Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet for 4/6/2015 . AGENDA RENTON CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING April 6, 2015 Monday, 7 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL 3. SPECIAL PRESENTATION a. Police Department- Employee Recogntion 5. AUDIENCE COMMENT (Speakers must sign up prior to the Council meeting. Each speaker is allowed five minutes. The first comment period is limited to one-half hour. The second comment period later on in the agenda is unlimited in duration.) When you are recognized by the Presiding Officer, please walk to the podium and state your name and city of residence for the record, SPELLING YOUR LAST NAME. NOTICE to all participants: pursuant to state law, RCW 42.17A.555, campaigning for any ballot measure or candidate in City Hall and/or during any portion of the council meeting, including the audience comment portion of the meeting, is PROHIBITED. 6. CONSENTAGENDA The following items are distributed to Councilmembers in advance for study and review, and the recommended actions will be accepted in a single motion. Any item may be removed for further discussion if requested by a Councilmember. a. Approval of Council meeting minutes of 3/23/2015. Council concur. b. Mayor Law appoints Kimberly Unti to the Library Advisory Board, for a term expiring on 9/1/2017. Refer to CommunitV Services Committee. c. Mayor Law appoints the following individuals to the Municipal Arts Commission: Mary Clymer, for a term expiring on 12/31/2015; and Kimberly Eshelman, Adrienne LaFaye, and Neil Sheesley for terms expiring on 12/31/2017. Refer to Communitv Services Committee. d. City Clerk reports bid opening on 3/23/2015; CAG-15-025 - Riverview Park Bridge Replacement; and submits staff recommendation to accept the lowest responsive bid from Rodarte Construction, Inc. in the amount of $759,628.88. Refer to Finance Committee for discussion of funding. e. City Clerk reports bid opening on 3/24/2015 for CAG-15-032 - Sunset Terrace Regional Stormwater Facility Project; and submits staff recommendation to accept the low bid submitted by Olson Bros Excavating, Inc. in the amount of$649,550. Council concur. Page 1 of 3 f. City Clerk reports appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon reconsideration regarding the Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat (LUA-13-001572) by Renate Beedon, Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group, accompanied by required fee. Consideration of the appeal 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 (RMC 4-8-110.F.6.). Refer to Plannin�and Development Committee. g. Community Services Department recommends approving five 2015 Neighborhood Project Grant applications and authorize expenditures in the amount of $45,252 from the budgeted 2015 Neighborhood Program fund. Refer to Communitv Services Committee. h. Community Services Department recommends approval of an amendment to the Purchase and Sale agreement for the Fawcett property, along May Creek, with an agreed upon price of $785,000; with total project expenses estimated at $824,000; and to adjust the budget as necessary. Refer to Finance Committee. i. Public Works Department recommends approval of an Interlocal Cooperative Purchasing Agreement with Kitsap County to expedite the purchase of capital items. Council concur. (See S.a.for resolution.) j. Transportation Systems Division requests authorization to increase a Public Works Department Transportation Systems Division Operations Section Civil Engineer II Position from 0.50 FTE to 1.0 FTE, and adjust the budget as necessary. Refer to Finance Committee. k. Transportation Systems Division recommends approving a resolution adopting the Renton Municipal Airport Sustainability Management Plan. Refer to Transportation (Aviation) Committee. I. Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of an amendment to the Aerodyne, LLC (LAG-84-006) lease agreement for a land rental rate adjustment from $0.75 to $0.7252 per ' square foot per year in accordance with a January 2015 lease arbitration decision. Council concur. m. Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of an amendment to the Renton Gateway Center (LAG-09-006) lease agreement for a land rental rate adjustment from $0.57 to $0.7252 per square foot per year in accordance with a January 2015 lease arbitration decision. Council concur. n. Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of an amendment to the Kaynan, Inc. (LAG-84-003) lease agreement for a land renta) rate adjustment from $0.75 to $0.7252 per square foot per year in accordance with a January 2015 lease arbitration decision. Council concur. o. Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of an amendment to the Kaynan, Inc. (LAG-85-011) lease agreement for a land rental rate adjustment from $0.75 to $0.7252 per square foot per year in accordance with a January 2015 lease arbitration decision. Council concur. p. Utilities System Division submits CAG-14-018, Monterey Terrace Water Main Replacement Project; and requests approval of the project, authorization for final pay estimate in the amount of $13,485.11, commencement of a 60-day lien period, and release retainage, to Buno Construction, LLC., contractor, if all required releases are obtained. Council concur. q. Utilities Systems Division recommends approval of an Interagency Agreement with King County ' to accept $231,876 for the 2015-2016 King County Solid Waste Division Waste Reduction and Recyclin Grant. Council concur. See 8.6. or resolution. g ( f � Page 2 of 3 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Topics listed below were discussed in Council committees during the past week. Those topics marked with an asterisk (*) may include legislation. Committee reports on any topics may be held by the Chair if further review is necessary. a. Finance Committee: Vouchers; King County Sexual Assault Resource Center Lease Amendment; Iron Mountain Lease Addendum; Refunding 2006 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds*; 2015- 16 Amended Fee Schedule*; 2015 Carry Forward Budget Amendment Ordinance*; Utility Billing Adjustment Request for 215 5. 4th PI. b. Transportation (Aviation) Committee: Job Order Contract for 800 W. Perimeter Rd. Building Improvements; Amendment to Rainier Flight Service Lease Agreement; NE Sunset Blvd. Roadway Improvements Project Preliminary Design Contract; Emerging Issues in Transportation 8. RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES Resolution: a. Interlocal Cooperative Purchasing Agreement with Kitsap County (see 6.i.) b. Interagency Agreement for 2015-2016 King County Solid Waste Reduction & Recycling Grant (See 6.q.) c. 2015-16 Amended Fee Schedule (See 7.a.) Ordinance for first reading: � a. Refunding 2006 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds (See 7.a.) b. 2015 Carry Forward Budget Amendment (See 7.a.) Ordinance for second and final reading: a. Establishing S. 132nd St. SAD (1st reading 3/23/2015) 9. NEW BUSINESS (Includes Council Committee agenda topics; visit rentonwa.gov/cityclerk for more information.) 10. AUDIENCE COMMENT 11. ADJOURNMENT COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA (Preceding Council Meeting) COUNCIL CHAMBERS April 6, 2015 Monday, 6:00 p.m. Community Services Capital Projects Briefing • Hearing assistance devices for use in the Council Chambers are available upon request to the City Clerk•CIN COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE TELEVISED LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 21 AND ARE RECABLECAST: Tues.&Thurs.at il AM&9 PM,Wed.&Fri at 9 AM&7 PM and Sat.&Sun.at 1 PM&9 PM Page 3 of 3 J CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL � � b . Subject/Title: Meeting: Appointment to Library Advisory Board REGULAR COUNCIL-06 Apr 2015 Exhibits: Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board: A. Memo to Mayor Law Recommending Executive Appointment � B. Member Application Staff Contact: April Alexander, ext. 6520 Recommended Action: Refer to Community Services Committee. Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required: $ N/A Transfer Amendment: $ N/A Amount Budgeted: $ N/A Revenue Generated: $ N/A Total Project Budget: $ N/A City Share Total Project: $ N/A SUMMARY OF ACTION: Mayor Law appoints the following to the Library Advisory Board: Ms. Kimberly Unti, 4102 NE 22nd Place, Renton, WA 98059, for a term expiring 9/1/17. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Confirm Mayor Law's appointment of Ms. Unti to the Library Advisory Board. r •. � COMMUNITY SERVICES p ���0� .� DEPARTMENT M E M O R A N D U M RECEIVED DATE: March 20, 2ois MAR 2 3 2015 TO: Denis Law, Mayor MAYOR'S OFFICE CC: Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer � FROM: Terry Higashiyama, Community Services Administrator STAFF CONTACT: Peter Renner, Facilities Director, E�. 6605 SUBJECT: Request for Appointment of Kim Unti to the Renton Library Advisory Board(RLAB) Interviews were recently held for a vacated position on the Renton Library Advisory � Board. The interviewers were Erica Richey,the Board Chair,John Sheller,the King County Library Cluster Manager for this area, and Peter Renner,who liaises with me to the RLAB. There were four candidates; all of them were highly motivated to serve Renton's citizens, and each of them brought special talents, abilities, and perspectives into review. Any one of them would make a good board member. The interview panels' unanimous first choice to forward for your consideration for appointment to the open RLAB position is Kim Unti. You may already know�that Kim is an outstanding citizen and community leader. The panel was impressed with her prominent leadership roles within various church and community organizations. She is articulate, and her high level of strategic planning experience will certainly help the Board focus on achievable goals associated with their mission to represent Renton's collaborative interests in the services that King County Library System provides. ' Thank you for your time and effort to support the ongoing efforts and activities of the Renton Library Advisory Board. c:\users\analexander\appdata\local�microsoft\windows\temporary internet files\content.outlook\p074e4hy\rlab unti.doc April Alexander � From: Kim.unti@comcas#.net Sent: Thursday, February 26,2015 527 FM To: Apri!Alexander Cc: Kim.unti@comcasknet Subject: App(icatian for boards, cammissions, ar committees. The following registration was submitted via the City of R.entan website: Data from form "Applicatian for Boards,comrnissians,or committees" was received on 2l2612415 5:25:53 PM. $oards,commissians,cammittees . ______.___.Field __._____.___._.i___..._ -.---_ _..___. _____.._ _._�— Vatue ��-- — - __.--_- - -.---- - ---.-- _ � BoardsCammissionsCommittees �Librazy Advisary Board* Title ___.---___.__ 'Ms. N�� ____..___._r.__._____�,__..-,�mberly N Unti address �--v'_—�^�_� - ��102 NE 22 Place ' ___.�._ �__�_� _.._-- -,.___�__�_�_.____._.____�..._______�_...._.. _. . _ City, State,Zip Renton, WA 98059 � . _. _ _. .__ . -- .- -----,- - - -___._ _._._. ___.- -. --____ _. .._ ._. _ ... _ . . . _ _ Applicant's ernail `Kim.tuiti a,comcast.net - - -- --- - - -_____.._ _ __---__. ___--- - - - - - - - - - � - . . _ Applicant's phone 425-271-5914 � Applicant's alternate phone � Renton Resident? 'true ' If sa, since when ---- - - - - 19$0 Forcner Residence y Bellingham E�t2Cati0Il�BaC�4gT4U11� �� ;1981 Undergraduate degree (social wark}� ���_� Tv,^� Homemaker Occupation ���titute para-educator Ren�on 5chaol District - - - -�-_ ..�._ _ _ ._._ . ... .._ _. .�.- ----- -----_. ..-- -- --_� ___—._____ -- — -- --- _ . . � In the past I have held the posita.on of Life Stage Coordinator at SG, Nlathew Lutheran, Rentan WA. In that (�ccupationBackgraund pasition I managed a three gerson staff, worked with over 140 volunteers and initiated new programming for children, families, yaung adults, and seniors. EiTi �0 �T-------- ------ -- RSD currently � y St. Matthew Lutheran - recent past -- - --------------------- -- -- ___.._..___---- - -- - -- - -_ ._—._ ..._�.._. ,.___. v.----- - -- - Served as Vice President of Che NWwA 6ynod Lu�heran Church in America (highe�t lay position) Served on the initial library campaign task force, ta join KCLS Community Activities President of Sierra Fieights Elernentary PTSA served on Advisory Board for Valley Medical Center - resulting in the working agreement with UW Medicine Served as synod assembly chair for three year - the governing ;bady af the local Lutheran church 1 � . Field Value � `I have been looking far an opportunity ta serve the cnmmunity ;that my family has been fortunate to live in for the past 35 �years. After serving an the Iibrary campaign to merge with lKCLS, the library system has been a special interest of mine. �When I get involved in arganizations, I am able to hear all 'sides of issues, keep things positive, not persanalize R.e�SOt2s �conflicts and work hard to reach mutually agreed upon ;cozzclus ions. ;The library is a wonderful asset ta a city and the families ;benefit greatly from a healthy functionin:g library .arganization. I know the Unti family has always enjoyed our �time at the library all the way back to chi2dren's story time. Can attend day meetings ;false Can attend night meetings �true Emaii"Application for boatds,commissions,ar committees."originatIy sent ta anatexander(n7rentonwa.00v from Kim.nnti tr.camcast.net on 2/26i20 t 5 5:26:53 PM.T'he fallowing wers also sent a capy:Kirn.an#i cr,comcast.net. � 2 � � : ' CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL � � : Subject/Title: Meeting: Appointments to Municipal Arts Commission REGULAR COUNCIL- 06 Apr 2015 Exhibits: Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board: A. Memo to Mayor Law Recommending Executive Appointments B. Applications for Members Staff Contact: April Alexander, ext. 6520 Recommended Action: Refer to Community Services Committee. Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required: $ N/A Transfer Amendment: $ N/A Amount Budgeted: $ N/A Revenue Generated: $ N/A Tota) Project Budget: $ N/A City Share Total Project: $ N/A SUMMARY OF ACTION: � Mayor Law appoints the following to the Municipal Arts Commission: . Ms. Mary Clymer, 11600 Rainier Ave 5,Apt. 405, Seattle, WA 98178,for a term expiring 12/31/15 . Ms. Kimberly Eshelman, 13982 SE 159th Place, Renton, WA 98058, for a term expiring 12/31/17 . Ms. Adrienne LaFaye, 15103 Sunwood Blvd.,Tukwila, WA 98188,for a term expiring 12/31/17 . Mr. Neil Sheesley, 516 Williams Ave 5, Unit A, Renton, WA 98057, for a term expiring 12/31/17 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Confirm Mayor Law's appointments of Ms. Clymer, Ms. Eshelman, Ms. LaFaye, and Mr. Sheesley to the Municipal Arts Commission. � ; ` - DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY D i of � AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ��15 Q� �� R�ENED M E M O R A N D U M MAR 2 0 2015 . DATE: March 20, 2015 � � MAYOR'S OFFICE T0: Denis Law, Mayor v ' � FROM: C.E. "Chip"Vincent, CED Administrator SUBJECT: Appointments to Renton Municipal Arts Commission Background The Renton Municipal Arts Commission currently has four vacant positions for terms of office that will expire in December of 2015 (1) and December 2017 (3).The RMAC solicited applications throughout the community by a variety of inethods. Potential commissioners were invited to attend the February 2015 RMAC meeting. On March 16, 2015, eight people who submitted applications were interviewed by a Committee of the RMAC. The applicants were all very highly qualified and the decision to choose only four was an extremely difficult one.The Committee recommends the applications for those not seleded be retained in the event another vacancy opens in the future. On March 17th,the Committee fonivarded its recommendations to the full Commission. � The RMAC subsequently endorsed the Committee's recommended candidates. The RMAC is now providing the following people for your consideration: Mary Clymer Mary has a very long history in Renton,including attending Renton schools. She attended Central Washington University and the prestigious American Musical and Dramatic Academy in New York.She has been active in a wide variety of art-based and other activities in Renton including the Downtown Renton Events Committee, River Days Art Market(Chair), Renton Art and Antiques Walk, City of Renton Budget Committee, and the Arts&Culture Master Plan Committee. Mary has strong interests in reaching out to the artisan population of Renton and furthering the arts in the Downtown core. Her p�imary art medium is hand-made arts. Mary is a lively individual whose creativity and local knowledge will be assets to the Commission. Kim Eshelman Kim lives in the City of Renton,�north of Fairwood. She graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree,cum laude, in humanities,from Washington State University. Kim's background is in university and college administration. For the past three years, however, she has been a full-time artist painting primarily in acrylic and pastel. She is involved in the arts • Denis Law,Mayor '' Page 2 of 2 March 20,2015 community through the Artist Trust and is currently working on the Artist Trust 2015 auction fund raiser. Kim is inte�ested in furthering Renton as a thriving artistic community in which both artists and the local community can participate in and enjoy the arts. Kim's work can be viewed at www.kimeshelman.com. Adrienne LaFaye I Although currently a resident of Tukwila,Adrienne has lived in Renton most of her life and feels she is a part of the Renton Community.She has a BA degree from the . University of Washington and an AA degree from the Art Institute of Seattle. An artist for 27 years,five years ago Adrienne left the banking industry for,a full time art career. Her paintings are widely shown throughout the Northwest. She has written and illustrated a middle grade book of fiction. She has been represented at the Renton River Days Art Market and has received an award for her work at the Renton Annual Art Show. Adrienne is a member of the Society of Children's Book Writers and Illustrators and volunteers at the Northwest African American Museum.She would bring both � business and artistic experience to the Arts Commission to help make informed decisions about the Renton community. Neil Sheesley Neil is very involved in the Renton community, currently serving on the Renton Municipal Airport Advisory Committee,the South Renton Neighborhood Association � (President), and Arts Unlimited of Renton (Board Member). Due to his work with the South Renton neighborhood, he understands and appreciates the importance of reaching out to the other neighborhoods in Renton and sees this as a way the RMAC can attain its primary goal of raising awareness of art and culture in the community. Neil is a musician and has interesting ideas about the performing arts and increasing the profiles of local musicians and music venues in Renton. Recommendation In concurrence with the endorsement of the full Renton Municipal Arts Commission and the RMAC liaison, I recommend the appointment to the Renton Municipal Arts , Commission of Mary Clymer to the position that will expire December 2015,with the I intention that she be reappointed at that time to a term that would expire December 2018,and Kim Eshelman,Adrienne LaFaye, and Neil Sheesley to positions that would expire December 2017. . s April Alexander �rom: happydelusions@yahoo.com ant: Monday, February 09,2015 5:55 PM fo: Aprii Alexander Cc: happydelusions@yahoo.com Subject: Application for boards, commissions, or committees. The following registration was submitted via the City of Renton website: Data from form "Application for Boards, commissions,or committees" was received on 2/9/2015 5:54:41 PM. Boards, commissions, committees Field ---- -� ---� -- - - ---- Value-�- - - BoardsCommissionsCommittees Municipal Arts Commission* - - -------__--_.__._-------._--_._----- - --- ------ . _ - -- - - - - - Title Ms. --- - ._-_--- - ___�- ---- - - ----- ----... - �- --- - . _, __ . _. . Name Mary Clymer address 11600 Rainier Ave S Apt 405 ___--. ----------------- -- - - -_. City, State,Zip Seattle, WA. 98178 _ . __ ___. . _ -----.---___ _-�- ---_---- --------- -- -- -- - --� -- -- - � - - - - Applicant's email ;hannvdelusions cni.vahoo.com - - �- ------ -- - -----— --------------- --- - - -- - --- - ---- - - - - - Applicant's phone `206-962-7959 .�pplicant's alternate phone 206-772-0256 Renton Resident? false If so, since when - -- __ ._. . ._ _ - _ - - - - - - - --- Former Residence � �' �Early education in the Renton School District Educational Background Central washington University ANIDA- American Musical and Dramatic Academy r ` � Freelance Art promoter and event coordinator. � OcCuPation Just started a new job with AAA as a Member Travel Counselor. Team Clymowitz LLC, 2014 to present Exterior Maintenance and Landscaping for Bryn Mawr Tower Condo's The Local 907 Pub and Eatery, 2010 to 2014 General Bartending and Serving skills. Including customer service, food and beverage orders, balancing ti1Z and OccupationBackground paperwork, cleaning. " Happy Delusions Gallery Entrepreneur, 2007 to 2012 Responsible for all aspects of running the gallery including sales, correspondence with artists and clients, shipping and receiving artwork, managing inventory, invoicing, paying bills, bookkeeping, supervising a part-time staff, and general maintenance of the gallery. - . _ _ .__ -- - --- - --� - - - - --- ---_ -- - -- - - - - - '� , AAA Washington, Just got hired this week. yay! Employer happy delusions � Team Clymowitz LLC -- - - - - - - -- - - - � 1 � . _ � I Field Value 'Y� �•Nominated representative chairing the weekly Downtown Events iCommittee to discuss upcoming events, planning and economic � ' idiscussion in regards to the City of Renton. - �•Art Market Chair, representing, coordinating and manage one `.hundred (100+) artists for Renton River Days 2008-2013. `•Volunteer for Renton Art Walk 2008-2012. t•Served on board with other Community Leaders to evaluate and ;assess 2011-2012 Renton City budget with Renton City �department heads (including the Mayor) to line item assess and ' propose budget solution findings to the Renton City Council. COmmuTlity ACtiVities ;•Acted as a representative for Puget Sound Energy Small Business Green Power program campaign promoting green ;business. �•Spokes person for the City of Renton in multiple public �commercials to enhance City satisfaction, morale and diversity ;for the City of Renton. •Instrumental committee member in organizing downtown events 2009-2011 including but not limited to Community Halloween Party, Holiday Santa for the Month of December, Poker Run, Downtown Beautification and The Renton Art Walk. ! I feel like I could offer a different perspective that may �get overlooked as far as the artisan population of Renton goes. I have stood out as a leader in the arts for the downtown core ReasOnS and feel that the community still contacts me when questions about the city and arts come up. A voice is needed for this population. Personally 2 feel a need to be involved and look for opportunities that speak to my interest. - - - . . . _ � - - - - �� Can attend day meetings false Can attend night meetings `--- true-- ------------- ------------------------------------.____ Email "Application for boards,commissions,or committees."originally sent to analexanderna.rentonwa.sov from hapnvdelusionsln�vahoo.com on 2/9/2015 5:54:41 PM.The following were also sent a copy:hanovdelusions(c�vahoo.com. ' � I 2 w ' ` �• ' � April Alexander �om: kim@kimeshelman.com , nt: Monday, February 09, 2015 8:17 AM o: April Alexander Cc: kim@kimeshelman.com Subject: Application for boards, commissions, or committees. The following registration was submitted via the City of Renton website: Data from form"Application for Boards, commissions,or committees" was received on 2/9/2015 8:16:59 AM. Boards, commissions, committees Field ( Value . _ .... __ .. -- - - -- � BoardsCommissionsCommittees `Municipal Arts Commission* Title Ms. � Name ,Kimberly Eshelman ` address �13982 SE 159th Place City, State,Zip �Renton, WA 98058 ' � ! �Applicant's email �kim(a�kimeshelman.com i �pplicant's phone ;425-572-6773 licant's alternate hone �503-319-1390 ' PP _ P I . i Renton Resident? �true If so, since when !2010 � _ .�_. _�R--- -- – ------�_._---—; `Former Residence I Sammamish,WA 'EducationalBackground (Bachelor of Arts, cum laude, Humanities, washington State ; 'University � � r�_�_�_._.�.__-- ----------—--.— �.—__.�.-- -------- •--- OCcupation �Fine P,rtist ' �Please view my work at www.kimeshelman.com � �I worked as an Executive Assistant to Presidents, Provosts, � � �Endowed Chairs, and other high level executives in both ' OccupationBackground �university and college settings as well as the private sector ; ifor over 15 years. Three years ago I began my full time career �as a painter. Employer 1 self employed COri1IriUllity ACt1Vlh8s i I am volunteering this year at the Artist Trust 2015 auction ' �and becoming a member of that community. (Art is my passion and I would love to help create a more Reasons 4vibrant and thriving artistic community in Renton for both �artists and the local community to enjoy and participate in. 1 an attend day meetings i true ; �an attend ni ht meetin s ,irue g g � , ; 1 — — I � � � April Alexander , I I ('���: adriennetafayeart@yaF�oa.com � 1...���t, Monday, March 02, 2Q15 3:23 PM To: April Alexander Cc: adriennelafayeart@yahao.com ' g��yj��t; Application for boards,cammissians,or cammittees. ' The fallawing registration was submitted via the City of Renton website; � Data frorn form "Applicatian for Boards,commissions,or cammittees"was received on 3/2/2015 3:22:49 PM. I Boards, commissions,comrnittees Field f Value � i • _ . _ _ _ _ BoardsCommissionsCommittees j Municipal Arts Commissian* _T �,���_ � ^! � Title ��Ms. __.._.._ ____.._..._...__ .. ._.____�..__.. __ I Name � ..—.E Adrienne La Faye ------ - address �15103 Sunwoad Bivd : , _ ° c��,st�t�,z�p !� '�l.t�=4M�(� � vt1��4 � ���� ; _._�.____, .___.____.__ _ _.._._.____ ___� APPiicant's email �adriennelafaveartt�r}.vahoa.com i ' plicant's phane '(206) 859-3981 i , Applicant's aliernate phone i Renton Resident? �true ' --- ._.._.___..______._.----�. �;—______,..�__ �______. _______.-------._.__.._...__..- ---__ __ .--. - If so,since when �1974-2Q13 � _____.____._.______._.______.__ ----------- -.__�._.._�--.----_,_-- --. --. ...._.._. _--- Former Residence � i Tukwila Educational Background �U of W BAr Ar� zns�itute af Seattle, �. ; I Self emplayed Artist, I've been self-employed for over 5years . I Occupation �as an �ull-tiime artist. _____.__�__ _ _.,_ ___.___.__.._.. _ ---- -- � � � � �Banker for 15 years and Artist far 27 years, I'm skilled at , OccupationBackground E , iplanning and arganizing groups and events. EmplOye� �NjA Self-employed , ;Volunteer for Northwest African American Museum, I've had a ;baath at Rentan River days and have campleted in the RAAS and , Community Activities ;wan an award for one af my paintings. I'm constant�y ' �exhibi�ing my paintings all over Washington State for the past ,27 years but more actively in the last tive years. 3 _ �.._.__.._ .__.__._ ....... _...__. .._..- -- .. __..._. �___ ... ..._ . ._.... . . . _. . . . _ _ �I would lov� to help whenever possible with my skills and � experience. I lave art and want to help make decisions about � Reasons �the art community. I've lived in Renton mo�t of my life and I I will always feel apart of Rentan and would th.e oppartunity be i �able to give back. _ ; , , an attend day meetings �true _ _ - __ - - : - _ -_ __ ___ _ . . i Can attend nigh#meetings ;true : � - - _ _ - . - - 1 I . � . � 7 �I April Alexander �I om: nasheesley@aol.com I I nt: Thursday, February 12, 2015 9:54 AM o: April Alexander ' Cc: nasheesley@aol.com Subject: Application for boards,commissions, or committees. The following registration was submitted via the City of Renton website: - Data from form "Application for Boards, commissions, or committees" was received on 2/12/2015 9:54:28 AM. Boards, commissions, committees -- ____...---_ . ----------.-..__---- - --- - Field � Value BoardsCommissionsCommittees ;Municipal Arts Commission* ^Title ��.. -.--____....__ _.. Name �Neil Sheesley ' � � address i 516 Williams Ave. S. Unit A City, State,Zip j Renton, WA 98057 ' `� ------- ---._.�.------�__ �. --- -------------- _ ------ -- ---- .._ _. Applicant's email ;nasheeslevCcr�,aol.com — - - --- -- — ---;----------- ----._--------- - - ------- - - ---- - _----- - --- �`pplicant's phone �425-919-5203 pplicant's alternate phone Renton Resident? y true - - --- --- --- -----_...___----- - -____. _--------- --�- --- -- - - ---- .._ `-------- . _. ._--_.-_ _�. _ _ If so, since when �OS/13 -.�_-- ---------.-----...___.____.---______M_.__.___.._..----,--------_____..__ .. _ _ .-----._ ---_._ __.. _ _. __ Former Residence �Westminster, CO EducationalBackground `Gateway HS Aurora,CO. Journeyman sprinkler fitter certificate I from Penn ST. ---- --- --�-— --- ----'---- -------- --- --- -—- ------------- --- ------ OCcupatlon �Mus i c i an . _. .__ .---- - -_...___.._� ___..___ _;___�____..__��_t -- --`_._...__.___._ __ .___�.�. . .- .-- -. - - EGates energy Products 1981-1990. Local union 669 fire UccupationBackground �sprinkler fitter 1990-2009. self employed home repair 2009- I2013. Property Maintenance 2013-2015 .__ _..,.--------._�._-------�.___.------ Employer (Unemployed at the moment. ~� � �President- South Renton neighborhood association. Member- COriliriUriitY ACt1V1t12S Renton Airport Advisory Committee. Board member- Arts �Unlimited of renton � ` ' i I have recently become a professional musician and have met Reasons ian incredible group of people who wish to bring all kinds of ;art to the city. It is very exciting and i wish to be a art P 'it. � Can attend day meetings ;true �,�„an attend night meetings u-- ~_'�e__.___ _ _.�___..__.__._.— .-.-- -----_._._ ..._ ---- ' - -------------------- - -- ---- - - - - - - - -- i � CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL r �e Subject/Title: Meeting: Contract Award for Bid Opening on 3/23/2015; REGULAR COUNCIL- 06 Apr 2015 CAG-15-025; Riverview Park Bridge Replacement Exhibits: Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board: A. Issue Paper City Clerk B. Staff Recommendation C. Bid Tab Staff Contact: Jason Seth, City Clerk, ext. 6502 Recommended Action: Refer to Finance Committee. Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required: $ 759,628.88 Transfer Amendment: $ 150,000.00 Amount Budgeted: $ 1,167,000.00 Revenue Generated: $ N/A Total Project Budget: $ 1,317,000.00 City Share Total Project: $ 250,000.00 SUMMARY OF ACTION: Engineer's Estimate: $650,000- $800,000 In accordance with Council procedure, bids submitted at the subject bid opening met the following two of three required criteria: . There was more than one bid. . There were no irregularities with the low bid. However,the lowest responsive bid is not within the current project budget.Therefore, staff recommends acceptance of the low bid submitted by Rodarte Construction, Inc. in the amount of $759,628.88; and to refer the bid to the Finance Committee for discussion regarding funding. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept the lowest responsive bid from Rodarte Construction, Inc. in the amount of$759,628.88 for the Riverview Park Bridge Replacement, subject to discussion of funding. : ' COMMUNITY SERVICES � ��,,..,�0� � DEPARTMENT �� �� M E M O R A N D U M DATE: April 6,2015 TO: Ed Prince,Council President Members of the City Council FROM: Terry Higashiyama,Community Services Administrator STAFF CONTACT: Todd Black,Capital Project Coordinator Leslie Betlach, Parks Planning and Natural Resources Director SUBJECT: Riverview Park Bridge Replacement ISSUE: Should the construction contract for the Riverview Park bridge replacement be awarded to � Rodarte Construction, Inc.in the amount of$759,628.88?Should the King County 2007 Proposition 2 Levy Fund be utilized to fund the project shortfall? RECOMMENDATION: Award the construction contract to Rodarte Construction, Inc. in the amount of$759,628.88 and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the contract. Approve the transfer of $150,000.00 from the King County 2007 Proposition 2 Levy Fund. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: In October 2011,PND Engineers, Inc. performed an inspection of the Riverview Park Bridge to assess the genera�condition and structural integrity of the bridge.The inspection of the substructure revealed several deficiencies in the three intermediate pile bents(piling groups) located in the Cedar River,and was deemed structurally unsound.The bridge was demolished ' and removed in August 2014. In 2013 the City successfully secured state Capital Budget monies as a direct appropriation from the legislature. In December 2013 the State Department of Commerce and the City entered into an agreement for$1,067,000.00 and committed to a$100,000.00 grant match for a total project budget of$1,167,000.00 to remove and replace the existing bridge and in-stream piles, install native habitat planting, and replace three interpretive signs with new signage. The City contracted with PND Engineering, Inc.for design services for the bridge demolition, new bridge design,and permits.The new bridge replacement project was advertised through the Daily Journal of Commerce and six quotes were received,with three quotes lower and three quotes higher than the Engineer's estimate of$800,000.00. The lowest quote of$759,628.88 was submitted by Rodarte Construction, Inc. � Ed Prince,Council President Renton City Council Members Page 2 of 2 April 6,2015 Staff reviewed the Rodarte Construction, Inc.quote for completeness and accuracy,performed the necessary background research and is recommending award to Rodarte Construction,Inc. The estimated construction timeframe is between lune 15 and mid-September 2015, commencing upon execution of this contract. In-water work is permitted by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's Hydraulic Permit Agreement between lune 15 and August 31, 2015. Access to Riverview Park until the new bridge is completed will continue to be from the Cedar River Trail,with the closest parking either at Maplewood Roadside Park(1/5 mile east)or at the NARCO property(one mile west). The new bridge replacement cost is$759,628.88,and including the demolition cost of $192,030.00,the engineering and interpretive design fees of$274,708.29, and permitting and bid advertising fees of$5,422.00,total$1,231,789.20,which leaves a negative balance of $64,780.09. In addition,funding is also needed to provide an approximate 10%construction contingency to cover potential change orders.The additional funding of$150,000.00 is proposed to come from the King County Prop 2 Levy fund,which can only be used for open space acquisition and trail development.The new total project budget will be$1,317,000.00. CONCLUSION: Awarding the contract to the lowest responsive contractor,Rodarte Construction, Inc.,allows the City to move forward with the construction of a new pedestrian bridge. Construction of this new single span bridge will provide a safe access to Riverview Park across the Cedar River. Cc: Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer Iwen Wang, FIT Administrator Jamie Thomas, Fiscal Services Director Misty Baker,Senior Finance Analyst Tracy Schuld,Accounting Supervisor COMMUNITYSERVICES � ^M�O� � DEPARTMENT � �� M E M O R A N D U M DATE: March 30,2015 T0: lason Seth,City Clerk FROM: Terry Higashiyama,Community Services Administrator STAFF CONTACT: Todd Black,Capital Project Coordinator Leslie Betlach,Pa�ks Planning and Natural Resources Director SUBJECT: Riverview Park Bridge Replacement,CAG-15-025 The Community Services Department recommends that the Riverview Park Bridge Replacement project,construction contract in the amount of$759,628.88 be awarded to Rodarte Construction, Inc., 17 E.Valley Highway East,Auburn,WA 98092.There were six bids submitted for the project.The bid submitted by Rodarte Construction,Inc.is the lowest responsive bid and the bidder has been found to be responsible. However,the current funding is insufficient to cover the construction budget and an approximate 10%construction contingency,to cover potential change orders.To date,the funding has been used for the former bridge demolition,engineering design, permits,and bid advertising.We are requesting that the Council refer the Award action to the Finance Committee for further discussion of the funding status for this project. The City secured a grant of$1,067,000.00 from the state legislature,to be administered by the Department of Commerce.The City matched the grant with funding of$100,000.00 for a project budget of$1,167,000.Staff recommends the use of$150,000 from the City's King County 2007 Proposition 2 Levy Fund,which can only be used for open space acquisition and trail development,to make up the project shortfall.The new total project budget will be $1,317,000.00. � The construction contract calls for the installation of a single span aluminum bridge with concrete abutments,adjacent concrete walkways and aluminum and steel railings, native habitat planting,and three replacement interpretive signs.Construction of this new bridge will provide a safe access across the Cedar River to Riverview Park. cc: Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer Iwen Wang, FIT Administrator Jamie Thomas, Fiscal Services Director Misty Baker,Senior Finance Analyst Tracy Schuld,Accounting Supervisor CITY OF RENTON 1 of 2 ,z BID TABULATION SHEET Project: Riverview Park Bridge Replacement CAG-15-025 Date:03/23/15 FORMS Bid Total from Bidder Si ned Bid Tri le Bidders Add. Schedule of Prices Pr posal Bond I Fo m I Qual. I 1 *Includes Sales Tax � Five Rivers Co., Inc. 1331 Baltimore St 1 Longview WA x x x x x $908,073.65 98632 Lisa M. Stevenson Highmark Concrete � Contractors PO Box 1713 2 Buckley WA x x x x x $761,079J5 � 98321 I Jacob Cimmer KC Equipment 4550 49th Ave. N E , 3 Seattle � WA x x x x x $1,044,630.00 98105 Kevin C. Pleas Quigg Bros., Inc. P.O. Box 1707 4 Aberdeen WA x x x x x $776,355.00 98520 Matthew Zepeda Engineer's Estimate $650,000-$800,000 , CITY OF RENTON 2 of 2 BID TABULATION SHEET Project: Riverview Park Bridge Replacement CAG-15-025 Date:03/23/15 FORMS Bid Total from Bidder Si ned Bid Tri le Bidders Add. Schedule of Prices Pr posal Bond I Fo m I Qual. I 1 *Includes Sales Tax Rodarte Co., Inc. 17 E.Valley Hwy East 5 Auburn WA x x x x x $759,628.88 98902 Frank C. Rodarte,Jr. Zemek Coonstruction Co. ', 21209 212th Av SE ��I 6 Maple Valley I WA x x x x x $802,744.50 ', 98038 � David C. ' Zemek '' Engineer's Estimate $650,000-$800,000 � CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL � . � , Subject/Title: Meeting: Contract Award for Bid Opening on March 24, REGULAR COUNCIL-06 Apr 2015 2015; CAG-15-032; Sunset Terrace Regional Stormwater Facility Project Exhibits: Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board: A. Staff Recommendation City Clerk B. Bid Tab (10 Bids) Staff Contact: Jason Seth, City Clerk, ext. 6502 Recommended Action: Council Concur. Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required: $ 649,550 Transfer Amendment: $ N/A Amount Budgeted: $ N/A Revenue Generated: $ N/A Total Project Budget: $ 1,300,000 City Share Total Project: $ N/A SUMMARY OF ACTION: � Engineers Estimate: $738,160.09 In accordance with Council procedure, bids submitted at the subject bid opening met the following three criteria: . There was more than one bid. . The low bid was within the project budget. . There were no irregularities with the low bid. Therefore, staff recommends acceptance of the low bid by Olson Bros. Excavating, Inc., in the amount of$649,550. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept the low bid submitted by Olson Bros Excavating, Inc. in the amount of$649,550.00. CITY QF RENTON � • MAR 2 5 2015 RECEIVED PUBUC WORKS DEPARTMENT p o ' °�O� CLERK�s OG�iC� M E M O R A N D U M DATE: March 25, 2015 T0: Jason Seth, City Clerk FROM: QJ�. Ron Straka,Surface Water Utility Engineering Manager,x7248 SUBIECT: Bid Award Recommendation for the Sunset Terrace Regional Stormwater Facility Project, SWP-27-3658 The bid opening for the Sunset Terrace Regional Stormwater Facility,SWP-27-3625, was held on March 24, 2015, at 2:30 p.m. Ten bids were received. The engineer's estimate for the project construction cost was$738,160.09. The low bid for the project is$649,550 from Olson Bros Excavating, Inc. The Surface Water Utility reviewed the low bid for completeness, inclusion of all required forms, bid bond, and mathematical correctness of the bid. All paperwork for the low bid is in order. Two bidders had minor math errors either in multiplying the bid item quantity by the unit price and/or in adding up the bid item totals. The corrected bid amounts did not change the order of the bids. The corrections are listed below: � Bidder � Original Bid � Corrected Bid � � Titan Earthwork I $734,982.96 I $734,882.96 I I Thomco Construction, Inc. I $797,885.93 I $782,885.93 1 The low bid meets the following conditions for award: 1. The low bid must be within the total project budget; 2. There must be more than one bidder; and 3. The lowest, responsible, responsive bid contains no significant irregularities. The project is located in the future 3.1 acre Sunset Park east of Harrington Ave NE and north of Sunset Boulevard in the Sunset Area of Renton (see attached map). The project was awarded a Statewide Stormwater Grant from the Department of Ecology to retrofit approximately 3.0 acres of parking lot and �oadway stormwater runoff by providing flow control and water quality treatment. Project improvements include: • Excavating and disposing of approximately 4,200 cubic yards of native material. Constructing a 150 foot by 70 foot underground infiltration gallery under the � " M�,Seth,City Cierk Page 2 of 2 March 25,2015 stormwater cells, consisting af a one foot treatment soii layer and three feet of drain I rock. Installing five 12-inch diameter slotted underdrain pipes at 15 foot spacing, each 250 feet in length within the leve( aggregate layer. instaliing a Type 2 catch basin on j one end of each underdrain, and a clean-out on the other end of each underdrain pipe. I Cannecting the maintenance manholes by an 18-inch storm drain to form a manifold. Cannecting the manifoid to a 60-inch downstream manhole fiow control structure. I • Canstructing two water quality treatment bioretention stormwater ceils with a I combined approximate 1500 square foot floor area and 3H:1V side slape, I • Installingthe new storm system in portians of NE 10t"Street including approximately 360 feet o#18-inch CPEP pipe,four Type II catch hasins, one Type t catch basins and a 64-inch diameter manhale flow splitter. . Installing a new storm system in portions of Sunset l.ane NE including 270 feet of 18- inch CPEP pipe and seven Type 11 catch basins. Removal and replacement of asphalt concrete pavement, asphalt overlay, cancrete curbs, gutters, and driveways, Landscape and property restoration. Trench excavation, inciuding remova!of existirtg unsuitable material,stackpiling excavated materiai, and maintenance of existing utilities. • Relacating approximate 52 feet of 8-inch DI water mais�along Harrington Ave NE. I s 5ite stabilization and property re5toration. . The praject is funded fram the appraved 2015 Surface Water Utility Capita( impravement Pragram budget that includes the praposed 2014 carry-farward budget adjustment for the � Sunset Terrace Regional 5tormwater Facility project�427.475492�, The praject is 75°lo funded by the Department of Ecola,gy's FY 2012 Statewide Stormwater Grant A�reement#G120�544 that was approved by Council in October 2012. There are sufficient funds in the 2025 Capita) I lmprovement Program budget to fund the project. I The Surface Water Utility,therefare, recommends that this item be placed on the j Apri( 6, 2015, consent agenda for Council concur. Staff further recommends that Caunci) award � the construction contract ta the lawest responsive, respansibfe bidder, Olson Bros Excavatin�, Inc.,in the amount of$649,550. � Attached for your reference is the bid tabulation showing the engineer's estimate,the low bid, and the other bids submitted. Please cantact me or Hebe C. Bernardo at x7264, if you have any questions. Attachments ct: Gregg Zimmerman,Public Works Administrator Lys Hornsby,litHity Systems Division Director Heb�Bernardo,Surface Water Utility Engineer I h:�ffle sys�swp-surface water projects\swp-27-surface water projects(clp)\27-3658 sunset regional sw faci(ity�16p0 constr�ction\502 advertising and award�5ff2.6 notice of award�2015-03-25 cfierk-bid-award-reg fac.dat\�CBtp r � , • Sunset Terrace Regional Stormwater Facility Project - Site Map I I � e �� r W� �il� r �. ��—j0 � �I�r ► . �� � 1 ` �" � _ ''.--.� � l � a � r ' ! ` , . ��1 ., _ . ' � . � V ii"•=� Finance&IT Division I2/20/2015 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION � t �� ' ------ ----- -- - - - - - - - - - - - � - - - - - ' � �_ � � � d s � � � aeeae � � s a f -x=- ..,� � 3 F � Y � � � � � � asa= _ � � � a � � � i s � � � Ij 9 9 A A�.�R 9_ :P.'- :A:C^-�R�. ''A e�:,. - - :..-��'_"'_ ' ^ _ '' � � � � � 8 B B 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 8 8 B 8 H 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8@ 8 8 S 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 8 8 S 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 3 � � �� �A A���S���'�g� B S�1:A Y':�g A��I 8�7^_..«p?.��. .•'''�i A 8 R t�k � � � 8 8 8 B 8 e 8 S 8 S 8 S 8 8 8 S S 8 8 8 8 S g g 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 B 6 9 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 S 8 8 8 Y Y 8 8 8 8 '8� ! g g 9����S���SSfl�a�sxgg!!&R�95'$3P�A£-�SIA39n3j889?�@P9.$:6$ s s �r ^_:' :s' ao =A-x'-;se -'a�^ - _a --- ��� ii � e � ' y 8 8 8 8 8�@ 8 S B'8 8 8 R B B B Y 6 F 7 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 B B B 8 8 8 B 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 S H 6 8 8 �F �i���x s��S�R�R^R!9 8 9�3:A'�^��g 9�R a:'"''�- ••••��;7I R Y 9 6� ; ; a '" - „_ � ___ ___ _ _ .. � E�, _-_"-----^�:-���R95?�A"v=e-=-----��^.�axe-����??- e�ga-a � �. 3 :^-.._���sss� :a€3::€LL__:saasa:s��s�a�ssasa�a�a�ss^�:,,.a� � � - + � r LL -: - . e a @ ? � � ± � �"ai3��� g�j a � � �� �� �#� � ,� �-��--� 3 . ) � , � °i � gp � ��� $�� �� � � i� � ������ 3=dx��� � ��� ��§������ �3 � � � � � � s���� '�����4 ! � � � �3���-�a- , �� � s � � � �'€ ��$��������;���E������} �� a$������������������y ` �� �� g : [# y f� � , i �' ���°���l��S��������4!b���������a�¢��j��saae�i����������5��3; i3 � � � -�^-�--- - '- -- -- -- :. _ s � 8 �f� =R�p«i p R F A A N:,#a x A x:p R: :S:3:S:S: :S 2 1 , CITY OF RENTON 1 of 3 BID TABULATION SHEET Project:Sunset Terrace Regional Stormwater Facility Project CAG-15-032 Date:03/24/15 FORMS Bid Total from M/W Bidder Proposal Bid L&I Rcpt. Bus. Subs Schedule of Prices &Trpl. Form Bond Cert Add. Subs. List *Includes Sales Tax Archer Construction Inc. 7855 S. 206th St. 1 Kent x x x x x x $673,832.00 WA 98032-1354 Wade Archer Hoffman Construction, Inc. PO Box 845 2 Enumclaw x x x x x x $717,420.60 WA 98022 Brad Hoffman Laser Underground& Earthworks 20417 87th Ave.SE 3 Snohomish x x x x x x $794,508.00 WA 98296 Bret Lane Olson Bros. Excavating, Inc. 6622-112th St. East , 4 Puyallup x x x x x x $649,550.00 WA 98373 Steve Olson Engineer's Estimate $690,000-$860,000 ' CITY OF RENTON 2 of 3 � BID TABULATION SHEET Project:Sunset Terrace Regional Stormwater Facility Project CAG-15-032 Date:03/24/15 FORMS Bid Total from M/W Bidder Proposal Bid L&I Rcpt. Bus. Subs Schedule of Prices &Trpl. Form Bond Cert Add. Subs. List *Includes Sales Tax Pivetta Brothers Const. Inc. PO Box 370 5 Sumner x x x x x x $733,680.67 WA 98390 Mark Pivetta R.L.Alia Company 107 Williams Ave.5 6 Renton x x x x x x $797,810.00 WA 98057 Richard L. Alia Rodarte Construction Inc. 17 E.Valley Hwy. East Auburn x x x x x x $655,251.00 7 WA 98092 Frank C. Rodarte Jr. Stafford Excavating LLC PO Box 545 Enumclaw x x x x x x $691,500.00 8 WA 98022 Aaron Stafford Engineer's Estimate $690,000-$860,000 s CITY OF RENTON 3 of 3 BID TABULATION SHEET Project:Sunset Terrace Regional Stormwater Facility Project CAG-15-032 Date:03/24/15 FORMS Bid Total from M/W Bidder Proposal Bid L&I Rcpt. Bus. Subs Schedule of Prices &Trpl. Form Bond Cert Add. Subs. List *Includes Sales Tax Thomco Const. Inc. 13600 44th St. NE Lake Stevens x x x x x x 797,885.93 9 WA 980258 David Thomas TITAN Earthwork, LLC 13806 16th St. E Sumner x x x x x x 734,982.96 10 WA 98390 Steve Greiling 11 12 Engineer's Estimate $690,000-$860,000 I CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL lp • �. Subject/Title: Meeting: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Final Decision upon REGULAR COUNCIL-06 Apr 2015 Reconsideration dated 2/26/2015 regarding the Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat. (File No. LUA-13-001572) Exhibits: Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board: (See Summary for List of Exhibits) City Clerk Staff Contact: Jason Seth, City Clerk(x6502) Recommended Action: Refer to Planning and Development Committee. Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required: $ N/A Transfer Amendment: $ N/A Amount Budgeted: $ N/A Revenue Generated: $ N/A Total Project Budget: $ N/A City Share Total Project: $ N/A SUMMARY OF ACTION: Appeal of the Hearing Examiners Final Decision upon Reconsideration on the Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat was filed on 3/12/2015 by Renate Beedon, President of Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group, accompanied by the required $250.00 fee. EXH I BITS: A. Response Letters (Supporting & Denying) (3/27/2015 - 3/30/2015) B. City Clerk's letter(3/20/2015) C. Appeal—TPWAG (3/12/2015) D. HEX's Final Decision upon Reconsideration (2/27/2015) E. HEX's Order on Request for Reconsideration II (1/29/2015) F. Revised &Amended Request for Reconsideration—TPWAG (1/28/2015) G. HEX's Order on Request for Reconsideration (1/22/2015j H. Request for Reconsideration—CH& (1/22/2015) I. Request for Reconsideration—TPWAG (1/21/2015) J. HEX's Final Decision (1/7/2015) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Take action on the Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat appeal. � t , c n�a���r�To�v � ' t��`�`_ , MAR 3 0 2015 �- 3112 SE 18�`Street Renton,Washington 98058 C17Y C ERK'S OFFICE March 30,2015 �'asan Seth,City Clerk Renton Gity Council's Planning and Development Committee 1055 South Grady Way Renton,Washington 98057 Subject: Tiffany Park Woocis Development Renton City Council's Planning and Development Committee, There are several issues that I request your perrnission ta briefly bring to your attention with supporting information and/or phatographs. I will be prepared, with xnformation, to discuss any af the follawing issues. 1)SE 16�'Street accident records. 2)Congested hairpin turn as the water tower. 3)A.rea schoot capacity. 4}Friendliness and apenness of neighbarhoocis. 5)Isalation of heritage neighborhood homes. 6)Development buffers. 7)Loss of property values to heritage hameowners. 8)Dense housin8- 9)Children need to in contact with nature. 10)Nei,ghborhood residents denieci the apportunity ta gather information for hearings. 11)Requested Environmental Studies. 12)Money emphasis 13)City oversight of builders. I4}Neighborhood disruptions by multi million doliar internationat corparations. 1 �-._ .-._.�- -.- - - - - -- - -- - -- -. -. � l � ' , 15)Lacal government s duty to represent the citizens who pay their salaries. 16)Advice to TPWAG to limit issues. Sincerely, �� � Williaun L. Roenicke 425-271-7785 risingr@integity.com ' 2 I i Date: Mon, Mar 30, 2015 To: City Council . City of Renton CrrY oF RFMroN 1055 Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 MAR 3 D 2015 �� RECEIVED �"•ti� From: TifFany Park Woods Advocacy Group mailto:renton-opposites�a comcast.net C�TYCLERK'S OFfi�CE 1725 Pierce Avenue SE Renton, WA 9805$ Subject: Reserve at Tiffany Park PP - Hearing Examiner Decision (LUA13-001572) Comments Supporting Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision to City Council Dear Sir or Madam: This letter constitutes Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group's Comments Supporting the Notice of Appeal to the City Council of the Final Decision Upon Reconsideration dated February 26, 2015 pursuant to RMC 4-8-080 and RMC 4-8-110(F)(3). Framework for Citv Council Dectsion What makes this appeal interesting is that the City of Renton used the alternative threshold determination process commonly referred to as the "mitigated determination of non-significance"set forth in WAC 197-11- 350. With a MDNS, promulgation of a formal EIS is not required. An applicant may clarify or change a proposal by revising the environmental checklist and permit application so that a MDNS can be issued for the revised project. WAC 197-11-350(2). Alternatively,the municipality may specify rnitigation measures and issue a MDNS only if the proposal is changed to incorporate those measures. WAC 197-11-350(3j. Nonetheless, WAC 197-11-350(2)clearly emphasizes: "If a proposal continues to have a probable stgnificar�t environmental tmpact,even with mitigatlon measures,an EIS shall be prepared." Courts review a decision to issue a MDNS under the "clearly erroneous"standard.A finding is clearly erroneous when,although there is evidence to support it,the reviewing court on the record is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Norway Hill Preservation& Protection Association v. King County Council, 87 Wn.2d 267, 274,552 P.2d 674(1976). For the MDNS to survive judicial scrutiny,the record must demonstrate that"environmental factors were adequately considered in a manner sufficient to establish prima facie compliance with SEPA,and that the decision to issue a MDNS was based on information sufficient to evaluate the proposal's environmental impact. Sisley v. San Juan County, 89 Wn.2d 78, 82-83,569 P.Zd 712 (1977). In essence,what SEPA requires is that the presently unquantified environmental amenities and values will be given appropriate consideration in decision making along with economic and technical considerations. It is an attempt by the people to shape their future environment by deliberation, not default.Norway Hill at 272. In order to achieve this goal, it is important that an environmental impact statement be prepared in all appropriate cases. TPWAG Comments Supporting Notice of Appeal to City CounCil Page 1 of 4 In a nutshell,this MDNS process is a mixed hybrid of both procedural and substantive SEPA because the threshold deterrnination of the DNS(procedural component)is contingent upon the determination that mitigation measures(the substantive component)can alleviate any adverse environmental impacts. Professor William Rodgers,an eminent scholar at the Universfty of Washington,emphasizes that the issue of a rnitigated DNS has been hotly debated: "1Nhat this proceu approves is a kind of backroom bargaining outside of the normal glare of EIS procedures...As a result,the process should remain under sharp scrutiny."The SEPA rules provide that if a proposal continues to have a probable significant environmental impact after mitigation measures have been applied, an environmental impact statement shall be prepared.This touchstone of the SEPA review process was designed to provide some protection from abuse: "If a MDNS is issued and an appealing party proves that the project will stil) produce significant adverse environmental impacts,then the MDNS decision must be held to be"clearly erroneous"and an EIS must be promulgated." Anderson v. Pierce County, 86 Wn.App.290(Wn.App. Div. 21997). Review of Record Leaves Defin(te and F(rm Conviction that Mistake Committed What makes this appeal unique is that the ful�scope of mitigation measures were not speci�ed and determined until the Hearing Examiner issued the Final Decision Upon Reconsideration dated February 26, 2015. The gist of TPWAG's appeal to the City Council is that the hearing examiner's decision provides inadequate mitigation for the impacts on the environment and on the surrounding community of Applicant's proposed development to support a MDNS determination under SEPA. Consequently the preliminary plat application should be denied and an environmental impact statement must be prepared. The record clear{y reflects: 1. TPWAG was denied access to the property and denied a fair opportunity to perform our own wetland assessment on the property. The City and Applicant's wetland assessment understates the extent of wetlands on the site.The hearing examiner's decision fails to fully evaluate the significant adverse impacts on the environment resulting from the wetlands. Instead the decision improperly defers consideration of these issues to the construction permit stage where the public has little or no input. 2. The hearing examiner's decision recognizes that there is uncertainty as to whether the project site is free from hazardous waste, but does not adequately address the probable adverse impact on the ' environment resulting there from. 3. The hearing examiner's decision fails to adequately address the substantial adverse impacts resulting from the proposed storm drainage system for the site, including the detention vault, roof runoff and downstream impacts. Instead the decision improperly defers consideration of these issues to the construction perrnit stage where the public has little or no input. 4. Although the hearing examiner's decision recognizes that there is a substantial probable adverse impact resulting from the extensive use of structural retaining walls on the project,the hearing examiner's decision fails to fully and adequately address the adverse impacts resulting from this extensive use of an intricate network of rockeries, modular block retaining walls, lock and load retaining walls, and extensive grading operations and provides inadequate mitigation for the impacts on the environment and the community. Instead the decision improperly defers TPWAG Comments Supporting Notice of Appeal to City COunCil Page 2 Of 4 � consideration of these issues to the construction permit stage where the public has little or no input. 5. The hearing examiner's decision fails to adequately address the t�affic impacts directly related to ingress and egress for the site, including but not limited to the impact of converting SE 18th Street and 124th Place SE from quiet Cul-De-Sacs into arterials and the reduction in property values resulting there from. As a result,additional traffic studies should be performed to investigate and revise access routes to the project. 6. The hearing examiner's decision requires Applicant to submit additional documentation to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval, including an updated geotechnical report, revised preliminary plat and landscaping plan, revised wetland mitigation plan, final mitigation plan for retaining walls and phase one environmental site assessment. All of this documentation should have been prepared and should be prepared prior to preliminary pfat approval.Otherwise the public will have little or no input on these issues. The City Council's review of the record should lead to the definite and firm conviction that it would be a mistake to rubber stamp this preliminary plat. The extensive mitigation measures outlined in the hearing examiner's decision, and discussed above, are a reliable indicator of major action with significant environmental effects.The mitigation measures do not reduce all significant adverse environmental impacts below the threshold level of significance, but merely postpone their evaluation to the construction permit stage. Consequently the City Council should deny the preliminary plat application and require an environmental impact statement. �onclusien The members of TPWAG are proud that we have persevered in the face of considerable adversity at the consolidated SEPA/preliminary plat hearing. Given that the deck was stacked so highly against TPWAG and in favor of the Applicant, it is remarkable that we were abte to prevail with the hearing examiner so that the Applicant was required to provide the plethora of additional documentation to the city prior to construction permit approval. Most of these issues were simply glossed over o�ignored by the Environmental Review Committee's threshold determination and were not included as mitigation measures. Rather than providing reasonable mitigation of adverse environmental impacts, all of this additional documentation is tantamount to a reliable indicator of and suggests significant environmental impacts. Once the Applicant provides this additional documentation,we are confident that it will reveal a wide array of marginal impacts that are very important to the neighbors and together result in a significant impact. TPWAG initially organized to advocate for the preservation of the character of the woods at Tiffany Park as a unique and mature forest in an urban area, habitat for wildlife and sanctuary where community residents hike or simply find peace in the middle of the city. Over time it became apparent that the Applicant provided insufFicient and inadequate information to truly understand the massive scope of the proposal and its detrimental impact on the environment.We now have the definite and firm conviction that it was a mistake to excuse an EIS which should give detailed consideration to the alternative possibilities that Applicant's preliminary plat is proportionally and aesthetically out of touch and not compatible with the neighborhood; that existing streets are inadequate to safely handle ingress and egress for the site;that"backroom bargaining" understated and minimized the wetland requirements for the site;that untawful discharges to the wetlands may destroy the wetlands or cause flooding downstream;that the geotechnical information for the site may be inadequate to understand the risks associated with the massive grading operation,the extensive TPWAG Comments Supporting Notice of Appeal to City CounCil Page 3 of 4 excavation necessary for the drainage vault,or the construction of an extensive and intricate network of retaining walls;and that the proposed storm water system may exacerbate downstream storm water capacity issues that the City already considers an environmental nuisance. This proposal continues to have a probable significant environmental impact,even with mitigation measures, so it is important that an environmental impact statement be prepared For all of these reasons, we strongly urge the City Council to deny the preliminary plat application and require an environmental impact statement. Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group 1 CXtiI� �� RENATE BEEDON President TPWAG Comments Supporting Notice of Appeal to City CounCit Page 4 of 4 �— C11Y OF RENTQN To: MAR 3 0 2015 �$pD o� City Council RECEIVED � cirY c�Rics o��c� City of Renton 1055 Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Subject: Reserve at Tiffany Park PP- Hearing Examiner Decision (LUA13- 001572) Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision to City Council Dear Council members: We would like to add our support to the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group' s Notice of Appeal to the City Council of the Final Decision Upon Reconsideration dated February 26, 2015. The cutting of the woods, grading of the land, building of roads, utilities and residences may have a negative impact on wildlife, the environment, property values, neighbors and the citizens of Renton. Here are our comments based on some of the points made in the Appeal (Item numbers from the Appeal): Item 3: "TPWAG was denied access to the property and denied a fair opportunity to perform our own wetland assessment on the property." In a fair and open process there should be nothing to lose by having a second study of the wetlands done to ensure they are properly protected. Item 4: "The hearing examiner's decision recognizes that there is uncertainty as to whether the project site is free from hazardous waste". Shouldn't that be one of the first things established before allowing homes and yards to be built there? And if the developer has information about this that they refuse to divulge, then that definitely casts doubt on the safety of the site. Item 5: "The hearing examiner's decision fails to adequately address the substantial adverse impacts resulting from the proposed storm drainage system for the site." Is this supposed to be resolved before approval? Will leaving it to the construction permit stage allow the developer too much leeway and result in a poor outcome? Item 6: "The hearing examiner's decision recognizes that there is a substantial probable adverse impact resulting from the extensive use of structural retaining walls on the project." This is yet one more thing that should be addressed before approval of the project. The style, height and nature of these walis will make a big difference in how this project affects the surrounding neighbors. Is it standard procedure to delay the definition and review of these features, or is it just a way for the developer to avoid providing mitigations? Item 7: "The hearing examiner's decision fails to adequately address the traffic impacts directly related to ingress and eg�ess for the site." If you look at the two proposed entry points, they are both situated such that it will be a huge impact on the people living on those roads. The SE 1 S"' Street entrance in particular will be very congested, especially during construction, as it was not designed to be an arterial. « � Item 8: The hearing examiner s decision requires Applicant to submit additional documentation to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval" Is there any reason not to require it before preliminary plat approval? Why not have all the information possible before making that decision? Item 10: "An environmental statement is required by the weight of the evidence." And by the reluctance of the developer to provide all they know about the possibility of hazardous waste on the property. And by their refusal to allow a second wetlands study. It would be proper to know the environmental impact of development on 21 acres of 79 year old woods before giving approval. In short, we expect our public representatives to do everything they can to make sure this site is developed in a responsible way, with an open, thorough process that results in all stakeholders' concerns addressed before the final decisions are made. Thank you. Doug, Elizabeth and Michael Frisch 1717 Pierce Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 425-228-2346 CITY OF RENTON To: City Council City of Renton MAR 3 0 2015 1055 Grady Way RECEIVED Renton,WA 98057 CfTYCLERK'SOFFICE From: Robin Jones 3624 SE 19`h CT Renton, WA 98058 Subject: Reserve at Tiffany Park PP - Hearing Examiner Decision (LUA13-OQ1572) Comments Supporting Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision to City Council Members of the City CounciL• ' In addition to earlie�comments that I have submitted,this letter reflects an expansion ' on my earlier appeal comments to the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner is required to follow a process and apply the different information presented to him against the Renton Municipal Code to ensure compliance,which he has sought-to do. What he is not always capable of doing is considering unique, intangib(e factors,which is why the process allows for an appeal to the City Councit; hence this letter. I believe the Renton City Council should relook the land decisions made to date for the following unique circumstances. 1. The land use process that has been used to date has not be able to account for the unique nature of this land pa�cel;the length of time that it has been lying unused and the maturity of the surrounding community.This is a unique block of land that has been pristine for roughly 35 year,surrounded by homeowners who have a well-faunded expectation that their property would border a green belt. I woutd ask for the Council Members to factor this longevity consideration and owner expectations in a re- examination of the current land decision. � 2. The land use process that has been used to date has been unable to account for the intangible impact on the community and quality of life concerns that this development action would have. As the representative's for the citizens for this area the Council Members are in the best position to voice these intangible but highly critical concerns. The citizens impacted by this decision have significant worries around school enrollments, decreasing house prices, loss of recreational areas, a declining quality of life and loss of community cohesion. I would ask for the Council Member as our political representatives to assess the current land decision to ensure that our concerns in these areas have been addressed. 3. The Land use decision today has not accounted for the ongoing legal action against the Renton School Board around the land action process. This legal action, challenges the Renton School Board's assertion that entering into a single source binding cont�act prior to engaging with the general public does not meet the intent of the State Law. This legal action is currently active and in the discovery phase. I would ask the Council Member take into consideration that there is a strong possibility that this land action has not followed the legal process as dictated by Washington State Law. � f I nd I would asked the Council Members to Based on these three uni ue factors of this area o a 4 re-examine the current land decisions and re-shape the current decision to reflect this unique concerns raised above. Sincerely Robin Jones � _ Gl7YYl�F REAITON a�aR 2 fi zoa� RECENE[3 270x S E 16th Street ���lERK'S pF��E Rertton, Wa�hing#on 98058 March 24, 2015 Jason Seth, City Clerk Mayor Dennis �aw, and the Rentan City Councii 1055 5outh Grady Way Renton, Washington 98�57 Re: Tra�c Safety SE 16t" �treet, Tiffany Park Woods Development Mayor Dennis �aw, and the Renton City Council, t am a resident of Ren#on, having lived at the above address far 10 years. During that time there have been many automobile accidents on the streets, and street comer, which border my hame, property. Yes, and many accidents in the last five years. The police have been at some of the accidents. Many times the driver is able to drive off before the police arnve. My property has been damaged many times. i have not been compensated for the damage to my property. Fartunately no chiidren in my family have been injured by one of these accidents. I have asked for help from the city to make the street safer, but my requests have always been ignored. I wauid like to come and explain this problem to the Gity Council asking for help to make this street safer. To repeat, there have been many accidents on this street in the past five years, some with police attendance. Sincerely, �...._---�G���� -> Ruka Khazehie � � CITY OF RENTON � MAR 2 7 2015 ,i .�Z;c�9a ! RECEIVED I , ,, y ---��. F._,.-. - -----� --.._.._._ _ ._ .. . ._� _ . ._ .. . ._ - _ ._ _ ... .._. . .. . _.. . ._.. . CI�Y-�IEFiK'S,AF�F{Cf•-W�-.. �� KCV�n! �RO S� .___.-----_..__._-__---� _..__. �__ _.�.... ---- -_... __.....-�-�--- . ..,.._.�_-- ---�---- ---_...._�. ..�.__- -�------ ---� -- ---.- -.__. ------- .� � . _ 'L70 9 S.� l��. �tf�et ..---------_--_-._--..._��_ .--.------ --.--..__.. ._. .._ . ._._.__ _. _. _. ._._._ . ___- - -- R.4�a.t' �,NA� 9 . ..__ __. . _ .___..__..._ ----�--- -- -- - -- � - -�--- - - - - -.--.. . _ . ._._. ._ . . __. _ . .. _...__ . . _.. - - -�-- � i� -___. ..----.._ _ - , - -- -�- - - --�---...___ .._ _. _ _. F _._ ....._..- �-- -�- -�-�--- -------. -. . ..__... ._._..T---..._ . __.._. __ _.�. . .. . ._. �aQL:�(27 Z06 ._ -- - -.. _ .------ . . _ _ __ __ -- -- t43�+�N ���T�1��.N_CL�tz.K. -- - - .. . . . . _ .__ ._ . .. - - --- .._. .._._ .. . _ , ,+ ------_. . _ . ..?;�c�!C�, _�1N1��_.��r�7. ��. �.,�rrU� C.i�v ca�uucr.�. ......_ . .. . _ _.� ._ � i s 1�S S So Uth G ra�� t� -�--__..... ._.. _ .......�,...�,._._.._. _ __ _.__._.__�._ .______.. _. . __.�- -- - _ _ . . - _ -- . .--._--- ;: ._ ..._.i�R41'�(�!N INI�� 9�09 . ..---__ _..__ t._. ._._ .._._. .._._,..___.____ ._..._ _._------ --- - . - -- -. __..__..._._ ___.__ _�. '�� ._..._.. _ . _-- -------- -, -- -- . _.__.. --------�______.__. .__._ . . .�__----_ __._-- -. ---- --. - - - _. _ _ _ _ .. ._ _.r._.__..___.._w__. :; AFFIC S�F�.TV S� 16[�, Stirc� __�.__._._______ __._._..---- --�.__.._. .--- ---- --_ _. ._.- --__ ._._--- - --- --- _ _-------.---.._ ._._ .._._ ; - - ----- � � �- � --------- - - - -�- -- --- - ---- - --- .__ .. ._ .. -- _q.�.___._. -.- ---_t___�.__.---.-w___..-_--- ---._�_�___._ _ _--_----- ; I��A�- M�AV C�II.. D f 1�! N 1�� taw �n� �,c R�rro u c «v cou n�.t t� _.___.---- - - ----._� . _ ---.______._ __ . . __._ .. _._ .. _._.___.---_.__.��._ _--_-----_.. ._. _.. ..___ ___._-------___�_ .._ , ___.__ I_��_.��a___�����_��._���__�iTv_ .oF . _... _ _____�___ _ _________ _��.___ . __.__._-----.-- -�__R<<JUTU�1_. --i41vL7.--H AV� .l.[U��_�N,-- S�� . _(6za�. 5 CY�ter '� StNC�._ 1987, _...._�.__ ________�,� _.._ ._... --- - -_ _..._._____.___ __..... -.--�._..._....___.---------,---- . -- -_. ..__..._______._.�___----._.__. .__..__ '� � W OUI� U K�. TO COI'c� g��R.�. TI��. COU�!C 1 L F�t7� _..___..___ _. ___________-- __�_�. _� . �_._--.-- .___._. �__. _.------ -----__--.______._._.__._.____ . - � � _�_------ --- �- --_._.�...�1S.L�►S�_.�n l5 I SS U,�.�.-----� -------._ _--- __.._._..._---- �- � - -�-- --- ---�-.--- ---- ;� _ _ _.______ - --- ---- ��..-� _�1C�?._.. AL50 u��_"To _ B� A P�zr� o�- R�co�zZ�, ° M V �(YlA 1..L___a 017rZ� S__�;----_. --.---.---- _ _... ____..__--. - --. _.__._.._. - -_ __�__---- - ---------f�----------- :, i� .--_---._._.__._._.._.�1.� aLL S MA Ll, L�LZ� ----_______._�.__,. - --._._ .._.__ _.__.. ----_�_�..___---------.- ; _ k p-v I.rl ��5�.._ � �S S 0�.[ ..�.��2�_�SA..1n_- ---_--__ .___� .__.. _�-_---�--�------ .----- ---___---- _------.-- ---.- __ -_ -r�..�N� Y.�_-- ________. __.. --__.._----_._�._ ,�.� ..______..__ __. - --_..��----. _._..__ ___.___ ____� _.CL. d�.�_.__-------_ _ ... -- __�.________. ;�. .____________._.___.___,___..__---_ _.._-----.--.- .. .._ _._ ... _--�_.__ _.-- _....�._,.._..�.._..�-----:��'r-� � U�loUtD �LSU..._�__PPI'LC,t,�,.LL._�___�Ll�_..41�TdL��__..______ __ _._.__ __.�� My IciQIY� � � DO t�L hFi�J� �,OM� �... :! � n��ner a cc:� � D� �(10'C f�'S�ZD �L'1N1C1)/ m C�t1�1(.5.. . i , ., ---� Cynthia Maya � From: lason Seth Sent• Friday, March 27, 2025 10:58 AM Ta: . Cynthia Moya Subject: FW�Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision Reserve at Tiffany Park tUAl3-002572 CI7Y OF RENTQN Letter supporting the Reserve at Tiffany Park appeal. -aason MAR 2 7 20i5 Jason Seth, CMC REGENED City Clerk GI'IYCIERK'30FF4CE iseth arenton�va.�ov 425-43Q-6502 From: Craig &]ill Janes [mailtO;Cajones52�dcamcast.nek] Sen#: Friday, March 27, 2015 9:22 AM To: Jason Seth Subject; Appeat af Nearing Examiner Decision Reseroe at Tiffany Park I.UAl3-001572 Ta: Renton City Council Planning and Develapment Committee c/o 3ason Seth,City Clerk As pa�ties of inlerest we are writing to register our support of the appeal by the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Graup(TPWAG)of Hearing Examiner's Decision regarding the p�oposed development, Aeserve at Tiffany Park(LUA13-001572). We agree wiEh the ten points rnade by TPWAG that the adverse impacts of this development have not been adequatety studied ar addressed. ft is unusual for such a futly-canopied parcel of torest ta be availabie for development within trie city limi#s."ihe proposed development of this iract for 97 homes is problematic in several ways. •the parcet ties at the heart oi a lang-developed community •it contains severaf wetiands ihat require protectian •has limited road access •is directly upslope from a city park •is a block away from an etementary schoal. The issue af starm water runoff and drainage should be of paRicular concern to the city.As previously testified,the Tiffany Park neighborhoad already has wa#er drainage issues during and after heavy rains.The city park,Tiffany Park,is at the towest paint of the entire neighbofiood and sits on top of Ginger Creek,which was culverted when the park was buift.Du�ing the rainy season the parlc's wooded patch becomes a small pand and the playground and playing field become saturated and unusable.Along the curb af Lake Youngs Way near the baseball diamond a puddle often extends weli aut into the street,sometimes with a fooqarint as big as a house. The propased development will remove a thousand mature trees and forest duft,which absarb rain,and replace them with pavernent and rooftop to an e�ent far greater than the surrounding neighborhood.The developer proposes a water retention vault directly behind and upslope of exisfing houses and abaut i 50 yards away and upslope from the parlc. If the vault leaks or proves inedequate,flaoding coufd impact thase homes and the city's parlc. We urge the city cauncil to seriously consider the TPWAG appeal and the concerns of the people of the Re�ton neighborhoad who will bear the burden of this developrnen#. Thank you. Jill Jones Derek Jones Kyleigh Jones 1413 Newport Ct. SE Renton,W A 98058 1 CiTY OF RENTON MAR 2 7 2015 Jason A.Seth,CMC City C1erk RECEIVED City of Renton CITY CLERlCS OFFICE 1055 South G rady Way � ,C�!J''� Renton,WA 98057 ��� ��.V Re:Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated February 26,2015,regarding Reserve at Tiffany Park PP.(Flle No. LUA-13-001572 ECF,PP,CAE) Dear Mr.Seth, I am writing in support of the appeal�led March 11,2015 by Renate Beedon,the designated representative of the Tiffany Park Woods Advocaty Group(TPWAG).I am a party of record,because 1 gave oral comments at a meeting held at Tiffany Park Elementary,and submitted written comments to City Staff at that meeting. I do not live adjacent to the Tiffany Park Woods. But t know enough about it ' to have an informed opinion. The errors of fact or(aw presented in the TPWAG appeal letter seem true to me.The written record as I have seen in letters mailed from City Staff indicates to me that the hearing examiner gave the developer instructions on doing many things that they should have done prior in the process.Now the developer can do it the back door way by having only the project manager watching what they're doing,and the ' ublic ets no in ut.As on f p g p e o several examples,the hearmg exammer reqwres the applicant to submit extensive additional documentation to the project manager before construction permit approval. But all of this shoutd have been prepared prior to preliminary plat approval.Overall,the written record indicates to me that the process has been unfairly allowed to go forward,basically no matter what.To me,this has the appearance of a pre-determined outcome,with the public interest not seriously considered. I request City Council,in consideration of the written record previously established,including the facts ' presented in the appeal letter,please stop this runaway process,and find a better alternative use for the unique and beautiful Tiffany Park Woods than the current development plan which is not in the best interests of current and future residents of the City of Renton. Sincerely, ,�� ,�E'�- Daniel Goldman 1608 Glenwood Ave SE Renton,WA 98058 425-271-6058 � CITY OF RENTON ' '`f-`,' I _ MAR 2 7 2015 L��,� --� .-_. -- -_. . � . - RECEIVED sza z�d A�e S�.te soo �'r,�=�oh sa'o-cc CITY CLERK'S OFFICE je�:�e VJG o31Q4 'a�2i h 5?-�3C9 ..�,rai-+c tis:�m March 27, 2015 Mayor Law& City Councilmembers City of Renton 1055 Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Re: Letter Supporting Denial of TPWAG Appeal The Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat City File No. LUA13-001572 Dear Mayor Law and Councilmembers: This firm represents Henley USA, LLC ("Henley"), the contract purchaser for the property and applicant for The Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat(the "Preliminary Plaf'). By this letter, Henley asks the Council to deny the appeal filed by the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group ("TP WAG"). This letter is submitted in conjunction with Henley's Motion to Dismiss TPWAG's appeal of the Renton Hearing Examiner's decision denying TPWAG's first appeal under the State Environmental Policy Act("SEPA")as an improper second appeal of the SEPA threshold Determination of Non- Significance("DNS-M"). Should the Council deny the Motion to Dismiss, Henley requests the Council affirm the Hearing Examiner's decision because the Preliminary Plat is in full compliance with the governing regulations and approval of the Preliminary Plat was proper. Pursuant to RMC 4-8-110(F)(5) and(8),TPWAG has the burden of proving that"a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record."Absent such proof, the Council must affirm the Examiner's decision. TPWAG's appeal fails to raise any errors of fact or law, and its request for the extreme relief of overtuming the findings and conc(usions of expert City Staff and the Hearing Examiner should be denied.The Council should affirm the Hearing Examiner's decision. TPWAG Assertions Nos. 1 & 2: TPWAG's first two assertions fail to raise any error of fact or law capable of review. TPWAG instead makes broad generalized statements that the Hearing Examiner's decision is insufficient to support the DNS-M and the Council should require additional mitigation. The record before the Examiner confirms,as the Examiner ruled,that the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision to approve the Preliminary Plat with the DNS-M is adequately supported by the numerous studies provided and expert conclusions reached during the application process and the hearing before the Examiner. Nothing in TPWAG's Assertions in paragraphs 1 and 2 warrant reversal of the Examiner's Decision. nroQers(al carrncross.com direct(106)25�-44/7 (02773006.DOCX:S} Mayor Law& City Councilmembers March 27,2015 Page 2 TPWAG Assertion No: 3: � TPWAG next asserts that the wetlands delineation was done incorrectly, the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision did not fully evaluate the adverse environmental impacts on wetlands, and it improperly deferred these issues to the construction permit stage. All of these arguments are unfounded. A thorough review of the environmental impacts of the Preliminary Plat on wetlands was conducted and numerous experts, including a third-party review by the City,concurred that an EIS was unnecessary because no probable adverse impacts were likely. TPWAG argues as a basis for its appeal that it was denied a fair opportunity to perform a wetlands assessment of the property. A fundamental tenet of property law-is that there is no public right of access to private property. TPWAG therefore had no right to access, and the School District had no duty to provide TPWAG, or the general public,access to this private property for the purpose of environmental investigation. There were extensive studies of the environmentaI impacts on wetlands and numerous experts confirmed that no Environmental Impact Statement("EIS")was required because no probable significant adverse environmental impacts would occur. In October 2013, Henley submitted a Wetland Determination study and in February 2014,to account for revisions to the plat, Henley submitted a revised Wetland Determination, both of which were performed by C. Gary Schulz, Inc. At the request of the City of Renton,these studies were then reviewed by an independent third-party consultant, Otak. Upon receipt of the recommendations from the Otak study, Henley again submitted a Revised Wetland Determination and Response in June 2014 and a further response in July 2014. The Hearing Examiner reviewed all of these studies in reaching his Final Decision approving the Preliminary Plat and specifically held that"[gJiven the extensive review of wetland impacts, staf�s review and approval of wetland mitigation, and the applicant's compliance with all applicable wetland regulations, it is concluded that the proposal will not create any adverse impacts to wetlands." Final Decision upon Reconsideration,pg. 19. In fact,the project does more than simply avoid adverse impacts to the wetlands. As the Examiner noted, "[t]he applicant's wildlife expert, Racheal Villa of Soundview Consultants testified that the formalized protection of the wetlands and buffers on site would result in an improvement in habitat conditions for both pileated woodpeckers and Townsend's bats over the present situation due to the fairly degraded condition of the habitat at present."Final Decision upon Reconsideration,pg. 13. Thus, the evaluation of environmental impacts on wetlands and the wetlands delineation are the product of several iterations of expert review and recommendations,and revisions of the Preliminary Plat by Henley to meet these recommendations. This process culminated in an informed and proper decision by the Hearing Examiner approving the Preliminary Plat. The only matters deferred to the time of construction permitting are matters of engineered design that can only be addressed at the time construction permits are processed by the City. (02773QO6.DOCX:S } � Mayor Law& City Councilmembers March 27, 2015 Page 3 TPWAG Assertion No. 4: TPWAG's fourth asserted error alleges that there is uncertainty as to whether the project site is free of hazardous waste. This argument stems from the belief that the property was once subject to two easements in favor of the Department of Defense and therefore it is possible the property was exposed to hazardous substances. TPWAG's allegations relate to sections 3 and 4 of a recorded 1957 summazy of five different even older grants, conveyances, and easements. At most, TPWAG's allegations establish that there was a grant of an easement to the Defense Plant Corporation in 1944 across a 14 foot strip of land somewhere in this area, that may or may not include a portion of the land within the plat. TPWAG's al(egations are purely speculative as to the presence of hazardous material. TPWAG has provided no evidence of the existence of hazardous materials on the property. As highlighted by the Hearing Examiner, TPWAG was"unable to demonstrate evidence of any overt signs of contamination visible on the site that might justify overturning the substantial weight due the SEPA official's determination that the project site does not contain any hazardous waste necessitating further environmental review." Final Decision upon Reconsideration, pg. 12. TPWAG's bald specu(ation about possible hazardous waste on the site fails to carry its burden of rp oving that"a substantial enor in fact or law exists in the record."RMC 4-8-110(F)(5). The Council should deny TPWAG's appeal and affirm the Preliminary Plat approval. TPWAG Assertion No. 5: TPWAG also asserts that the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision inadequately addresses adverse impacts resulting from the proposed storm drainage system and demands more precise and exhaustive mitigation conditions at this ear(y stage. Again,these arguments are misguided, as the Hearing Examiner based his approval of the Preliminary Piat on a thorough analysis of more than adequate studies and technical plans to address storm drainage and TPWAG did not present any evidence to the contrary. The Hearing Examiner specifically noted that TPWAG's strategy of making vague accusations that studies and plans are generally inadequate, without providing any support for its claim, is insufficient to overcome the surplus of evidence Henley provided demonstrating compliance with all applicable regulations. Specifically, the Hearing Examiner stated TPWAG has"not identified any deficiencies in these [stormwater runoff] calculations or the regulations that require them."Ruling on Reconsideration, pg. 6. Further,the Examiner noted, "(TPWAG has] not specifically identified how any part of the proposed system would fail to comply with stormwater regulations as they apply to roof runoff and its interaction with wetlands. Under these circumstances it would be appropriate to assign remaining compliance issues to engineering stage final plat review,as contemplated in the City's subdivision review regulations."� Ruling on Reconsideration, pg. 6. The Code does not require exhaustive final �See also Final Decision upon Reconsideration,pg. 18-19(noting the City had"reasonably su�cient information at this stage of review to evaluate downstream impacts"and"[s]ince the proposed stormwater discharge is consistent with all applicable regulations,is a standard practice for development and also meets the approval of staff,it is determined that the proposed discharge to wetlands will not create any probable significant adverse environmentat impacts.") {02773006 DOCX;S } Mayor Law& City Councilmembers I March 27, 2015 ', Page 4 , plans at this preliminary plat application step, but instead provides a logicai and reasonable multistep process by which supplementary materials are added to appropriately fine tune the project as needed. Granting TPWAG's appeal and requiring Henley to submit extremely detailed plans that are required at later stages would be contrazy to law. The Council should instead affirm the Hearing Examiner's Decision because the Preliminary Plat complies with the City's development regulations and � environmental review procedures. TPWAG has established no error of fact or law in the record that would support reversal of the Examiner's Decision. TPWAG Assertion No. 6: The Council also should reject TPWAG's argument that the Hearing Examiner failed to adequately mitigate the probable adverse impacts of structural retaining walls. The Hearing Examiner found that retaining walis greater than four feet in height that are visible off-site have a significant adverse aesthetic impact. But the Examiner also expressly concluded that"[t)he aesthetic impacts of the retaining walls can be fully mitigated by the by a [sic] ten foot perimeter landscaping strip." Final Decision,pg. 10. The Examiner concluded that the ten-foot buffer requirement for visible retaining walls"will prevent the retaining walls from creating probable significant adverse environmental impacts."Final Decision, pg. 11. Again,the Hearing Examiner's careful analysis and thoughtful Decision should not be disturbed in the face of the bare allegations presented by TPWAG. TPWAG has failed to establish an error of fact or law to support reversal. The Council should reject TPWAG's appeal and affirm the Hearing Examiner's approval of the Preliminary Plat. TPWAG Assertion No. 7: TPWAG's last argument asserts that the Hearing Examiner failed to adequately address the , , project s traffic impacts. TPWAG s argument lacks any support in the record,as the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision was based on extensive traffic studies submitted by Henley and an independent consultant, and these studies concluded that the impacts on traffic were either within the acce tabl 1 vels ervi e r i i p e e of s c o sufficiently m t gated by the required DNS-M conditions. The Hearing Examiner reviewed the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by TranspoGroup and the Independent Secondary Review requested by the City and prepared by Perteet,the City's third-party transportation reviewer. These studies fully captured any adverse traffic impacts resulting from the project and TPWAG again failed to present any evidence to the contrary. TPWAG also asserts that there will be significant adverse impacts from the conversion of SE �gcn Street and 124`�Place SE from cul-de-sacs to"arterials." In fact,these residential roadways will remain residential roadways. No such conversion of these roads into arterials is contemplated by the Preliminary Plat and, as noted by the Hearing Examiner,TPWAG did not produce any evidence that connecting these roads would create adverse environmental impacts, including diminished property values. Ruling on Reconsideration Requests, pg. 6. Both roadways were long planned to connect to serve this site, whether it was developed as a school, or a residential subdivision. (02773006.DOCX;S } �-�—� . – Mayar Law& City Councilmembers March 27, 2015 Page 5 � Pursuant to a review of the various traffic studies and expert apinions,the Hearing Examiner made an inforrned technical decision that any adverse impacts#o traffic would be sufficiently mitigated by the conditians imposed. Again, Henley is not disputing any of these conditions and plans to comply with them. Thus, the Council should affirm the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision appraving the Preliminary Plat and deny TPWAG's unsubstantiated appeal. TFWAG Assertions 8-10: TPWAG cancludes its appeat by making additional generalized arguments that do not raise any specific error af fact ar law,but instead urge the Council ta abandon the pracess required under the Rentan Municipal Cade and SEPA. TPWAG again argues that additianai technical studies and detailed plans shanld bc required at thzs prelirninary plat stage instead of later in#he deveiopment process. Bu# to require Henley ta provide engineering and construction level analysis at the time af preliminary plat wauld be contrary to law. Indeed,under State law,a preliminary plat is a"neat and approximate , drawing of a propased subdivisian showing the generat layaut of sireeEs and alleys, tats, blocks,and other elemer►ts af a subdivisian." RCW 58.17.020(4}. TPWAG argues for more,more,more,but neither State Iaw nor the Renton Code demand the exhaustive level of anatysis that TPWAG rec�uests at the preliminary plat stage of review. The Council should affirm the Examiner's I?ecision. TPWAG's final generalized argument also is contrary to law,as it asks the Council to overturn the DNS-1V1 reached by City Staff, indegendent third-party experts,and the Hearing Examiner. While Henley firmly asserts that the DNS-M is praper for all of ihe reasons stated above,we also reiterate our arguments set forth in our Matian to L7isrniss that this second appeal of the SEPA threshold determination is barred by law and not subject to review by the Council. Thank you far your time and attention to this response. For all af the reasons stated above, Henley respectfully requests that the TPWAG Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision upon Reconsideration be denied and the Hearing Exarniner's Final Decision approving the Preliminary Plat be affirmed. Very truly yours, �1 lL�'� ����`'""`,` ' �--r � � Nancy Bainbrir�ge Rogers NBR/kgb �a2�73oas.t�ocx:s} Denis Law � -- Cl�Of�� ,�Y I' Mayor � �� --'Yf'� r � �, y�_i., .., v• ��,�� I � '�! % � � � � • � • _� � �� - ��:'V'r`� � - ' Ci Clerk -Jason A.Seth,CMC March 20, 2015 tY *2"d REVISED LEITER APPEAL FILED BY: Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group by Renate Beedon, President RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated February 26, 2015, regarding Reserve at Tiffany Park PP. (File No. LUA-13-001572 ECF, PP, CAE) To Parties of Record: Ti I IV h r Renton Cit Code of Ordinances written a eal of the hearin Pursuant to t e , C apte 8, y , pp g examiner's decision on the Reserve at Tiffany Park PP has been filed with the City Clerk. In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110F,withi�five days of receipt of the notice of appeal,or after all appeal periods with the Hearing Examiner have expired, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. Other parties of record may submit letters limited to support of their positions regarding the appeal within ten (10)days of the date of mailing of this notification. The deadline for submission of additional letters is by 5:00 p.m., Monda�, March 30, 2015. NOTICE IS HEREBY GfVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee at 3:00 p.m.on MondaV.lune 8, 2015, in the Council Chambers, 7`h Floor of Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98057. The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for consideration by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting. Copy of the appeat and the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeal of Hearing Examiner decisions or recommendations is attached. Please note that the City Council will be considering the merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. No further evidence or testimonv on this matter will be accepted by the City Council. For additional information or assistance, please call Jason Seth, City Clerk, at 425-430-6510. Sincerely, , :' Chris L. Chau Deputy City Clerk Attachments *Error in last paragraph—not based on Code. 1055 Soutfi Grady Way•Renton,Washington 98057•(425)430-6510/Fax(425)430-6516•rentonwa.gov r t ' • 1 (� Citv of Renton Mun4.�.�1 Code;Titte IV,Chapter 8,Sec� 110—Appeals 4-8-110C4 Filing of Appeal and Fee:The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 5- 1-2,the fee schedule of the City. (Ord.3658, 9-13-1982;Ord.5660, 5-14-2012; Ord. 5688, 5-13-2013) , 4-8-110F: Aaoeals to Ciri Council—Procedures 1.Standing: Unless otherwise provided by State law or exem ted b a State or federal a enc onl th I'! P Y g Y, Y e applicant,City or a party of�ecord who has been aggrieved or affected by the Hearing Examiner's decision and who participated in the Hearing Examiner's public hearing may appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision.A persan(sj will be deemed to have participated in the public hearing process if that person(s): a. Testified or gave oral comments at the public hearing;or b. Submitted any written comments to City staff or the Hearing Examiner regarding the matter prior to the close of the hearing;or c. Has been granted status as or has requested to be made a party of record p�ior to the close of the public hearing. 2. Notice to Parties of Record:Within five(5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal,the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. 3.Opportunity to Provide Comments:Parties of record may submit (etters in support of their positions within ten(10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of#he filing of the notice of appeal. 4.Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council.The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the appficant. If a transcript is made,the applicant is required to provide a copy to the City Clerk and the Renton City Attorney at no cost. It shall be presumed that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 5675, 12-3-2012) I 5. Burden:The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. ' 6. Council Evaluation Criteria:The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the li record,the Hearing Examiner's report,the notice of appeal and additional arguments based on the ', record by parties. 