot buffer required). They have requested that the stream be reclassified to a Class 5 (unregulated). This requires administrator approval and a legislative amendment approved by City Council. The five -tier classification system and map were adopted for the purposes of regulating streams and lakes in the City. Corresponding buffer widths are based on the rating system. The approximate location and extent of Class 2 to 4 water bodies within the City limits are indicated on a map that is used as a guide. The specific location and extent is determined through field studies. Where there is a conflict between the Water Class Map and criteria listed in the RMC, the criteria govern. Category 4 Stream Reclas ition Page 2 of 3 November 10, 2005 RMC 4-11-190 defines Class 4 and 5 streams as follows: Class 4: Class 4 waters are non-salmonid-bearing perennial waters during years of normal rainfall, and/or mapped on Figure 4-3-050Q4, Renton Water Class Map, as Class 4. Class 5: Class 5 waters are non -regulated non-salmonid-hearing waters which meet one or more of the following criteria: a. Flow within an artificially constructed channel where no naturally defined channel had previously existed; and/or b. Are a surficially isolated water body less than one half (0.5) acre (e.g., pond) not meeting the criteria for a wetland as defined in RMC 4-3-050M. The stream on the subject properties (1828 NE 20th Street, 2010 and 2120 Jones Avenue NE) is shown on the City's Stream Class Map as Class 4. In May of this year, a consultant (Blue Line Group) requested a pre -application meeting to discuss possible subdivision of the property. The Blue Line Group, indicated that the on -site ditch met the definition of a Class 5 stream, which would not be regulated under City Code. To support their position, they provided staff with a wetland delineation report (dated October 20, 2004) prepared by Ellisport Engineering, Incorporated, and a stream classification letter (dated April 25, 2005). Furthermore, a letter outlining the history of the ditch and the original easement documentation for the construction of the ditch were provided by the developer, Terry Dutro of Masterbuilder Construction. According to RMC 4-3-050.L1.C.11, the reclassification of a water body to a lower class (i.e. 2 to 3, or 3 to 4, etc.) may be requested providing the administrator accepts a supplemental stream or lake study, followed by a legislative amendment to the Water Class Map. The submitted materials were reviewed by the administrator and the City's on -call stream and wetlands consultant, The Watershed Company, in July. A letter (Exhibit B) was sent to Terry Dutro on July 29th, stating that sufficient information had not been provided to the City to show that the Class 4 Stream located on the subject site should be reclassified to a lower classification. The developer filed a letter (Exhibit C) with the Hearing Examiner on August 12`', seeking to appeal the City's determination. However, the letter contained additional new information, which has been considered by the administrator. This new information included aerial photos (Exhibits D & E) from 1946 that indicated no natural watercourse existed on the subject site. The previous property owner was interviewed, and he stated in a conversation that he had hand -dug the ditch on the site in 1958. He also stated that to the best of his recollection, that there was no natural watercourse on the property. In addition, the owner of the blueberry farm to the south was interviewed. He said that the area had been a swamp and was drained by the Army Corps of Engineers by digging a drainage ditch. The soil was too soft for heavy equipment, so mules were used to dig the hadivision.sldevelop_serldev&plan,ingljthlstreamslissue paper for stream.doc Category 4 Stream Reclas ►tion Page 3 of 3 November 10, 2005 ditch. A residential development near the blueberry farm empties a storm drain into this ditch. The developer concluded that the surrounding area drains into a man-made ditch, where no previous natural watercourse existed. Based on this supplemental information, and the administrator's decision to forward the request for stream reclassification onto Council, the appeal was withdrawn. CONCLUSION: New information provided by the developer, including aerial photos from 1946 and interviews with the previous landowner support the developer's request for reclassification of the stream through the property. Because the ditch is a non-salmonid bearing water flowing within an artificially constructed channel where no naturally defined channel had previously existed, it qualifies for the Class 5 stream designation, and is therefore unregulated. 