7. Findings and Conc{usions Required: lf, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-8-070H1, as it exists or may be amended, and after examination of the record,the Council determines that a substantia!error in fact or law exists in the ' record, it may modify or reverse the decision of the Hearing Examiner accordingly. (Ord. 5675, 12-3- 2012) 8. Decision Documentation:The decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any ' modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. '' 9. Council Action Final:The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejecting a decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames established under subsection G5 of this Section. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982; Ord. 4389, 1-25-1993; Ord. 4660,3-17-1997;Ord. 5558, 10-25-2010) , � � � , t � , � Date: Wed, Mar 11, 2015 'i '� `r/ To: City Council City of Renton CtTY O�RENTON � I 1055 Grady Way MAR 12 2015 i Renton WA 98057 . i3 �f. , RECEIVED From: Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group mailta:renton-oppositesC�comcast.net C�TYC�ERK'S OFFlCE , 1725 Pierce Avenue SE Renton,WA 98058 Subject: Reserve at Tiffany Park PP-Hearing Examiner Decision (LUA13-001572) Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision to City Council Dear Sir or Madam: This(etter constitutes Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group's Notice of Appeal to the City Council of the Final Decision Upon Reconsideration dated February 26, 2015 pursuant to RMC 4-8-080 and RMC 4-8-110(F). TPWAG hereby designates Renate Beedon as the designated representative. Summarv of Substantial Errors of Fad or law 1. The hearing examiner's decision provides inadequate mitigation for the impacts on the environment and on the surrounding community of Applicant's proposed development to support a DNS-M determination under SEPA. 2. The City of Renton has authority to ask for mitigation under SEPA,and TPWAG asks the City of Renton to exercise that authority for all issues raised in this Notice of Appeal. 3. TPWAG was denied access to the property and denied a fair opportunity to perform our own wetland assessment on the property. The wet(ands delineation has been done incorrectly. The , hearing examiner's decision fails to fully evaluate the significant adverse impacts on the environment resulting from the wetlands. Instead the decision improperly defers consideration of these issues to the construction permit stage where the public has little or no input. 4. The hearing examiner's decision recognizes that there is uncertainty as to whether the project site I is free from hazardous waste, but does not adequately address the probable adverse impact on the environment resulting there from. 5. The hearing examiner's decision fails to adequately address the substantial adverse impacts resulting from the proposed storm drainage system for the site, including the detention vault, roof runoff and downstream impacts. Instead the decision improperly defers consideration of these issues to the construction permit stage where the public has little or no input. 6. Although the hearing examiner's decision recognizes that there is a substantial probable adverse impact resulting from the extensive use of structural retaining walls on the project,the hearing examiner's decision fails to fully and adequately address the adverse impacts resulting from this extensive use of an intricate network of rockeries, modular block retaining walls and lock and load retaining walls and provides inadequate mitigation for the impacts on the environment and the TPWAG Notice of Appeal to City Council Pdge 1 of 2 . , �t community. instead th� �ision improperly defers consideration��ese issues to the construction permit stag�"�where the public has little or no input. 7. The hearing examiner's decision fails to adequately address the tra�c impacts directly related to ingress and egress for the site,including but not limited to the impact of converting SE 18th Street and 124th Place SE from quiet Cul-De-Sacs into arterials and the reduction in property values resulting there from. As a result, additional traffic studies should be performed to investigate and revise access routes to the project. 8. The hearing examiner's decision requires Applicant to submit additional documentation to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval, including an updated geotechnical report, revised preliminary plat and landscaping plan, revised wetland mitigation plan, final mitigation plan for retaining walls and phase one environmental site assessment. All of this documentation should have been prepared and should be prepared prior to preliminary plat approval.Otherwise the public will have litt(e or no input on these issues. 9. The hearing examiner's decision improperly concludes that there is no need for additional SEPA mitigation, environmental review,or the issuance of an environmental impact statement. 10. An environmental statement is required by the weight of the evidence. An environmental impact statement is justified and must be prepared if after applying mitigation measures by changing, clarifying or conditioning of the proposed action,a proposal continues to have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group 'uC/l/�� ��.� RENATE BEEDON President C�: L���y �� C�, u,v�,c� �.�e f' �.e nr��v�� v��-essc� ��b.e.s� S�'-e..J.rt �� C�c�.�5 gr��.e�( t�j�,�� U\b�r�.�.i��s ���.��t��ti�,�� C,�---� �-I�--�� TPWAG Notice of Appeal to City Council Page 2 of 2 _ '`.i ,r.,, ���� FEB 2� 2015 1 � FtECE1VED 2 � C�C��S OFFICE i 3 : 4 ; 5 I 6 7 : 8 ' 9 i BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENT01�1 10 ; ) � � RE: The Reserve at Tiffany Park � 12 � Preliminary Plat � , � FINAL DECISION UPON �3 ' RECONS F � ID RATION �4 • Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeals � IS ) LUA13-001572,ECF, PP,CAE ) 16 ° �� ' I. SUMMARY �g A. Alterations to Final Dccision Resulting from Reconsideration Requests 19 ! ;A Final Decision was issued on the above captioned matter on January 8, 2015. The Final Decision 20 ;was subjected to two requests for reconsideration made by the SEPA Appellants and the applicant. ' 21 This Final Decision Upon Reconsideration incorporates all the changes to the January 8, 2015 Final Decision resulting from the reconsideration requests. The Ruling on Reconsideration Requests, 22 �attached to this decision as Attachment C, identifies the basis for all the changes made to the January 23 :8,2015 Final Decision. None of the changes are significant. The only changes made to the January 8,2015 Final Decision are those identified in the Ruling on Reconsideration Requests. 24 25 . 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT- P�eliminary P(at- I 4 � � � � 1 B. Summary of Decision 2 ' �The applicant requests preiiminary plat approval for the subdivision of 21.66 acres into sir►gle-family 3 '•residential lats and several critical areas tracts located at the dead end of SE 18th Street and bordered �by the Cedar River Pipeline along the southern property boundary and the Mercer Island Pipeline 4 �along the eastern property boundary. Two appeals of a mitigated determir�ation of nonsignificance � !("MDNS") issued under the Washington State Environtnentat Poiicy Act ("SEPA"} were consolidated with the review of the pretirt�inary plat. The Tiffany Park Woads Advacacy Graup � _{"TPWAG"} filed ane af the twa SEPA appeaEs and the applicant submitted the second appeal. The � �preliminary plat is approved subject to conditians. The TPWAG SEPA appeal is denied. The �applicant SF,PA appeai is sustained, in part. 8 : � =TPWAG raised numerous issues in its SEPA appeat regardin� the conversian of the 21.6b acre �subject property from a community recreational resource to a residential su6division. The property i 0 � is entirely undeveloped and is covered with trails, tree forts and other similar structures that reveai � � �years of community use. In its SEPA appeal TPW�G argues that the loss of this long-time =recreationat use is an environmental impact that should be subject to SEPA review. As detailed in ]2 =this decision, the fact that the applicant has allowed neighbors to use its property in the past (or }� �warse, the fact that neighbors may have trespassed in the past)daes not justify the imposition of any SEPA requirements becausc the neighbors will lase that privilege as a result af the develapment. �4 � Similarly,ihe fact that the applicant has chosen ta retain the trees on its land in the past and through that choice pravided neighbors with an appeating arboreal view does not put the applicani in a �5 �position where it must now continue to offer that type of view to neighboring properties. With one �� exception the applicant proposes developrr�ent that is aestheticalty similar and compati6le with �surrounding uses. Far this reason, there is no lega! basis for imposing any further environmental �� �review or mitigation to address aesthctic impaets. The or►e exceptian is retainin� walls. The j g �applicant proposes numerous retaining walls that will reach heights af up to 21 feet. Retaining watls .of this height are not present in the vicinity and the aesthetic impacts of these structures are not 14 �similar or campati6le to the structures on neighboring properties. Cansequentty, the MDNS 20 .mitigation measures will require ten foot wide perimeter landscaping desigtted to aesthetically buffer ;these waifs from neighboring uses, 21 22 �TPWAG alleged more technical environmental impacts related to the geotechnical studies, 'hazardaus materials, drainage, wetlands impacts, graundwater impacts, landsiide hazards, seismic 23 :hazards, and retaining walls. The expert testimony and reports pravided by the appticant,verified by 24 'experts from the City staff and in some cases, third party peer review, proved to be more compelling than the expert testimony provided by TPWAG,especially when factnring the substantial weight that 25 ;must be given the SEPA responsible official's determination that the praposal will not create any 2� �probable significant adverse environmental impacts. One issue that did require some additiona( !PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preiirninary Piat-2 � r/ i � 1 ' mitigation was hazardous waste. An appeilant expert testified that the prior ownership of the 2 i property by the US Department of Defense raised a concern that the property may contain hazardous °waste. The applicant refused to grant access to the subject property for purposes of testing for 3 hazardous waste or any other site investigation. The applicant also acknowledged that it did a Phase 4 ; ( hazardous waste environmental review when it purchased the property, but never offered the . review into evidence. Given the somewhat suspect conduct of the applicant, an MDNS condition of 5 � review will require that the applicant submit its Phase 1 review to staff prior to development, to 6 verify that there is no hazardous waste issue with the site. � 'The applicant's SEPA appeal was more limited in scope and only challenged three of the City's MDNS conditions, specifically Conditions l, 3 and 6. At hearing the City and applicant agreed to 8 � revised language for Conditions I and 3. Condition No. 6 remained the only contested issue in the 9 'applicant's appeal. The condition required a 15-foot landscaping buffer around the entire perimeter �of the development. This decision only found a ten -foot buffer necessary, limited to areas adjoining �� proposed retaining walls to concea)the walls from neighboring view. �� A summary of testimony is attached as Attachment A. The summary is provided as a convenience 12 and reference to those who would like an overview of the evidence presented at the two days of � hearings on this application. The testimony section shou(d not be construed as any formal findings �3 �of fact and also do not represent what was determined to be important to the final decision. 14 ; ' CONTENTS IS fSUMMARY......................................................................................................................... 1 ' 16 � [L TEST[MONY.......................................................................................................................3 ' 17 : lll. EXHBITS............................................................................................................................3 ; IV. EINDINGS OF FACT..........................................................................................................4 l8 � V. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW................................................................................................24 : SEPA APPEAL...........................................................................................................25 l9 � PRELIM[NARY PLAT..............................................................................................29 VI. DECISION .........................................................................................................................40 20 " 2� II. TESTIMONY 22 Please see Attachment A for testimony summary. 23 � 24 III. EXHIB[TS 25 . Please see Attachment B for the exhibits admitted during the hearing. Exhibits admitted after the . hearing are as follows: 26 � PRELfM[NARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat-3 - '�"r �►' I Exhibit AS: City of Renton Preliminary Plat Condition Revision Response (December 1 l, 2 ' 2014) 3 Exhibit AT: TPWAG Post F�earing Closing Argument(December 14, 2014) ; Exhibit AU: TPWAG Motion—Late Filing(December I5,2014) 4 � Exhibit AV: Henley Response to TPWAG Motion—Late Filing(December I5, 2015) ; Exhibit AW: Henley (Proposed)Order Denying TPWAG Motion—Late Filing(December 15, 5 ' 2014) 6 � Exhibit AX: Hearing Examiner Ruling—Late Filing(December 15, 2014) , Exhibit AY: Henley Response—TPWAG Post Hearing Closing Argument(December l9, � I 2014) Exhibit AZ: Henley Reply—City of Renton Preliminary Plat Condition Revision Response 8 (December 19,2014) 'Exhibit BB: City of Renton—TPWAG Post�{earing Closing Argument(December 22, 2014) 9 �� I IV. FINDINCS OF FACT � � ; Procedural: ' l. A.pplicant. Henley USA, LLC. 12 - i 13 � 2. Hearin�. A consolidated hearing on the preliminary plat application and SEPA appeals was �held on November 18, 2014 and continued to December 8, 2014 in the City of Renton Council City 14 ;Chambers. The record was lcft open for the appellants to provide a SEPA Closing Argument by 15 ' December 12, 2014. City staff was also given until December 12, 2014 to provide a SEPA Rebuttal. City staff and the applicant had until December 19, 2014 to provide SEPA closing arguments and 16 ; preliminary plat comments. 17 Substantive: 18 ' �g '3. Proiect Description and Appeal. 20 � A. Proiect Descriqtion. The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for the 2� �subdivision of 21.66 acres into 97 single-family residential lots. There is an alternate plat with 96 lots to allow for 30% tree retention (Exhibit 3). The property is located at the dead end of SE I 8`h 22 � Street. It is bordered on the south by the Cedar River Pipeline and on the east by the Mercer Island 23 ° Pipeline. Two appeals of a mitigated determination of nonsignificance ("MDNS") issued under the ; Washington State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") were consolidated with the review of the 24 preliminary plat. 25 �The subject property consists of four parcels. The majority of the site is located in the R-8 zone. A 2C small portion is located in the R-4 zone. All proposed lots are located in the R-8 zone. The proposed I PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat-4 � � . ; i 1 ' lots would range in size from 4,SOOsf to 8,456sf. The average lot size is 5,399sf. Under either the 96 lot or 97 lot scenarios, density would be equal to or less than 5.70 dwelling units per acre. In addition 2 �to the residential lots, 13 tracts are proposed for sensitive areas, tree retention, storm drainage, 3 access, pedestrian connections, and open space including an existing 10 foot wide vegetated buffer 4 :along the northern boundary. Access to the site would be gained from SE 18th Street with secondary access extended from 124th Place SE. 5 � The site is currently vacant with 1,305 significant trees. The applicant has proposed to retain or 6 i mitigate 188 trees in order to achieve the objective of 30%tree retention requirement. Adequate tree � ; retention requires approval of the 96-lot alternative. The site slopes generally to the west/northwest `at an approximate average slope of 10-15% with localized stopes of 25%. The site contains three g �Category 2 wetlands (Wetlands A,C,and, D}and two Category 3 wetlands(Wetlands B and E). The 9 applicant is requesting a Critical Area Exemption for the extension of SE 18th Street through t portions ofthe buffer associated with Wetland E. l0 The applicant has submitted a Wetland Report, Drainage Report, Traffic Impact Analysis, � � Geotechnical Engineering study, Arborist Report, and Habitat Data Report. Independent secondary l 2 studies for Transportation and Wetlands are included with the application. • �3 � B. SEPA Appeal. A mitigated detecmination of nonsignificance ("MDNS") was issued for the �4 =proposal on September, 20 i 4. Two timely appeals of the threshold determination were filed by the I Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group (TPWAG) and Cairncross & Hempelmann on behalf of �5 = Henley USA, LLC. t6 I �, Applicant SEPA Appeal. The app(icant challenged three of the City's MDNS �'7 conditions, specifically Conditions I, 3 and 6 on the grounds that they impose unlawful 1 g � obligations on the applicant and restrict the applicant's ability to develop the p(at. 19 : a. MDNS Condition 1. The applicant argued MDNS Condition 1 should be ' revised because the condition required earthwork to comply with an earlier, preliminary 20 � version of the geotechnical report which has since been superseded. The applicant requested 2� ; the SEPA condition be revised to state the earthwork shall be consistent with the final : geotechnical report submitted prior to construction (Exhibit J). City staff and the applicant 22 then agreed upon the following (anguage for Condition No. I, which is found to adequately 23 address pertinent environmental impacts: 24 ; Al!earthwork performed, implemented by the applicant, sha[1 be consistent with the � recommendations of the geotechnical report, prepared by Associated Earth,Sciences, 25 Inc., dated September 28, 2012 or consistent with the recommendations of the final 26 ' City-approvecl geotechnical report. PRELIM(NARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 5 l- � � V . � b. MDNS Condition 3. The applicant's concerns over MDNS Condition No. 3 2 became moot since the fi(ing of its appeal and the City and applicant have been able to agree upon a revised condition that acceptably mitigates against environmental impacts. 3 MDNS Condition 3 provides as follows, 4 5 The applicunt shall be required to retain 30%of the signifrcant trees on sile with exclusions for those trees that are considered dead, diseased, or dangerous, trees 6 located within propo.sed rights-of-wuy, und trees lacated within the critica!nreas und their associated buffers. 7 The applicant initially argued the condition should either be struck as a SEPA condition or g modified to require compliance with the Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan, completed by q Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. (August 27, 2014) which complies with the 30% retention requirement(Appea) Exhibit A, Attachment l 1). 10 � � City staff disagreed. They argued that there are probable averse environmental impacts that are being mitigated by the MDNS condition. The City argued the MDNS Condition prevents 12 i the applicant from using mitigation under RMC 4-4-130(H)(1)(e)(i) to replace trees and �3 instead requires retention of significant trees. �4 The Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan, completed by Washington Eorestry Consultants, Inc. (August 27, 2014) established that overall the proposal will actually meet the City's �5 SEPA 30%tree retention requirement. To meet this requirement, the applicant must retain or 16 . mitigate 188 on-site trees. The Washington Forestry Consultants plan proposes to save 181 of these trees and mitigate the final seven trees. The applicant's tree retention plan analyzed just �� � the 96 lot alternative. However, Mr. Galen Wright of Washington Forestry Consultants stated �g � new field studies performed since the August 27, 2014 report have identified additional significant trees on-site beyond those mapped in the original field survey. These trees will be 19 retained, bringing the total retention to well above the 188 required trees. Mr. Wright stated 20 � he was much more confident now regarding the location of trees, their health and which � might be viably preserved. 21 22 Since the applicant ultimately achieved the 30% retention objective, the City and applicant agreed to the following tree retention language as a condition of approval, 23 : 24 ; The applicant shall provide a final Tree Retention Plan, complying with the 30%tree 25 � retention mitigation measure while demon.strating proposed wnlls would not impact 26 ; lrees proposed for retention. The Final Tree Retention Plun shall be submitted to, and �PRELIM(NARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat-6 � v . 1 ` approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit 2 � approval. 3 c. MDNS Condition 6. MDNS Condition No. 6 remains the only contested � portion of the applicant's appeal. MDNS Condition No. 6 as adopted by the SEPA 4 responsib(e official required a i5-foot landscape buffer around the entire perimeter of the 5 ; development. For the reasons identified in FOF No. 5,this perimeter has been reduced to ten " feet and must only be placed in areas to conceal proposed retaining walls from neighboring 6 view. � � 2. TPWAG SEPA Appeal. TPWAG raised severa) issues in its SEPA appeal, alleging 8 both inadequate revicw and probable significant adverse environmental impacts. The impacts identified by TPWAG are addressed in FOF No. 5. 9 � �� 4. Surrounding_Area. The subject site is surrounding on all sides by single family residential development. To the south it is bordered by the 100 foot wide Cedar River Pipeline. To the east, it is > > � bordered by the 60 foot wide Mercer Island Pipeline. The zoning surrounding the subject on all sides �2 r is single family residential(R-8),though there is also a small portion of R-4 zoning to the east. 13 � 5. Adverse Impacts. The proposal does not create any probable significant adverse environmental impacts. Adequate public facilities and drainage control are provided as determined , �4 ; in Finding of Fact No. 6. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 5, two appeals to the threshold were filed. �5 �The issues on appeal from the applicant, Fienley, are discussed first. The issues on appeal for the project opponent, the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group, are then discussed. Finally, other � 16 . , � im acts not related to either a eal but related to the relimina lat are discussed below. , P pP P rY . P 17 . ' A. Anplicant SEPA Issue. As identified in FOF No. 3, only one issue remains in the �g ; Applicant's SEPA appeal, specifically the need for perimeter landscaping. It is � 19 determined that only the applicant's proposed retaining wa(Is create probable . significant environmental impacts and that these impacts can be reduced to 20 nonsignificant levels with ten foot sight obscuring landscaping limited to perimeter 2� � areas in front of the retaining walls. 22 . l. Proposed Deve(opment Aestheticallv Compatib(e with SurroundinQ __ Develoqment. With the exception of retaining walls (addressed separately), 23 the proposed development does not create any probable significant impacts 24 - because of aesthetic incompatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. A site visit and aerial photographs (Ex. K.6.c) reveal that the surrounding 25 � neighborhoods are not exceptionally wooded or treed and that the amount of 26 trees proposed for retention by the applicant would not be less than � PRELIMINARY PLAT- Pre(iminary Plat-7 �+.� � � I ,i i 1 surrounding development. Eurther, although the app(icant proposes a modest 2 increase in density, reasonable minds would certair►ly differ as to whether ihis � difference in density would create a significant aesthetic impact. The 3 � developed portions of the ptat are alt in the R-8 zone, though the praposed 4 : residential density wilt be 5.7 dwelling units per acre. The minimum density requirement in the zone is 4.0 dwe![ing units per acre. AEl adjacent praperties 5 ' are zaned R-8, Prapased lat sizes wauld range fram 4,Sd0 square feet to 8,456 � ` square feet with an average tot size af 5,399 syuare feet. While the proposed ; lots ap p ear to be,on average, somewhat smailer than those of the surraunding � devetopments, they are not significantly smaller and are at a density that is lawer than would otherwise be allowed within this zone. Further, because of 8 the presence of the twa pipelines and the perimeter locatian of the critical g areas tracts,very few of the lots will be directly adjacent ta existing residential � lats. The pipelines da not offer much in terms of vegetated screening but they 10 '. da physically separate the proposed lots from existing lots. Any difference in 1 � the size of ihe (ots wit! not be aesthetically signifieant, especially given the scparation of the project from the surrounding neighborhood. 12 , �3 ! 2. Lass of Trees Not a Probable Si�nificant Environrnenta!_I�act. It is � determined that the loss of trees beyond those required to be retained by City 14 ` code does nat qualify as a probable significant adverse enviranmental impact, �5 � In its environmental review, the City sug�;ests that the perirneier is necessary to make up far the fact that a significant number of trees wilt be �emoved, 16 ! thereby adversely affecting the views currently enjayed by neight�oring �� ; propertics. Nurnerous adjoining property owners aiso commented on this : impact. Ct is determined that the loss of trees owned by the applicant does nat 18 ' qualify as a significant adverse environmentat impact. Cif course, almost ali �g i development of vacant parcels involves the removat of trees. As discussed in COL Na 5, in order to justify mitigation beyond the minimum standards set by 20 � the City's landscaping code, the project tnust invoive some fairly unique or 2� � significant impacts that were not anticipated in the adoption af that code. The existence af such a large parcel (and large number of associated trees) is 22 I arguably unique, but that argument is underrnined to a large degree by the � subjectivity involved in aesthetic review. Given that the applicant is retaining �3 � 3Q°1a of the trees, it is debatable whether the loss of the other 70% creates a 24 : significant aesthetic view impact to neighboring property owners, especia!!y � with the buffering that wi11 be required by this decision to abscure retaining 25 ' walls. 26 � � Preliminary Plat- $ PRE[�IMINARY PLAT- �� � . � I 1 The assessment of aesthetic impacts occasioned by the loss of trees is also 2 � tempered by the fact that it is debatable from a legal standpoint whether the � applicant can be made to mitigate against the loss of a voluntary aesthetic 3 benefit it has provided to the surrounding community. The applicant has had 4 ; no obligation to retain all of the trees on its property in the past. Surrounding property owners have no entitlement to this currently existing aesthetic 5 � benefit. SEPA only requires mitigation and analysis of impacts created by 6 ° development. The loss of trees in excess of those required by City code is not an impact created by the development, since those trees could have been 7 ; removed at any time prior to development. The site visit, the record and the g code do not reveal that any other properties in the vicinity have had to retain - perimeter landscaping or that they provide a similar aesthetic benefit to the P 9 � surrounding community. Given that no such need was found in the past when �0 trees were removed by other development it is at least somewhat questionable why that is found necessary now in the absence of any code provision 11 � expressly requiring such a perimeter. 12 3. Retainin¢ Walls Create A Probable Si�nificant Adverse Environmental �3 � Impact. lt is determined that the retaining walls proposed by the applicant in excess of four feet create a probable significant adverse environmental impact. 14 � As noted in the Staff Report, the app(icant is proposin� multiple walls on the �5 proposed project. Some of the walls will be rockeries. Some walls are retaining walls which will face into the site. These are walls that allow for a 16 � finished grade for a lot to be below the surrounding grade. Other walls will be �� lock and load walls that allow for a finished lot grade above the surrounding grade. Six foot fencing is allowed on top of both types of walls. These walls �g ' are visible from outside the site. Staff notes the applicant has proposed lock i9 � and load walls ranging in height from four feet potentially up to 2l feet high. ' During testimony, Mr. Talkington stated revised grading plans may a(low for 20 reduced retaining wall heights. 21 A site.visit to the surrounding neighborhoods was conducted December 28, 22 : 2014. Though the subject is largely surrounded by pipeline easements, these easements are cleared of vegetation allowing a direct line of sight into the 23 � development and of the retaining walls. The site visit demonstrated that high 24 � retaining walls are not a common feature of the surrounding development.The applicant proposes solid rock or concrete walls of up to 21 feet in height. 25 These walls will impact the view of the property from surrounding residences, 26 ` especially given they are an uncommon feature in the area. As proposed, the PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat-9 �r' �r 1 view from surrounding residences will be significantly impacted as they 2 change from forest canopy and surrounding homes to rock wall faces of nearly two stories tali in places. The Staff Report notes several walls will be seen by 3 the public(proposed Lots 40,41,46, 47, 80, 82, 83-90, 93 and 94)�. 4 When considering retaining wall impacts, the height of the wall affects the 5 � significance of the impacts. Low retaining walls do not 61ock sunlight and air or obstruct views. The building codes only require building permits for 6 retaining walls four feet or more in height (RMC 4-5-060(E)(2)(c)(iv)). This � serves as a good threshold height for aesthetic impacts. Retaining walls lower , than four feet do not obstruct views for a person of average height. They a(so g tend to be more commonly found in neighborhoods since no building permit is 9 ` required. For these reasons, the findings in the preceding paragraph on 'i � retaining wall aesthetic impacts are limited to retaining walls over four feet or 10 � more in height. Retaining walls less than four feet in height are not found to 11 I' create probable significant adverse environmental impacts. � 12 4. Ten Foot Perimeter LandscapinQ Fullv Miti�ates Retainin� Wall Impacts. The aesthetic impacts of the retaining walls can be fully mitigated by the by a �3 ten foot perimeter landscaping strip. The City is recommending a fifteen foot �4 buffer of trees. During testimony, the applicant's arborist stated a ten foot wide buffer with a staggered doub(e row of conifers would create a very dense �5 screen in 10 years. He noted a 15 foot buffer is not sufficient in width to plant I �6 ; a third row of conifers, which would require a 30 foot buffer. The City's i arborist concluded that at least 35 feet was necessary to provide for a site- ' �� obscuring buffer of trees and that ten verses fifteen feet would not make any 1 g material difference in screening (Decision Attachment A, page 7). Given that ' staffs 15 foot recommendation is counter to the recommendation of its own 19 . arboristZ and that the applicanfs arborist provides a reasonably good 20 : 21 . � �n any discussion of lot numbers, this decision is referring to the numbering scheme utilized in the 97-lot I� 22 i alternative(Exhibit 2).The nomenclature of the 96-lot alternative is exactly one lot lower for each lot because the I ; Tree Retention Plan recommended the elimination of Lot 1 of the 97 lot alternative to maintain 30%tree retention. 23 -' 1 Staff also advocated for a 15 foot buffer because it would help retain some of the treed character of the project '' �site. See Exhibit A I,page 19.As outlined in FOF No.S.A.I,the applicant cannot be legally made to compensate for 24 •the toss of trees on its property. Further,staff also based its I 5 foot buffer requirement upon RMC 4-4-070(F)(4xb). ' :This perimeter buffer provides for aesthetic screening between single and multi-family housing.This standard does 25 �serve as a good analogous standard for retaining wall impacts. Unfortunately, the standard only requires six foot high vegetation. A six foot high hedge set against a 21 foot high retaining wall does not accomplish a great deal of 26 1 PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 10 f � � , � 1 � explanation of how a ten foot buffer can effectively screen the property, it is ' determined that the ten foot buffering advocated by the applicant's arborist 2 ; will provide a fully sight obscuring buffer to the retaining walls and as such 3 will prevent the retaining walls from creating probable significant adverse 4 ; environmental impacts. 5 Limiting the landscape perimeters to the areas where the retaining walls are four feet or more in height should also completely obstruct them from the 6 view of neighboring property owners. For these reasons, the conditions of � ; approval will require the applicant to revise its landscaping plan to provide for site obscuring perimeter landscaping adjacent to areas where the retaining g walls are four or more feet in height, specifically in the perimeter areas close 9 to Lots 40,41,46,47, 80, 82, 83-90,93 and 94. 10 ; B. TPWAG SEPA [ssues. �� � 1. Aesthetic_Impact Due to_Loss_of Trees. The appellants argue there is a 12 . significant adverse aesthetic impact due to the loss of trees. With the exception of retaining walls(addressed separately), the proposed devclopment ' �3 � does not create any probable significant impacts because of aesthetic 14 ; incompatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. As discussed above in i Finding of Fact S.A.1, the surrounding neighborhoods are not exceptionally �5 � wooded or treed and the amount of trees proposed for retention by the �6 i applicant would not be less than surrounding development. As described in Finding of Fact S.A.2, the is retaining 30%of the trees. The applicant has had l� : no obligation to retain all of the trees on its property in the past. Surrounding �8 � property owners have no entitlement to this currently existing aesthetic ' benefit. The loss of trees in excess of those required by City code is not an l9 impact created by the development, since those trees could have been 20 ; 2� aesthetic mitigation. For this reason, the RMC 4-4-070(F)(4►(b) buffer does not serve as an ideal analogous landscaping standard. What the RMC 4-4-070(Fx4)(b)and other R:�iC 44-070 perimeter buffer requirements does .show is that the City Council was uncomfortable requiring more than a fifteen foot wide buffer in any situation. 22 �Requiring more than 15 feet does in fact to place an unreasonable burden upon the applicant for something as 23 'subjective as an aesthetic impact. It is for this reason likely that the City went against the findings of its arborist and only required a fifteen foot buffer instead of a 30 foot buffer. This was an appropriate approach,but did not go far •enough since as testified by the applicant's arborist, a fifteen foot would not provide for any significant protection 24 beyond a ten foot buffer. Given that a 30 foot buffer would be unreasonable mitigation,the imposition of a ten foot :buffer has to be found acceptable even though there a small chance it may not provide for 100% screening as 25 ;concluded by the City's arborist. 26 PRELIM[NARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 1 l F ., , , .... E � ��� � � � l '� removed at any time prior to development. It is alsa at best debatable whether � the lass of the other 70°lo creates a significant aesthetic view impaci ta 2 '�� neighbc>ring property owners, especially with the buffering that will 6e 3 � required 6y this decisian to obscure retaining walis. ; 4 j' 2. Potential Presence of Hazardous Materials. I�Io impacts fram hazardous 5 ; ►nateriats are anticipated. The appellants demonstrated the subject property ��, had at one time been owned by the Department of Defense.They alieged there � i might be hazardaus materials an site based on this farnner user. For the past 65 � j; years, far ali intents and purposes, the site has been covered by a seemingly �� healthy forest canopy. The appetlants were unabte to demonstrate evidence of 8 I,� any overt signs of contamination visible on the site that might justify ,� !� overturning the substantial weight due the SEPA official's determination that the project site does nat contain any hazardous waste necessitating further ld � environmental review. However, nor were the appellants granted access to � � �'. perforrn their own studies. The applicant also neglected to subrnit a Phase 1 � Environmental Sitc Assessment it said was prepared for the proposal, even 12 � after tt�e appellants made the study an issue during the hearing. The actions of �3 � the applicant on the haaardous waste issue create uncertainty as ta whether the � project site is free frotn hazardous waste. Given that this issae remains 14 � unresc�lved, a condition of approval wilt require the applicant to submit the 15 � results of the Phase 1 ESA to City staff for confirmatian that there are na hazardous materiais on site. 16 3. Wi(dlife Habitat and Connectivity,No probable significant adverse impacts to �� witdlife habitat are anticipated and the SEPA Respansibie Officiai had t g � sufficient informatian to adequately assess the impacts. The applicant submitted a Revised Wettand Determination and Response Letter (Exhibit 5}, 14 �{ a Nabitat Assessment (Exhibit 6}, and two Habitat Assessment Technicat 20 1 Memorandums (Exhibits t b and 17). The City required an independent secondary review of the wetlands report (Exhibit 14). As noted in Conciusian 2� of Law 3.B below, the SEPA respansible officiai must make a prima facie 2� showing that he has based his determinatian upon information reasonably , sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a propasal (WAC 197-11-335). These 23 multiple studies and memaranda were more than adequate to fully assess the 24 � wildlife impacts of the praposa! as the appellants have not demonstrated any additionai information that could have made any materia! difference in the 2S � official's conclusions. 26 , �PRELIMINARY PLAT- Prelirninary Plat- 12 �' �r - ! 1 No signiftcant adverse impacts are anticipated for wildlife or habitat 2 � connectivity. With the exception of pileated woodpeckers and Townsend's bats, the fish and wildlife habitat assessment found no listed or endangered 3 . species or priority habitat on site. Though the property may function as 4 margina( habitat for many common species, it is geographica(ly isolated from the Cedar River corridor by the Mercer Island Pipeline�easement, a residential 5 street, residential lots, a steep slope and the Bonneville Power 6 Administration's easement. Testimony from all sides spoke to the heavy � human disturbance on the site including recreational walkers, bikers, 7 � unleashed dogs, and the presence of unpermitted structures and pits including g . forts and paint ball hides. The applicant's wildlife expert, Racheal Villa of � Soundview Consultants testified that the formalized protection of the wetlands 9 and buffers on site would result in an improvement in habitat conditions for �� ; both pileated woodpeckers and Townsend's bats over the present situation due to the fairly degraded condition of the habitat at present. 11 4. Seismic Hazards. The SEPA Responsible Official had adequate information to 12 � assess the seismic hazards and no probable significant adverse impacts are �3 � anticipated in regards to these hazards. As to adequacy of review, the applicant provided a geotechnical report by AES (Exhibit 7) that was 14 i reviewed, by the request of the applicant, by Earth Solutions, NW (Exhibit �5 K.2). The AES conclusion in the geotechnical report stated the site, from a geotechnical engineering standpoint, is suitable for support of conventional 16 ' paving, lightly loaded structures and typical buried utilities, all typical �� , improvements in a single family residential subdivision. The AES preliminary geotechnical report and subsequent peer review by Earth Solutions, NW 1 g ' provide information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the environmental �9 : impacts of the proposal under W AC 197-1 1-335. 20 The appellants note the nearest USGS mapped fault zone is 3.9 miles away, ; though they feel additional testing should occur to determine if there are 2� unmapped fault zones. The appellants argued there was evidence of ground 22 • movement in the form of bent trees and hummocky land which could indicate � several things including seismic shifting or landslide activity caused by a 23 shallow groundwater table. The City has mapped the site as a Low Seismic 24 ' Hazard area and outside of the Coal Mine Hazard areas. The applicant has provided a geotechnical report by AES that was reviewed at the applicant's 25 request by Earth Solutions, NW, the firm hired to perform geotechnical work 26 for the applicant going forward. Mr. Coglas of Earth Solutions, NW testified PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 13 �`�' v . 1 there are no seismic hazards on the property (Decision Attachment A, Page 2 21). Mr. Coglas went on to state with respect to site stability and groundwater, the stability of the predominantly flat to gently sloping property is good. [n his 3 opinion and based on geologic mapping and subsurface data for the site and 4 surrounding area, the site is very similar to the surrounding developed residential area. There is nothing in the record to indicate an increased danger 5 of seismic hazard beyond that of the surrounding properties. A single-family 6 residential plat in this area is in no more probable seismic danger than the surrounding developed properties. The proposal will not create any probable 7 significant adverse environmental impacts in regards to seismic hazards. g 5. Landslide Hazards. The SEPA Responsible Official had adequate information q to assess landslide hazards. They appellants argued the soil under the plat has structural anomalies that require further study to determine if there are �� landslide or other geologically hazardous conditions. The appel(ants point to � � bent trees and uneven surfaces located on the site may indicate shallow or slightly deeper ground movement which may be indications of landslide 12 activity in the past or future propensity of slides. They note they requested �3 access to perform their own studies but were denied. Specifically, the appellants have requested expanded soils tests, percolation tests and more test 14 pits and borings to measure localized hydraulic conductivity. As noted above, �5 the applicant has provided a geotechnical report by AES that was reviewed by Earth Solutions,NW. Mr. Coglas of Earth Solutions, NW testified there are no �6 landslide hazards on the property (Decision Attachment A, Page 20). The l� City's Development Engineering Manager, Mr. Lee, testified he concurred with Mr. Coglas' assessment of the landslide hazard risk. Mr. Lee is a 1 g professional engineer with extensive experience in site development and civil l9 engineering in Washington. He noted, the steep areas are very small (15-20' feet (ong) and do not warrant slope stability analysis. Overall on the project 20 site, the approximate slope is only 10% or so. There are no sensitive or Z� protected slopes on the subject property. The majority of the subject site has less than 15 percent slopes. There are a few areas with slopes of I S percent to 22 35 percent. These areas are characterized as Medium Landslide Hazard areas. 23 Mr. Lee stated the City code does not rcquire additional slope stability analysis for these areas. 24 The appellant also asserted that the number and location of test pits were 25 insufficient to evaluate slope stability. Mr. Lee testitied there were sufficient 26 numbers of test pits to gauge impacts on ground movement from groundwater PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 14 - - - - -._ -. -. -.- - - - - - _. . �� ��' i 1 on site. He wouid have preferred to see a few more, especialiy in the vault 2 ; area. However, as Mr. Coglas testified, the City rnay require extra analysis , during final engineering as the design is finalized. He stated he daes not 3 � typically require additional geotechnical analysis at this stage of the process. ' Mr. I.ee felt the informatian provided was adequate ta allaw far a 4 ' determination of itrapact on the site(See Decision Attachrnent A, Pa�e 24). 5 - ' Mr. Lee's objectivity as a staff employee and his engineering expertise are 6 : determinative on the s(ope stability issue. He clearly reviewed the � ; geotechnica! reports in detail and found no need for further investigation or adclitional inforrnation. The findings of the geatechnica! analysis are alsa g � connpelling on their own and the relatively modest slopes of the project site da � ' nat raise any apparent cause far eoncern. For these reasons, it is cancluded � that the SEPA responsible afticial had reasonably adequate information to �� . assess the stope stability of the project site. �� ' b. Groundwater. The SEPA Responsibte Offrcial had reasonabty adequate �2 ` information to assess the graundwater impacts and there are no prababEe � significant adverse groundwater impacts associated with the proposal. The �3 appellants argued there was insufficient study of the groundwater situation on i 4 , site and the potential affect groundwater might have on development. They t , note they requested access to perform their own studies but were denied. �$ � Speci�cally, they appeliants have requested expanded soils tests, percalation �6 i tests and more test pits and borings to measure Incalized hydraulic � conductivity. The applicant pravided a geotechnical repart(Exhibit 7), a peer }� � ceview of the geotechnica! report (Exhibit K.2), a wetlands repart and a Ig ' revised wetlands repart (Exhibit 5}, and a drainage report (Exhibit $). The I ' wetlands repprts were independently reviewed by Otak {Exhibits }4 and 15). �9 f The City's DeveEopment En�ineer, Mr. l�ee stated the applicant had provided 2� � a sufficient number af test pits ta gauge impacts of potential groundwater an : site {Decision Attachment A, page 24}. Given the extensive information � 2! � pravided and the peer review, the applicant has provided infarmation ' 22 : sufficient for the SEPA Etespansible Official to issue a threshold � determination with respect to groundwater impacts. 23 �4 f There ace no a�rticipated adverse impacts retated ttr the graundwater tabie.Z'he appeltants argue graundwater saturation levels at this site make it 25 ' undevetopabte. They point to the AES geatechnical report (Exhibit ?), the z� � Shultz wetlands report (Exhibit 5}, the Technical Information Report by �PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 15 , -- — — — � � � 1 Barghausen and the Otak wetlands reviews (Exhibits 14 and I S) as al! 2 . demonstrating the graundwater table is at or within seven inches of the surface in a!I wetland areas. Graundwater near the surface is defining Feature of 3 wetlands. However, the appellants argue the watec table is a flai contour , � throughout the project s'ste and, as a cc�nsequence of a high water table, water , intrusion will disrupt or prevent proper installation of utilities, foundation �; 5 drains and the stormwater vault. 6 The applicant's gec�technical engineer, Ray Gogtas, testified there i� perched � groundwater on the site,rather than a flat table, a statement Mr. E,ee cancurred I with during testimony (Decision Attachment A, pages 22 and 25, � � respective(y). If the site had a flat water table close to the ground surface all I 9 � over the site; the whole site woutd be underwater because of the varying II topography, which is of course not the case. He stated perched waters trapped ia by impervious soils are limited in area and capacity and will drain away when � } cuts are made to hillsides. The water AES encountered was seepage from perched water rather than the actual groundwater table (Decision Attachment 12 A, page 22). Mr. Coglas refecred to the AES test pits and stated they showed 13 no caving or seepage which would indicate weakness in the sails or significant groundwater at or near the surface outside of wetland areas. Ne stated though 14 there wi!! be some groundwater seepage, he does not expect the site will �S require dewatering or extensive pumping. AES found no groundwater in its I test pits. Mr. Coglas stated evcn if the appeilants are correct and that 1 b groezndwater is at zero elevation, it coutd be managed without damaging the 1� feasibility of the project. Mr.Lee aisa concurred with this statement, o his sub'ect. The I l g Mr. Caglas noted the so�ls ai the subject are nat un�que t t � entire subject is surrounded by existing develapment at a similar intensity ta �9 the praposed develapment on simiiar topography and soils. There is no I I 2Q indicatian from the record ar from the site visit to suggest the utilities; i infrastructure or house foundatians in the surrounding neighborhoods have 2l failed due ta perched groundwater or a high water table. Mr. Coglas noted the j 22 presence of groundwater wili not preclude development if best management j practices are foilowed. � 23 � 24 Given Mr. Lee's concurrence in the opinion of Mr. Co�las and the substantial � weight required of the findings of the SEPA responsible official, it is � 25 determined that the proposal will not create any prababie significant adverse � groundwater impacts. I 2b PRELCMINARY PLAT• �reliminary Plat- l6 � � . I � � . i i i 1 � 7. Downstream Impacts. The SEPA Responsible Official has information 2 ; reasonably sufficient to evaluate the downstream impacts of the proposaL T'he City required a Level 1 downstream analysis. The proposed Level 2 Flow 3 - Control (Exhibit A, page 31) will restrict the flow of the 2-year release rate to � 4 ; 50% of the pre-developed site conditions, which will help to reduce an existing drainage issue. Mr. Lee stated the City is uncertain of a segment of 5 i the pipeline that takes the water downstream of the project site and have 6 � therefore requested a Level 2 downstream analysis to be performed prior to : buiiding permit approval. They want to make sure the project will not � 7 : exacerbate existing downstream flooding issues. An NPDES permit will be r e u i r e d f o r t h e r o'e c t, w h i c h w i l l s t i u l a t e t h e a l l o w a b l e d i s c h a r e i n t o t h e 8 I 9 P J p g � conveyance system (Decision Attachment A, Page 25). The City additional(y 9 established a SEPA mitigating condition requiring Level 2 downstream 10 ' analysis for '/4 mile from the project site. All of the requirements must be met before a building permit or construction permits are issued. With these 11 conditions in place,the City has reasonably sufficient information at this stage of review to evaluate down stream impacts. 12 ; �3 j 8. Dischar�e into Wetlands. The proposed discharge of roof run-off into wetlands wi[l not create a probable significant adverse environmental impact. 14 � The detailed local, state and federal standards applicable to stormwater run-off �5 I are determinative on the existence of adverse impacts. If the proposed drainage is comp(iant with applicable regutations, there arc no adverse �6 ` impacts. The appellants assert that thc proposed roof run-off into wetlands is �� ; in violation of the Clean Water Act. As noted by the applicant, the King County Surface Water Drainage Manual specifically excludes drainage from 1 g � roofs (except untreated metal roofs) from consideration as pollution 19 i generating sources (Exhibit AF). The appellants have not provided any citation or court opinion that roof run off discharge constitutes a violation of 20 � any applicable regulation and no such violation is apparent from the reading 2� ; of the Clean Water Act. Mr. Talkington, in his testimony for the applicant, noted that discharge of clean or non-point source polluted stormwater into 22 j wetlands is common practice and is required to hydraulically charge the 23 wetlands. Mr. Lee stated the applicant had complied with all city, state and federal code requirements with respect to stromwater. Mr. Lee testified the 24 � codes are sufficient to address all probable stormwater impacts. He further 25 noted a National Pollution Discharge and Elimination System permit wil) be required for the project, which will ensure that no stormwater pollutants are 26 _ released into wetlands or groundwater. The permit will include background PRELIMINARY PI,AT- Preliminary Plat- 17 � � � - 1 � and discharge monitoring. No building permit or construction petmits will be 2 ; issued until the NPDES conditions are met. Since the proposed stormwater � discharge is consistent with all applicable regulations, is a standard practice 3 i for development and also meets the approval of staff, it is determined that the 4 ; proposed discharge to wetlands will not create any probable significant ' adverse environmental impacts. 5 � � 9. Air Qualitv. No significant adverse impacts to air quality are anticipated. 6 � During the construction phase of the project, there will be exhaust from trucks � I and heavy equipment. However, after the construction phase is over, the subdivision will function similarly to the surrounding development with 8 ' respect to emissions and air quality issues. The proposed development is 9 functionally the same as the existing development pattern. Nothing in the record indicates there will be significant adverse impacts with respect to air t 0 quality. �� C. Other Impacts Related to the Preliminarv Plat. 12 l. Wetlands. As proposed and conditioned, the proposal will not create any �3 significant adverse impacts to wetlands. There are five wetlands on site. Three 14 of the wetlands are Category 2; the others are Category [![. The applicant submitted a Wetland Determination, prepared by C. Gary Schulz, Inc. �5 (October 30, 2013) and a revised Wetland Determination in response to 16 revisions to the plat including the use of a drainage vault, instead of a drainage detention pond, and the inclusion of a vegetated buffer along portions of the �� site perimeter(February 28,2014). 18 � Based on public comments (See Exhibit 10.6), staff required an evaluation by 19 I an independent qualified professional regarding the applicant's wetland 20 ; analysis and the effectiveness of any proposed mitigating measures. On April I 3,2014 an independent secondary wetland review was provided to the City by 21 i Otak (Exhibit A, Attachment 14). Following the completion of 22 ' recommendations in the Otak memo, the applicant submitted a Revised Wetland Determination and Response (June 3, 2014) (Exhibit A, Attachment 23 � 5). i 24 At the hearing, members of the public expressed concern regarding the 25 protection of wetlands and wildlife habitat. There was specific concern 26 regarding removal of trees and wetland hydrology. During testimony, Ms. PRELIM[NARY PLAT- preliminary Plat- 18 - ti/ �.�/ . � � Villa of Soundview Consultants stated she was hired by the applicant to 2 � perform supplementary wetland review for fish and wildlife habitat. In her study, she found no state or federally listed or protected species on the site. 3 She noted the habitat is fairly disturbed now with evidence of a lot of human 4 ; intrusion. In her opinion, protection of the wetlands and habitats with proper fencing and signage would result in better protection for the habitat than exists 5 currently. i 6 The Otak Supplemental Independent Secondary Review concluded water 7 � quality, wetland hydrologic function and flood storage will be protected. The = applicant proposes buffer averaging provisions (RMC 4-3-050(M){6)(�). The gi � buffer averaging plan provides additional buffer area at ratios that range from 9 1.6:1.0 to 9.5:1.0. Wetlands A, B, C, and D would have buffer areas 10 � significantly greater following the buffer averaging proposal. However, staff arc concerrted the proposed adjustments will not provide adequate buffering 11 � on the north and east sides of Wetlands B and C to take into account the 12 � proposed "lock & load walls" in those locations. The applicant will be required to submit a Final Mitigation Plan (RMC 4-8-120(W)) demonstrating 13 i appropriate mitigation for all wetlands and buffer impacts prior to permit ; approval. 14 �5 � The applicant has requested a critical areas exemption allowing a permanent ' buffer impact to 14sf of the Wetland E buffer. The exemption would allow the 16 ; applicant to construct the required full street improvements at SE 18`�' Street 17 _ (RMC 4-6-060). This area (219sfl has already been impacted by past �g � infrastructure construction. Staff recommends approval of the critical areas exemption with mitigation for the impact. � 19 _ The critical areas on site have a total area of 118,494 squarc fcet (2.72 acres) ' 2� and would be located in (Tracts B, G, K, & M). The applicant is proposing to increase wetland buffers which would result in a total native o n s ace used 21 Pe P to preserve native forest habitat of approximately 175,199 square feet (4.02 22 acres). As conditioned, no impacts to wetland habitat are anticipated. 23 . Given the extensive review of wetland impacts, staff s review and approval of 24 wet(and mitigation,and the applicant's compliance with all applicable wetland regulations, it is concluded that the proposal will not create any adverse 25 impacts to wetlands. 26 : PREL[M[NARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 19 � � - I � . � � 2. Tree Retention Required. The proposal provides for adequatc tree retention 2 � because it complies with the City's tree retention standards, RMC 4-4-130(C). � The applicant submitted two versions of the preliminary plat application. The 3 : first version is a 97 lot alternative that does not achieve 30% significant tree � 4 ; retention. The second plat alternative is a 96-lot preliminary plat that achieves 30% significant tree retention and implements the applicant's Tree Protection 5 ; Report(Exhibit 3). Since the 96-lot alternative implements the applicant's tree 6 _ retention plan and is consistent with the agreed upon SEPA mitigation � measure requiring 30% retention, this is taken as the applicant's proposal and 7 is the design approved by this decision. If the applicant was still intending to g i pursue a 97-lot design, it should request reconsideration. 9 No other significant impacts are reasonably anticipated from the evidence contained within the i administrative record. 10 � i 6. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate � � ' infrastructure and public services. Preliminary adequacy of all infrastructure facilities has been 12 : reviewed by the City's Public Works Department and found to be sufficient. Specific �3 I infrastructure/services are addressed as follows: 14 i A. Water and Sewer Service. This site is located in the City of Renton water service boundary. There is an esisting 8-inch water main stubbed to the site in SE 20�h Court, in �5 SE 19�' Court and SE I 8`h Court. This site is located in the 590-water pressure zone. �( � Static pressure in the area ranges from 65-82 psi. The site is located in the City of Renton � sewer service area. There is an 8-inch sewer main in SE 18`h Street. » I lg B. Police and Fire Protection. Police and Fire Prevention staffs indicate that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; subject to the provision 19 � of Code required improvements and fees. A Fire Impact Fee, based on new single family 2p � lots, will be required in order to mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to City emergency services. The fee is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal 21 � Code. Currently the fee is assessed at $479.28 per single family residence. This fee is 22 paid at time of building permit issuance. 23 C. Draina�;e. As conditioned,the proposal provides for adequate drainage facilities. In order 24 to address concerns raised by staff, as recommended by them a condition of approval requires a Level 2 downstream analysis for '/4 mile from the project site to determine if 25 the proposed project would exacerbate existing downstream capacity issues. The 26 applicant submitted a Preliminary Drainage Report prepared by Barghausen, dated PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat-20 � � . ' i 1 February 24, 2014 (Exhibit 8). Staff has determined that the preliminary plan is 2 ` consistent with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of Renton i Amendments to the KCSVVM, Chapters I and 2. Full compliance with the Manual wil! 3 � be required during engineering review. 4 D. Parks/Open Space. The proposal is consistent with adopted parks and open space 5 : standards and, therefore, provides for adequate parks and open space. RMC 4-2-1 1 S, 6 which governs open space requirements for residential development, does not have any specific requirements for open space for residential development in the R-8 district. 7 ; However, the applicant is proposing a total of 1.26 acres of passive and active open g � space, in addition to critical areas on site, for the open space needs of the subdivision. � The applicant wil) also be require to pay park impact fees prior to building permit issuace 9 to ensure that the development pays its fair share of system wide park improvements. 10 � E. Streets. The proposal, as conditioned, provides for adequate streets and associated I I infrastructure. The applicant is proposing two points of ingress and egress into the plat; � SE 18th St and 124th Place SE. The primary neighborhood streets which would serve �2 project traffic include 116`h Avenue SE, 126�'Avenue SE, SE 168`�' Street, SE Petrovitsky �3 � Road, S. Puget Drive, and 108`h Avenue SE-Benson Road S. The project site is currently 14 , served by King County Metro Route 148 with Routes 102 and I55 also operating within . the vicinity of the subject site. The nearest transit stop for Route 148 is located on [,ake �5 Youngs Drive SE and 123`d Avenue SE. 16 ! Staff received comments from interested parties with respect to traffic specifically related �7 to the need for additional analysis, trip generation, lack of public transit, level of service, � sight distance, the Edmonds Avenue SE/SE 16`h Street-Edmonds Way SE intersection, �g the use of speed bumps for traffic calming, stop signs, and traffic impact fees (.See lq� Exhibit l0). 20 ! The app(icant submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by TranspoGroup, 21 � (November, 2013) as part of the original submittal. Based on public comments received, staff required an evaluation by an indcpendent qualified professional regarding the 22 � applicant's transportation analysis and the effectiveness of any proposed mitigating 23 measures. The T[A concludes that all affected intersections will continue to operate at an acceptable level of service, except the intersection of Benson Drive S/S Puget Drive, 24 which will fall to LOS E by 2018 with or without the proposed project. The addition of 25 AM peak hour project traffic would add approximately five seconds of average delay to this intersection. Sta.ff concluded that this minor amount of delay did not justify 26 PRELIM[NARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 21 � �' V i i 1 additional mitigation and the reduction in LOS will nat violate the City's adopted level of 2 , service. The applicant wil! be required to pay traffic impact fees priar to issuance of building permits, which provides adequate mitigation against the madest traffic impacts 3 � created by the proposal. 4 - The T1A nated limited sight distance exists today for sauthbound motorists on Monroe S � Avenue S� appcoaching SE 18`h Street due ta the roadway gcometrics and existing obstructions {fence and on-street vehicte parking}, The site distance issue was remedied �' i by an MDNS condition that requires the applicant to instal) a stap sign. 7 � � (nciuded in the (ndependent Seconcfary Review (Exhibit 13) was a recammendation for � j sight distance analysis at the 124�' Place SE and SE 158`" 5treet intersection. The report 9 : identifies this interseckion as a possible sight distance cancern. Given the provided TIA I does not include an analysis of the sight distance at this intersection, a SEPA mitigation t� ! measure was issued requiring the applicant submit a revised TIA including an analysis of 1 � � the 124`h Place SE and SE 158`h Street intersection sight distance and recommend ° appropriate mitigation if needed {Exhibit 22). Site distances at a!! other study �z I intersections were deemed acfequate with the exception of Beacon Way SE at SE 16`h �3 ! Street. 14 p The vertical curve of SE 1fi`�' Street presents a visibility concern. A crest vertical curve }5 � obstructs sight distance where SE t b`h Street crosses Beacon Way SE especiaily if car speeds exceed posted speed timit si�nage. There are existing signs (Steep Hill, Siippery ��' � When Wet, Advisary 15MPH Speed) at SE 16`" Street northeast of Beacon Way S6 17 j which help to caim existin� traffic at this intersectian. AppraximateCy 60% of the � project's trips are anticipated to utilize this intersection. Therefore, the ERC issued a �� , SEPA mitigation measure requiring the applicant to install an additional warning sign for lq ; a CROSSROAD (W2-1 symbol) with a ISMPH advisary speed on the southwest ' directianal appraach to Beacon Way SE, along the north side of SE 16`h Street (east of 2� Beacon Way SE)(Exhibit 22)_The ERC issued another SEPA mitigation condition at this 2 2 ' intersection to reduce cui thru traffic. The app(icant is required to install directional ' information signage (white letters on green background} at S. Pu�et Drive and 116`t' 22 � Avenue SE facing west (Exhibit 22). The signs are required to read "TIFFANY PARK" �� _ with a left arrow and"CASCADE"with a right arrow. 24 Several public comments requested the use af speed bumps as a traffic calming measure 2S along SE Ib`h Street to address sight distance{including verticat), cut through traf�c, and spin out cancems which would be aggravated by traffic generated by the proposal. The 26 . �PRELIM[NARY PLAT- Freliminary Piat-22 � � . , � 1 � City does not support the use of speed bumps on public streets. Speed bumps are not � desired due to noise, excessive speeds between installations (so drivers can make up 2 � - time), and result in a reduction in response time of public safety vehicles such as fire 3 � engines and aid cars. 4 ; � Several public comments requested internal pedestrian connectivity, connections to 5 neighboring developments/abutting pipelines, connectivity to Tiffany Park Elementary, 6 and the crossing at SE l6th St and Edmonds Way SE intersection(See Exhibit ]0.22).No . frontage improvements are required on adjacent street frontage. The interna( public 7 streets have been proposed with a right-of-way width of 53 feet which meets the City's ' g complete street requirements for residential access streets. Pavement width of 26 feet, 0.5 , foot wide curbs, 8 foot wide landscaped planters (on both sides of the street), 5 foot wide 9 sidewalks (on both sides of the street), drainage improvements, and street lighting are I required. The applicant is proposing two pedestrian connections to neighboring 10 � developments and an abutting pipcline via Tracts C and E. 11 City staff evaluated the intersection of Edmonds Avenue SE/SE 16`h Street-Edmonds �2 ` Way SE with respect to pedestrian improvements in 1996, 2005 and again in 2007 and �3 � determined that crosswalks were not warranted at this location. The additional � development traffic wil! not exceed the threshold to warrant installation of a crosswalk at 14 � this location. 15 As noted in staff testimony above, the proposal will not exceed six dwelling units per 16 ' acre and therefore is not required to provide alley access. 17 . Several public comments dealt with construction traffic (See Exhibit 10.30). The 18 developer will be required to comply with the Renton Municipal Code for haul hours, 19 ° construction hours, and noise levels. A final Traftic Control Plan complying with the Renton Municipal Code will be required to be submitted and approved prior to 20 construction. 21 : F. ParkinQ. Sufficient area exists, on each lot, to accommodate required off street parking 22 � for a minimum of two vehicles per dwelling unit as required by City code. 23 : � G. Schools. The Renton School District anticipates it can accommodate any additional 24 � students generated by this proposal at the fo(lowing schools: Tiffany Park Elementary 25 � (0.4 miles from the subject site), Nelson Middle School (1.7 miles from the subject site) and Lindberg High School (0.9 miles from the subject site). RCW 58.17.1 10(2) provides 26 PRELIM[NARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat-23 - � �.r�' i � � 1 _ that no subdivision be approved without making a written finding of adequate provisions i for safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from school and/or bus stops. 2 � � Tiffany Park Elementary and Lindberg High School are within walking distance of the 3 i subject sitc while Nelson Middle School would require future students to be transported 4 , to schoot via bus. � 5 ; As part of the proposed project, sidewalks would be constructed along on-site roadways 6 ; which would connect to the existing sidewalk system providing adequate provisions for I safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from school and/or bus stops. 7 : g � Sidewalks would provide a route between the project site and nearby Tiffany Park � Elementary School, including available marked crosswalks at the Kirkland Avenue 9 i SE/Lake Youngs Way intersection. The Kirkland Avenue SE/Lake Youngs Way 10 � �ntersection is approximately 300 linear feet from where SE 18th St intersects Lake Youngs Way. Given the number of homes proposed, it is very likely that a large influx of 11 � students would attempt to cross Lake Youngs Way SE, at the SE 18`h Street intersection, � which does not currently have a marked crosswalk. In order to provide a more practical 12 � safe route to Tiffany Park Elementary from the project site, a SEPA mitigation measure 13 ; was issued requiring the applicant provide a marked crosswalk at the intersection of SE 14 � �g�h Street and Lake Youngs Way. � I S � No current bus stops exist for this property as it is currently undeveloped. The Renton ' School District will be making provisions for the location of bus stops for those students 16 N,hoµ,��� be attending Nelson Middle School. 17 ' A School Impact Fee, based on new single-family lots, will also be required in order to �g mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to Renton School District. The fee is payable to 19 � the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of building permit ' application. Currently the fee is assessed at $5,455.00 per single family residence and 20 ; would increase to $5,541.00 on January 1, 20l 5. 21 � 22 � V. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 23 ' l. Authoritv. RMC 4-7-020(C) and 4-7-050(D)(5) provide that the Hearing Examiner shall 24 �hold a hearing and issue a final decision on preliminary plat applications. RMC 4-9-070(R) and 25 ;RMC 4-8-110(A)(2) grant the Examiner authority to review and make final decisions on SEPA �appeals. 26 � � Preliminary Plat- 24 PRELIMINARY PLAT- - � �./ . 1 2. Zonin�/Comnrehensive Plan Desi�nations. The majority of the subject property is zoned 2 . Residential 8 dwe(ling units per net acre (R-8). A small portion of the subject property is zoned ; Residential 4 dwelling units per net acre (R-4). Only the R-S portion of the property is proposed for 3 residential development. The comprehensive plan map land use designation is Residential Single 4 ' Family (RSF)and Residential Lo�v Density(RLD). 5 : SEPA APPEAL 6 ; 3. Review Standard. There are two reasons a DNS can be overturned to overturned: (I)there are unmitigated probable significant adverse environmental impacts; or(2)the SEPA responsible official � !has not undertaken an adequate review of environmental factors. Each grounds for reversal will be g ,separately addressed below. 9 .A. Probable Si�nificant Adverse Environmental Impacts. ; - 10 The primary relevant inquiry for purposes of assessing whether County staff correctly issued a DNS � � � is whether the project as proposed has a probable significant environmental impact. See WAC 197- � 1 I-330(1}(b). WAC 197-I 1-782 defines "probable" as follows: 12 �3 ' 'Probable`mean.s likely or reasonably likely to occur, as in `a reasonable probability of more lhun a moderate effect on the qualrty of the environment`(see WAC 197-I1-79-1). Probable is 14 ; used to distingt�ish likely impacts from those that merely have a possibility of occurring, bt�t �5 ' are remote or,speculative. Thrs i.s not meant as a strict statistical probability test. �6 If such impacts are created, conditions will have to be added to the DNS to reduce impacts so there are no probable significant adverse environmental impacts. In the alternative, an environmental �� • impact statement would be required for the project. [n assessing the validity of a threshold �g determination, the determination made by the City's SEPA responsible official shall be entitled to ;substantial weight. WAC 197-11-680(3)(a)(viii). An appeal of an MDNS is judicially reviewed 19 � under the clearly erroneous standards. Under the clearly erconeous standard, the decision of the 20 SEPA responsible official can only be overturned if, after reviewing the entire record, the decision maker is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. RMC 4-8-110- 21 '(E}(12)(b)(v). The procedural determination by the Environmental Review Committee or City staff 22 � shall carry substantial weight in any appeal proceeding. RMC 4-8-1 10(E)(12)(a). 23 , B. Adeauate Environmental Review 24 The second reason a DNS can be overturned is if the SEPA responsible official did not adequately 25 review environmental impacts in reaching his threshold determination. The SEPA responsible officia! 26 : �PREL[MINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat-25 M v � I � 1 � must make a prima facie showing that he has based his determination upon information reasonably 2 ; sufficient to eva(uate the impacts of a proposal. WAC 197-11-335. � 3 C. No Grounds for an E[S. 4 �TPWAG has not demonstrated a need for additional SEPA mitigation, environmental review or the 5 ; issuance of an environmental impact statement. All of the grounds for SEPA appeal are addressed in ° Finding of Fact No. 5. As determined in that finding, none of the impacts identified by TPWAG 6 �qualify as probable significant adverse environmental impacts and TPWAG has not identified an � ; impact for which the SEPA responsible official did not have sufficient information to reasonably assess impacts. 8 D. Perimeter Landscaping. 9 -- ---- 10 � MDNS Condition No. 6 is modified to only require 10 foot perimeter landscaping along the retaining walls that are over four feet in height, specifically in proximity to lots 40, 41, 46, 47, 80, 82, 83-90, 1 I 93 and 94. 12 �The applicant argues that no perimeter buffering is required because the City's landscaping standards �3 �do not require buffering and that those standards should be determinative in assessing the need for ' landscaping. The applicant is correct up to a point. RCW 36.7QB.030(3) and RCW 43.21C.240(2)(a) �4 ,does al low a city to use its development standards as the exclusive source of mitigation for �5 �environmental impacts. However, RCW 43.21 C.240(2)(a) provides that in order to use development j regulations in this manner the City must make a determination in the course of permit review that the 16 � development standards in question are adequately addressed by the development regulations. RCW i 43.21C.240(4) further clarifies that for development standards to be found to adequately mitigate '7 � impacts, imposition of the standards must either avoid or mitigate the impacts; or the legislative body �g :of the city has determined that the development standard sets acceptable levels of impact. �9 I Renton's landscaping standards do not adequately address all of the aesthetic impacts created by the 20 � proposal. As noted previously, one of the two ways that a development standard can be found to :adequately address impacts is if the City Council intended the standard to set acceptable levels of 21 _ impact. See RCW 43.21C.240(4)(b).The Renton City Council expressly determined that the 22 � landscaping standard would not set acceptable levels of aesthetic impact, stating the purpose clause of the landscaping standards that `'it is not the intent of these regulativns that riKid and inflexible design 23 standards be imposed, but rather that mirrimum.standards be set." 24 � The other, more difficult issue involved in ascertaining whether the landscaping standards would 25 `adequately address aesthetic impacts is if the standards actually mitigate the impacts. Given the 26 subjectivity of aesthetic perimeter impacts, one would have to conclude that in the vast majority of ,PRELIM[NARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat-26 - � �.r' i 1 _typical subdivisions the landscaping standards do set an adequate standard. In not imposing any 2 perimeter landscaping requirements between single family residential uses, the City Council must � have determined that for the typical subdivision, such landscaping is not necessary. However, the 3 �proposed subdivision is not typical. As determined in finding of Fact No. 6,the proposal will involve 4 ;up to 16.6 foot high retaining walls that will create a stone wall to the neighborhoods across from it, which in turn can be topped with 6 foot fences. The site visit revealed that no other homes in the 5 ;vicinity have such retaining walls or similar edifices bordering on public roads. Consequently, the 6 ; impacts of the subdivision are not typical and likely not the type of impact the City Council _considered when it omitted any buffer requirements for adjoining residential uses. Additional 7 mitigation through SEPA is well justified in this case to mitigate against the impact of retaining �walls. 8 , 9 �The City's environmental report also cites that buffering is necessary to off-set the impacts of the densities of the proposal, which are higher than adjoining densities. This does not serve as an �� �adequate justification for buffering. Setting a threshold for adverse aesthetic impacts based upon a �� ;difference in density or lot sizes is a completely arbitrary action in the absence of any legislative 12 �guidance. The difference in density between the proposa) and adjoining uses is not so high that reasonable minds would share the same opinion as to whether the difference is aesthetically adverse. �3 ;Though both the surrounding areas and the subject are zoned R-8, the developed density of the : proposal will not exceed 5.7 dwe(ling units per acre. Indeed, unlike the retaining walls of the project, 14 differences in residential densities are something that one would reasonably anticipate the Council �5 would have considered in adopting its landscaping standards, and it adopted no perimeter requirements between residential zoning districts with different densities, except as between multi- 16 :family and less intense residential uses. For these reasons, the comparatively hi�her density of the �� proposal does not create a probable significant adverse environmental impact. �g . Another issue with respect to the SEPA's mitigation measure is to ensure that the City has adopted a ; SEPA olic that re uires the im act to be addressed. RCW 43.21C.060 re uires tha 19 , � Y 9 N � t SErA � mitigation must be based upon policies adopted by the local government authority. Interestingly, the � 20 � City hasn't adopted its development standards as part of its SEPA policies, so the purpose clause of , the landscaping regulations, which promote aesthetic compatibility, can't t5e used. There are plenty of 2� other SEPA policies that promote aesthetic compatibility. RMC 4-2-070(M)(2)(ii)provide that one of 22 .the goals of SEPA review is to assure aesthetically pleasing surroundings. The City's comprchensive :plan is another adopted SEPA policy. One of its community design goa(s is to "raise the aesthetic 23 quality of the city". Objective CD-M recognizes that well designed landscaping provides aesthetic 24 �appeal and makes an important contribution to the health, safety, economy and general welfare of the community. Policy CD-88 provides that street trees and landscaping should be required for new 25 'development to provide an attractive streetscape in areas subjected to a transition of land uses. Al! of 26 these policies are served by the perimeter landscaping required by this decision, since such .PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat-27 _ � — � *br+ � - I ; � � 1 : landscaping will raise the aesthetic quality af the city, provide for aesthetic appeal and buffer against 2 �the transition from ihe higher density residentia! devetopment and its associated retaining walls ta the ! lower surrounding residential densities. 3 ; !The applicants argue in their briefing that requiring perirneter landscaping would be unreasonable 4 �because homes would lose yard space. In the alternative, of course, the applicant may have to lose � �some lats. Given the judicial canstructian of"reasonable" in due process and takings cases, the loss �of a few lots or yard space woutd not be consitiered unreasanable. 6i � � As a€`inal matter,SEPA mitigation can only be used ta impose mitigat'son against probable significant �adverse environmental impacts. As determ'sned in the Finding of Fact No. 5, ihe solid walls created $ ' by the higher porkians c�f ihe retaining wall easily qualify. Na reasona6le minds could differ on the g :opinion that high retaining walls are at odds with the general design of the cammunity and create a rnass of rock or cancrete wa11 that is aestheticaliy adverse. The remarning issue is haw high the wall 10 ; should be to be considered adverse. Again, reference to existing codes is usefui as it provides an � t {objective and consistent standard for application. Retaining walls fewer than faur feet in height do �not require 6uilding permit review. Consequently, it can be reasonabiy anticipated that decorative I� � retaining walts under four feet may not be that uncommon, whereas praperty owners will only go �through the time and expense of building permit review far higher walls when they are necessitated �3 for stabiGty as opposed ta decorative purposes. A four feet height is alsa still low enough to retain the 14 !�iews of surrounding trees, vistas and other natural and landscaped features. For this reason, thase 'portions of the praposa] with retaining walls that exceed faur feet in height shall be subject to the 10 �$ `foot wide perimeter landscap'sng requirement imposed in the MDNS. 16 � �E. Conclusion of Law 3(E) has been renumbered to Conclusian of Law No. 7.5 as dirccted by �� �khe Ruling an Reconsideration. Ig � F. Loss of Recreational Use. 19 � 'The appellants assert that the project sitc has been used as a recreational resource by the surrounding 2� ,community for decades and that its loss is a probable significant adverse environmental impact. The 2l � loss of recreational use from the property is not an enviranmental impact of the proposal subject to SEPA review and rnitigation. Even if it were, that loss does not result in any violation of the City's 22 �detailed park policies and regulations, compliance of which assures that development wil! not create 2� i demand upon park facilities that exceeds (egislatively adopted level of service standards. 24, � As a preliminary matter, it should be nated that this decision does not address the prescriptive rights c(aims made by the appellants to the praject site, As ruled in Ex. AG, the Examiner has no authority 2$ to address the prescriptive easement claims asserted by the SEFA appellants. Practically speaking, 2� this decision will not prejudice the appellants' prescriptive rights claims if the appellants diligently �PRELIMINARY PLAT- �reliminary Plat-28 `r 'r/ I 1 �pursue those claims in superior court, the proper forum for such a claim. Should the appellants 2 ,actually succeed in persuading a court that the public has prescriptive rights to the public school property (which appears unlikety at this juncture), they could acquire injunctive or other judicial 3 relief to prevent development of the proposal. 4 �No additional SEPA review or mitigation is merited on the recreational use issue because the loss of 5 �that use cannot be considered an impact of the proposal. [n the absence of any prescriptive rights to i the prvject site, project opponents are left with the argument that the applicant should fund further 6 �environmental review or provide for additional mitigation to compensate for the fact that either (I) � i the applicant was benevolent enough to allow the public to use its property; or (2) the public repeatedly trespassed on the applicant's property. From an equitable standpoint, such a position S :borders on the absurd. More importantly, the applicant could prevent the public from using its 9 property at any time, with or without the proposal. For this reason,the loss of recreational use should �not be considered an impact of the proposal for purposes of environmental review. l0 � Even if loss of the recreational use of the site could be legitimately considered an environmental 11 ; impact for purposes of SEPA, its loss would not qualify as a probable significant adverse 12 environmental impact. The City's comprehensive plan, park impact fees and open space requirements �are all designed to assure that each deve(oper is required to provide its proportionate share �3 �contribution to the park needs of the city and that the park needs of the public will be met as 14 `development progresses. The applicant's proposal is consistent and compliant with all of these � requirements. In point of fact the applicant will be required to pay park impact fees at the time of �5 buildin ermit issuance. The a Itcant is also rovidin for 1.2 acres of o n s ace even thou h no I g P PP � p 8 pe p , g �6 _open space is required for subdivisions in the R-8 zone. As would be expected, none of the City's park policies or regulations penalizes a developer for withdrawing the ability of the public to use or �� �tres ass u on its ro ert . Since the a ficant is actin full within the re uirements of the Cit s � P P P P Y PP g Y Q Y� �g ;detailed park policies and regulations, its proposal cannot be considered to create adverse impacts to the City's (i.e. public's) parks and recreational system. 19 20 PRELIMINARY PLAT 21 , 6. Review Criteria. Chapter 4-7 RMC governs the criteria for preliminary review. Applicable standards are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. 22 RMC 4-7-080(B): A subdivision shal!be consistenl with the follnwing principles of acceptability: 23 24 ' 1. Legal Lots: Create legal building srtes which comply with all provisions of the City Zoning Code. 25 ; 2. Access:Establish access to a pz�blic road for each seAregated parcel. 26 ; � PRELIM[NARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat-29 � �,..' �../ 1 3. Physicul Churucteristics: Have suitable physical characteristics. A proposed plal may be denied 2 becuarse of�flood, inundation, or wetland conditions. Construction of prntective improvements may be required as u condition of approval, and szrc•h improvements shall be noted on the ftnal plat. 3 �l. Drainage: Make aclequute provisron_for drainage ways, streels, crllevs, olher public ways, water 4 supplies and sanitary wnstes. 5 � )� ) ; RMC 4-4-080 1 7 : 6 a. Benefrts of Joint use driveways reduce the number of curb cuts along individual streets and � thereby improve safety and reduce congestiorr while providrng for addrtional on-street parking g opportunities. Joint t�se drivewuvs should be encouraged when feasible and appropriate. (Ord. �.i 17, 5-8-1995) 9 10 b. [�'here Permitted:Adjoining commercial nr indzrstrial uses may ulilize a joint zrse driveway where such joint use driveway reduces the total number of'driveways entering the street network, subject to 1 I the approval of the Depnrtment of Commz�nity and Economic Development. Join! a�se driveways �2 must be created upon the common properry line of the properties served or throtrgh the grunting of a permanent nccess eusemerr! when said drivewcry does not exist upon u common prnperty line. Joint �3 use access to the driveway�shall be assured bv eusement or other legal form acceptable to the City. 14 i �. As to compliance with the Zoning Code, Finding I(2) of the staff report in the portions �5 ' related to density, lot dimensions, setbacks and building standards (Pages 12-13) are adopted by j reference as if set forth in full, with all associated recommended conditions of approval adopted by 16 this decision as well. �� 'As depicted in the plat map, Staff Report Ex. 2, most of the lots will directly access a public Road �g (Road A, SE 18th Street or 124th Place SE). As noted in Finding of Fact 6.G, shared driveways are : proposed for Lots 12-14, Lots 15-17, Lots 38-40 and Lots 79-81. Staff additionally suggests Lot 1 l �9 �and Lots 78 take access from the shared driveway. There are no topographical or critical areas issues 20 �to preclude these three lots from having shared access. The shared access would reduce the number �of curb cuts at the entrance of the plat at 124th Place SE and along the cul de sac at the end of the 2� �same street. Potential vehicle and pedestrian conflicts would be lessened by consolidating driveways. 22 � However, the applicant testified use of the shared driveway for Lot 11 is problematic because the driveway would be at an angle to the roadway which would also change the design of the house to 23 'allow side loading of the garage. The applicant objected to the inclusion of Lot 78 in a shared 24 driveway. There appear to be no material differences between Lots 78 and 81 in terms of orientation ,or width. As these lots are very near to the subdivision entrance, limiting potential vehicle and 25 �pedestrian conflicts is desirable. Though a change to the design of the house on Lot 1 I is not an 26 ;unreasonable accommodation to allow for vehicular and pedestrian safety at the cul de sac, the �PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 30 - \.r �.r� . ( �driveway for Lot 11 would be at an undesirable angle to the shared driveway. The cul de sac serves a 2 � limited number of houses. In this instance,the safety effect of removing one driveway access to a cul de sac does not outweigh the impact to Lot 11 caused by the creation of off kilter driveway. The 3 approval will be conditioned to require the inclusion of Lots 12-14, Lots 15-17, Lots 38-40 and Lots 4 i 78-81 in shared driveways. 5 As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5 and 6, the project is adequately designed to prevent any � impacts to critical areas and will not cause flooding problems. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 6 6,the proposal provides for adequate public facilities. � i 7.5 Retainin� Wall Hei�ht. The six-foot retaining wall height limitation recommended by staff 8 ;will not be adopted. Renton does not have any standards imposing height limits on retaining walls outside of setback areas. There is nothing in the record that establishes the potential for any adverse 9 ' impacts other than aesthetic, and those impacts will be adequately addressed by the staff s 10 � recommended landscape perimeter. l� i The retaining wall condition presents two code interpretation issues: (I)whether the City's fence and 12 hedge regulation (RMC 10-4-040) applies to retaining walls, and (2) if RMC 10-4-040 does apply, ,whether it imposes a six foot height limit on retaining walls. As to the first issue, RMC 10-4-040 13 �Probably does apply to retaining walls. RMC 4-4-040(A) provides that the purpose of RMC 4-4-050 �4 is to regulate the material and height of`'fences and hedges." "Fence" is not defined in the RMC. ; However, walls are addresscd throughout RMC 4-4-040. Most pertinent, RMC 4-4-040(C)(I) 15 provides in relevant part that, "In cases where a wall is used instead of a fence, height shall be 16 ;measured from the top surface of the wall to the ground on the high side of the wall." This sentence i strongly suggests that the wall in question can include retaining walls, since the sentence �� 'acknowledges that one side of the wall can be at a higher grade than the other. Retaining walls that ig �project above the higher grade would meet this definition. The applicant argues that this reference to �"wall" as well as others pertains to "European or California-style stone walls." Nothing in the 19 � language of RMC 4-4-040 suggests that walls be limited to stone walls. 2� : [n addition to providing some clarity on the applicability of RMC 4-4-040 to retaining walls, RMC 4- 21 4-040(C)(1) also establishes that retaining walls that do not project past the higher grade have a height of zero feet, which is below all the height limits set for walls by RMC 4-4-040. The sentence 22 clearly states that retaining wall height is to be measured from the "high side of the wall", which 23 would be zero in the case of the retaining walls proposed by the applicant. This result makes sense in � light of the other limitation of RMC 4-4-040, that it applies only "in cases where walls are used 24 instead of a fence." If a retaining wall does not extend above the higher grade, it doesn't take the 25 place of a fence and hence is not subject to the height limit. [n short, retaining walls that only serve to retain soil, as proposed by the applicant, are not subject to the height limits of RMC 4-4-040. 26 .PRELIM[NARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 31 _. � � � 1 � Practically speaking, this rneans that RMC 4-4-040 daesn't apply to retaining walls svlely used to 2 ;stabilize grade separations,since no other provisions in RMC 4-4-04Q apply as well. 'Since the six foot height linnit is not required RMC 4-4-040,staff would have to find same other code 3 . 'provision to require the fence, Plat criteria requiring conformance to the comprehensive plan, see 4 RMC 4-7-4$Q(i}{1), include the palicies addressing aesthetic impacts identified in CQL No. S.A.1. $ �As determined in Finding of �act No.6.C, the aesthetic irnpacts of the retainin� walls can be ful}y °rriitigated by perimeter landscaping. Staff acknowledged as much at page t 3 of the staff report. �' !Therefore,the record cantains no adequate justification for a limitatian an retaining wall height. 7 ' 8 ' �RMC 4-7-084(I}(1); ...The Keuring F,.z�aminer shcal!assure con,formance with the gerreral purposNs 9 `of the Campreherasive Plan and ttdopted starrr�c�rds_.. �� ' 8. The proposed preliminary play is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan as outlined � 1 in Finding [(I)of the staff report, whrch is incorporaied by this reference as if set forth in fu(1. 12 �RMC 4-7-120{A): No plan for dhe replc�tting, subdivisrUn, or dedication of uny areus shall be �3 !approved by the Heuring Examiner unless ihe streets show�n therein ure connected by sur.f'acec�roac� �or street(uccording to City speci�cations)to an existing street or highwuy. 14 i 9 9. As shown in Staff Report Ex.2,the internal road system connecEs to SE 18`" Street and 124`�' �S 1 P(ace SE, bath public roads. 16 � ' RMC 4-7-120(B): The l�cation of t�!!streets shall conform to any aclo�ted plans for streets zn the �? �City. �$ ; l0. The City's adopted street plans are not addressed in the staff report or anywhere else in the 1 g �administrative record. l�lowever,the proposed internal road system extends twa exisxing stub roads, �SE 18`h Strcet and 124`h Place SE. Sath extensions will be constructed to City road standards. 20 �Consequently,the criterion above is construed as satisfied by the praposal. 2! ' :RMC 4-7-120(C): If a subdivrsion is located in the area vf an officinlly designed(sicJ[rail, 22 ��ravisions shall be made for reservation of the riRht-of-wuy or for easerrzents to the C'ity for trail 23 purpases. z4 . 11. According to the Renton Trails and Bikeways Map (Exhibit 20) a pedestrian trail is designated within the Seattle Pipeline abutting the site. The applicant would be required to obtain 25 j right-of-way or an access easement across the pipeline for secondary access via 124th Place SE{see �� : Finding 35.6, Streets). In addition,the applicant would k�required to pravide a safe crossing for the F PRELIMINARY PLAT- P�`���minary Plat•32 �./ � 1 designated trail across the extension of 124th Place SE. As a condition of approval, the applicant 2 :shall submit a revised plat plan depicting a safe pedestrian crossing, across the 124th Place SE 'extension, for the Seattle Waterline Pedestrian Trail. 3 ;RMC 4-7-130(C): A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedicntion shull be prepared in conformance 4 with the following provisions: 5 � : 1. Land Unsuitable for Subdivision: Land which is found to be unsuitable for subdivision includes 6 �land with features likely to be harmful to the safety and general heulth of the future residents (such � as land.s adversely uffected by flooding, steep slopes, or rock formations). I,and which the `Department or the Hearing Examiner considers inappropriale jor subdivision sha!! not be 8 sarbdivided unless adeguate safegcrards are provided against these ac�h�erse conditions. � 9 a. Flooding/lnundation: If any portion of the land within the baundary of a preliminary plat �0 I is szebject to flonding or inundation, thut pvrtion of the subdivision must have the approval uf ` the State according to chapter�46.16 RC�V before the Department and[he Hearing Examiner �1 � shall consider such suhdivision. �2 � b. Steep Slopes:A plat, short plu�, sirbdivision or dedicution which wotrld result in the � ]3 ° creution of'a lot or lots that primarrlv have slopes forty percent(�0%) or greater as ' meusured per RN1C 4-3-OSO.JIa, without adeguute area at lesser slopes upon whrch �4 development may occur, shall no!he approved. 15 16 . 3. Land Cleuring and Tree Re[ention:Shall comply with RMC�l-�1-130, Tree Retention and Land 1� Clearing Re�,nrlations. 18 �f. Streams: 19 � a. Preservation: Every reasonable effort shull be made!o presen�e existing streams, bodies 20 of wuter, and wetland areas. 