4-3-050Q Figure 4-3-050Q4 Exhibit A STREAMS AND LAKES In $K 2 i 4. ITv, yhy �qrz yI 14L i ,- - -_ •_ � ,.., _ _ r-'-- r, SeelIYQ Q Red map -4ii ft with for ft Wawn of pied Amms. e �4 �1 'aVV Ctass 3 Class (Revised 6105) 3 - 20.50 CI'TO _)F RENTON Planning/Building/PublicWorks Department Kathy Keolkcr-Wheeler, Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator July 29, 2005 Exhibit B Masterbuilder Construction Tent' Dutro 10711 SE 30' St Bellevue, WA 98004 Subject: Reclassification request for a Category 4 stream Jones Avenue NE & NE 20th Street vicinity Dear Mr. Dutro: This letter is in response to your request for the reclassification of a stream as designated on the City of Renton Water Class reap. As specified in the C-ity's Critical Areas Ordinance adopted in May of this year, .reclassification of Maps and inventory requires Administrator acceptance of the Supplemental Stream Study. The Administrator of Development Services, upon reviewing the Wetland Delineation and Stream analysis provided by your consultant Ellisport Engineering, Inc, requested a secondary wetland review. On July 18, 2005 the Watershed Company conducted a stream and, wetland evaluation on the site known as proposed Blueberry M dow-Preliminary Plat. Included in the. evaluation was a review of the documentation'submitted with the request. A copy of Watershed Company's findings has been forwarded to you. FINDING/DECISION. Sufficient information has not been•provided to the City to show that the Class 4 Stream located on -the subject site does.not meet the criteria for such a classification sunder the Critical'Areas Ordinance adopted May of 2005. Therefore, the decision has been made not to accept the Supplemental Stream Study consideration to the City Council for legislative amendment to the Water Class map. RECONSIDERATION. Within 14 days of the effective date of the decision, any party may request that the Administrator reopen a decision. The Administrator 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 finds. insufficient 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 following appeal timeframe. APPEAL. This administrative decision will become foal if not appealed in writing to the Hearing Examiner on or before 5:00 PM on August 12, 2005. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 R E lr 1 O N !IT%T _ _ _, __.. AUPAD nF rur rnnvc Uttice, (41�)) 4JU-42, i V. Appeals must be tiled in writing, together with the required $75.00 application fee, to: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. If you have any questions, you may contact Nancy Weil, at 425-430-7270. Respectfully, Vl iI l Neil Watts Director of DeveloPment Services - "MASTEMAUDrR CONSTRUCTION 0 Exhibit C 46h, 10711 SEMI BELLEVUE, WA 98004 &Nh: Phone (425) 454-6340 CITY OF RENTCW August 12, 2005 City of Renton Hearing Examiner 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Dear Ms. Thonipson, L)E1FEL.OPMENT 5EP r, CITY OF RENTD r, AUG 12 2005 ECE�V = AUG 1 2 zoos RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE: At this time I would like to appeal the reclassification Category Four stream decision made July 29, 2005 on the proposed Blueberry Meadows development. I have included aerial photos from 1946 and 2002. This evidence should answer the question brought up by The Watershed Company (environmental review) concerning the existence of a natural watercourse. New information has been brought to light proving that the existing stream was artificially created and that no natural watercourse existed. Aerial photos from 1946 show no signs of a watercourse in the proposed Blueberry Meadows property, or to the blueberry farm to the south, or property to the north. The headwaters were located on the blueberry farm to the south (see picture). 1 talked to the fanner about the history of his farm. He informed me the area had been a swamp and was drained by the Army Corps of Engineers by digging a drainage ditch. The soil was too soft for heavy equipment so they used mules. A development near the blueberry farm empties a storm drain into this ditch. The previous owner of the Blueberry Meadows property dug the ditch in 1958. I recently had a conversation with him He stated that to the best of his recollection there was no natural watercourse on his property, and he thought that the ditch on the blueberry farm to the south dried up in the sunvner at that time. In conclusion, the surrounding area drains into a man-made ditch, no previous natural watercourse existed. I propose to move the ditch to the west property line of the Blueberry Meadows development to allow for the most efficient use of the land. Please consider this evidence when determining that this stream should be changed to a Category Five under the new Critical Areas Ordinance. Thank you, Tent' Dutro MBC A.Hvfre� 1 At "`� `'^ s ,....�*o �,.. !.r• t _ is s:� Y• �S IX, rS • 4 PV 4. .St � . t• �y.•r�re f � �:J SrA' ;s � �.. . F 't � � ' �} y � . n A r.::`' } , low c� S x •. IL fill.r,. 1946 AERIAL PHOTO DITCH CONDITION WALKER & ASSOGIA-, I 46 „�T � � r ,• y . � l� ai