21 � b. Method:If a stream passes through any of the subject property, a plan shall be presented 22 ; which indicates how the stream will he preserved. The methodologies used should include an 23 overflow area, and an attempt to minimi�e the distcrrbance of the natural channel and stream bed. 24 c. Culverting: The piping or tunneling of water shall be discouraged and allowed only when 25 going under streets. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 33 � v I I i � i 1 d. Clean Wuter: F.very effort shatl be made to keep all streams and bodies of water clear af z debris crnd pollutants. I � . 12. The land is suitable for a subdivision. As determined in Finding of Fact S.B, the stormwater � ' design assures that it wili not contribute to flooding and all criticat areas will be pratected. As 4 determined in Finding af Fact No. S.B, no lots with primarily 40% stopes wiil be created,Na piping 5 or tunneling of streams is proposed. Trees wi11 be reCained as required by RMC 4-4-130 as � �determined in Finding of Fact No. S.A. � I � ;RNtC 4-7-14�: Approval of all subdivisions tocated in either single family residerttial or multi- �fnmily residentral zortes as defined in the Zoning Code shall be contingenl upon the subdivider's 8 f dedication of lund ar prvviding fees in lieu of dedicatinn ta the City, all as necessary to mitigatct the 9 'adverse effects of development upon the existin�; park and recreution service levels. The ;requirements and procer�isres for this miti�ation shal! be per the C'ity of'Renton Park.s Mitigation II 10 Re.rolution. > > i 13. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to buiiding permit issuance. I �2 � See also the discussion on loss af recreational use in Conc(usion af Law 3.F above. I i ' �3 'RMC 4-7-150{A}: The proposed str�et syslem shall extend and crec�te connec�tians betx�een existing 'streets unless otherwise approved by the Pu6lic Works Department. Prior to approving a slreet �� ��system that does not extend or cannect, the Reviewing O�c1al shal!find that such exceplian shall �S ;meel the reguirements af subsectinn E3 of'this Section. The roadwcry classifrcutions shall be as !defined and designatect by the Qepar�ment. 16 ! 14. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 2, the proposed interna! roads extend two existing stubs, SE t 7 i 1$`h Street and 124`h Place SE. The interna! Road A creates a loop connectian between the twa �$ �public streets which did not exist previously. ;� !RMC 4-7-150(B): All proposed street numes shall be approved by the City. 20 � � I5. As canditianed. 2i � ,RMC 4-7-i50(C}: SYreets interseeting with existing ar proposecl publie highways, mcrjvr or 22 :.secandury arterial.c shall be held to a minim�rm. 23 : lb. None of the proposed streets intersect with a pubtic highway ar arterial. 24 RMC 4-1-15Q(D}: The atignment of all streets shalt be reviewed und approved by the Public �Yorks 2$ Department. The street standards set by RMC�-6-060 shall apply unless atherwise approved. Street 2� �alignment offsets of less than one hundred twenty five feet (125'} crre not desirc�ble, but muy be PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat-34 _ � � i � I 1 �approved by the Department upon a showing of need but only after provision of al!necessary safety 2 �measures. 3 17. As determined in Finding of Fact 6, the Public Works Department has reviewed and �approved the adequaey of streets, which includes compliance with applicable street standards. 4 � 5 i RMC 4-7-150(E): � 6 1. Grid:A grid street pattern shaU be tesed to connect existing and new development and shal!be the j predominant street pattern in any subdrvision permitted by this Sectivn. 7 ; g ;2. Linkages: Linkages, including streets, sidewalks,pedestrian or bike paths, shall be provided 'within nnd betrveen neighborhoods when they can create a continuous and interconrrected network 9 �ofronds and pathways. Implementation of this reguirement shall comply wrth Comprehensive P[an I0 : Transportation Element Objective T-A and Polreies T-9 through T-16 and Communiry Design �Element, Objective CD-Mand Policies CD-SO and CD-60. II �3. Exceptions: 12 = a. The grid pattern may be adjusted to a 'flexible grrd"by reducing the narmber oJlinkages I �3 i or the alignment between roads, where the folloK�in�;faclors are presenl on site: 14 : i. In easible d r i ; .f ue to topog aphical/environmental constraints; and or 15 = � ii. Substantial improvemenls are existing. 16 ! 17 . 4. Connections: Prior to adoption of a complete grid street plan, reasonable connections that link �existing portions of the grid system shal!be made. At a minlmum, stub streets shall be rec�trired �g within subdivisions lo ullow future connectiviry. 19 5. Alley Access:Alley acc•ess is the preferred slreet paltern except for properties in the Residential 20 Low Density land use desit;nation. The Residential Low Den.sity land use desigrration includes the RC, R-1, and R-�zones. Prior to approval of a plat without alley access, the Reviewing Offcial shall 2� evaluate an alley layout and determine that ihe u.se of crlley(s) is not feasible... 22 � � 6. Alternative Configuratlons: Offset or loop road.s ure the preferred alternative confi�,nrrations. 23 � 7. Cul-de-Sac Streets: Cul-de-snc street.s may only be permitted by the Reviewing Officiu!where due 24 •to demonstrable physical constraints no future connection to a lurger street paltern is phusically 25 possible. 26 PREC,IMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 35 � � � - I l I 18. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 2, the proposed street system contributes to the grid system by z �creating loop access which did not previously exist. Both of the intersecting public streets are �currently stub roads. Aliey access is not required because the prapased density does not meet the 6 3 �dwelling unitlacre threshold. The interna( roads are looped as encauraged by the criterion abave. 4 'The cul de sacs proposed cannat be extended ta connect the raad network because of the presence af two pipeline easements. The criterion is met. 5 RMC 4-7-ISO(F): All adjacent rights-of=way and new rights-of-wcry dedicated as part af the�alat, �' °ineCucfing streets, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their firll wrdth and the pavemerrt ancl 7 ;sidewalks sha!! be constructed as specifred in the str�et standards or deferred by [he Planning/Building/Public Works Admrnistrator or his/her designee. 8 ; � � 19. As proposed all roads will meet City street profile standards for road with and frontage � tmprovements. 10 � ' RMC 4-7-150(G): Streets that may be extenc�ecl in the evenl af future adjacent platting shall be i� �required to be dedicated to the plat bourrdary line. Extensions of greater depth than an crverage lat �� ;shall be improved with temporary turnaround.s. Dedreation of a full-width baundary street shall be �required in certc�in instances to facilitate futurc cievelt�pment. 13 ' '20. As shown in Ex. 2 to the Staff Report, the proposed roads may not be extendcd due ta the I4 presence af pipeline easements. The subject is surrounded on al! sides by existing residential (S development. �� RMC 4-7-170(A): Insofar as practical, side lot lines shall he at right angles�o street lines or radial �� i ta curved street lines. lg �2L As depicted in Staff Report Ex. 2, the side lines are in conforn�ance with the requirement �quoted above. i9 2Q � RMC 4-'7-170(B): Each!o!must hcrve acce.ss to a public slreet or road. Acces,s may be by private �access easement street per the requirements of the street standurds. 21 � j 22. As previousty determined and conditioned,each tot has access to a public street. 22 � 23 �RMC 4-�-1�0(C}: The size, shape, and orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area and wldth i reguirements of the applicable zanrng classification and shall be Uppropriate for the type of 24 'develvpment und use contemplated. Further subdivision of lots within a plat approved through the 2� ;provisions of this Chupter must be consistent wr'th th� then-currerrt applicable mcrximum densiry requirement as measured withirt the plat as u whole. 26 - �PR�[.iMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 36 �..-- - -- - - - - - - � 1 I _ � `�" I � �I i ! °23. As previously determined and as conditianed, the praposed lots comply with the zaning 2 standards of the R-8 zone, which includes area,width and density. � 3 _RMC 47-170{D): Width between side !vt lines at their foremost pc�ints (i.e., the points where the :sicte tat lines intersect with the street righl-of-x�ay line)shc�ll not be less than erghty percent (�'0°l0) of 4 the rc}quirec�l�t width except in the cases of(1)pipestem lots, which shall ha�.=e a minimum width of 5 �twenty feet (20`) and(2) lots on a street curve or the turning circle of czrl-de-sac (rcrdial lots), which shatl be a minimum of thirtyfve fYet (35). 6i � �24. The appticant has proposed several Eots including Lots 14, l 5 and 38 which do nat meet the m�nimum frontage width requirement. tls discussed below in Conclusian of Law 27, each of these $ ' lats must be elirninated or revised to meet the minirnum frantage width requirements. Or, as �discussed in Conclusian of Law S above, the appiicant may also subrnit an alternative ptat plan 9 which includes a cambination of ail iots fronting onto a pubiic street meeting minimum !ot widths I0 �and those portions of the lots now proposed for shared driveway/access easements. � � i RMC 4-7-1'IO(E): No residentiully zvned lvt shall have n depth-to-wiclth ratio greater thun fazrr-to- �2 nne (-f:l). �3 �25. As conditioned, all pipestem lats will be elirninated ar revised to meet minimum tot width , requirements which wiil bring ali of the iats into campliance with this criterion. t4 ; �5 i RMC 4-7-174(F):All l�t corners at intersections af dediccrted public rights-of-way, except alleys, k shull have minimtrm radius offrfteen fc�et (IS'j. 16 � ;26. As proposed all iots meet this critcrion. 17 �g �RMC 4-7-170�G}: Pipestem l�ts mcry be�er»rrtted for new�lats to uchieve the minimum den.srty �' ' cl when there is no other easible alternatrve ta uchievin the minimum density. :x rthtn the Z�ning C� e f �' 14 � II �O ,Mirrimum Lot Size and f'inestem Width nnd LenQth: The pipestem shat!not exceed one hundred frfty ! �feet(1 SQ') in length and not be less thurr twenty feet r20`) in wiclth. The partion of the!ot narrower 2 j than ei,�;hty percent(�40%)of the minimum permitted width shatt not be used f�r l�t area catcututions or for the measurement of required front yard setbacks. Land area irtctuded in privute access �� �easements shall not be included irr lot area calculati�ns. Pipestem lots shall not ahut one another. 23 � 27. The proposal exceeds the min'tmum ciensity of 4.0 dwelling units per acre by 1.7 dwelling 24 units per acre and therefore pipestem lots are prahibited. The applicant has propased severai 25 pipestern lots inctuding Lots i 2, i 4, t 5, 17, 38, 40 and 79. As a canditian of approvat, each of these : lats must be eGminated or revised to meet the minimum frontage width requirements. As an 26 alternative, the applicant may also submit an alternative plat plan which includes a combination of .PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 37 �_ r � "�rr' `'�' . , i 1 ;all lots franting onto a public street meeting minimum tot widths and those portions ofthe lats now z 'proposed for shared drivewaylaccess easemcnts as discussed at�ove in Conclusion of Law S. 3 i RMC 4-7-19�(A}: Ensements mny be reguired for the mai»tenance and operation of utilities as 'specifred by the Department. 4 5 �28. As conditioned. � ;RMC 4-7-194(B): Du�regarrt shall be shox�n tr�atl natarral,f'eatures such us large trees, ;watercourses, anci similar community assets. Such natural features sh�arld be preservec�, thereby 1 �adding attractiveness and vnitie to the property, g ;29. Trees will be retained as required hy City code as determined in Finding af Fact No. 5.There 4 :are no other naturat features that need preservatian as contemplated in the criterion quoted abave. 1 Q RMC 4-?-200(A}: ZJnless septie t�nks are s�ecifically aPproved by the Pu�ilic Works Depurtment � � �and the King County Neutth Department, sanitary.rewers shall be provir�ed hy the devedaper at no 'cast to the City and designed in accardanc•e wrth City standards. Side sewer lines shtrlt be instcilled �� �eight feet(8'} into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subctivision �� i develapment. �4 �30. As canditioned. �5 RMC 4-?-200(B): An crdeguute clrctinage sysient shall be provided frlr the proper drainage of all �� �surface wuter. Cross drains shall bcj�arovided to uccammodate all naturai water flow and shall lre af suffrcient length ta permit full-tiyidth roadway and required slope.r. The drpinage system shall be �� ,designed per the requirements nf Rii�IC�-6-030, Draina,�e (Surface Water) Standard.s. The drainage 1$ �system shall include detention rapncity for the new street areas. Residential plats shall atso include detention cnpacrtyfnr future development of the lots. Waler qualiiyfeatures shall also be designed[v 19 provide capacity fvr the rtew street perving for!he pint. 2� �33. The proposat provides for adequate drainage that is in conformance with applicabte City 2� �drainage standards as deternnined in Findings of Fact Na. 5 and 6. The City's starmwater standards, which are incorporated into the technical information report and will be furth�r impiemented during 22 �civil plan review,ensure compliance with all of the standards in the criterion quoted abave. 23 ! ;RMC 4-7-200(C): The water distribution system incluciing the Iocatirans of fire hydrants shall be 24 designed and instatled in accordunce with C'itv stundards us defined hy the Department and Fire 2� 'Department requirements. 2� ;3(. Compliance with City water system design standards is assured during finat plat review. �PRELtMiNARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat- 38 � _ � -. -. -._ -. -. -.- - -- - - ' � i I `�M� `�� � 1 'RMC 4-7-200(D}: All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed undergraund. Any 2 utilitres installed irr the parking strip shull be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the planti»g of trees. Those utilities to he located beneath paved surfaces shall be installecf including aCl 3 service conneclions, as approved by the Deparlment. Such installation shull be campleted an�l � 'a�provec� privr to the applicatron of any surface maleriul. Easements may be rec�uired for lhe �maintenance uncf operation of utilities as specified by the De�artment. 5 i !32. All utilities including the starmwater vault are proposed to be placed underground. As 6 canditianed, utility installation will be inspected and appraved prior to paving of surface materials I above the utilities. 7 I 8 ,RMC 4-7-200(E); Any cabCe TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time us ather basic I `utili�ies are installed to serve each lot. C'onduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line I g by subdivider as tQ obviute the necessrty for disturbing the street area, including sldewalks, or alley 10 ;im�rrr�vements when such service conrreetions ar�e extentled to serve any builrling. The cast of �I trenching, condt�rt, pedestals andlor vuults and laterals as well as easements therefore reguired ta �� =brin service to the develo ment shcrtl be bc�rrrc� by the develnper t�ndlor land owner. 7'he suhdivider �K p (2 �shall be responsible onty for condurt to serve his devel�pment. Conduit ends shall be elbowed to final ground elevation and cappec� The cable TV company shall provide maps and specifrcutions ta I �� the subdivider and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the Ciry that it is properly rnstalled. l4 ' °33. As conditioned. IS ` : RMC 4-7-210: !6 : 17 '�. �Q'�U�ENTS: �g �Concrete pertrtanent contro!monacments shulC be established at each and every controlling corner vf the suhdivision. Interior monuments shrrll be located as determined 6y the Department. All surveyys �9 'shall he per the�'ity of Renton surveying sturrc�arcis. 20 'B. SUR vEY.� 2] All other!ot corners sha11 be marked per the City surveying standurds. 22 : 23 . C. STREET SIGNS.� 24 ; The subdivider shall install atl street name signs necessary in the subd�vision. 25 34. As conditioned. 2b PRELIMINARY PLAT- P����inary Piat- 39 � _ 1 - -- - - - - - - - --- - - l . ......_.___.__.,...� y�� � i � � VI. DECISION 2 ':The proposed 96-lot pre[iminary plat as depicted in Ex. 33 to the staff report, and critical area 3 exemption as described in the findings of this decision, are approved subject to the following �conditions: 4 1. The applicant shall cornply with the mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination � f of Non-Significance Mitigated,dated September 22, 2014 except as modified below: 6 � a. MDNS Conditipn l shall be revised as follows: � � All earthwork perfarmed, implemented by the applicant, shall be consistent with the � i recommendations of the geotechnical report, prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, q . inc., dated September 28, 2012 or consistent with the recomrnendations of the �nal i City-appraved�eotechnical report. 1Q 1� � b. MDNS Cand'Rion 6 shall be stricken and repiaced with the following [as modified by the Ruling on Reconsideration]: 12 ' The applicant shalt revise its landscaping plan to pravide for a 1Q foot wide on-site ;� i street frontage landscape strip as required by RMC 4-4-070(F)(1) for all lots and a iq 14 � foot wide, site obscuring perimeter landscapin�; adjacent to areas where the retaining walls are four or more feet in height. Landscaping at maturity must exceed the height j 5 � of the adjacent retaining wall. The final detailed landscape plan shall be subrnitted to �� � and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. Such landscaping shall include a mixture of trees, shrubs, and graundcover �7 as approved by the Department of Community and Economic Development. �g � 2. The applicant shall be required to demonstrate compliance with the minimum 50-foot lot 14 w�idth requirement for all lots with less than 50 feet in width at the faremost paints(where the 2a side !ot lines interseci with the street right-of-way iine) pursuant to RMC 4-i l-12Q. The average distance between the side lines cannecting front and rear lot lines shall be submitted 2� � to the Cucreni Ptanning Project Manager prior to construction perm'tt approva(. 22 � 3. Candition No. 3 has been deleted as directed in the Ruling on Reconsideration. 23 � 24. '' Al! references to the plat map in th'ss decisian in the findings and canclusions have been to Exhibit 2 of the staff ,repprt. Those references are accurate. However,the plat approved by this decision is depicted in Exhi6it 3 of the 25 �staff report,which is the 96 lot subdivision as opposed to the 97 lot subdivision. 26 = �PRELIMINARY PLAT- �'reliminary Plat-40 �� � � . � 1 , 4. The applicant shal) be required to submit a revised plat and landscaping plan, which are 2 elements of the City's required construction plan set, depictin�; curb bulbouts at street � intersections where on-street parking is located or calling for no curb bulbouts and 3 � installation of "no parking" designations where street parking is prohibited at street 4 � intersections. The revised plat and landscaping plan shall be submitted to and approved by � the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 5 ; ' S. The applicant shall eliminate individual access directly from intemal public streets for those 6 i lots abutting private streets and/or shared driveway access easements, specifically Lots 12- � � 14, Lots 15-17, Lots 38-40 and Lots 78-81 in shared driveways. Said lots shall be required to take access from the abutting private street and/or access easement and shall not exceed g � access thresholds pursuant to RMC 4-6-060.J and K. Lot 11 may access the public street 9 directly. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Cunent Planning I Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. Furthermore,the access restriction for �� � such lots is required to be noted on the face of the Final Plat prior to recording. 11 i 6. The applicant shall revise the proposed mitigation plan to depict all retaining walls on site, 12 _ including lock & load walls on the north and east sides of Wetlands B and C. The applicant ' sha(I also identify if proposed walls are anticipated to impact critical area buffers and provide �3 appropriate mitigation for such impacts. A Final Mitigation P(an, pursuant to RMC 4-8- 14 I20.W, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior � to construction permit approval. 15 � 16 ' 7. The temporary buffer impacts consisting of minor intrusions or disturbance from � construction activities shall be restored with appropriate grading, soil amendments, and the 1� � planting of native species to the satisfaction of the Current Planning Project Manager. The �g ! revised mitigation plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Mana�er prior to construction permit approval. l9 � � 8. The existing wetland mitigation plan already assures that 1,331 square feet of additiona! 20 ' w-etland buffer area is being provided to mitigate for both existing buffer impacts to Wetland 2� = E that are not associated with the Plat, as well as the loss of 14 square feet of the Wetland E , buffer which loss is associated with the extension of SE l8�' Street. To provide an additional 22 � offset for the impacts resulting from the requested exemption associated with the fill of 14 23 square feet of buffer to extend SE l8th Street. The applicant has agreed to provide and shall � provide enhancement to the Wetland `E' buffer immediately abutting SE 18`" Street, as well 24 ' as enhanced plantings adjoining that buffer area within Tract M. A revised mitigation plan 25 , shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat-41 �.r � 1 9. The applicant shall be required to establish a Native Growth Protection Easement over those 2 parts of the site encompassing wetlands and their associated buffers and place fencing and signage along the outer buffer edge prior to Final Plat approval. 3 10. The applicant shall be required to submit a fill source statement, if fill materials are brought 4 to the site, in order to the City to ensure only clean fill is imported prior to construction. 5 1 l. The applicant shall provide a final Tree Retention Plan, complying with the 30% tree 6 retention SEPA mitigation measure while demonstrating proposed retaining walls would not � impact trees proposed for retention. The Final Tree Retention Plan shall be submitted to, and approved by,the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 8 12. The applicant shall submit a revised plat plan, which is an element of the City's required 9 construction plan set, depicting a safe pedestrian crossing, across the 124`h Place SE �� extension, for the Seattle Waterline Pedestrian Trail. The revised plat plan, as part of the I construction plan set, shall be submitted to, and approved by the Current Planning Project � 1 Manager, Community Services Department, and the Transportation Department prior to 12 � construction permit approval. 13 13. The applicant shall be required to obtain right-of-way or a public access easement through the Cedar River Pipeline, for the extension of 124th Place SE, to the satisfaction of the Plan 14 Reviewer prior to construction permit approval. 15 14. Pedestrian lighting shall be depicted on the lighting plan at the entrances of Tracts C and E 16 (from the proposed right-of-way). The lighting plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, �� the Current Planning Project Manager and the Plan Reviewer prior to conslruction permit approval. 18 15. The Preliminary Plat plan shall be revised so that no more than 4 lots may gain access via a 19 shared driveway and that at least one such !ot shall meet minimum lot width requirements 20 , along a street frontage pursuant to RMC 4-7-170.D (a minimum of 80% of the required lot width/40 feet or 35 feet along a street curve). The lot(s) which provides physical frontage Z� ' along the street shall on(y be allowed vehicular access from the shared private driveway. In 22 order to provide shared access, Lots 14, 17 and 38 shall be widened to 35 feet and take primary access from the shared driveway. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to and 23 approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 24 l6. The plat plan shall be revised so that all lots have no less than a 40-foot lot width where side • 25 lot lines intersect with the street right of way or for radial lots be a minimum of 35 feet in 26 width. Specifically, proposed Lots 14, 17, and 38 would be required to be widened to 35 feet PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat-42 ; �.r �.r'' . � � � � in order to comply with the condition. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to and 2 i approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. � 3 ° 17. The applicant shalt submit a revised plat plan depicting the elimination of all pipestem lots ' (lots which are less than 40 feet in width where the side lot lines intersect with the street � 4 right-of-way or for radial lots are less than 35 feet) within the subdivision. Specifically, 5 ' proposed Lots 12, 14, 15, 17, 38,40, and 79 would be required to be eliminated or revised to meet minimum frontage width requirements. The applicant may also submit an alternative 6 ' plat plan which includes a combination of all lots fronting onto a public street meeting � minimum lot widths and those portions of the lots now proposed for shared driveway/access easements could be placed in Shared Driveway Tracts with easements placed over them g ` pursuant to RMC 4-6-060, Street Standards. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to and 9 ; approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. (0 18. Any proposal to convert the Stormwater vault within Tract A to a Stormwater detention pond � be considered a Major Plat Amendment subject to the requirements outlined under RMC 4-7- Il � 080M.2. 12 ` 19. The applicant shall be required to create a homeowners' association and maintenance 13 � agreement(s) for the shared utilities, landscape areas and maintenance and responsibilities for �4 ; all shared improvements of this development. A draft of the document(s) shall be submitted P to Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval by the City Attorney and �5 Property Services section prior to the recording of the final plat. 16 ' . 20. The applicant shall submit the resuits of the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment to the �� � City for review. Appropriate mitigation, if any, shall be completed prior to issuance of buifding permits. 18 � � 21. All road names shall be approved by the City. 19 � � 20 _ 22. Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the _ Department. 21 : 23. Sanitary sewers shall be provided by the developer at no cost to the City and designed in 22 accordance with City standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet(8') into each lot � if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision development. 23 24 � 24. Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line. 25 � 25. Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling 26 corner of the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the �PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat-43 �./ �/ - 1 Department. A!I surveys shall be per the City of Renton surveying standards. All other lot corners shall be marked per the City surveying standards. The subdivider shall install all 2 street name signs necessary in the subdivision. 3 26. [This condition added as directed by the Ruling on Reconsideration to address Roof run-offJ. 4 Roof run-off that impacts wetlands shall not be allowed mix with polluting surfaces. Category 2 wetlands may not be structurally or hydrologically engineered for runoff quantity 5 or quality control as required by KCSWDM Reference 5. City staff shall require design adjustments as authorized by KCSWDM 1.2 to the extent necessary to prevent adverse 6 impacts to wetland hydrology caused by roof runoff: 7 DATED this 26`h day of lanuary, 2015. 8 9 < �--��.,� ,��.. � Ahif A.Olb�tch�s 10 City of Renton Hearing Examiner 11 12 �3 APPEAL RIGf ITS AND VALUATION NOTICES 14 ' RMC 4-8-080 provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to the �5 ; Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(14) requires appeals of the hearing examiner's decision to 16 be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing esaminer's decision. There is no right to reconsideration as the decision has already been subject to reconsideration. �7 Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, �g I Renton City HaII—7th floor,(425)430-6510. � � lq ; The City Council's jurisdiction to hear SEPA appeals is contested by the applicant. The City � Council shall determine whether it has any jurisdiction to hear an appeal of the SEPA portion of 20 � this decision. 21 I � Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes 22 � notwithstanding any program of revaluation. 23 � 24 ; 25 � 26 ; ', �PRELIMINARY PLAT- Preliminary Plat-44 �,�,, �.�+' ATTACHMENT A T6e Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminacy Plat and SEPA Appeals (I.UA13-0025�2,ECF,PP,CAE) TESTIMONY SUMiitrfARY SEPA Appeal#1—Applicants Ant�licant Testirnonv Ms. Nancy Rogers, applicant's Attarney, stated the applicant had filed an appeal to the City's SEPA MDNS based on three issues. They felt the geotechnical report should be updated to reference the current geotechnical repart. They have issues with Conditions #3 and#6. They believe it's better for the praject and environment to have Henley comply with a tree protection plan and have Henley's arborist work with the Cicy's azborist ta assure that as many trees as possible are preserved. They reyuested arnendments to Condition 3. In addition, Condition 6 was imposed in the MUNS. It would impase a 15-50 faot gerimeter buffer around the entire site. This is overreaching and unduly ' burdensonne. The applicant is going above and beyond co pravide buffering, which is not necessary because they are prvposing single family uses next ta single famiiy uses. There are twa rights af j ways along substantial partions of the borders,the Mercer Isiand Water Pipeline and the Cedar River j Water Pipeline. One is 60 feet wide; the other is I00 feet wide. There is already substantial buffering � betweea existing uses and the project site. II They have an analysis responding to the City staff SEPA analysis filed last Friday (Exhibit K11). I Ms. Rogers summarized this analysis, They appealed Condition #1. Staff felt that Condition #1 I would be acceptable if they amended the condition to include compliance with the revised I gec�technical report.The apglicant agrees. With respect the appeal to Canditions #3 fQr tree preservation and #6 for the progosed perimeter buffer, mitigation conditions under SEPA are subject to state and federal law, statutory and case law that establish a nexus of rough progo�tionality. That nexus is required to be shawn by the City prior I� to imposition of these mitigation conditions. Case law deal'rng with the imposition of buffers had � held that buffers need to be impased when two very dissimilar uses are proposed adjacent ta each � ather.That is nat the case here. � I With respect to Condition#3, the scape af that conditian has morphed from the SEPA MDNS to the I w' the staffs current opinion. The applicant appealed this condrtion to require compliance ith j applicant's tree pratection plan rather than the more general requirement that they comply with relevant City codes. Staff is requiring 3Q% retentian of trees rather than the Code requirement that �` ' � i � �� aliows far replacement of trees thraugh mitigation (RMC 4-4-130(H)(1)(e)}. The condition is overreaching and overly burdensome. The City has failed to identify an adverse significant environmental impact related to tree preservation in the applicant's proposal. They are intending to preserve 30% of the trees. The developer needs to be able to replace trees that might be inadvertently damaged during construction rather than complying to a hard set retention percentage. They aren't intending to clear cut. They glan to protect the 3Q% of the trees. A few extra might come down through inadvertent damage. If so, thase will be praperly mitigated. With respect to Condition#6,the peritneter buffer,as stated in the ariginal MDNS condition it was a "minimum 15 faot buffer" which became 25-54 feet in width around the entire perimeter. There is no significant enviranmentaI impact here and the City is not entitled to impose mitigation here. There is na Iegal authority or justificatian by the City to require Henley ta protect one use from another when the use is the same. The neighboring property owners could plant trees in their own yards. As designed by Henley,the project already zzunimizes visual impact to neighboring uses in ways that � are not required by the code. The code does not impose a perimeter buffer of any sort an a single family project like this. The majority of this site includes a perirr►eter buffer of 10-15 feet. There is more an critical areas tracts, The average buffer width is 55 feet. In a@ditian, they have the two pipeline rights of ways, which are 60 feet and i00 feet wide. Adding in the pipetines, the average buffer goes ap ta l00 feet between homes fram this project and adjacent homes. This is well outside of rough praportionatity. Mr. Barry Talkington is a civil engineer with Barghausen Consuiting Engineers. Mr. Tatkingtan described his education and qualificatians. He prepares designs and layauts for single famity projects. He designs roads, infrastructure, storm ponds, etc. He's prepared about 50 preliminary plats. It is typical for him to design a preliminary plat and then staR into more detailed engineering I design. They have prepared preliminary and final grading plans. Ms. Ragers presented Exhibit A-11, ( the ultimate plat layout. Mr. Talkington described the exhibit, the 96-lat version of the plat. There � was an earlier version with more lots but they removed one to meet the 30°Ic tree retentian � requiremeni.They eliminated Lot 2 from the originai submittal. In respanse to Ms. Rogers, Mr. Talkington described the various perimeter buffers, ranging including SQ feet in Tracts B and M and near Lots l3 and 14,the buffer is 15 foot wide. They have a 10 foat buffer that iacrease ta nearty 80 feet by Lot 19 by the Mercer Island Pipetine. The miniznum pcoposed buffer is 10 feet. By Traci G, the buffer is l00 feet. The Mercer Island Pipeline is 60 feet wide. The minimum setback atong this area is 70 feet. Some lots da touch the property boundary, though that is adjacent to the 100 foot wide Cedar River Pipeline. There is additional greenspace in Tract H, G and J. In some places the buffer goes from 15 feet to 200 feet. The average buffer width is appraximately 50 feet. With the pipeline areas, the average buffer width is over 100 feet. Only six �� I I r � lots touch the perimeter of the property, all along the Cedar River Pipeline. In his opinion, the project dces not result in a significant adverse aesthetic impact to the neighbors. With respect to retaining walls, Mr. Talkington stated retaining walls are not purely cosmetic, though they can be. The purpose is to shorten the distance needed for a grade transition. There is grading involved in neazly all projects in the Pacific Northwest. Grading is accomplished via slopes or retaining walls. To create a hypothetical lot, either grade more land or build a wall along the edge and grade less. Lots with significant trees were designed with retaining walls to retain more trees. A building permit is required for a wall of 4 feet high or greater. Mr. Talkington has prepared building permit applications for this project and the associated grading plans which will be submitted today. , Ms. Rogers asked about Exhibit K6, related to the grading plans. Ms. Rocale Timmons asked if this was the Erosion Control plan set.Mr.Talkington confirmed it is. , In response to Ms. Rogers, for Lots 18-21, Mr. Talkington stated the retaining walls would be I rockeries. The lot grade is below the existing grade. He noted the top and bottom of the wall ' elevations. For example, Lot 19's wall is 4.5 feet. A cut wall is for when a retaining wall is retaining the existing grade when the pad grade is below the existing grade. For a pad above the existing grade, they would use a fill wall. These walls are constructed differently. Fill walls require extra stabilization. In every place where there is a cut wall,the face of the wall will be to the interior of the ro'ect. For the fill walls the face i e e t ' r , s to th x eno of the ro'ect. Mr. Talkin ton addressed the staff P J P J g Report (Page 13) concern about the height and visibility of walls along the Cedar River Pipeline. The wall at Tract A will be visible, though there will be landscaping planted between the walls and � the perimeter. For Lots 79 and 81 (Exhibit K6a, Lots 80 and 82 , there is a cut rocke wall. This ) ry wall will not be visible from outside the project. For Lot 40, there is a retaining walI. It is 4-6 feet to prop up the access drive. This will be visible. There's another wall at 7.5 feet. Lots 45 and 46 have a fill wall at 16 feet tall. In response to the staff Report, Mr. Talkington reviewed the heights of the walls. They prepared an alternative design to reduce the heights of the waIls. The wall will now be 6 feet tall (Exhibit K6b, the revised grading plan for Lots 44-47). The portion of Lot 46 that borders the Cedar River Pipeline has a 2 foot wall. The wall at Lot 47 is 1.7 feet to 6 feet tall. Henley will be willing to agree to a Plat Condition that will call for the walls to be the revised height. Ms. Timmons asked about the relevancy of this line of questioning to the SEPA Appeal, specifically Conditions#3 and#6. Ms. Rogers stated she understood the staff's buffer requirements to screen the adjacent neighbors from the development, including the impact of retaining walls. Ms. Timmons agreed to relevance. Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Talkington to speak to the walls along Road A near Tract K. Mr. Talkington refened to this wall as a fill wall. There is an open space tract, Wetlands B and C, which will provide a screen for the wall. Focusing on this part of the plat, Mr. Talkington stated there was no significant adverse environmental impact with respect to the aesthetics. i �. � Ms. Rogers addressed staff Report(page 21) regarding retaining waiis. She stated the staff felt those retaining walls would interfere with tree retention. She asked, in general, does designing a site to include retaining walls help or hinder tree preservation. Mr. Talkington responded it can help by reducing grading requirements along the perimeter af the site and protect trees. When he designs a I plat, the cost of canstruction is considered. Retaining wall construction is more expensive than grading. They were directed to save trees, which meant construction of retaining walls. Ms. Ragers asked who Mr. Talkingtan turned tcr when he needed to determine the effects of his design for retaining walls on tree preservation.Mr.Talkington said that's a question for the arborist. Ms. Timmons asked Mr. Talkington ta describe his thought process an providing the buffers he pravided and their merit. Mr. Talkington stated it started with the road network. They had two � locations to tie into for an internal raad. In creating the road conidors, they tried to lay out Iots that would be eveniy distributed on both sides of the road. They looked to use the praperty most efficiently for the lot Iayout with respect to the grading.They tried ta reduce the overall grading. Ms. Timmons asked if Mr. Talkington saw merit in providing a perimeter buffec. Mr. Talkington ' stated he didn't show as many buffers initially. They initially loaked to retain trees in larger packets ' in other areas. As the project evoEved to its cunent configuration, they considered saving trees as gart of the buffer, Ms. Timmons asked as a practical matter, how would a 1 S fooC buffer affect plat design? Mr, Talkington stated that he had considered it. There are many alternative scenarios. They looked at how the buffer would impact their originat design. There was a significant change in lot yield. Ms. Timrnans asked if Mr. Talkington considered aesthetics in his design. He s[ated he did because he wanted the praject autcome ta be pleasing. Mr. Steve Lee, Renton Develapment Engineering Manager, stated typicaliy the City doesn't see as much of a concise grading plan proposed far pretiminary plat. He is gtad NIr. Talkingtan prepared one. He asked Mr. Talkington to describe the setback from the wails. Mr. Talkingtan stated that is a question for the geotechnical engineer,hawever there is no need for a setback fram the geo-grid. Mr. Lee asked if construction of the geo-grid caused excavation in to natural areas. Mr. Tatkington stated it did. Alsa, cut walls will require a wall drain behind them. Mr. Lee asked if the walls would need to be setback into the lots in order to reduce the impact on the natural areas. Mr. Talkington said they design the walls to be entirely on the subject lot and not within the open space. Mr. Lee asked if a tree is located near a drainage wall, would the tree be impacted. Mr. Talkington stated he didn't know. Mr. Galen Wright, of Washington Forestry Consultants, is an arborist. Mr. Wright described his education and qualifications. He lzas owned his company for 21 years. Tt�eir focus is on urban forestry cansulting. He persanally has 35 years of experience. He's worked on 1,40(}similar projecis � �..► v of many scales since 1994. He stated in general, his tree protection plans are accurate. The trees he has designated for protection are saved. Though, occasionally, they will find an edge tree that doesn't look as good after the project and before. In that case, they mitigate the tree. The tree protection plan exhibits are Exhibit A4 (June) and Exhibit Al2 (August). The August plan is tied to the most recent layout. Ms. Rogers noted the report concludes this is a "well treed site". By that, Mr. Wright stated means he was able to save two or three clusters to break up the clear cut Iook. If they supplement with lot trees and street trees, in 10 years the property will be well treed. There is a nice low brush community on the site that improves the buffer capacity of the vegetation. The wetlands on site are also well treed. Ms. Ro er _ g s stated the 30% tree retention requirement translates to preserving 188 on site trees. The August tree retention plan proposes to save 181 trees and relocate others. Mr. Wright stated his understanding of the Renton code with respect to construction damage means the tree can be replaced at a ratio of 2:1. He stated he is familiar with SEPA staff Condition #3. He said his understating of the requirement was not to mandate a hard 30% re uirement without field 'ud ment. 9 J g The code allows them to save trees but mitigate those that can't be saved. Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Wright how many trees would be saved. Mr. Wright reptied well in excess of 188 trees would be saved. They have re-analyzed the edges and found there were more trees than they had earlier expected before a more formal survey was undertaken. Mr. Wright discussed the relationship between retaining walls and trees. He stated he had the grading plan in hand when he did his follow up evaluation. They had been very hard on the edge trees initially. Later, he was able to perform a tree by tree analysis with the grading plan in hand. Trees respond very differently to wa11s based on where the majority of their roots are growing. He did a tree by tree analysis to determine how much, if any, intrusion could be done to a tree's root protection zone. This is usually a later stage analysis. He's very confident in his current estimation of the number of tree that will be viably preserved. He knows exactly which trees will be impacted, and how for each edge tree. Mr. Wright said the next step is to have a pre-construction meeting. They always ask to be included in that conference. At that time the clearing limits are staked. He walks those boundaries. If there is anything different from current knowledge, then they will make field adjustments. They mapped tons to trees. Sometimes, they'll find the survey and field location don't quite match. They adjust clearing limits during the field observation. They'll remove hazardous trees if they find them. After that, they put up tree protection fences. If anything changes during construction, then Mr. Wright asks to be included in the decision of how to treat the trees. _ __ _ � — --, � � Ms. Rogers asked if this pracess is described in the tree prvtection plan. Mr. Wright said it is. He stated he has na doubt this groject will retain more than 30°l0 of trees even accounting for field � adjustrnents for hazardous trees ar athers that can't or shouldn't be saved. Ms.Rogers asked Mr.Wrzght about the perimeter buffer. She said the City is concerned about a 50%a sight abscuring buffer. 5he asked abaut the 10 foot baffer speciftcally. Mr. Wright stated he understood the buffer and the tree retention within the buffer. He stated he also is familiar with Henley's plan to provide 6 faot fences along the backyards. With the 10 foot buffer and fences, the 50%a screening requirement will be met. New trees can also be planted in any gaps. In his opinion, a 15 foot buffer would add a few mare trees, but nat a huge amount. Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Wright thought there was a significant adverse environmental impact from the project. The City Attorney objected. The Examiner stated the question limited to aesthetic impacts is allawed. Mr.Wright stated the 6 foot fence is sight obscuring. There are trees everyw�here but the stormwater facility and a few in t�e pipelines. There are several layers of buffering. There will be places where you can see new houses better than others, bui there wi21 be a fence and trees. Within a few years trees wiit fill the gaps. Ms. Rocale Timmans asked Mr. Wright if he knew how many trees exist on the site. He stated there were 1,305 trees on-site. This is a contiguous canopy cover. The canopy is viewed by surrounding property owners.They are propasing to keep 1$I trees plus the trees in the critical areas and buffers. There are 626 significant trees in the buildable areas. There are many ather poor quality trees. They will remove over 400 significant trees. Ms.Timmans asked how the removal of so many trees would impact the sutrounding property owners, Mr. Wright said it"s aesthetic.There is no other impact. Ms. Tirnmons asked about the revised tree retention plan. She asked if the new plan is appravable as is. Mr. Wright stated it was and they will exceed the minimum 30% requirement. He stated it is a valuable contributian to the eovironment. In resgonse ta Ms. Timtnons, he siated an adequate width for a natural vegetated buffer depends on the type of trees, the age of the trees and the how they are growing. There are places on site where the screen is dense and others that are thinner. They didn't map alders and cottonwoads.They didn't include those in the survey. Ms. Timmons asked what buffer width is necessary ta provide screening in a natural vegetated state. Mr. Wright stated it depends on site conditions. Mr. Wright stated if they plant in a 1Q foot buffer with a double staggered row af conifers, it will create a very dense screen in IQ years. A 15 foot buffer is not adequate to add a third row that wauld require abaut 30 feet of buffer. Citv Testimonv Rocale Timmons addressed the appl'zcant's testimony with respect to Conditions #3 and #6. The City's mitigation measure is not intended to preclude replacement of trees damaged during � �r' ' construction. The applicant is citing the wrong code. Condition#3 is solely designed to require a tree retention plan. The applicant has provided a plan that dces not meet the requirement. It is not detailed enough to be used during construction. Staff analysis (Exhibit N) goes through the significant adverse impact of removing such a large tree canopy. The staff feels the MDNS condition defines a significaat impact and provides appropriate mitigation. With respect to Condition #6, Ms. Timmons stated staff has demonstrated a significant impact to surrounding property owners with respect to aesthetics. Staff feels the mitigation measure adequately addresses these impacts. Mr. Terry Flattey, City of Renton Urban Forestry and Natural Resources Manager, described his education and qualifications. He has reviewed at least 50 tree retention plans for the City. Mr. Flatley stated he had not visited the site personally. It is a fully timbered site with 100% canopy cover. He described the site as a large woodland azea in the middle of the City in the middle of a subdivision.This is a rare site. He believes it is necessary to protect the tree canopy. The City tries to retain as much canopy as possible. He believes the appropriate amount of trees to protect is a minimum 30%. In response to Ms. Timmons, Mr. Flatley stated a 10 foot buffer is adequate to support a natural vegetated perimeter, depending on the type of vegetation. This strip will retain smaller vegetation, but not large mature trees. He provided a recommendation for a perimeter buffer of 35 to 100 feet. To his knowledge, the City requested a 15 foot buffer. In terms of accommodating trees, there are some extra trees being protected. Five feet is a very minor increment. It would allow for more planting. Mr. Flatley stated he felt a buffer is needed along the southern perimeter because buffers are to moderate climate and obscure sites from view. It's an aesthetic issue for trail users and adjacent neighbors.The buffer would provide privacy. Mr. Flatley stated without an adequate screen there would be significant adverse aesthetic impacts to trail users and neighbors. A 15 foot buffer would reduce the impacts. In response to the Examiner, Mr. Flatley stated the difference between a 10 foot and a 15 foot buffer is not significant in terms of mitigating impacts. Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Flatley had reviewed the revised tree protection plan for the project. He stated he had reviewed Exhibit 11 today but his review is based on the 2013 version. Ms. Rogers asked if it was possible Mr. Wright's tree retention plan would assure protection of 30% of the trees on the site. Mr. Flatley stated with oversight it is possible. Ms. Rogers asked if he provided that oversight. He said he didn't. Ms. Rogers asked if the City's MDNS Condition #3 was essentially a restatement of City code. Mr. Flatley agreed that is was. Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Fladey had provided SEPA mitigation measures to staff and asked the staff to implement them. �Ie stated he hadn't. Ms. Rogers asked if the � v condition would be adequate to require a tree protection plan and have it approved by the City. He ' stated it could. With respect to MDNS Condition#6, the buffer requirement was for sight obscuring and was 15 feet wide. The staff analysis (Exhibit N) increased that buffer from 15 feet to 15-50 feet. Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Flatley had read Exhibit N. He stated he hadn't. Ms. Rogers asked if he was familiar with the City's Comprehensive Plan. He stated he was generally familiar with it. He stated he was not familiar with specific policies. Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Flatley to review a large azea photo with respect to his earlier testimony (Exhibit K6c). Mr. Flatley stated he recognized the area and that there are a number of green, treed areas azound the subject. He agreed there is a large protected corridor along the Cedar River and at Tiffany Park. He further agreed that with or without Tiffany Pazk, there will remain treed areas near the project. Mr. Flatley stated the City's landscaping code with respect to screening allows planting and fencing. He agreed the project plan includes fences and vegetation. Mr. Flatley stated he didn't have any knowtedge of buffers on adjoining properties but didn't see any in the aerial photo. Ms. Timmons stated that staff is standing by their analysis. For mitigation measure#3 it sounds as if the appellant intends to meet the 30% requirement. That's all the City is requesting. The applicant is failing to consider the City's intend is to protect the existing tree canopy. The mitigation measure is intended to preclude replacement tree. The code is inadequate to do that without the mitigation measure. However, a tree retention plan is amenable to the City. For mitigation measure#6, the staff feels they have proven impact and provided adequate mitigation. Staff feels the public are the appropriate people to provide information on impacts. Annlicant Testimonv In response to the Examiner, Mr. Talkington stated in the northem portion of the plat, the 15 foot buffer would be preserved but ciearing and a wall would be located in the lots themselves (Lots 11- 14). No additional clearing will go into the buffer area. For Lots 15-18, there will be no wall. All other improvements would be within the lot area. There will be no additional clearing. Ms. Rogers asked the Examiner to read the SEPA Appeal argument letter dated November 18, 2014. As stated in that letter, the City staff and the applicant aze in agreement to Revised Conditions #1 and#3. However, they would argue to keep the existing language in the condition, but add a comma and add a statement that an updated tree protection plan and land clearing plan to be submitted and approved prior to construction. Condition #6 deals with a perimeter buffer. No perimeter buffer is required in this zone and none exist sunounding the subject. The requirement would be unique in this area and they would be buffering their single family uses from sunounding single family uses. '� �./ T'here is no significant impact in terms of aesthetics. They have voluntarily provided 10-200 feet (50 foot average) buffers and two pipelines of 60 to 100 feet (Mercer Island Trail and Cedar River Trail corridors, respectively). Only six lots touch a property boundary. Some have fill walls, the highest currently proposed is 6 feet high. There is a 100 foot Cedar River Trail buffer adjacent to these properties and between adjacent properties. The City's SEPA analysis cited Comprehensive Plan Objective CDG and Policies 50 and 55 as justification for the perimeter buffer. Those policies do not apply here. The City omitted the citation of the objective, which does not apply here. These uses are not different. The proposed use and adjacent use aze the same. The tree canopy is being protected. There is no need for a perimeter buffer of 15 feet, let along 50 feet. Addition of a buffer after the fact will invalidate the proposal and violate state law. Public Testimonv Ms. Claudia Donnelly lived in the Renton Potential Annexation Area in Renton Highlands. Ms. Donnelly stated she had submitted questions. In February 2014, in an article in the Renton Reporter, , Ms. Timmons stated all 1,300 trees would be coming down. How will the protected trees be protected? This developer will clear cut all of the trees and put in replacement trees. At Ms. Donnelly's subdivision, Windstone, and at Piper's Bluff, this same developer cleaz cut all of the trees. Who will make sure the trees won't be clear cut? Ms. Donnelly stated she was concemed about the proposed stormwater detention pond failing and impacting the development. At Windstone, the detention pond failed three times spilling water and mud into a wetland and Honey Creek. At Piper's Bluff,the detention pond failed and dumped yellow water into May Creek. Renton officials do not work on the weekend; they will not protect the wetlands. Ms. Donnelly stated Renton allowed Safeway to build on wetlands three summers ago. They started getting water coming up through the floor and had to rope off the area. The hours of construction ordinance must be followed. How will it be? Renton has an ordinance keeping dirt off of the road and protecting streams during construction. The laws aze not being enforced. Renton dcesn't allow working on Sundays. This developer had contractors working on Sundays in at least Windstone and Piper's Bluff. No staff person will be there to monitor them. The City does not require the contractor to get the necessary NPDES permit from DOE prior to start of work. Additionally, the City dcesn't require erosion controt fences near wetlands,private property or streams before cleazing starts. They don't make the contractors have the necessary permits for clearing before building permits. In the late 1990s a builder cleazed without pernuts and there was no consequence. Ms. Donnelly expressed concem about the Renton appeal process. On November 26, there was a notice in the paper tallcing about the appeal timeframe for this development, yet the document itseif '�r� '�n/ had not been released. She had to request it from the director. If there is no notice before the appeal starts, how can the City be trusted? On June 14, 2012 the Renton Reporter asked if Renton's tree preservation policy was just for show. Ms. Donnelly presented pictures of Piper's Bluff. Forty-seven trees were supposed to be retained or mitigated. Some of the trees were saved. Many were cleared. The trees being planted are decorative and replacing Douglas Firs and other large trees. Some trees must be saved. She also showed examples of construction dirt on the road in front of her house. The dirt is washing into Green Creek and May Creek. No one at Renton cares about the street or the environment. Ms.Barbara Smith stated considering the greenbelt sunounding the pipelines is not realistic. Those are dirt paths without trees. Ms. Smith stated she should not have to plant trees on her yard,plus the trees are 80-100 feet high. Replanting trees won't compensate. They aze losing their quality of life. The wildlife that's there will be removed. The school district shouldn't have sold it. They didn't provide proper notice of sale. They were denied access to do further studies but the developer was allowed on it. She encourages the City to put strict enforceable timelines. She found 97 reviews on this developer online. Only 5 were positive. They are local and speaking to poor construction, leak issues, mold in new homes and poor customer service. People wait years to have construction defects repaired. SEPA Appeal#2—Project Opponent TPWAG Avpellant Testimonv Mr. Daniel McMonagle is the attorney for the project opponents, the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group. The opponents have lived in this neighborhood for 34 years and have historically used the woods. Mr.David Beedon is a member of the TPWAG and has lived in the neighborhood since it was built 34 years ago. He lives at 1725 Pierce Avenue SE in Renton. Mr. Beedon lives directly adjacent to the project. He can walk to the former school property in five minutes. The TPWAG is composed of five persons who hold officer positions in a non-profit corporation formed in March 2014. The purpose of the group is to mitigate as much as possible any environmental or other impacts coming out of this development. He has experience in the woods. He has been walking in these woods since 1982. He exercises there and watches wildlife. The character of the woods has been mostly unchanged for all that time. Some changes there were related to dirt embankments on paths to facilitate mountain biking. There are teepee and treehouses built here. The woods have never been fenced, except along the Cedaz River Pipeline. The fence has been there at least 34 years. It has been unmaintained. The fence is along the City of Seattle Watershed property line. It is not a school district fence. The woods property has never been signed no trespassing. � � There is an extensive trail system in the woods that were there when he moved in. There are nine separate access points along the two pipeline rights of way and other at the end of 18th Street. These are trailheads. The trails are a large loop with several connector trails. The outer loop is about a 15 minute walk. Mr. Beedon has personally been pruning and trimming trails to keep them open. He believes the school district performed maintenance there four times in the last three decades including cutting down dangerous trees and removing trash or yard waste. He is aware of no other activity from the school district on the property. The school district performed maintenance there in 2000, 2010, and twice in 2011. Each of these incidents was related to a request for action to the school district by a member of the public. Mr. Beedon spoke to the school district in 2000 about illegal activity on the property. That prompted the 2000 maintenance and the placement of signage discouraging dumping. In 2010, Mr. Beedon called the school district to ask why some trees had been removed. The school district stated there were dangerous trees. In 2011 he spoke with the school district about illegal trash and a fire pit on the property. The school district responded by cleaning up the trash and removing the fire pit. Mr. Beedon quoted an email sent to him by Mr. Mike Rouch of the school district. The email stated, "I got the sense this is an important asset to your neighborhood and I wanted our folks to do what we could to restore the beauty there." Mr. Beedon stated the school district had essentially left the property alone. Mr. Beedon stated the trails have been used for recreational walking, running, dog walking, bicycling, socia�izing, wildlife viewing, and inventorying plants. Kids build forts and tree houses. This area is used extensively for recreation, on a daily basis there aze at least a dozen people in there. Over the yeazs, thousands of people have used it. Use of the area has increased due to the informal maintenance of the paths. Aesthetically, the woods are beautiful. It's a wild azea with a vaziety of vegetation and wetlands. The tapography is interesting. There are seasonal creeks. It reminds him of the foothills of the Cascades, though with less dramatic topography. Mr. Beedon described wildlife he has seen on the property including bobcat, pileated woodpecker, red headed sapsuckers, ducks, crows, other types of birds, deer, and owls. Mr. Beedon stated there aze a rich variety of plants on the property. There aze also at least two geocaches on the property. Mr. Beedon showed pictures of stormwater accumulated on the two pipelines on the property. The pipelines drain onto the school district property. Recently, the City of Renton cleaned out drain pipes to improve the drainage and reduce flooding. In response to Mr. McMoaagle, Mr. Beedon stated he had hired Mr. Neugebauer in September 2014 to perform studies on the property and review the applicant's studies. The TPWAG had asked the �w.ir � school district to allow them to do a third party wetland evaluation, The school district denied the request stating it ciid not further the interest of the schaol district or the develaper. The Examiner asked Mr. McMonagle to tie the historic use of the property to a SEPA imgact, noting the gublic did not have a right to use this groperty in the first place. How is there an adverse itnpact under SEPA? There could be a prescriptive use, but the Examiner does nat have the authc�rity to ' adjudicate prescriptive use or adverse passession. The Examiner noted Halverson v. Bellevue, and the limits on restrictions of Hearing Examiner authority, specificaily Legune v. Clailam County, and others. The Examiner's authority is Iimited ta those described specifically in the City cade. The Examiner asked Mr. McMonagle to provide a bnef on the �ssue of the authonty and relevance of the public prescriptive right to the property by November 2$th with applicant and City response by December Sth. Mr. Steven Neugebauer of SNR Company is a licensed hydrogeologist and engineering geologist. He presented a PowerPoint gresentation highlighting the relevant isscaes from his report (Exhibit ' M49). Mr. Neugebauer described his qualifications. He stated the biggest issue with this praject is � graundwater and the engineering geolagy of the site. The big thing is the SEPA dacument is inadequate. His scope for this project is to assess the applicant's studies and to review the enviranrnentat irnpac[s of the praject. SEPA shoutd produce informatian regazding impacts. The SEPA checklist is not designed to gather ali the impacts. There should be more intensive studies done here because of the intensity of the development and of the surrounding deveIopment. There are onty preliminary studies, which are inadequate. Mr. Neugebauer stated the history of the site needs ta be reviewed as far back as passible. His presentation will focus on the SEPA issues. Only four studies have been incorporated in the SEPA checklist, there are now 22 studies. Mr. Neugebauer described the wildlife corridor link along the greenbelt fram the subject to the Cedar River. This is the only significant open area in the local regian. The maor is surraunded by development except far this narrow wildlife corridor on the northeast corner. He shawed maps dating back to 1865 to show historicai water flaws. In 1898 the Black River still flowed, the Green River Valley was the White River Vaitey and the Duwamish Waterway was stili a river. There are wetlands shown on the map in this area as back as 1898. The entire regional drainage system has changed since then. The titie report shows in I936 this subject property had been cleared and was owned by the railroad and in 1945 by a Department of Defense corparation.This is an important issue to SEPA because there rnight have been wartime activity here with potential cantaminants. Mr. Neugebauer states there should have been a Phase 1 ESA. Mr. Neugebauer showed the develapment pattern in 1990. It has been farested since the 194Qs. The oldest trees are about 55 years old. Mr. Neugebauer showed the geornorphology of ihe area. The property had been in a melt water channef from the last ice age that became the Cedar River. Drainage goes both to the southwest and northeast. The area has many de�sitional environments for sails. There are structural anamalies in � � the area. There are no geological reports performed by the a licant and the couldn't rform their PP Y Pe own. He stated there should have been more soils tests, percolation tests, more test pits and borings. There is neither engineering geology nor hydrogeological studies. He showed a geologic map of the azea and pointed to geologic issues from the confluence of two seismic faults. This might influence landslide activities. The USGS maps show that the closest fault zone is 3.9 miles, though there may be others nearby that haven't yet been mapped. Geologists look. for bend trees and uneven surfaces. There are many bent trees here. That indicates ground movement. The ground is moving slowly and the trees aze bending with it. There might be shallow or sli htl dee er round movement. He walked the site but didn't rfo g y p g , pe rm studies because the school district wouldn't allow it. The SEPA documents say there aze no structures on the site, but there are treehouses and forts. The site is vacant but not unused. The Opponents state there is no SEPA document, only a report from the City's Environmental Review Committee. Mr. Steven Neu ebauer discussed the title re ort's historical accounts of ownershi of the r ' ct g p p p o�e site (Page 12). There is an easement for a natural gas pipeline. There are several other easements for various u oses. Ms. Ro ers asked about the relevance of this testimon . Mr. McMona le asked P rP g Y g Mr. Neugebauer to describe the relevance of this testimony in terms of SEPA. Mr. Neugebauer stated the SEPA checklist asks about po[ential hazardous wastes on the property. No studies were conducted. The title report shows potential hazardous uses in the past. A phase 1 environmental site assessment should have been conducted. Mr. Neugebauer stated the applicant hadn't shown how they were dealing with the City's drainage easement, which is part of the City's drainage system. Ms.Rogers noted that the drainage easement was released. Mr. Neugebauer stated his concern from a geologic perspective is that there were no geologic or hydrogeologist studies performed for this site. There isn't enough information. This site could have fault zones. Also, there is potential evidence of ground creep or slumps. His specific concern is that these mobile soils must be dealt with, which would require further study. He also stated the SEPA Checklist is wrong because the studies came later. He stated the Checklist was wrong because it ignored recreational activities and recreational structures on the property. Mr. Neugebauer stated 14 days is insufficient to review the many studies that were performed as part of this application. He stated he had reviewed all of the documents and believes an Environmental Impact Statement should have been required. The SEPA Checklist was the only document presented. The SEPA document should show what the conditions are in a summary format. Another issue is the hydrology and geology of the site. The wetland deternunation by Gary Shultz and the Technical Infocmation Report from Barghausen and the Otak report show groundwater saturation levels that make this site undevelopable. The groundwater will be too high in the rainy season. Mr. Neugebauer referred to the Shultz report. He stated the depth to the water table is zero '\.v' tir/ inches belaw ground level. Groundwater is a flat line, it is nat cantoured. Ttus site needs additiona! study to deterrnine how it can be developed. An EIS should be required. Mr. Neugebauer read definitions for various types of groundwater and hydric soils from the USGS. The agplicant's report shows so much water there that development without pumps may ttot be feasible. Groandwater is also protected from pollutants. It's illegal to discharge pallutants into groundwater. Water from the hames cannat be discharged into the wettands. Mr. Neugebauer stated the AES geatechnical report is nat adequate to satisfy SEPA requirements. It � stated that in the report. There have not been the extensive studies that should have been prepared. I There were inadequate nurnbers of test pits.Though they acknowledge groundwater will be neaz the surface in winter(8" from surface),but don"t describe how they plan to deal with it. The repart was paid for by the school district and was inadequate in scope. The repart shows the site has geotechnical critical areas, specifically erosion, site stability and other indicators of shallow groand creep or slumping. The site will need deep infiltratian stracegies to get the stormwater down belaw the high water table and into a mare permeable layer. There is no capacity for stormwater infiitration an this site. This may be why the developer has chosen a starmwater vault because a pond won't infiltrate. Anything excavated betaw the surface witl have groundwater issues. Drainage ditches wi2i be full of water. If you put a vault where grvundwater is at the surface, the vault will have to be tied dawn to bedrock or it will float out oF the ground.There need to be much mare detailed studies. The geotechnicai report says the slope angles are for areas where groundwater seepage is not present at the face of the slope. There will need to be some sort of temporary de-watering. Mr. Neugebauer stated the water will come back and flood basements and keep storrnwater from flowing. Based on our review, the deposits are nat the type the report suggests. This soil is impermeable. The AES report assumes the soil is permeable.The soils pramote shallow ground creeg and slumping, Mr.Neugebauer reviewed the Environmental Review Committee report.He believes it is inadequate and an EIS should have been gregared, This projeet was dane in toct many disjointed steps. On page 8 of AES, the report says the wetlands may be groundwater influenced. However, there is no further study co deterznine what to do_ Having groundwater within $" of the surface is a major issue. There is a 12" culvert discharging sEarmwater into the wettand. That's iiiegal under the Clean Water Act. They cannot discharge to a point source.There need ta be better studies. The Environmental Review Committee report states the praject wili result in minimat loss of vegetation to the site. That's impossibie given the current propasal. According to the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildiife,there is priarity habitat here. The removal of existing vegetation will rennove a great deal of the evapotranspiration on this site. The trees may remove as rnuch as 75% af the water from the site. The ERC is rnare worried about views than the more critical water issues. � '"'A` Mr. Neugebauer stated the ERC is basing its opinions on studies that are too prelirriinary. The issue I af liquefaction isn't addressed at all. There is no study as to how the displaced groundwater will ' affect neighbors. Mr. Neugebauer's final point is that there is no cohesive and canclusive SEPA document. You can't make a final environmental deterrninatian on a document that doesn't exist. Ms. Timmons asked Mr. Neugebauer if he'd read the drainage report in the application packet. Mr. Neugebauer stated he had. Ms, Timmons asked 1VIr. Neugebauer to relate his testimony to the drainage report. Mr. Neugebauer stated the applicant gut the cart before the horse because there are na stndies for groundwater hydrolagy.There isn't enough informatit�n to farm a drainage report. In res onse to the Exanuner, Mr. Neugebauer stated he would have dane test pits and boring, P I piezvmeter studies and Iook for the groandwater. If the wetlands are there, the graundwater is there. � VVe need additional studies to deternune where the water reaity is. If it's at the surface, the drainage report is inconect. The Examiner asked if they know the groundwater is, why daes there need to be additional study. Mr. Neugebauer stated the drainage plan isn't taking into account the groundwater. A building pad cannot be placed where the graundwater at the surface. Utilities cannot be placed within the groundwater,particularly sewer which would be continuously draining groundwater. ` Ms. Rogers asked if he was familiar with the 1995 Local Project Review Act (RCW 36.70B}. Mr. Neugebauer stated he wasn't, Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Neugebauer was aware of the SEPA provisions that provide that ciEy regulations can be sufficient to tnitigate enviranmental impacts. Mr. Neugebauer stated he had Iooked at it and at the requirements for an EIS. Ms. Rogers asked if he had worked with real estate developers wt�o are speculatively buying property. He stated he did and that develapers did feasibility studies. He stated phase 1 � environmental site assessments (ESA} were cornmon. He had not seen the applicant's Phase I ESA � and couldn't speak to whether one existed. It is a typical procedure. ' Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Neugebauer was familiar with the City's preliminary plat procedures. He res nded he was sli htl facniliar with them. Mr. Neugebauer stated a project of this size wauld po S Y ', typically have an EIS. He had never seea a developrnent of this size with this much contention without an EIS. Ms. Ragers stated the applicant had prepared a SEPA Checklist June 2014. Mr. Neugebauer was not aware of the newer checklist. In respanse to Ms, Rogers, Mr. Neugebauer stated the test pits fram Mr. Shultz's report were taken throughout the project site, though most are in t�e weiland areas. He stated there are high levels af water throughout the site because water tables are flat. He stated he was not aware of a 303D listing for any water on the site,though a11 wetlands are expected to be so listed to allow discharge. I I I i I . - -- - - - - - -_ - l � � Mr. Neugebauer stated storrnwater is being directed to a vault but it will not treat the stormwater for heavy metaIs. Ms. Rogers referred to the 2012 AES report. The top af page 2 states the site is suitable for buried utilities, paving and striactures. Mr. Neugebauer stated they also said adc3itionai studies would be cand�cted. Ms. Rogers asked if he understood that detaited constructian and engineering review and much more intensive studies will be conducted before final plat. Mr. Neugebauer reiterated he felt the cart was being placed before the horse in that the SEPA review is naw for a reason. It allows for adequate public coznment. Latec phases do not. Ms. Rogers refened ta the aeriai photo (Exhibit K6c) and asked Mr. Neugebauer if the project site isn't completely surrounded by similar residential developrnents. He stated there is forested land arouad here and existing development is less dense. He did agree there are existing houses and roads surrounding the praject. He daesn't know if there are existing geolagical or hydrological issues affecting the existing homes, however he speculates that may be why the areas to the nartheast and east are not developed. ApAlicant Resvonse Mr. Kevin Jones, Transportation Engineer, Transpo Group, prepared the traffic report for this project. He alsa reviewed the public cornments and will respond to them. He's responding specifically ta letter$ from Mr. Roenicke and Ms. Garlough. Mr. Roenicke was concerned that the traffic counts were conducted in June 2Q13,a time period when the adjacent elementary school is out for summer. Mr. Jones responded by noting that they acknowledged school was aut of session. As such,they added ta their counts schaai traffic based an the enrallment af school at the time,which is within eight students of the current student count. They looked at average trip rates for elementary schoals and inflated the counts by 210 AM Peak and 70 PM Peak hour trips. NIs. Crarlough claimed to have taken counts themselves and compared them to the Transpo report. Ms. Garlough stated the traffic valume was 30%n higher than Transpo's measurements. Mr. Jones agreed that traffic volumes fluctuate day to day; however, the traffic valume in the neighbarhaod is low. The volumes are low enough that you could double traffic and still have I.evel of Service (LOS) A or B at a11 of the surrounding intersections. The intersection aperation will stay high and not fall below an acceptable L,QS that would require mitigation. Mr. Jones responded to another commenE about the impact of new residential traffic on school gedestrian traffic by stating that the overlap in traffic canditians would be in the marning. The residence peak happens after schoa! is out. The projecced increase in volumes on Lake Youngs Way is IO-45 +/- trips in the AM Peak hour. This increase, on average, is ane vehicte ar less per minute during that time periad. Traffic volumes fluctuate and there may be an extra car or two in that time period. The schoot traffic tends to be concentrated in 30 minute intervals. Most of the project traffic won't mix with school traffic valumes. � � Mr. Jones spoke to potential safety issues for school pedestrian traffic. He stated there won't be much impact because the volumes are low. Also, they are providing a pedestrian crosswalk at 18th and Lake Youngs Way. Given the speed limits, the pedestrian crossing and relatively small increase in volumes, there do not anticipate a safety hazazd. There is concern about visibility on 16th Street and there was a suggestion this is an accident prone area. They review the accident logs from the City for this location. Specifically, they reviewed collision records for SE 16th Street between Beacon Way SE and Lake Youngs Way SE. For a four year period, there were no collisions reported in this area. There is a grade difference between Beacon and Ferndaie. They looked at the collision records and measured daily traffic volumes over a , seven day period. 16th Street serves about 3,300 vehicles per day. 4.8 million vehicles traveled along that section in four yeazs without a single reported collision. There was one in February of this year, though that was related to icy conditions. Mr. Jones stated the data does not support the assertion this location is a collision prone location. They will also add additional signage on the north side of 16th Street indicating there is an intersection approaching. The geometrics of the road make it difficult to see the intersection. There is a sign now recommending speed limits of 15 mph in this area. There are sidewalks along the ronte to the school (Exhibit A9, Figure 1). Mr. Jones responded to a comment from Ponderosa Estates. Residents in this subdivision are concerned about long waits nearby intersections, specifically the intersection labelled Intersection 13 in the Transpo report. They evaluated the intersection from a delay standpoint in the AM and PM Peak. The intersection was not originally reviewed, but was added at the City's request. The review of this intersection was this year while school was in session. Based on the data and the stop control of this intersection, they found this intersection has 15 seconds of average delay or less. The delay will not significantly increase with this development looking out to 2018. It's cunently 13 seconds in both the AM and PM Peak. The LOS is B now and will stay that way. This is an acceptable delay under the City's standards. No change in traffic control is necessary. Another issue with respect to school traffic is whether there will need to be extra traffic control personnel from the school. Mr. Jones stated he didn't know, but that the use of traffic crossing guards is a typical occunence in this azea. He doesn't anticipate the school district will need to hire traffic contrvl personnel they don't already have. Mr.McMonagle asked Mr. Jones about the changes from the original to the revised traffic study. Mr. Jones stated that in both cases, there were the two proposed entrances there are right now. Mr. McMonagle asked Mr. Jones to explain the route persons in the subdivision would use to get out to a minor arterial. Mr. Janes stated that 60% of the Tiffany Park traffic was assumed to go to the west and the remainder would go south. Of the westbound traffic, they assumed the majority of it would go to SE 16th Street via some route. They would then access Edmonds Avenue. They revised the study because there was a lot of public comment about the absence of that intersection in the study. For the southbound traffic, they assumed the traffic would mostly go to SE 18th Street to Lake �./ � Yaungs Way. Some wauld go to SE 16th Street; others would ga to Rayal Hills. Other traffic would ga to Beacon, Femdale or other rautes tc� SE 16th Street and Edmonds Avenue. He stated SE 16th Street had more grade than SE 18th Street;otherwise the raadway geametzy was comparable. Mr. McMonagle asked Mr. Jones about the development's propased roads. Mr, Janes stated the development will have roads designed to the current standards. Ms. Racheat Yilla, of Soundview Consultants, described her experience and qualifications. Her company conducted the fish and wildiife habitat assessment for the property (Exhibit K, page 40}. Together, all the scientists who worked on this report have about 80 years of experience. She is a qualified senior author for biatogical assessments under WSDOT,which is fairiy unique. Ms. Villa stated she had visited the project site. She was hired to perform suppiementary wetlands review for fish and wildlife habitat. They reviewed the wetlands assessment. They reviewed lists of species from the U5FW and the WA DFW for priority habitats and species offsite associated with the Cedar River corridor. There was nathing specifically mapped on site, so they looked to see what was an-site. In their narmal critical areas assessment, they would usually incorporate wetlands and habitat scientists. They found nothing specifically listed for priority protectian. They reviewed a wider area for noise and stormwater impacts (Exhibit A, Attachment 16}. Ms. Villa nated the habitat here is fairly disturbed oa a large scate basis. There is a lot of human intrusian, It's not directly cannected to the Cedar River corridor, There are trees, but the wiidtife has to cross the 60 foot wide water easement, cross a residential road, cross residential yards, cross a 44% stope and then the Bonneville Power Administration's easement ta the Cedar River corridar. It's discontinuous, isolated and highly disturbed. The prior testimany documents that by mentioning the extensive use practiced here. Ms. Villa stated they looked at all potentially regulated species on site including all state and federal listed species and habitat. They found habitat potentially associated with pileated woodpeckers and Tawnsend's bat, bath Washington State listed species. Ms. Villa stated there is a great deal of woodpecker activity. She didn't see nests, bui she did see snags. Pileated woodpeckers utilize 1,480 acres, which would include the whole Cedar River cacridor. It 2S �}05S2��£ the woodpeckers are faraging on site. Woodpeckers are a residential, non-migratory species. Ms. Villa stated Townsend's bats might use the site seasonally during the surnrner for faraging for insects. The DFVV' wouid require protecting wetlands, associated buffers and lazge trees. Ms. Villa stated the plat wiil not result in a lass of significant, pratected habitat for these two listed species. Ms. Villa stated the bobcat is aat a Iisted species. It's a hunted species that doesn't have specific requixements for habitat protection. Ms. Rogers asked Ms. Villa her apinion of the impact of the proposed project. Ms. Villa stated if the wetlands and buffers are protected and off-leash dogs and people on bikes were kept out, the _ _ � .., �✓ wetlands wauld be better protected than they are now. A typical bvffer around a critical area is split rail, which does not keep wildlife out. They function to keep humans and their pets out. Ms. Rogers asked Ms. Villa to summarize her November 18, 2q14 memo. Ms. Villa summarized the letter by saying they reviewed far potentially regulated species and habitats in accordance with the City af Renton's codes. They concluded the graposal will not likely cause adverse impact on Iisted s�recies or criticat habitats with implementation of best management gractices. Protection of wetlands, baffers and significant trees are proposed. She also mentioned the current eanditian with anthropagenic structures, unleashed pets and many ather disturbances to wildiife currently occurring on the site.With respect to non-game species, they were surveyed in the review. She reiterated this is a highly disturbed,isolated patch. Ms. Villa discussed the stormwater filtration system which will remove many pollutants. There is no direct downstreann cannection to Ginger Creek, which is a tributary to Cedar River. The plan as praposed will protect the downstream areas. Mr. McMonagle stated he didn't understand the descriptian af the critical areas fence. Ms. Villa described what a woaden>split rail fence looks like. ' Mr. Gary Schulz is a wetlands ecologist. Mr. Schultz described his education and qualifications. He is a sale proprietor who does habitat assessments, rnitigation planning, and wetland and stream �� studies. He is a water and sewer district cornmissioner. Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Sehuttz if he had visited ihe project site. He stated he had, many times. His work was focused on wetland delineatian and stream identification. He used the ACOE, the DC}E WetIands Manuat. He put transects on the property and watked the site in a pattern to deternune the tocation of wetlands. He detineated the wetlands. His delineation was reviewed by Otak, the City's peer reviewer. Mr. Schultz concluded the wetlands are isolated and separated from downstrearn habitats and water. The southern pipeline dams the site and prevents the flow of surface water off site. They are packet depressions that are influenced by perched groundwater on a seasanal basis. He visited the site during March and June to view where the water was by seasan. � Ms. Ragers asked if Mr. Schult� tracks weather patterns. He stated he used the SeaTac rainfall � recard. His review was conducted in March 2014,when the rainfall was 5-6 inches above normal for that time of year. According to the news> it was record breaking month,though he couldn't quote the record. Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Schultz about shallow groundwater and the data plots described by Mr. I Neugebauer. Mr. Schnitz stated they were all near wetlands baundaries. Mr. Schultz reviewed these extra data paints at the request of Otak. Mr. Schultz stated Mr. Neagebauer used the term `aquake regime'. This term means hydric soils. A lot of these plots were outside the wetland baundaries and didn't have hydric soils. They aren't part of the wetland, thaugh it was a wet time of year. Mr. Schultz stated the soils on site aze Alderwaod, which typically overlay an impervious till layer. � - -- - - - — � � Perched, seasonal high water is common. Mr. Schultz stated the areas that will be wet in the winter will be protected. In June 2013, there was no water at all on site. Mr. McMonagle asked Mr. Schultz whether he's a hydrogeologist. Mr. Schultz stated he wasn't. He is a wetland ecologist. Mr. McMonagle asked if Mr. Schultz can interpret hydrology. Mr. Schultz stated delineating wetlands requires an understanding of wetland hydrology, though he didn't provide either a hydrology report or a geologic report. Mr. Ray Coglas, of Earth Solutions NW, described his education and qualifications. He is a licensed geotechnical engineer. He's been a registered geoengineer since 1998. He is the president of Earth Solutions NW. Mr. Coglas stated he had been present for the TPWAG testimony and had visited the project site. He submitted a letter as part of the exhibit package (Exhibit K,page 33). Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Coglas to discuss his letter and his response to Mr. Neugebauer. Ms. Rogers asked to discuss the soil and groundwater characteristics on the site, specifically as they related to the ability to develop the project. Mr. Coglas stated his role was initially to review the AES report. His portion was review of prior reports, field surveys and review of public comments. With respect to the AES report and some of the testimony he'd heard, the AEA report is standard practice. The site is fairly to moderately sloping site, mainly glacial tiil though there may be some outwash. The level of investigation that was done as part of the AES report was similar to what his firm would have done. A lot of time geotechnical reports aze driven by the proposed use. Kurt Merryman authored the AES report. He is reputable. The report was valid. They adequately characterized on site conditions. The one thing that stood out to Mr. Coglas is that AES didn't throw up any red flags. There's nothing in the report that would suggest major problems. AES was working for the school district and would have been required to tell the district if they thought there would be issues for development. All sites are unique, however this is a typical glacial till site. The level of investigation was appropriate with test pits. If it had been him, he'd done the same type of review for the intended use. If this was proposed to be a 25 story office building with three levels of underground parking, then far more intensive study would have been needed. The analysis that was done was appropriate� for the scale of the site and proposed type and intensity of use. In preparing his summary, he looked at all that. He agrees with the AES conclusions. A lot of what a geotechnical engineer does is determining the scope of analysis needed. They could have done a lot more, but the budget and type of project didn't require it. Most of the activity will be near surface and low intensity. Ms. Rogers asked if there would be additional geotechnical analysis to suppoR construction and engineering design at the permit stage. Mr. Coglas stated as far as the actual engineering of the project when it comes to assigning actual values for designer, his firm will prepare a geotechnical report that may or may not include more information. The final design isn't finished, so they don't know yet where they'll need more specific information. � � With respect to shallow groundwater, Mr. Coglas stated there is groundwater in the northwest. He stated the various depths of groundwater testified to before (6", 8", or 2'), AES characterizes the water table at 8' in depth during the summer. It fluctuates seasonaliy. There's nothing in the AES report suggesting 2' in the summer. It reports 8' in depth. The thing he wants to point out is this site is a perched groundwater condition. Glacial till is dense and cemented and does not allow vertical penetration of surface water to depth. That's common. He is not surprised that during wetland studies they encountered shallow or ponding water in the depressional wetland azeas. To suggest the whole site will be underwater is not consistent with a perched groundwater table. There aze recessional sands at the surface that allow water to pass through. That water then gets trapped in the impervious layer. He deals with groundwater on all of his projects. It is not a condition that precludes development. There's nothing unique to the plot of Tiffany Park or its surrounds geologically speaking. The Kent Valley is a flat, deep alluvial deposit with a level groundwater table that fluctuates evenly across the valley floor. The Kent Valley is like a deep.bathtub. ThaYs not the case here. The till layer is shallow and undulating in Tiffany Park. The elevation change across Tiffany Park is 40'. For example, if the groundwater table were level here, a change in 40' in elevation across the site would cause most of it to be underwater. That's not the case. There are seep environments that are seasonally wet, but they are localized based on the topography and glacial till layer. Groundwater seepage is managed during construction; it doesn't preclude construction. Mr. Rogers asked Mr. Coglas to discuss managing stromwater during construction, specifically, will the stormwater vault float? Mr. Coglas stated that almost every single project he's on has stormwater facilities, many of them are vautts. He's done hundreds of vaults. They look at excavation, the base, storage capacity, stability of the side slopes, and backfill. Tiffany Park is not an environment where he would be concerned with buoyancy of his vault structure. There might be a lazge seep at the beginning of the cut because of built up water pressure. This usually attenuates over time as the trapped water is drained. They always put a footing drain around the vault if they aze concerned the groundwater seam might create excess hydrostatic pressure on the concrete walls. They aren't concerned about buoyancy here. He has done projects that do have buoyancy issues. In that case, there are many best management practices to prevent the vault from being displaced. Ms. Rogers asked to turn back to the AES report. She asked Mr. Coglas to discuss the log reports for the test pits. Mr. Coglas stated geotechnical engineers dig test pits to evaluate soil profiles. Notes suggesting no caving or seepage aze very useful because it speaks to the strength of the soil. Groundwater seepage is different from the groundwater table. In the Kent Valley, they would call any water they found the groundwater table,rather than seepage. In this case, there is a difference. Mr. Rogers noted Mr. Neugebauer asked for additional studies. Mr. Coglas described his report and its detail of the geological hazards on site. Mr. Coglas stated there were no slopes that met the City's criteria for sensitive or protected areas. There are some local, isolated areas that may meet the 40% criteria, but as a geotechnical engineer, he looks at stability. The code specifies the boundaries. Mr. Coglas stated there are no landslide hazards or high erosion hazards on the project site. _ _ _ , � � Erosion is something to be managed. They derive the characterization c►f erosion from the USDA (now NRCS� soil characterization. These soil types were derived far agriculture. When working fields, it was good to know which soils had tugh erosion qua]ities. In development, the type of erosion hazard is nat significant. Tiffany Park has same slight to moderate eros'ron areas. Hawever, they control erasian through many different methodologies. The final product zs stabitized. Erosian is managed through engineering solutions. Mr. Caglas stated there are no seismic hazards on this property. The Seattle fault is 3.7 rniles north. We live in a tectonically active environment. There nnight be a sptay or other features under Tiffany Park, but none are known. It's important to know that the residential building code for this area is sufficient to offset seismic risk in this regioa. A more intense structure or devetopment would require more studies, but low density residential development daes not. There is a low seismic hazard here,according to the City. With respect ta coal mine hazards, Mr. Coglas stated they had reviewed the coal mine maps. AES also addressed this. They are outside the boundary where further study is needed €ar coat mioe hazards. Mr. Coglas stated there are no potential adverse environmental impacts in relation to geatechnical ISSlt�S. In respc�nse to the Exazniner, Mr. Coglas stated he was hired as peer review for the AE5 report. He was alsa hired to respand to public comments. Mr. Coglas stated he disagreed with Mr. Neugebauec's conclusions the entire site is samehow going to be underwater ar flooded. The groundwater is perched on glacial till that unduiates and is uneven. Mr. Cogtas said in these environmencs, based on studies and his experience, it's likely there wiIl be some groundwater seepage when they do utility excavatians or cuts/fills. This is not a site that will require dewatering or extensive pumping. The groundwater table is perched with variaus, isolated searns. In the Kent Valley, gulling water out would draw the whole water table down. This isn't the case here. The water table will be shallaw near the wetlands. The AES report, excegt for tbe narrative, doesn't d�ument any abserved groundwater in the test pits. In exptaratian pit #6> they noted weak groundwater seepage below 8 feet. It was the dry season. The Examiner asked if Mr. Neugebauer is correct in his conclusian the graundwater ievel is at zero elevation> wauld that cause a problem for construction. Mr.Caglas said that wou[d be a problecn,bat that is not the case. However, if it was at zero elevatian, they cauid manage it. The stormwater system rnight need to change, but it could be feasibility changed. Mr. Coglas stated the notion that the graundwater is right at the surface everywhere on the project is absurd. Mr. McMonagle asked Mr. Coglas about the test togs in the back of the AES report. Mr. Coglas stated the pits were all test excavations, rather than borings. He agreed there were 12 test pits an the 22 acres dug an September 6, 2012. He agreed all of the pits were done on the same day (Exhibit '`/ �o/ A7, Figure 2). Mr. Coglas stated he is a licensed civil engineer, not a licensed geologist or hydrogeologist. They have them on staff. He reviews those reports and has studied these specialties. He's familiar with the two basic groundwater environments at this site. Mr. McMonagle referred to Page 1 of the AES report that there is a caution the report should be reviewed and revised to support a specific development proposal. Mr. Coglas stated he was retained in October 2014. He was hired to provide peer review of the AES report, prepare a site evaluation, review the plat proposal and provide feedback on community comments. Mr. McMonagle asked if Mr. Coglas had done physical investigation of the site. Mr. Coglas said he had not and was unsure of whether he would be asked to going forward. He anticipates what he a�ould do on a follow up report which would include further review of plat plans. Mr. Coglas stated construction is done year round right now. He prepares different recommendations to deal with groundwater, depending on the � season. With respect to the vault, the physical dimension for this vault is very large, but he doesn't know exactly how big. His role is to help the contractor to install the vault and deal with any groundwater or geotechnical issues to ensure the vault is installed correctly and will function. The vault will probably be 12-18' deep. They will have 100 times more beazing capacity than is needed. There will be a soil cap. He'll look at the stability of the excavation to ensure the walls hold. Mr. Coglas showed where the stormwater vault will be located on the plat. Mr. Coglas agreed the deepest test pit was 10.5', though he's gone deeper on other projects. The shallowest test pit was 8'. He agreed the , only test pit in the vicinity of the vault was Test Pit#11, to a depth of 8.5 . Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Coglas to clarify his role in the project going forward. He stated his firm is the geotechnical engineer of record and will assume that role going forward. Mr. Barry Talkington, of Barghausen Consulting Engineers, is the civil engineer for the project and designed the plat. Mr. Talkington spoke of the drainage release on the title. A drainage release states there is stormwater leaving a property and draining on another property. It is not an easement with an exact location. His design of the plat addressed the release by looking at upstream drainage basins around the property. The drainage release in the title is for the Ponderosa subdivision, at least a half mile from the property. It is uphill, but there is no physical way water can drain from that property on to the project property. The drainage release was executed in 1965, before much of the present development was constructed. The drainage release described the entire section (640 acres). It's just an historical remainder. Mr. Talkington stated discharging clean stormwater into wetlands is a common practice. The drainage is discharged into the buffer to recharge the hydrology of the wetland. With respect to street widths, the streets inside the project are narrower than in the surrounding communities, in conformance with current city code. 't„�,r� �/ � j Mr. Talkington stated the preliminary plat process starts with city approval. The next step is � preparation of full construction plans and drainage reports. Additional information will be requested � from sub-cansultants. They grepared a preliminary drainage repQrt for the general stortn drainage design. They wil!do a final,mc�re specific drainage report next. The final drainage regort is usually a fine tuning,though there may be changes that require more extensive revisions. Mr. McMflnagle asked if Barghausen Consuiting is an engineering f rm. Mr. McMonagle asked whether Ba.rghausen was paid hourly from the consultant ar as a contingent fee. Mr. Taikington stated it wasn't contingent. Staff Resvonse Mr.Steve Lee, City of Renton Development Engineering Manager, described his position with the City and his relevant work experience ar�d qualifications. Mr. Lee he had reviewed the project files and perfarmed a site visit. He has exgerience in the Cedar River area for the last ten years. Mr. Lee responded ta Mr. Neugebauer's testirr►any. He stated Mr. Neugebauer's points were very general. Most of the issues Mr. Neugebauer raises were deatt with well by Mr. Coglas. Mr. Lee stated the Cedar River issues will always be present. The river system is young and new. There have been slaughing issues, but they were caused by defarestation in the early 20th century, earthquakes and other acts of nature. The Cedar River is naw controlled by the US Army Corp of Engineers(ACOE). There is a bit af control in the form af two upstream dams. Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) has the capability af inetering the flaw of the Cedar River. Within the last five years, there was an 8Q year event of 1Q,OOUcfs. In the past,that would have causes landslides and flooding at Bceing. That didn'c occur because of the controls in place by the ACOE and SPU. Mr. Lee stated Mr. Cogtas has performed at least 2Q projects in the City of Renton. He is carrect in his review af the geotechnical study by AES. The site is very similar to ather sites in the city. The steep areas are very smali (IS-20' feet long} and do not warrant slope stability analysis. �verall an the project site, the approximate slope is 10% or sa. The City does not require additional slope stability analysis. With respect to the number of test pits in the AES study, Mr. Lee stated there were sufficient numbers of test pits to gauge impacts of potential groundwater on site. He would have preferred to see a few more, especially in the vault area. Hawever, as Mr. Coglas testified, the City may require extra analysis. He stated he daes not typically require additional geotechnical analysis at this stage of the process. They may ask for deeper borings ar excavation pits. The residential nature of this praposal wauldn't usually require it. They will loak at this again to deternune if more geotechnical information is needed for the wa]!s, cuts, grading and the stromwater vault. Mr. I,ee felt the infarmatian provided was adequate to ailaw far a determination of impact on the site. The AES didn't mention issues of groundwater an che site. Therefore, they didn't feel the need to require secondary review.The City determined the AES report was adequate. � `� Mr. Lee spoke to the stormwater drainage issues. The only concem the City may have is the placement of the vault. They may require additional and deeper test pits to determine if there is groundwater that would have a detrimental effect on the vault structure. In that instance, they will do a buoyancy calculation to deternune the static water volume. A certain amount of water will hold the vault down.They need to know how much water that is and when it will be in the vault. In response to Ms. Timmons, Mr. Lee stated the storm drainage water will be pre-treated and will prevent polluted water from running off into the wetlands. The vault will treat all PGIS run off and discharge to a closed conveyance system. None of the pvllution generating systems will discharge into a wetland. Mr. Lee stated the City of Renton will require a Level 2 downstream analysis to describe the downstream conveyance after leaving the site. They are uncertain of a segment of the pipeline that takes the water. They want to make sure there is no downstream flooding. An NPDES permit will be required for the project. The pemut stipulates allowable discharge into a conveyance system. That will include background monitoring as well as discharge monitoring. All of the requirements must be met before a building permit or construction permits are issued. Mr. Lee summarized the local, state and federal code requirements. The applicant has complied with all code requirements. He stated these codes are sufficient to address all probable stormwater impacts. He said the Seattle pipeline is monitored by SPU. If they see even a fraction of a movement in that hillside,they'll know. This is the drinking water in the City of Seattle. In response to the Examiner, Mr. Lee stated the deep, static groundwater level was uniformly along the wetland level at the project, it could affect the development. They would discover this instance during construction. If grades are lower than the wetland level, they will require more borings and test pits. The Examiner asked if the code regulations would allow the City to ask for more borings. Mr. Lee stated it comes down to professional liability as defined in the RCW. The person stamping the plans is responsible. The City is responsible for life safety only. The engineering staff can require more borings if they think there might be an issue. If there are groundwater issues present, the proposed vault is the best solution. In response to Ms. Rogers, Mr. I.ee stated there is a difference between the perched groundwater table and the static, deeper groundwater level. There are no indications of the static groundwater 'I Ievel above 8'. Mr. Lee agreed with Mr. Coglas' assertion that the surface groundwater could be addressed during constnaction. Mr. McMonagle asked if Mr. Lee was aware the geotechnical report was prepared for the school district rather than the applicant. Mr. Lee stated he was. Mr. McMonagle asked if there shouldn't have been at least one test pit per acre. Mr. Lee stated the geotechnical engineering consultant will get a representative sampling of the site. They add more bores if they see dissimilarities in the site. Mr. McMonagle asked if Mr. Lee was aware AES limited its number of test pits based on budgetary _ _ _ _ _ ___ __ __ -� ,�,,� '"./ constraints. Mr. i.ee stated he was not aware of this. With respect to the stormwater, Mr. Lee stated the initial design was for a pand but changed to a vault sometime this year. Mr. McMonagle aske@ if the vault addition would typically trigger the need for additianal review. Mr. Lee stated they wautd typically ask for more information but they tzaven't yet requested more geotechnical inforrnation fram the applicant. Ms. Timmons asked if the City can get the extra information in an engineering packet. Mr. Lee stated it cauld. ' Ms. Rocale Timmans stated the studies provided by the applicant; especiaJly the technical studies wiil be fine-tuned in detatl at the time of constructian permit submittat. These studies aze used to deterrnine if there are probably adverse impacts frozn the development. The appellant has asserted there hasn't been adequate time ta review the propasal and the attendant studies. This project has been in review for nine months. The file has been available. The appellant has been provided with these studies, including the revised studies frorn June 2013. There were two Natices af Apglication released. Ms. Timmons entered Exhibit AK. The September 2Q14 notice included the revised SEPA checklist. With respect to wetlands, the City asked for a third party study. That study was completed by Otak. Otak provided two separate memos in response to revised studies from Mr. Schuttz. Otak affirmed the final wetland determination (Exhibit AS). t3tak determined there was a wetiand missed by the appiicant. The studies were revised to acknowledge the fifth wetland on-site. Otak then afficmed all of the revisions made by Mr. Schultz. Staff agrees with the TP'WAG appellant regarding tree preservation far wildlife on site. With respect to transportation, staff agrees with testimony provided by Mr. Jones af Transpa Group. Perteet, the City's consultant, concuned with the Transpo study. They feel all potential impacts are mitigated. Staff agrees with the testimony provided by Ms. Villa with respect ta critical areas and buffers. At�nlicant Rebuttal Ms. Rogecs stated the applicant agrees with staff on every issue with the exception of the requirement af a 15 faot buffer. At��llant Rebuttal Mr. Neugebauer stated he was concerned abaut the storrnwater vault filter. There are no specifications on this. He has never seen a ftlter that can remove dissolved metals. He is concerned I abaut the maintenance of the filter.Who will change it or maintain it? - —� � � Mr. Neugebauer said he's been practicing hydrogeology for 33 years. He stated perched� groundwater doesn't occur on slopes. The water drains through. The groundwater follows the contour of the land. He stated the unsaturated zone flow is at negative pressure. Groundwater is at atmospheric pressure. The applicant is describing an impossible scenario. They can see the groundwater through pressure gradients. He stated the water table at an elevation is a water table. He stated they aze using the applicant's information which is incomplete. The groundwater will go with the slope of the ground. Either the water's at the surface and there is a wetland or it's not. In the upper 30", the bioturbation zone, the ground is unsaturated. The water flows through the pore space and creates a vacuum behind it. There is just not enough information to really say where the groundwater is and where it's going. Finally, Mr. Neugebauer stated groundwater is regulated under the Clean Water Act. Point sources � cannot be wetland hydrology. Preliminary Plat Staff Testimonv Ms. Rocale Timmons gave a PowerPoint presentation (Exhibit AL). The site is located in the Benson Hill community planning area in the Tiffany Pazk neighborhood. It is 22 acres located in the R8 zone. It is bordered b the Cedar River Pi eline and the Mercer Island Pi eline. There are 1 300 Y P P , trees on this vacant site. It is owned by the Renton School District. It is surrounded by existing single family residences. It ties into two existing street stubs which will be extended into the site. The applicant is requesting critical areas exemptions and preliminary plat approval. The City has received 72 comment letters. Staff was present at a community meeting heId by TPWAG and conducted a separate meeting in September 2014. On September 22, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued a MDNS decision with 11 mitigation measures. Two appeals were filed. The environmental determination did not include new issues related to zoning, pernutted uses, density,construction mitigation, and others. The applicant is proposing 97 lots. There is a 96 lot proposal to allow 30% retention of trees. There will be a 5.7 du/acre density. Average lot size is 5,400sf. The site has five wetlands (three Category II and two Category III). The applicant is proposing buffer reductions with mitigation in the form of buffer extensions. The applicant is asking for a critical areas exemption for the extension of SE 18th Street to allow for a small buffer impact. Staff supports the requested exemption. Staff relied heavily on the Comprehensive Plan. There are many significant trees, critical areas, wildlife and an established density and use pattern that aze unique. Ms. Timmons described the Comprehensive Plan policies the staff relied on in their analysis. The staff attempted to provide harmony and balance between existing and new neighborhoods. The proposal complies with the Comprehensive Plan as conditioned. _- — --, ' �► ra""r' � The proposal meets most bulk and dimensional standards if all conditions of approval are met. The I only issue is Lot 19. This lot may not meet minimum lot width standards, but wi�l be conditioned to � meet the standazd. The applicant has pravided a landscape plan. This plan does not comply with the code, but could with minor modifications. Per the development standards, there are several praposed walts ranging frorn 4' to 21' on-site. These walls are outside the height limit. Staff has requested a height limit on walls. Staff would be apen ta tenacing of walls ta reduce the overall height. With respect to critical areas, mast requirements aze met with canditions. The applicant has asked for madificatians tv wetland buffers.There are impacts from walls that must be revised. There were public comrnents related to habitat, The site provides habitat for non-Iisted species. The tree preservation pian is sufficient to pravide habitat. Based on the pravided tree inventory, approximateIy 679 trees were excluded from retention calculations. At least 1$8 trees must be preserved on site or replaced at a mitigation ratio ta allow 30% tree reteation. The applicant praposes to pratect 181 trees and mitigate seven others. In terms of the analysis from subdivisian regulations, the proposal complies if all conditians af approval are met. The applicant must provide a safe crossing for the trail. In response to the Examiner, Ms.Timmons stated there is no apglicable street plan in the area. There were several camments regardirrg transportation issues. The proposed development woutd ge�erate l,{�4 weekday trips. Intersectioos near the project would remain at acceptable levels of service. A SEPA mitigation measure requires a new stop sign at Monroe Avenue. Staff has inctuded an additianaI candition of appraval ta address sight distance,cancerns. Staff has aiso recommended additianai signage. Staff feels as conditioned, ali impacts for transportation are rnitigated. With respect to residentiai Iots, there are severai pipe stem lots. 5taff wouid tike to see the app2icant revise these lots to comply with code or pravide for shared driveways. Shared driveways are preferred to reduce curb cuts. Farks, palice and fire staff indicate there are sufficient resaurces to support the development if alI fees are paid. Adequate provisions for safe walking conditions far students are provided. Sidewalks will be constructed to connect ko the existing sidewalk system. Staff has recomrnended a SEPA mitigatian measure ta include a crosswalk impravement at Lake Youngs Way at SE 18th 5treet. Adequate provisian for water and sewer are provided. The drainage report complies with the 2009 Stormwater Manual. There will be a vault within Tract A. The apglicant will need to provide a dawnstream arialysis for stormwater conveyance. '� '�r�` In response to the Examiner, Ms. Timmons stated there will be no alley access. This proposal does not meet the threshold. There are two zones on the property. Applicant Testimonv Ms. Rogers presented a letter describing the applicant's rationale for revised conditions of approval along with a set of revised conditions for the plat (Exhibits AM and AN, respectively). Ms. Rogers asked for approval of the plat subject to revised conditions. They aze generally supportive of the staff report. They have a few areas of disagreement. Ms. Rogers wanted to emphasize a point that the client is under contract to purchase the project from the Renton School District. This is surplus land the district cannot use. Ms. Rogers noted they are asking for revisions to Conditions 4, 5, 6, 9, and 16-18. They are requesting additional changes to conditions to fix typographical enors, repetition, and non-contested issues. The City has recently changed its justification for Condition 3 for the 15 foot buffer.The City had originally enoneously relied on incorrect Comprehensive Plan policies. They aze now turning to policies that also don't support the need for a buffer. Aesthetics are not an adequate basis to impose a perimeter buffer. There is already an average 50 foot perimeter buffer proposed along with two pipelines. There is no need for an additional buffer. With respect to Condition 4, they have proposed a modification to the location of curb bulb outs. They feel the City will agree with this revision. Condition 5 is the biggest issue. This is the condition that City is asserting that retaining walls must be limited to 4 feet in the front yard and 6 feet in the back yard. The City is referencing a condition related to aesthetic dividers, not retaining walls. None of the retaining walls concepts are referenced in this condition. Even if this particular code were to apply, the measurement of height does not apply. The walls they have designed are essential to the design of the plat. Exhibit AM, Attachment B, are two staff reports for cunent amendments to the walls and hedges section of the code. Title 4 does not have standards for retaining walls. Exhibit AM, Attachment C is a city handout that establishes a difference between fences, hedges and walls and engineered retaining walls. Exhibit AM, Attachment D is the pre-application memo for the original meeting Henley had with the City. You never get a written report again until you see the Hearing Examiner. The City stated the proposed retaining walls aze not subject to the fences portion of the code. Even if the code has , recently changed, they are vested to the old code. If the retaining walls are reduced or eliminated, we'll end up doing more grading. That will result in impact to trees and increased construction impacts. They have submitted a grading plan with reduced retaining wall heights. Conditions 6 and 16 are about shared private driveways. They are concerned the City is demanding an extra lot use the shared private driveways.There is a specific instance when this will not work. - - - - — , � � � � I Condition 9 is the wetland mitigatian associated with Wetland E, at the southeast section of the site. The wetland mitigation plans show they have already exceeded the required buffer. They have to extend the street. The critical areas exemption is for 14sf of impact from the required sidewalk. The City has asked for additional buffer area. They disagree but will agree to provide enhanced plantings. Conditian 17 is a typographical error. I Condition 18 is related to pipe stem lots which aze really about the shared driveway issue. I Mr. Gary Schultz, the wetland ecolagist, described the mitigation irnpacts the applicant is , praviding. His testimony is specifically related to Condition 9. Mr. Schultz described the 1,331sf of I additional buffer the applicant is.propasing. ' Ms. Rogers stated Ms. Timmons agreed to the revised Conditions 1, 4, 9, 13 and 17. Ms. Timmans stated they disagree with appticant revised Canditions 3, 5> 6, and 16. In response ta the Examiner, Ms. Vanessa Dolby, stated she would not be opposed ta changing Conditioa 5 ta atlow them to I request a variance. She could not comment on whether staff wouid support a variance. These would be administrative variances. Ms. Rogers stated that they did not apply far a variance because they were told they didn't need to. Mr.Barry Talkington spake to the difference between cut and fill wails. A cut is needed when the finished lot grade is below the existing grade. The wall stabilizes the grade. A fill wall includes fill on top of existing grade. The finished lot is abave existing grade. This is and engineered wall with reinforcing fabric. Mr. Talkington stated the revised plan reduces the 21' high wall abave Tract A and the 1$' high wall along the Cedar River Pigeline. That wall will corne down to 6', The height fram the high side of the walls is zero if they apgly the cade in effect when they submitted. In their case,the finished grade is the Eop of the wall. 11rIr. Talkington described the linnits on sice grading imposed by two entrances, ADA standards, etc. The overall objective is to batance cudfill on site. They are limited by the road access and ADA standards for road slopes through intersections.They can only change grades on site sa much. As the plan is laid ouE there are grade differences from lot ta lat that requires walls. They attempt to ma�cimize lot azeas and reduce impacts to sunounding buffers. If they meet the Gity's conditions, they witl lose lots, reduce 1ot sizes and impact the buffers. Use of walls allows thern to decrease impacts. For Conditions 6 and 16, Mr. Talkington spoke to a set of maps (Exhibit AO) depicting the shared driveway plans. He prepared the plans. For lots 9-14, the shared driveway easement will be used Lots 12-14. Lot 14 has direct access to the cul-de-sac but there will be no driveway there. The City wauld also require Lot 11 to use this dciveway. This is not desirable because the driveway would be at an angle ta the roadway which would also change the design of the house to allow side loading of � rr.� V the garage. The City is attempting to apply the amended code to the plot rather than the code under which the project vested. The staff Report stated Lot 14 had inadequate frontage. This has been corrected. For Lots 15-17, they had originally designed the shared driveway to service Lots 15 and 16. They have now included Lot 17 on the shared easement. They have also conected the frontage of Lot 17 to comply with code. Next to Lots 15-17, there is a pedestrian tract. For Lots 38-40, the issue is the same as for Lots 15-17. They have revised the lots to allow Lot 38 to comply with the width requirement and access the shazed easement. For Lots 79-81, Lot S 1 was added to allow access to the shared right of way. Lot 78 will not access the shared driveway. With the applicant's revised condition language, they are willing to ensure access to shared driveways for three lots rather than the City's suggested four. Public Testimonv Ms. Jill Jones is a Renton resident. She's heard experts testifying and noted that many of these people testifying have not walked the roads. She has lived there and walked therefor years. This is a valuable resource. The Cedaz River corridor cannot be walked by residents. There is no access here because it is steep. The woods are fully canopied, with easy trails. Henley says because the development is single family residences, they shouldn't have to provide a buffer. The development is much denser than the existing neighborhoods. The trees are mature and were pre-existing 30 years ago. The road is wide. There are many trees. Grass planting strips absorb the rain. Ms. Jones showed an example of other Henley developments that have no trees and narrow parking strips. The homes will be taller and larger than the existing houses on much smaller Iots. There will be no stormwater areas. Currently Tiffany Park floods in heavy storms. She has serious doubts about the ability to provide adequate stormwater drainage. She also observed a pileated woodpecker in the woods on April 14, 2014. Ms. Beedon would like to ask the Examiner to walk the woods before he makes a decision. This is important. She has listened to all of the testimony. The experts seem to care but they have shown no concern about what they are tearing down. This piece of wood should be preserved. They are taking away something irreplaceable. She feels this piece of property should be preserved for future generations and atl of us. She asked the Examiner to walk this area. Also, she has observed pileated woodpecker nests in these woods. They don't migrate. This is nat about not wanting development. This is about preserving a precious piece of woods. She wouldn't care if they built a prison there is it was cleazed. This is ahout nature and the trees. She can't imagine all these trees being torn down. If the citizens hadn't become active, the forest wouid be clear cut. They have a right as citizens to be heard and care about the environment. - , � � I Ms. Barbara Smith stated she didn't realize she needed ko subtnit the reviews for Henley Hames (Exhibit AQ}.Ivls.Ragers noted they were not a comprehensive review. I Staff Rebuttal Ms. Timmons stated for the driveway portion of the code, please review RMC 4-4-080. This cade allows discretionary authority in the code to limit the number af driveways accessing the street. staff does nat agree with the proposed revisions to Conditians 6 and 16. They want ta see Lots 1 i and'78 to access abutting shared driveways. I � � ATTACHMENT B The Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeals (LUA13-001572, ECF,PP,CAE) EXHIBITS ADNII i r�.�DURING HEARING SEPA Appeal Exhibits Exhibit A: City of Renton Environmental Analysis (Attachments 1-18 are listed as Preliminary Plat Exhibits 1-18 below) Exhibit B: Environmental (SEPA)Determination vf Non-Signiftcance Mitigated (Preliminary Plat Exhibit 22 below) Exhibit C: Environmental Checklist(June 10, 2014) Exhibit D: Comprehensive Plan (Land Use, Transportation and Community Design Elements) Exhibit E: Acceptance and Notice of Application Affidavit Service by Mailing(November 24, 2014) Exhibit F: Notice of Application and Off Hold Notice Affidavit Service by Mailing (July 25, 2014) Exhibit G: Commitment for Title Insurance Exhibit H: TPWAG Letter to Renton School District(September 10, 2014) Exhibit I: Renton School District Letter of Denial to TPWAG (September 16, 2014) Exhibit J: Henley Appeal Exhibit K: Henley SEPA Appeal Exhibits 1. a. HEX Staff Recommendation Report b. Pre-Application Notes c. Wetland Deternunation (October 30, 2013) d. Wetland Determination (February 28, 2014) 2. Letter Report from Ray Coglas 3. RSD Resolution No. 0312/13 4. SPU Letter(November 4, 2014) 5. Drainage Release 6. Si[e Maps and Aerial Photos 7. Airsoft Guns Documentation 8. Revised Plans, Alternate Layouts 9. COR COW Meeting(September 9, 2013) 10. Area Water Well L.ogs 1 l. Legal Analysis and Argument (November 18, 2014) 12. Soundview Consultants Letter, Racheal Villa 13. Grete Associates Report, 2008 Exhibit L: TPWAG Appeal Exhibit M: TWPAG SEPA Appeal Exhibits 19. TIR Report(November 12, 2013) i ... � 21. TIA Repart (Navember 2013) I 23. Tree Protection Report (November 13, 2013) I 24. SEPA Checklist(November 13, 2Q13) I 39. Miscellaneous Fhatographs of Surrounding Site I 40. Professional Qualifications—Steven Neugebauer I 41. Neugebauer Expert Repart(Navember 17, 2014) I 47. Pre-Hearing Statement regarding Prescriptive Easement(November 18, I 2014} 48. TPWAG Correspondence with Renton School District j Exhibit N: Staff Appeai Analysis(November 18,20t4) I Exhibit 4: Henley Pre-Hearing Order Request j Exhibit F: Hearing Examiner Q►rder Requesting Reply ta Pre-Heazing Order Request j Exhibit Q: TPWAG Response ta Pre-Hearing Order Request Exhibit R: City Response to Pre-Hearing Order Request Exhibit S: Henley Response to Pre-Hearing Order Request Exhibit T: Fre-Hearing Order Exhibit U: McManagle Notice of Appearance i Exhibit V: Flatley Resume Exhibit X: L.ee Resume Exhibit Y: Declaratian of Timm�ans Exhibit Z: Nat tJsed Exhibit AA: Rentan Regorter Article (Dannelly) � Exhibit AB: Letter ta Editor(Donnelly) Exhibit AC: 5 Photographs(Dannelly} Exhibit AD: TPWAG Memo on HEX Anthority and Halversor� v. BeXlevicee (Navernber 28, 2014) Exhibit AE: City af Rentan Response to TPWAG Memo of 1 U28/14(December 5, 2014) Exhibit AF: Henley Response to TPWAG Memo of 11l28/14 (December 5, 2014) Exhibit AG: Hearing Examiner Ruling on Examiner Authority and Halverson v. Bellevue (December 7,2014) Exhibit AH: Title ReportlChain of Title (TPWAG) Exhibit AI: Roenicke TPWAG Summary Testimony Exhibit AJ: Garlough TPWAG Summary Testimony Exhibit AK: Timeline Preliminary Ptat Exhibits Extubit 1: HE�Report Exhibit 2: Preiiminary Plat Plan (Juty 16, 20I4) Exhibit 3: Tree Cutting and Land Cleazing Pian (Juiy lb, 24t4} Exhibit 4: Tree Protection Repart{June 6,20t4} Exhibit 5: Revised WetIand Determination and Respanse Letter(June 3,2014} Exhibit 6: Habitat Assessment(January 1 b, 20I4} Exhibit�: Geotechnical Repart(September 28, 2012) Exhibit 8: Drainage Report{February 24,20I4} Exhibit 9: Traffic Irnpact Analysis(April 23,2014} � � Exhibit 10: Public Comment Letters:�10.1-10.7fl Exhibit 1 I: Alternative Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Pian {August 29, 20I4) Exhibit 12: Alternative Tree Protection Report{August 27,2014} Exhibit I3: Independent Secanda.ry Review-Traffic Exhibit 14: Independent Secandary Review—Wet�and{April 3, 2014} Exhibit 15: Sapglemental Independenc Secondary Review—Wettand (Jaly 9, 2014} Exhibit 16: Habitat Assessmertt Technical Memorandum(February 1 l,2014} Exhibit 17: Habitat Assessment Technical Memorandum{lune 12, 2414} Exhibit 18: Landscape Plan�{Jt�}y 16,2014) Exhibit i9: Transpc3rtatian Cancurrency Approval Exhibit 20: Renton Trails and Bikeways Map , Exhibit 21: Environment Review Committee(ERC)Staff report Exhibit 22: SEPA Determinatian and Mitigation Measures(September 22,2014) I E�zibit 23: Public Meeting Notice Exhihit 24: Notice of Application Affidavits :Exhibit AL: Staff PowerPoint Presentation � Exhibit AM: Applicant Letter of Revised Plat Conditions(December$, 2014) � Exhibit AO: Shared Driveway Exhibit AP: Jones,Photagraphs Exhibit AQ: Henley Homes Reviews from Internet I I I I iI � II CITY OR RENTON i �r./ `� � FEB 2 7 c�Qf5 � RECENED 1 CiTY CIERK'S OFFICR 21 34 I = 4 ' S ' 6 7 : 8 ; I 9 � BEFt�RE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY O�'RENTQN l0 - � ll ' � � RE: The Reserve at Tiffany Park � 12 � Preliminary Plat } } RULING ON RECONSIDERAT[ON t 3 � REQUESTS _ ) �4 � Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appcals � �s � > LUA13-OOI572, ECF', PP, CAE ) 16 17 , j g ' Summary � �9 ;The Final Decision issued on January 8, 2015 is left iargely unchanged as a result af reconsideratian 2p requests filed by the SEPA Appeliants and the applicant. The changes authorized by this decision �will be implemented in a REVtSED FINAL D�CISiON UPON RECONSIDERATION, issued an �fi ithe same date as this accompanying ruling. The applicant's reconsideration request was originally 2z : filed as a Request for Clarification and all of the applicant's requests were granted as they just he[ped c(arify the intent af the Finai Decisian. The SF.PA Appellants requested substantive changes and 2� , most of those requests were denied. Since the appGcant denied access ta the SEPA Appellants to 24 'conduct wetland studies at the project site,the SEPA Appellants were authorized to admit additional �wetland evidence during the reconsideratian process. However, this new evidence rnerely pcoved 25 �cumulative and was not sufficient to overcome the findings made by Otak, the independent third 2� party reviewer of the applicant's wetland determinatiorts, A condition will be added requiring PREL[MINARY PLAT- � .;�� �� I �� ,� �� � � ����� � i y � 1 �compliance with stormwater regulations that pertain ta roof run off. Although compliance with these � :requirements is already required during engineering review for final plat approval, the requirements =are calted out in the conditions af approval ta ensure that engineering staff makes a priority of 3 �ensuring that stormwater wetland impacts are adtlressed as contemplated in the City's storrnwater 4 regulatians. � Background 6 'This ruling respands to two reconsideratioa requests. The SEPA Appe!lants requested � _reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's decision on the abave-captioned matter by letter dated January 21, 2Q15. An Qrder on Request for Reconsideration was issued in response on January 22, 8 :2Q l 5 directing the S EFt� ;Appe(lants ta limit the new evidertce of their request for reconsideratian to that authorized by the 9 �Renton Municipal Cade. The SEPA Appel(ants su6mitted a madified request for reconsideration on , t0 January 28, 2015 within the tirne frame required by the January 22, 2015 order. Since the SEPA Appetiant's first request for reconsideration, the appiicant has also submitted a timely request for � �� °reconsideration dated January 22, 2015. The appticant's request for reconsideration reptaced an , �Z _earlier request for clarification. An Order on Request for Recansideration It was issued on January :29, 2015. The final reply deadline was set for February 10, 2015. This deadline was extended to �3 � February 1 l,2015 by ernail order dated February 4, 2015. 14 � . Evidence/Argument Relied Upon 15 : R-t Administrative Record established at the ciose of the hearing on December 8,2d14. tb : I� l� ; R-2 Heniey Request for Reconsideradon dated January 22,2015. tg � R-3 SEPA Appellant Request for Reconsideration datec3 January 28, 2015 in addition to pictures � of wetlands taken on January 16, 20t5 as inctuded in the SEPA Appeiiant January 22, 20i5 , 14 � request for reconsideration. ' '� 20 - =R-4 Hentey February 4,2015 Respanse to Request far Reconsideratian , 2I �R-5 City Fet�ruary 5,2015 Response to Request foc Recansideratian z2 23 R-6 5EPA Appe!lant Reply dated February 4,2015 24 :R-7 Henley Reply dated February 9,2015. 25 R-8 Order on Request for Reconsideration daked January 22,2015. 26 I ��PRELIMINARY PLAT- z I l -- _ i _ _, � ti� ~/� I t - R-9 Qrder on Request for Reconsideration I1 dated January 29,20 t 5. z � Henley Request for Reconsidera#ian 3 � �The Henley request far reconsideratian was orig'tnally submitted as a request for clarification and 4 �was (argely uncor►tested. The requests are addressed individually belaw using the numbe�ing system 5 ;of Ex. 2 as follows: � ' l. P. 2$, line 9 should read"1Q faot wide perimeter landscaping requirement" instead of"15 _ foot wide perimeter landscaping requirement"'. The revised MDNS condiiion imposed by � ° the Final Decision imposes a i0-foot perimeter landscaping requirement and this $ j supe�sedes any conflicting background language in ihe decision. f 9 2. The applicant asserts thai the reference to the "1 Q foot wide on-site landscaping strip for a!1 Eats" in MDNS Condition No. 6 is tao ambiguous. This quated language was taken l 0 frarrr cecommended Conditio� No. 3 of the siaff"repart, which also combined the ort-site I � j Iandscaping strip with pe�imeter Eandscaping requirements and also pravided no further �2 o clarification on the lacation of he `'an-site landscaping strip'. The applicant made na • further cffort to ciarify the ianguage when it requested revision to Condition No. 3 in its 13 � December 8, 20i4 request for revised conditions, Ex. AM. Now the applicant asserts and the City has no objection ta the assertion that the ianguage is ambiguous. MDNS i� � Conditian No. 6 will be clarified to note that thc "on-site landscaping strip" is the 15 ' frantage landscaping required by RMC 4-4-070(F)(I). 16 � 3. Specific lot references in MDN5 Conditian No. 6 wil( be removed. MDNS Condition �7 ; No. 6 wiil read as follows: �g � The applicant shall revise its landscaping plan to provide for a 10 foot wide on-site street frontage (andscape strip as required by RMC 4-4-070(F)(1) for all lots and a 10 �� � foot wide, site obscuring perimeter landscaping adjacent to areas where the retaining 20 ( walls are four ar more feet in height. Landscaping at maturity must exceed the height ' of the adjacent retaining walL The final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to 21 ! � and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit I 22 - approval. Such landscaping shall include a mixture af trees, shrubs,and graundcaver as approved by the Department of Community and Economic Development. 23 �� 4. Canclusion of Law No. 3(E) of the Final Decision shall be renumbered as Conclusian of Law No.7.5. 25 � . 5. Canditian of Approval No. 3 is deleted. 26 � � .PREL1MtNARY PLAT- 3 � — -- - - _ � v 1 SEPA Appellant Request for Reconsideration 2 �The SEPA Appellants' request for reconsideration is addressed by topic below, following the order 3 presented by the SEPA Appellants in their request for reconsideration, Ex. 3: 4 1. VVetland New Evidence. T'he SEPA Appellants request admission of photographs taken 5 ;January 16, 2015. In their reply, Ex. 6, the SEPA Appellants also present evidence regarding i climatic conditions taken from Weatherspeak. The evidence is admitted liecause the SEPA 6 :Appellants were denied an opportunity to do their own wetland assessment on the subject property. � .The evidence presented by the SEPA Appellants would not normally be admitted due to the strict g :prohibition on admission of new evidence as outlined in the Examiner's January 22, 2015 Order on � Reconsideration. Although of course the appellants could not have photographed the flooded 9 _conditions present on January l6, 2015 prior to the close of the hearing, the type of evidence 10 supporting their claim (e.g. that the time of the wetland delineation was during an unusually dry period, etc.) could have been made from other sources, such as eyewitness testimony and soil � � . samples. RMC 4-5-100(G)(9) does allow for the introduction of new evidence that was not �2 =reasonably available during the hearing, but this provision needs to be strictly construed to be `consistent with the"one hearing"objectives of the Regulatory Reform Act as discussed in the Order �3 on Reconsideration. [f RMC 4•8-100(G)(9) is interpreted as authorizing a hearing participant to �4 augment the record any time they find a new� piece of conoborating evidence to support their case, :the reconsideration process simp(y becomes a "do-over' opportunity for hearing participants to fill �5 ! in gaps in their case they should have covered the first time around. New evidence should only be 16 �admitted if there was no other evidence available to the hearing party that could have equally proven their point. 17 [n this case, the SEPA Appellants weren't otherwise given a reasonable opportunity to argue that �g �the conditions taken during the wetland delineation conducted by the applicant were unusuatly dry 19 and may have lead to inaccurate results. Since delineations are largely based upon soil and vegetation samples and observations, the SEPA Appellants most effective way to prove their point 20 would have been to do their own wetland delineation. However, thc applicant denied the SEPA 2� :Appellants property access to conduct such a delineation. For this reason, the SEPA Appeltants =should be granted substantial flexibility in presenting evidence on the presence and location of 22 wetlands. Through the actions of the applicant,the SEPA Appellants have been forced to rely upon 23 �secondary evidence to support thcir position. [f this type of evidence arises for the first time during the reconsideration period, it is fair to let them use it. The Weatherspeak evidence presented in the 24 =reply was available during the hearing, but it was used as rebuttal to points raised by the applicant 25 during reconsideration argument. Given the flexibi(ity due the SEPA Appellants on wetland evidence,the Weatherspeak evidence is also admitted. 26 PRELIM[NARY PLAT- 4 � ~' � I � 1 .2. Wetland Delineations. Wetland boundaries were accurately delineated. The new evidence 2 presented by the SEPA appellants (January 16, 2015 photographs, Ex. 3) shows that standing water =extended beyond the wetland boundaries staked by the appiicant on January 16, 2015. The SEPA 3 Appellants also provided evidence in Ex. 6 that the conditions existing when the applicant's tivetland 4 °delineations were conducted were exceptionally dry. This evidence and the other arguments and �evidence presented by the SEPA Appellants during the hearing in chief is not sufficient to overcome 5 �the expert opinions and delineation work performed by the applicant and the independent third party 6 j experts (Otak) that reviewed the work. The SEPA Appellants do raise valid points, but the : fieldwork done by the app(icant's expert was verified by the third party experts(Otak)on March 17, 7 :2014,an exceptionally rainy month. As noted in p. 2 of Ex. 14,one of the Otak reports: g I � Please note that the wetland delineation wns performed in Jarne 2013, whereas the rainfall 9 I amoirnt as of March 17, 201�t, was appro,rimately 5.58 inches nbove the normal amount for March (Nntional w'eather Servrce); ... l0 � In the Ex. 14 report Otak further idcntified that during their March 17, 2014 site visit that standing � � �water extended from a depth of several inches to 1.5 feet deep beyond delineated wetland boundaries. j Despite these findings and conducting its visit in an exceptionally wet spring month, Otak still 12 �concluded that the delineations were accurate. As noted in the applicant's reconsideration response, �3 !:Ex. 4, a wetland delineation is not based exclusively on the presence of water, but rather is based ; upon several factors including hydrology, soils and vegetation. The issues raised by the SEPA �4 : Appellants certainly puts the conclusions of the applicant's expert into question, but those concerns 15 I are put to rest by Otak's third party review. There is no reason to doubt the objectivity or competency of Otak's review and for that reason it proves determinative on the wetland issues. �6 '3. Buffer Averaain�. The SEPA Appellants identify areas where the project encroaches into wetland buffers. The SEPA Appellants do not dispute that these encroachments were authorized as 1� part of the applicant's buffer averaging and they do not identify how the buffer averaging plan fails to �8 .°meet applicable City buffer averaging standards. Absent any evidence to the contrary, it cannot be concluded that the averaging plan found to be code comptiant by third party reviewer Otak and City �9 Staff fails to meet City standards. 20 4. Trees. The SEPA Appellants assert that a ten-foot wide buffer in front of retaining walls would not be sufficient to obscure the walls from view. No evidence is referenced or explanation 2� proffered as to why the buffer would be insufficient. The final decision on this matter contained a 22 detaited review of the evidence on the sufficiency of the buffer width and the SEPA Appellants did not identify any error in this analysis. The ten foot wide buffer is still found to be sufficient. 23 5. Stormwater. The SEPA appellants assert that the removal of trees will reduce 75% of the 24 property's ability to process storm water and that a 24"discharge pipe as proposed by the appellant is inadequate to handle stormwater. [t is determined that the City's stormwater regulations provide for 25 adequate stormwater mitigation. 26 PREL[MINARY PLAT- 5 1 I � i � � 1 :The City of Renton has adopted the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual under RMC 4- � m tch re-develo ment I� . 6-030(C). This manual requires that stormwater runoff rates and volumes a p p , I � � ; forested conditions. In short, the City's stormwater regulations a(ready require stormwater systems to I 3 ;be designed ta take inta account the impact of tree removat and are also designed to assure that ali � I� stormwater faci[ities, including pipes, have adeguate capacity to handte stormwater run•aff. The � I � _appticant has prepared a pretiminary set of catculations in its Tec hnica l In formation Report, Ex. A, I att. 8, which addresses the reduction in natural stormwater retention occasioned by the lass of trees. I 5 The SEPA appellants have not identifed any deficiencies in these calculations or the regulations that require them. Candition No. 2 of the MQNS atso requires a Leve12 dawnstream analysis, which will 6 �verify the adequacy of pipe sizes. In ihe absence of ar�y evidence to ihe contrary, the City's :stormwater regulatians are deterrninative on the adequacy of stormwater mitigatian. Further, in the � � absence of any evidence to the contrary on the applicant's compliance with those stormwater I � g �regulations, City engineering staffs finding of adequacy on the preliminary calculatian is alsa determinative. 9 ° 6. Roaf Runoff. The SEPA Appellants assect that the proposed diversion of rooftop run off into �� wetlands viotates City stormwater regutations. The Appetlants also assert that roof top run off will t � mix with poilutants in yards and then f[ow into wetlands. The appticant responds that the roof top runoff is praposed ta be diverted away from poiluting surfaces so that no mixing wiil occur. The �2 applicant atso asserts that compliance with stormwater manua( requirements wil( be achieved during final engineering review. 13 � 'City engineering staff have determined that the praposa!'s proposed stormwater system will cornply 14 `-with applicable stormwater regulaiions as conceptually proposed for pre(iminary plat review. The :SEPA appellants have not specifically identified how any part of the proposed system would fai! to �5 �comply with stormwater regulations as they apply to roaf runoff and its interaction with wetlands. l� � Under these circumstances it would be apprapriate ta assign remaining compliance issues to engineering stage final plat review, as contemplated in the City's subdivision review regulations. 17 =However, ta remove any doubt, a condition of appraval will require that(1) roof run-offthat impacts wetiands wili not be allowed to mix with any potluting surfaces; (2) Category 2 wetlands may not be �g °structurally or hydralogically engineered far runoff quantity or quality controt as required by �g � KCSWDM Reference 5; and (3} City staff shall require design adjustments as authorized by KCSWDM t.2 to the extent necessary to ensure that wetland hydraiogy is not adverseiy affected by II 20 the proposat. 2� 5, TrafFc. The SEPA Appellants assert that the conversian of SE 18`h St. and 124`h Piace SE � from cul de sacs to throughways to serve the project is not sufficiently mitigated and will reduce their 22 property values by $30,000. The reduction in property values is new evidence that cannot be 23 considered during reconsideratian since that information was reasonably available ta the SEPA :Appel(ants during the hearing in chief. The SEPA Appellants also make several suggestions for 24 revising access routes to the project site. It is toa late to consider these types of suggestions after the �etase of the hearing. Any change ta access woutd require a re•evaluation of traffic impacts, which 25 -coutd take substantial investigation and study by both the appiicant and staff. Since the record is �ciased,the apportunity for that type of analysis is gone. If any ofthe suggestions were made prior to z� ,PRELIM[NARY PLAT- � I i _..— ———----- -- — — — —— ' � = +�� �wr� 1 the close of the hearing, the SEPA appcllat�ts should have identi�ed where in the recard the suggestion was made and why the staff and applicant response were deficient. In the absence of that 2 =type of informatiott,the SEPA Appellant requests for revision cannot be considered. 3 � 4 � DATED this 26`h day of February,2015. � � p � _..�'f'�--l� �.,.�-'�-'--- Ph�1�� b I � : A Otbcrcec t� � : City of Rentan Hearing Examiner $ : � 9 � �a ; , �� � �z ; �� � � 14 15 ,' 16 ` � 17 � ; 18 � 19 ; 20 ; 2l i 22 z� ; � 24 - 25 - 26 PREL[MINARY PLAT- � J . CITY OF RENTON �,�S�yY1 I ; . JAN 2 8 2015�. ' RECENED 1 : CITY CIERK'S OFFlCE 2 - 3 ° 4 5 6 7 � 8 � � 9 ' BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON 10 � � 11 ) RE: The Reserve at Tiffany Park � 12 Pretiminary Plat � ORDER ON REQUEST FOR 13 : � RECONSIDERATION II 14 � Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeals � IS - ) � LUA13-001572,ECF,PP, CAE ) 16 � 17 =The SEPA Appellants requested reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's decision on the above- 18 captioned matter by letter dated January 21, 2015. An Order on Request for Reconsideration was : issued in response on January 22, 2015 directing the SEPA 19 ° Appellants to limit the new evidence of their request for reconsideration to that authorized by the 20 Renton Municipal Code. The SEPA Appellants have submitted a modified request for reconsideration on January 28, 2015 within the time-frame required by the January 22, 2015 Order. 21 Since the SEPA Appellant's first request for reconsideration, the applicant has also submitted a timely request for reconsideration dated January 22, 2015. The reconsideration requests from both 22 the SEPA Appellants and the applicant will be distributed to the parties of record of this proceeding 23 for response and reply. 24 It is recognized that once again the SEPA appellants aze attempting to introduce new evidence in the record and that applicable legal standards only allow new evidence under very limited circumstances. 25 This places the applicant in the difficult position of arguing against the admission of new evidence 26 while at the same time having to respond to the new evidence in case the evidence is admitted. The PRELIMINARY PLAT- 1 � `. 1 applicant is given the opportunity ta limit its response to evidence in the recard and reserve the r'sght to respand to newly presented evidence if any such evidence is admitted. If the agplicant chooses this � coUrse af action, the examiner wili rule on the admissibility af evidence after the submission 3 deadiines outl'rned below and then provide arr additional oppartunity far respanse to new evidence by .the applicant and final reply by the SEPA appetlants before ruling on the recansideratian requests. In 4 i the a2ternative, the applicant may "cover all bases" and argue against the adrnissian of new evidence �whiie also presenting new evidence ta the extent necessary to respond to any new evidence from the 5 ! SEPA appellants that is admitted into the reeard. 6 � � � ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION 8 � 9 � l. Persons who testified at the hearing on the abave-captioned matter and Gity staff shall have until 5:00 pm, February 4, 20t5 ta provide written corttments in response to the Request for lp � Recansideration submitted by the SEPA Appellants on Janvary 28, 2015 and the Request for � Recansideration submitted by the appticant on January 22 2015. (3nly persons who participated �� � in the SEPA appeal may comment on the SEPA appeal issues. All comments are limited to the issues raised in the requests far reconsideration. 12 ' i 13 i 2. The SEFA Appellants and the applicant shali have untit February 9, 2015 at 5:00 pm to provide a written reply ta the responses to their awn reconsideration requests. 14 : 15 3. ,�1 written comments, respanses and replies autharized above must be emailed to the Examiner 16 at �'It`r�cht:14�«tt: <�r3r�ril.cc��t�; Racale Timmons at R1il����ic,����t Rcntt�n�t��.�«�; Renate Beedon at rent«n-�,nno;itc;Cj�c,ii��ci;t.n�t; Nancy Rogers at. �:R,.,•�ir;t�C4ti�-nrrc,>;.cc��i� and Cynthia Moya 1� � at CMayaCRentonwa.gov. In the alternative written comments rnay be mailed ar delivered ta , Roeale Timtnons,City of Rentan Senior Planner, at 1055 Sauth Grady Way, Rentan,WA 98057. 1� � Mailed or delivered eornments must be received by the City by the deadlines specified in this 19 � 4rder. 20 � = DATED this 29th day of January, 2015. 21 � �~ ��� �i''�'-- 22 ' Phi A.Qlbrochts 23 i City of Rentan Hearing Examiner 24 25 - 26 � Pt2ELIMINARY PLAT - 2 —� . � Date: Wed,lan 28, 2015 t To: City of Renton Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts mailto:olbrechtsiaw@�mail.com CITYOFRENTON � -� 'n� � .�'! City of Renton SO55 Grady Way JAN 2 8 2015 C;�� Renton,WA 98057 RECEIVEO CIN CLERK'S OFFICE ' From: Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group mailto:renton-opposites@comcast.net �I 1725 Pierce Avenue SE I Renton, WA 98058 Subject: Reserve at Tiffany Park PP - Hearing Examiner Decision (LUA13-001572) Revised and Amended Request for Reconsideration Dear Mr. Olbrechts: This letter constitutes Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group's Revised and Amended Request for Reconsideration pursuant to RMC 4-8-100(G)(9) and RMC 4-8-110(E)(13),which provide for reconsideration of a hearing examiner's decision if a party of record believes the decision is based on "an erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact,or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing." TPWAG has elected to pursue this Request for Reconsideration Pro Se and hereby designates Renate Beedon as the designated representative. References • Letter entitled, "RE:The Reserve at Tiffany Park - Preliminary Plat- Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeals - LUA13-001572, ECF, PP,CAE - Final Decision",from Phil Olb�echts-City of Renton Hearing Examiner, dated Jan 8, 2015. Scoae • The Hearing Examiner's decision provides inadequate mitigation for the impacts on the environment and on the surrounding community of Applicant's proposed development to support a DNS-M determination under SEPA. • The City of Renton has authority to ask for mitigation under SEPA, and TPWAG asks the City of Renton (via the Hearing Examiner)to exercise that authority in the areas discussed in this letter. • An environmental impact statement is justified and must be prepared whenever significant adverse impacts on the environment are probable, not just when they are inevitable. If an environmenta) statement is required by the weight of the evidence and if the responsible city authority does not require an environmental impact statement then the decision is clearly erroneous. • The Hearing Examiner is entitled to consider newly discovered evidence not reasonably available at the prior hearing. TPWAG Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration Page 1 of 8 — ' , , ' I� Il Wetland Determina#ion, Measurin�and Stakin� I Newly Discovered Evidence . Pursuant to the Nearing Examiner s Order on Request for Reconsideration dated lanuary 22, 2015 TPWAG removed alf photographs of the wetlands taken an lanuary 16, 2025. These photagraphs were sim i rovided ta show that the wetiand baundary markers and wetland buffer markers are standing �v� I in bodies af water. Fhota ra hs of this conditian were not readiiy available at the time af the hearings g P because the wetiand studies were perfarmed after a 3 month draught(2Q13j or after unusuat we seasans(2014)of the year. 3he phatographs that have been removed show typical canditions in lanuary and 6ring into questian the delineation af the limits of the wetlands and suggests the I boundary of Wetland B and possibly wetiand C were nat correctly delineated. RMC 4-$-100(G)(9)provides that"any interested person feeiing that the decisian of the Hearing Examiner is based on "erroneous procedures, errars of law or fact, error in judgment or the discovery of new evidence which cauld nat be reasonabiy available at the prior hearing" may make a Request for Reconsideration. Thus the Renton Municipal Code aliows the Hearing Examiner to consider this limited discavery af new evidence. TPWAG believes that the wetland photographs removed from this Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration fall into this category of evidence and should be considered by the Hearing Examiner. TPWAG requests that they be allowed ta resubmi#these photographs as newly discovered evidence. Problems • One of our cancerns is the wetlands and the way they have been determined, measured and staked. As you can see from aur comments below, we believe that the wetland depiction alane has been done incorrectly and therefore question the way other studies pertaining ta this development have been canducted. An EIS would clearly provide the city and all interested parties with inforrnation that is correct and fully evaluate the significant adverse impacts an the environment. The origrnal study by OTAK pointed out many discrepancies in the origina!study submitted by Schulz. The OTAK study claimesi that the wet4ands are actual#y larger than described in the original study submitted by Schulz. After the Applicant received the OTAK study, a meeting was held between the City of Renton, Schufz and OTAK. At that an-site meeting the Applicant apparentty convinced the C}TAK consultants that the nriginal study by Schufz was carrect and the OTAK study was not. tf yau iaolc at and campare both reparts,yau can see significant changes between the two versions af QTAK studies. TPWAG requested minutes for this meeting from the City af Rentan and was told that there were no rninutes because this was a "field trip"and that the two rev'rsed wetland reports from Schulz and �TAK were recard enou�h.Apparently,there is no written record of what was said and decided by wham during this off-site meeting in the woods. One thin�the participants af the '"field trip" did agree on is the addition of wetland D. TPWAG Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideratian Page 2 of$ . �� l { QTAK Secondar/ Review Memo-43-1� • We are providing you with a Tree CuttingJEand Ciearing Plan,which shows haw the propased lots {in particular lots�0, 79 and 80)appear to encroach anto the wetiands B and C. • A1so encroaching onto wetiand C is a street. On tfie "Preliminary Cover Sheet for Tiffany Park" chart it looks like the street is cutting right into the wetiand. ���, .,;j aeecvr�.a,e�oc��rwn.r� �''�"� '\. �', �� ro" � � � ;^S—"""1 `�• ,�� � RS�t�VS dT nTfdNYPdRS ��� y > > �� � �'�' ^'7- '+t � � � � y9`�r' �J� ( j �.r /r r�f • r�T 1 � l.�„r'� � 1`� � / ! f ! , ��ilCC�_ ,r j 1`�., /� +t'"'"..` �` � _ ? I � �e _�. �•� I ����7'6' � � �r � M �.M � t �+ �'�.� �` r . � -• 1 � � 4M � /�M` � -��� 1j \\ `���} � I �ir� � ~• ` r ",,"�� t�/� 1 t�� L ,' 1 1 j� �� ,1 1 �'±"� C—.— : . ::-. �. y ""4.`,r....' t, � t -; ,, _ . , �,,j' . t'�''+► `ly�.��._.; r�` � .%t� t - • ' '~~ '• `•j.�~ �r 1'�`` � "�4:�}~� ��1 . � " `--� 1 � ' • ` � � .. �- •�r. .r� , '' •�`�� ', ` � +r. •r. • �'�'• � ;►� � , ` „� � � ' ��' �,,; '`�• • ` 4 l�l i�� ; • �. r � ` r �.: ` � , i"`� , +� �„ .: f� '' ��* ' s � � �y .. � t L ..- � " �.. �R r � .s i • i ' '���� i w Tr " . :: ` 'M"�� , � t � . % #�l' �/ � + •! . :1 #21► . i �r: • • ' � •'�R t„�� �.♦ � � � . —— •'�• � _ I i f� s — � i •• -- �1� 1 �� J��� � S 1 � FJ ~ + � j `����. I � `nr�� � ,� } f � '���.+�.� ' i ` � ��)1 ` ,'��� } . � � i { r 7 , iii� �i �' ` •�1 �+� r- 'i�'��"r� l i '1 '' i..."''"r.-.�-�--��"� � t � •' � � `` ��"��'1�`t, � � ��/"� �,�,,.�w , 1� .-t`M ` �^,,. �,��'�y if.� i l'"r•Y f�f y,�„'S— � r^_--"T �, �fM��.�^.f""" i ... � �3�1^�"`" �+�1~ , � 'I1 1 1�� • 1 1 L i�' „+�'� ' - '�• �� � 1 �.�r � ` �` � .� 1 ".S'�.� �� �Bi• �.� �� L �'. . .. r . a . • These encroachments appear on the Tree Cutting/Land Clearing Plan dated in 2014. (Date is toa small I ta read�. TPWAG RevisedlAmended Request far Recansideration Page 3 of 8 � —. —. —.— — - . • The maps provided by th� '�plicant show that plats and streets al� -dy encroach anto wetiand . boundaries acknowledge4 ,,y the Applicant. If we,TPWAG,are co�._ct in our assumption that the wetlands have been marked incorrectly and that all the wetlands are bigger than depicted by the Rpplicant,than the propased lots and street will greatly v�ofate the wetfand buffers and therefore the wetiand codeJregulatians,etc. • We believe that this a5pect afane should catl for a�EIS,since it is possibfe that more errors ar oversights like with the wetiands have been made throughout the whofe proposed deve#apment. * We hope that at least the we#land delineation will be revisited and re-staked and then reviewed again • (A uisit to the City of Rentan Clerk's affice on Monday,lanuary 2b, 2015 by TPWAG revealed that several sets of origina{drawings were incomplete,thus we were unable ta study#hese drawings in canjunction with our request far teconsideration. The city p(anner, Ms.Timmans,ta(d TPWAG that the drawing dated August 2014,is"old".This"oid"drawing showed the presence of a storm water retention pond rather than a vauit as presen#ed during the Hearing Examiner's meetings in 2014. After Ms.Timmans teft,we looked far newer drawings but could not find any. 7he City Clerk staff told us that they were not in possessian af newer drawings.) Re(ief Requested • Discount the ane-sided testimony of Applicant`s wetiands expert(because the praperty awner refuses to allaw fiPWAG to bring an independent expert an the property} • Require the property owner to a11ow TPWAG ta bring a wetlands expert on site, a11ow adequate time to find an expert who is willing ta work with private citizens, aliow adequate time for the expert to prepare a report, and then hold a meeting to examine the resul#s. TPWAG requests that it be invited shouid such a meeting take place. • Direct the Applicant and City Staff to make a complete set of original drawings available for review by the public as soon as possible to support this process. • Require an EIS to resolve the unanswered probable signifitant environmental impacts as raised by Steve Neugebauer in his testimony before the Hearing Examiner, and as are raised in this letter. Trees Problems • A 10 foot buffer araund the property is inadequate, not only becaus�of esthetic value but also because it does na#provide sufficient protection fram the high winds that occur regularly in aur area. • During the Hearing Examiner's meetings on Nov 18, 2014 and Dec 8, 2014,we witnessed public j testimany from Claudia ponnelly and Jill Jones showing how the developer had apparently removed afl trees from another development,even though the City of Rentan requires them to retain trees. Relref Requested • Require a buffer of at least 20 feet around the property • Therefore,we request that the City of Renton ensure that the developer doesn't intentionally or careiessiy damage the few trees that are required ta be retained under city ordinance, and then use that as legal loophole to circumvent city ordinance and remove the "damaged" trees. � Consider assigning a person on site during construction hours to monitor activities ta ensure code compliance. • Consider steep fines for careless ar intentianal damage to trees. � TPWAG Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideratian Page 4 of 8 j . • if trees are damaged and n- -t be removed, require Applicant to re�• " �e the damaged trees with equivalent *mature*tree�, _,�d prohibit them from using any of the .,riginal canopy from the removed tree for any purpose other than to allow the new tree to grow. Storm Water Problems • Per Steve Neugebauer's testimony, removing trees will remove 75�of the property's ability to process storm water. • 24" pipe (as proposed by Applicant)is barely good enough for a 10-year storm. 100-year storms are common. We may have a few 100-year storms in any calendar year. Thus, it is likely that the neighboring properties will be flooded regularly as a result of the proposed development. Relief Requested • Consider requiring a larger storm water drainpipe along SE 18th Street. • Consider requiring"pervious" pavement(that allows water to pass through it) on all streets, sidewalks and driveways, so that the storm water can be naturally mitigated on site. • Consider requiring retention of at least 6"of topsoil on all exposed surfaces(e.g., lawns)to minimize the need for watering, and so that the storm water can be naturally mitigated on site. • TPWAG requests that storm water management studies, calculations be completed in compliance with the City of Renton Storm Water Management Requirements, as further defined by the adopted King Caunty Surface Water Design Manual; sections which specifically address this issue are titled: Core Requirements#2 Off site Analysis, and Core Requirements#4 Conveyance Systems. The City of Renton has some added amendments for special community situations. Roof Runoff � Prob/ems • Although roof runoff by itself may not be a pollutant, when it is mixed with chemicals and pesticides used in the yard it becomes a pollutant. • Although roof runoff may not be a target pollution-generating surface, roof runoff is still subject to flow control per Core Requirement#3 which mandates that the City may require design adjustments per the wetland hydrology protection guidelines in Reference 5. • KCSWDM Reference 5,Wetland Hydrology Protection Guidelines, mandates that a wetland may not be structurally or hydrologically engineered for runoff quantity or quality control in Category 2 wetlands. (We have attached the Wetland Hydrology Protection Guidelines.) Applicable Laws The Hearing Examiner's Order on Request for Reconsideration provides that"applicable laws are not considered new evidence." The Wetland Hydrology Protection Guidelines are part of the King County Surface Water Design Manual. Section 6.2 of the KCSWDM provides "roof runoff is subject to flow control per Core Requirement#3. Section 1.2 of the KCSWDM provides that where there is potential impact to wetland hydrology, "DDES may require design adjustments per the wetland hydrology reference guidelines in TPWAG Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration Page 5 of 8 Reference Section 5. Therefore th' -ection is merely summarizing applica�'- law and should be considered by . the hearing examiner. Relief Requested . Applicant should comply with the Wetland Hydrology Protection Guidelines Traffic P�ob/ems � • Applicant's expert has testified that the level of service on the roads surrounding the proposed development will be acceptable per the applicable city and state laws. However,that analysis did not address the impact of converting SE 18th Street and 1�4th Place SE from quiet cul-de-sacs into arterials for the traffic from almost 100 new homes (over 1,000 vehicles per day-mostly o�SE 18th Street- by Applicant's own estimatesj. � Realtors know that the difference in value between a house on a busy street and a house on a cul-de- sac is significant. • We have researched home prices on quiet and cul-de-sac streets vs. busy streets. Those findings showed that the 16 homeowners on SE 18 Street can probably each expect a$30,000 loss in property value as a result of the increased traffic on this street should the development go forvvard. The city has noted to that they take no responsibility for any loss sustained. More ingress and egress points to the development would certainly help to disperse the traffic. (Roenicke Testimony.) • Applicant also seems to be well aware of this fact. The planned development contains not one, but two cul-de-sacs (instead of building adequate �oads to carry traffic in and out)! • We respect Applicant's right to develop their property, but we expect the applicant to respect the property rights of the surrounding community. We believe that Applicant is maximizing its profit by unfairly externalizing its costs to the neighboring property owners. Relief Requested • We ask the City of Renton to intervene to ensure equal protection under the law. • Consider substantially reducing the number of allowable houses in the proposed development. • Consider requiring at least one more access road to the proposed development(even if Applicant has to buy existing houses to create such access). • Consider removing speed bumps that are blocking arterial streets to the South (especially 126th Avenue SE, SE 164th Street,and SE 160th Street). This will provide less incentive for drivers from the proposed development to avoid the back entrance (i.e., 124th Place SE) and for drivers coming from Fairwood to use Pierce Ave SE and SE 16th Street. • Consider street modi�cations to encourage traffic to use Royal Hills Drive SE instead of SE 16th Street. Royal Hills Drive SE is currently a bus snow route. It is a wide road,it has a gentle incline, it has good sight distance,and it is sanded when icy,so it is much better suited for the heavy volume of traffic than is SE 16th Street. 1. Re-open the north end of Beacon Way SE to Puget Drive SE. 2. Close the intersection at SE 16th Street and Edmonds Avenue SE. Local traffic will be able to use the newly opened Beacon Way SE, and traffic from Edmonds Way SE will no longer have to fight arterial traffic on SE 16th Street to leave their neighborhood. TPWA�Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration Page 6 of 8 � i c Environmental Impact Statement Problems • An environmental impact statement is justified and must be prepared whenever significant adverse impacts on the environment are probable, not just when they are inevitable. If an environmental statement is required by the weight of the evidence and if the responsible city authority does not require an environmental impact statement then the decision is clearly erroneous. • The problems raised in this request for reconsideration,together with the issues raised at the appeal hearing, coupled with Applicant's refusal to provide full documentation of environmental conditions at the site and the futl extent of structural retaining walls at the site, and the piecemeal manner in which the City of Renton and the Applicant addressed problematic issues for the wetlands, detention vault, drainage and retaining walls,weigh in favor of requiring preparation of an environmental impact statement. Relief Requested • The City of Renton should require an environmental impact statement for the project. Respectfully submitted by Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group with the hope that you reconside�our issues. Thank you. . RENATE BEEDON President cc: Rocale Timmons mailto:RTimmons�Renton�va.Qov Nancy Rogers mailto:NRoQ2rs;�Cairncross.com TPWAG Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration Page 7 of 8 �i. ,E �' j .. � �4 � r ._---- ,f. 1 r , i . `�` � ' � - - -�;� �" '.: - . ` �:� '. - � ' , - � �, . , '�'i�� .-Royaifqya� �4� ' � ' Cedqr 4�, --- - - •-" ��f �:•�� •_ . - y� Rrver ' i ` };`` Severe� ��� �, :- s � �� QCS�_ .��.� ; : SEtNhSt�mpact k'+y� �.�' e� ` �q�, � �r wd.�dw. 'S� � _ ..,,,';? .•�i� � ,� a"ry�k'�, u',� ���shu� � �'�, �'•�e• �t�. '�`' '�stv4o . !; , � ' � / � � � � �¢��� ��� � � � ��+• � Severe '/r� �'F' � � °t impac�� 'iF > '�' '; � � rj�, ti ,�� 'roFosed coow.brM..�. 4�jy � SE�57tl�k �� �yi„�,�'-•'� � � i�•velcpment T1 �; � W � �� � v � ��ct �'�i � 4 e�' �'�4 '�`ly�g 6 v 'fi n ...�.�.a� � � � . � ��� �, Severe � ,g , � _ �� � � � .impad -�SE 2bt St - . ., � � '�, > �.a.vee, ". � i � � � �F�'� o�ao�. � o � 4ieR SE160d+Se _ 5'ce�' . ;a -- - r '�" SE 160th St - 6.m�'- SE160tl�St :--�.,.-,,-.. � M . � ��AO �� �r�::j �� % . < �, 4'`": � � - �� �:...�;� s��w u . � � � � � �1 t.ua.'rrt pg � � SE Kird St � � 1�R i' �'`" f SE t62nd A � -�i'�-��—� � s��+a u ' s���a u � � SE K3N k ! N tt •.'•..; .S-� ; � � c t < � SE Krd�St #� ��t f ` £ Sp' d � � • �f ."f � � bar�s � K�k � fE 1f1�h k SE t6dh ft .e..� Figure 1-Area Map TPWAG Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration Page 8 of 8 � , , Technical Memorandum � � TO: Rocale Timmons,Seniot Planner Cit�•of Renton- Current Planning ' 10230�1�Pointr Drive From: DarceS•Miller,Senior�'edand Scienhst Su�te�00 (425) 739-7977 I�irklaa�i [E'A 980jj Phoae(-�2�)822=f-L-{G Copies: � _ - Fat(-�2�)8J 9�77 Date: Apri13, 2014 Subject: Resen e at Tiffanj•Park ��'edand Delineation Rec7eR Project No.: 32385.A This re�-iew pertains to the Pteliminarj-Plat application for the Resen-e at Tiffant-Pazk (Ciri of Renton LUA13-001572) submitted b}•the applicant,I�'o�-astar De�-elopment, Inc., to the Cin'of Renton (City).The ptoposed Resen e at Tiffan�•Park is located genetally to the east of Tiffan�-Park, to the notth of SE 158``' Street,and south and�rest of Pierce c1�-enue SE. OtaI:has been asked b�- the Cit�•of Renton (the Cit�•) to re�-ie�v the submitted critical areas document and to proride comments regarding its applicabilin-to the Renton Alunicipal Code (R�fC),specificall�•,Section 4-3- 050,Critical Areas Regulations. The follo�cing documents�cere re�-ie«•ed in terms of compliance«Zth the critical areas seccions of the City-eode: • [�'etland Detc�rmiitalion:Re.rerz�e at T�any Park, prepared bj-C. Gar�-Schulz, dated Februarj-28, 2014; • Plan set for the Reserre at TiEfanj•Park Preliminary Plat,prepared bj-Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., signed Februar5•27,201�. • Technical Information Report,prepared bc•Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.,dated �o�ember 12,2013,and rerised Februar}'24,2014. The UZ'etland Determination identifies three Categor�2 c�etlands and one Categor�3�-etland on the site,e�hich are requized to hac e 50-foot and 25-foot buffers,respectirelf. The repott indicates that wetland buffer areraging is proposed for the project site,and outlines the rationale for meeting the requirements for buffer a�eraging described in the RI�fC. K:\pro�cct\333�N1\333H5.\\Rcports\Cnuc�l_�rcas Rc�-icu\[cma_2014_I1403 dnc - -- — _� , ' Rocale 7'immons, Seniar P/aene�, Ciry ofRenton p�g�2 I Rererve at Tiffany Park it"etland Kerrierv Apri13,201� Two Otak�vedand biologists visited the site on 1�1azch 17,2014,to confirm�vhethet the wetland delineation�vas consistent with the Wathington State 1�"etlanc��-Identzfication and Delineatzon Mdnual (Ecologp 1997),as reguired by the R.1�fC. An Otak biologist made an additional site visit an l�farch 31,2014. Please note that the wedand delinteation evas performed in June 2013,cvhereas the rainfall amount as of 1�Tarch 17,2014,was appro.Yimatelp 5.58 inches abo�e the narmal amount for 1�'Iarch (National�Yleather Ser��:ce);and on hfarch 31,2014 was 5.$5 inches aba�e narmal for 14larch. Comment 1 — Delineation Method The wetland determination report cites the US rlrmy Corps of Engineers wer�and delineation manuals (1987 and 2414 supplement} far the methodology used.Hotivez er,the t�'a.rlaington State !�'etlAnr�s Identificatinn anrl Delineatian 111anua!(Ecolagy 1997)is required by R.1�1C 4-3-450.1�i.4.a. Recommendation:The applicant should ensuxe that the�vedand delineation is consistent with the methodolog�required bp the RI�iC. Comment 2--Survey Map We ha�e not seen a sun ey map showing all af the�cedand flags,wli.ich is necessary for confirming the�vetland delineation.r1s discussed bela�c-,same wettand flags were not found in the field; hawever,if�ve hac-e a detailed map and rome af the flags remain,all of those xrussing flags may not need to be replaced. Recammendation: The applicant should submit a map sho�ving all af the sutl-e�-ed�cetland flags (frotn�uae 2013 and any upcoming zez-isions). In addition,missing cvetland flags shauld be Yeplaced as deemed necessary for Otak's confirmation nf the cvetland edges. Camment 3—Wetland A �Y/e agree icith portians of t�'etland A's delineated edges. How e�er,we cou.td not find some af the ftags (inctuding Wedand A-1} in the southern part of the�vedand. It appears that the wettand areas estend farther out than the delineated edge, specifically near Flags A-1, c1-3,t�-5,and A-6. In these - areas,�ve obser�-ed hydrophy-tic regetation (iEanp plants at all),h5�dric soils,and�cedand hydzologv (mainly inundation). On 1�iarch 17, 2014,in some areas that appeared to be outside of the detineated (flagged) wetland, inundatian�-as o�-ei 1 faot deep during our site�risit(see Photogtaph 1).We agree that�Y�edand A meets the criteria outlined in the Tt1�iC for a Category�2 wetland,which is required to hati e a 50-foot buffer. Recotnmer�dation: �r'etland'�should be reesamined and any differing edges re-flagged during the early growit�g season (before mid-l�sa}).r�ny changes to the wetland should be included in the res-ised Wetland Detetmination Report and project ptans. ; � • K:\pro�ccc\32301)\3-'385.1\ftcpurts\Cnucal.lxeas keciea blema_�)11_0403.doc Rocale Tlmmons, Senio�Plannet, City ofRenton Page 3 Rererve at T�an3-Park n'ellaad Rez�ierv Apri!j,Zp�-f Comment 4—Wedands B and C During our site cisits, standing water estended generallj 10 to 70 feet farther than the delineated edges of`�letlands B and C. In addition,�'�'etlands B and C are not separated bj upland area;they appear to be part of the same�vetland. On Afarch 17,2014,inundation ranged from sereral inches to 1.5 feet deep in areas that ma�be outside of the detineated�tietland edge. Hydrophj•tic�egetation (mainlj•salmonberry-and red alder) and hy dric soils w ere also obser�-ed in the majorin-of these areas.��'e agree that��'edand C meets the criteria outlined in the R111C for a Categorj•2 cretland, �;hich is tequired to hare a 50-foot buffer;ho«erer,because��'etlands B and C are connected (one �retland), the area flagged as��'edand B R-ould also be considered a Categor�2. Recommendation: «'etlands B and C should be reesamined and anj differing edges re-Aagged during the earl}-gro�c-ing season (before mid-1�Ia�•). Confum the rating and buffer size for��'edand $. ��n}�changes to the«•edands should be included in the re�-ised��'edand Determination Report and project plans. Comment 5—Wetland D ��'e agree���ith the majorit�� of the«-etland flag locarions on��letland D, although the ecedand appears to estend appro_�cimatel}' 25 feet to the south of Flags D-3 and D-4.��'e agree that��'edand D meets the criteria outlined in the Rl`IC for a Categor�•2 cc�etland. Recommendaaon:The R-edand should be reesamined and anj• diffecing edges re-flagged during the early gro«-ing season (before mid-l�fa�-). An}-changes to the«•etland should be induded in thc re�ised�.��edand Determination Report and project plans. ' Comment 6—Offsite Wetland (SW side Metcec Island Pipeline RO� l�n offsite�cedand adjacent to the Resen-e at Tiffanc Park site«•as obsen-ed on the south«-est side of the I�Iercer Island Pipeline Right-of-R�a}• (see Photograph 2). 11ie north��.-est end of the�redand is south�cest of(in line R�ith) 18`�Court SE. This linear a•edand is appro_�cimatel�- 150 to 200 feet long and contains h�•droph�-tic�•egetation (creeping buttercup,reed canarygrass,and other grasses) and h�-dric soils. �,�'etland h3-drolog�•obsen-ed on i�tarch 17, 2014, ranged from saturation at the surface to saturation at 4 inches belo�v the surface.This�-etland likely-meets the criteria in the Ri1IC for a Categort•3 wedand,which is required to hare a 25-foot buffer. Recommendation: If permission is granted from the offsite landoRner, the a-edand should be delineated, classified,and added to the rec-ised��l/edand Deterniination Report and plans. If permission for delineation is not cecei�-ed, the�;edand location should be estimated and shown on the plans,along with the buffer. [�:\proj�cc\3_'300\3_'3A5.\\Rcports\Cnucal.�rea,s Re�-ie�c\Ictni�Znl3_�1�3.doc Rocale Timmoas,SealorPlaane�, Ci[y ofRentoa Page 4 Re.rerue at T�any Park [E'etlund Revielv Apri13,201,� Comment 7—Offsite Wetlands (NE side Mercer Island Pipeline RO� Se�eral offsite wetlands were obserc-ed on the northeast side of the l�iercer Island Pipeline R.ight-of- cvaj(northeast of the gra�-el access road). T'hese wetlands appear to be Category�3 wedands;if so, . they are likely far enough a�cay so that their 25-foot buffers do not extend onto the project site. Recommendation: The applicant should confirm that buffers from these offsite�s�edands do not extend onto the property. Comment 8—Wedand in Southwest Corner of Site A�vedand a-as observed in the south�vest corner of the site,to the north of SE 18`h Street and southeast of the adjacent derelopment's fence. The area was dominated by salmonberry•, Himalaj�an blackberry�,and reed canary-grass. On Afarch 17,2014,h�•dric soils and up to 4 inches of inundation �vere obser�-ed,and water was draining from the�etland onto the sidewalk along the north side of SE 18``'Street. Recommendation: The cc•etland (if it is determined to be one) should be delineated, classified,and added to the rerised��'etland Deterrnination Report and project plans. Comment 9—Flowpath from Wetland B During our biarch 17,2014 site risit,��•ater«-as obsen-ed flo«ing generally�vest out of Wedand B to the south��-est cornet of the project site (see Photogtaphs 3,4,and 5), then offsite into the Cedar Ricer Pipeline Right-of-�cay. The�ti•etted�cidth of the flo«-path onsite on l�farch 17`h was approsimately-3 to 6 feet,and the�vater depth�vas 1 to 3 inches.�'egetation on the edges of the stream genetally consists of upland species such as Indian plum.A defined stream channel�c�ith bed and banks cvas not obsen-ed. Sorted gra�els«-ere obsen-ed in several small portions of the flo�vpath;ho�ve�-er, these gra�-els �vere generallj•angular and therefore ha�-e not been subject to flo�v strong enough to round their edges. During our i�larch 31,2014 site�-isit,no�ater was obsen•ed along the flowpath that had been obsen-ed on l�farch 17`h. Standing�cater�cas present at Wetiand B (beyond the flagged�-edand edge),but no flo�ring surface water was obsen-ed esiting the�vedand. No streams are mapped on or adjacent to the site.The closest stream is Ginger Creek, appro�cimately 800 feet offsite to the�vest. Ginger Creek is a Class 4 tributary-to the Cedar Ri�er,per RI`IC Figure 4-3-O50-Q4 (Streams and Lakes). Gi�-en the abo�-e infoxmation,it is our opuuon that water flows through this area onlj�during/after high rainfall events, drains quickly,and that the area does not meet the definition of a stream. Recommendation: No action is necessary. I�:\pcojeec\333�H1\3'_'3A5.�\R�yoas�Cndcal.�te�Re�'tc�v�[�Tno_201�_�AN)3.d��e I I � ; r Rocale Timmons, SeniorPlannet, City-ofReatoa Page 5 Reren�e af T�an}�Park. [E'etland Reviesv Apri!j,201� ' Comment 10—Offsite Wedand (Cedar River Pipeline RO� The flo«path described in Comment 9 drains into the Cedar Ri�er Pipeline RO��', to the south�-est of the southcc•est comer of the Tiffan�•Park site. Inundation was obserred in the area,as �cell as Fr1C or�•etter�egetation and potentially h�dric soils;therefore, the area appears to be a R-edand (see Photograph 6). Recommendation:The�cetland (if it is detennined to be one) should be delineated,classified,and added to the rerised V�'etland Detertnination Report and plans. Comment 11—Buffer Averaging The buffer areraging proposal in the��'edand Determinarion Report has demonstrated that it meets all of the requirements in R111C 4-3-OSO.l�i.6.f. Ho«e�-er,re�-isions to wetland edges��-ill likel�- change this proposal. Recommendation: The applicant should re�-ise the buffet a�eraging proposal to be consistent��-ith the anF necessarS-re�-isions to the«edand edges and��-edand buffers onsite. Comment 12—Temporary Buffer Impacts Sheets G and 7 of the plan set(Preliminar3-Grading Plan) sho«•disturbed areas in a•etland buffers that«ill result from gtading and«all installadon. Z�ese temporary-buffer impacts are not discussed in the�t'edand Detemunation Report,not are the�sho«•n on Figure 2 in the report. Recommendadon: The applicant should rerise the«-edand documentation to discuss all temporart- unpacts to«•etland buffers, including impacts to specific functions and ho�c restocation«-ill replace those Eunctions.r1 restoration planting plan for the disturbed areas should be prot-ided as part oE GO°�o design. Encl. Photographs K:\pro�ecc\3'_31N)\3338�.\\Reports\Cnhcal.\rcas Re�-ic�c 1[emo_201�_0�1113.doc . i . Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner, City afRenton Page G Rererve at Tiffany Park Wetland Revieu� Apri13,201-1 PHOTOGRAPHS , , T ,. ,� � • - / � �' _ � ` -:. _ _ � : I � ( � . � 4 ..���� O� �� 1. `� _ �� *� . Photogtaph 1: Wedand A, near southern delineated edge (3/17/14) < Photogtaph 2. Offsite wedand on 1�letcer Island Pipeline ROW,facing SE (3/17/14) K:\pro�ect\3�00\33385.3\Reports\Critical.�reas Re�•�e�v�(emo_�Iltd_04U3.doc �I / / I I I " I / / � � ' i �i i � i � I � r..... , j.�..;.._,_ - �.,-----. .�._ �{� . , , — , � , r. .' - �' ' - '_,f . j. . , ' . � ,. , . s . -- _ � - . ":s• - - . . ' ' , '-" � • - � ' • • s,' � _- • - . , ,,. . _ ' "; ` M1�'-� � ��. _ � ' "'='rr i . .� . � - . . .. . - �=J . ;. .. t � , .s !( - _ . ,'-��, __ - - ' ' ` - - _ � �, - t . � _ : • : , ` , _ _ "_ . ' . . ;:� -" _, � � :=--. -�_� : �� -� , � - : . - . �:. - ; . - -, � , =' - � , . , , ,- � . li - � S , ' . .�. � � f . _ • � � � . � � . � � . ,,.. .. .. ,• . . 5 i . ^ f'�. i- �-t .:. " Tyy' ;b �f'�a • �ly� �y' �a•y, p � .,,U ,..,, t -!ti t i,. ` ' 1�. .:R,' � ��. �� � '� � S�� ����r..>.� . '� `��.f• �.. �' � ✓-- _ •• -f.. � � r' +.�.`� � - � -a._ , . .i� .. � r ^ �+:•;L'ti�'.i,�� �;�, � � j t. . • :�. '�,.;:. . • .-. . � y�.�: �,;-�,. '�' � _ �, " - . , r • . � Sw� , • � , . . - �`. '. . ��. _ { � � ` r �. . � - 't-4 ji : ���, _ _ `, - ;. � s �.��- :� ' . "� _'�� , r. • ♦ " 5 M�' w . ` ` - �' -�//'t . ; � `'�,� 3�� � ` � � i � ; ��` � . , �� , � - � 1 1 1 � . � 1 •� �. •. �. � 1� � . � •, ., �. . � . , , � . . ' • , j. ', � . , ' �. I [r ' _ .. . _. . _ �� ��., . - . .,. .. -'r.r - �' ��� ; `: ��: � I � � � � � � �: -- .� ` � � , �� �. � �:_ . L. ._ t , � 'yY �_. � t : i f, - - . . { � ' •�� �r l j � . '�� _J, I ' _ . � � ... \ _ it - �"�".t` i �k`kiya ` �• - f� _ . , . _ . �.- ' w- . ,�. :: .� ' ��� fF���- � • ` +�•' V -,� , r�.,�/.��✓� ,,t.N "'��� ���,p, .�...,'M- .1',��.,,h �i'I � .- - ,'2 �'.r*��k,� � `, `�. -;y.�,. �,� /� .a . t. _�s' ,Li " . ' _"�__�i,_ ,� r�� � � ' , - "-f!/f�f� '---�^-`� ; - _ ' '` `� �'. : . . $ ' , ----'— i' - ' - � -. • � 1 _ �. , 'i. . , � , �f � - , ` - �. �.1'.. '.�= -�,icY~ � ,�/:(�yi,.i:,� Y �� �. ��/. ' . f I '�,` ��'�`T � . , r � F t _ � ' K�:, :F�! ��� .��. �'�3� }� , � ; r , •i:i��.i�,- . �. ,. . � - . � i� � ` - r `� '�"\��. "rt ,.r�l t E _� ��~•' + i��fr: 'c''�C .� .t� - / ' .��"� -��� � �i��? � t � • . ! ! i! '*' i i �{' i � � i " 1. �� �}�.r _ . � -a� `r±; .} ' t+ t , . - . . -7-� ' r -, , . _ . .. � ' . � j ` ` „� , ". .. . ' . ' ' ' � 'Y�t, ; �' .. . t �{ R � . . ' , µ ��� ��[r'�< '1y� r. , . . ,. . ' . . - .. . . t;:�f'J � � �t. .�����,1�1` y / . \:�. � �� % � ' , , . 'x � . f i��1' � _.�� � - ` , - ; _ ��°`�,��': � " " . ' � .. ,�`.,4_ . � �� '..� � . , =�=:_ . ; - .. �- - , � \� .. �'. - , _ _ � _� � � ��... ,, . . �1. ' . ' j r • . . - � - =�. . � ^ � '�� : _ � � /� , . f , . � , _;,� �'` rx; �t,"!. .a. y,�;.. ' . � . �.f � 1 J ' ���'�.. ,�'`� -. - � _. � „ ' t '�,. T � . � .� � . . . .���- � . � . ' � r � . � � � � - , �• �� •�. ' �' - ' � Y . 1 .� • . j ' . ' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON 10 � 11 ) RE: The Reserve at Tiffany Park � 12 Preliminary Plat � 13 � ORDER ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION 14 . � Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeals � 15 ' ) LUA13-001572,ECF,PP,CAE ) 16 ` 17 �I The SEPA Appellants have requested reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's decision on the I, 18 ' above-captioned matter by letter dated January 21, 2015. Since the reconsideration request affect parties of record and the interests of the City, the parties of record who testified at the hearing and 19 City staff will be given an opportunity to respond to the request for reconsideration before a decision 20 on the reconsideration request is issued. Any responses must be based upon evidence that is already in the record. No evidence that has not been recorded at the heazing or entered as an exhibit at the Z 1 hearing will be considered in the reconsideration request. , 22 . The SEPA Appellants do not appear to be aware that once a land use hearing is closed, no new �I 23 evidence may be considered except under very limited circumstances. Their reconsideration request ' appeazs to include photographs and reports that were not admitted into the administrative record of , 24 this appeal. The restriction on new evidence arises from the Regulatory Reform Act requirement that I, there be no more than one public hearing on a land use permit application. RCW 36.70B.050(2) ' 25 provides that city and county land use pernut review procedures only authorize one open record 26 hearing per project permit application or consolidated project pernut application. The purpose of this PRELIMINARY PLAT- 1 , 1 °requirement is to provide for a more efficient pernutting system by preventing decision makers from 2 ,holding one new hearing after another ad infinitum as new factual issues occur and also to prevent ;public confusion about when to participate in an on-going series of public hearings. See RCW 3 -36.70B.010. Allowing new evidence after the close of a hearing essentially creates a second hearing. Renton's land use ordinances must be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with the one heazing 4 rule of the Regulatory Reform Act. The hearing on this matter was closed on December 19, 2014,the last date that evidence was authorized for the hearing of this application. No new evidence is allowed 5 ;after December 19, 2014, except as authorized by the Regulatory Reform Act or the Renton 6 i Municipal Code. � � :Given that the SEPA Appellants may not have been aware of the restriction on new evidence, they will be given an opportunity to reformulate their reconsideration request so that it is properly limited g to evidence that has been admitted into the record of this proceeding. 9 10 � ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION 11 `l. The SEPA Appellants have until 5:00 pm, January 28, 2015 to re-submit their Request for 12 Reconsideration so that it does not contain any new evidence. 13 Z. Persons who testified at the hearing on the above-captioned matter and City staff shall have until ; 5:00 pm, February 4, 2015 to provide written comments in response to the Request for 14 � Reconsideration submitted by the SEPA Appellants in response to the January 28, 2015 deadline. i Only persons who participated in the SEPA appeal may comment on the SEPA appeal issues. All 15 ' - comments aze limited to the issues raised in the Request for Reconsideration subject to the�anuary 16 � 2g� 2015 deadline. 17 :3. The SEPA Appellants shall have until February 9, 2015 at 5:00 pm to provide a written reply to the responses authorized in the preceding paragraph. l8 I 19 �4. All written comments, responses and replies authorized above must be emailed to the Examiner at olhrccht�l:i�� ir�_m�U�.CI)[I); Rocale Timmons at R I�im�t�un;�� (Zcnt��n��a.<_���: Renate Beedon at 20 � r�nt��n-onno�it�:ci c«mc��st.�l�t: Nancy Rogers at. \IZ���_��r.u C'airn�rc�,;.r�>m and Cynthia Moya at � CMoya@Rentonwa.gov. In the alternative written comments may be mailed or delivered to 21 � Rocale Timmons, City of Renton Senior Planner, at 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. 22 : Mailed or delivered comments must be received by the City by the deadlines specified in this Order. 23 - i 5. No new evidence may be presented in the replies or responses. All information presented must be 24 = drawn from documents and testimony admitted into the public hearing of this proceeding. 25 ' Applicable laws, couR opinions and hearing examiner decisions aze not considered new evidence and may be submitted if relevant to a response or reply to the Applicant's request for 26 reconsideration. PRELIMINARY PLAT- 2 ' f 1 2 ;6. In order to prevent confusion, the City Clerk's Office is directed to not distribute this Order 3 � to the parties of record until the SEPA Appellants have submitted a revised Request for Reconsideration pursuant to the terms of this Order. When that revised Request is submitted, 4 the City C(erk's Office should distribute the revised Request for Reconsideration along with this Order to the parties of record. The January 21, 2015 Request for Reconsideration should 5 not be distributed to the parties of record at any time (unless of course someone makes a 6 ; specific request for a copy). 7 = DATED this 22nd day of January,2015. 8 � �_-,.-�'�.�' --���� '- 9 rn, n.a�ccn�s 1� City of Renton Hearing Examiner ll 12 ' 13 ; 14 ' 15 I � , 16 � 17 : 18 ` 19 ° 20 21 � 22 23 - 24 - ' 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT- 3 , CITY OF RENTON�� � JAN 2 2 201�.�� RECEIVED � CITY CLE 'S OFFICE _.��r�= • _ - - .� - - ._- ;.- —- January 22,2015 VIA EMAIL Hearing Examiner Phit Olbrechts City of Renton 1055 Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Re: The Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat City File No. LUA13-001572—Request for Reconsideration Dear Examiner Olbrechts: This firm represents Henley USA, LLC ("Henley"), the contract purchaser for the property and applicant for the above-referenced preliminary plat. Henley submits this written request pursuant to RMC 4-8-100(G)(9)and RMC 4-8-110(E)(13), which provide for reconsideration of a Hearing Examiner's Decision if a party of record believes the Decision is based on"an erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, enors in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing."We originally sought review of these issues as a request for review of technical errors under RMC 4-8-100(G)(7). We are filing this request for reconsideration to ensure that these issues are reviewed as we have not yet received a ruling on our earlier request; however,we believe they should be more appropriately considered in our previously filed request for clarification and correction of technical errors. 1. There may be errors of fact or law on p. 28, line 9. Here, there is a typographical error referencing a"15 foot wide perimeter landscaping requirement." That should be revised to reference a "10 foot wide perimeter landscaping requirement." 2. There may be errors of fact or law on p. 40, lines 7— 10. Here,the first portion of Examiner's Condition l.b, which revises MDNS Condition 6,reads: "The applicant shall revise its landscaping plan to provide for a 10 foot wide on-site landscape strip for all lots." As revised, this Condition also goes on to address the 10 foot perimeter landscaping for certain lots with retaining walls facing neighboring property owners, that resulted from the SEPA Appeal. The linkage of those two issues raises a possibility for misinterpretation. We ask the Examiner to separate the issues or otherwise clarify that there is a difference between the 10 foot front yard landscaping issue called for by code, and the 10 foot buffer for retaining walls along the edge of the property that resulted from the SEPA Appeal. n�ers(�cairncross.com direc! (206)254-4d l7 (02743372.DOCX;2} Hearing Examiner Phil Olbr�. _� � January 22, 2015 Page 2 The record reflects that these aze two separate issues. Specifically,the City Staff Report to the Examiner(Exhibit K.1.a), at p. 13,described how 10-feet of street frontage landscaping was required by RMC 4-4-070(F)(1), which provides: "Ten feet(10') of on-site landscaping is required along all public street frontages,with the exception of azeas for required walkways and driveways and those zones with building setbacks less than ten feet(10'). In those cases,ten feet(10')of landscaping shall be required where buildings are not located." The Staff Report continued by noting that the code-required 10-foot front yazd landscape strip was not shown on the landscape plan in the record. The Staff Report also then described the ERC determination to impose a 15 foot perimeter buffer, and then stated that City Staff was recommending a condition that would require submittal of a new landscape plan to depict two things: (1)"a 10-foot wide on-site landscape strip for all lots,"and(2) a"15-foot wide vegetated buffer sunound the subject site..." We ask that the two issues be plainly separated in the plat conditions. 3. There may be errors of fact or law on p. 26, lines 4—5, that is also repeated on p. 40, line 11,which text lists Lots 40,41,46,47, 80, 82, 83-90,93,and 94. Here,the Examiner's Decision text, and Examiner's Condition l.b, which revises MDNS Condition 6,calls for a 10 foot wide area of perimeter landscaping where retaining walls are greater than 4 feet in height above the ground surface, so as to buffer the visual impact of those walls on the existing neighborhood. To reflect the evidence in the record,we request that the list of specified lots either be revised or eliminated. As noted on Exhibit K.6.a, and in the testimony of Barry Talkington, Lots 80 and 82 have a"cut" ' wall, meaning that the wall is not visible outside the property line of the plat,meaning there can be no visual impact of the wall to buffer. Lots 83 -90, and 93 -94 are buffered behind Tract A, which tract is ' already wider than 10 feet and which tract is already planned for landscaping. Thus, if revised,the list of lots should include only Lots 40,41,46,47,plus a note that as to Lots 83 - 90, and 93 - 94, the revised landscaping plan for Tract A should confirm that site obscuring landscaping will be planted in Tract A. Also,the revision should note that only walls that are on the perimeter property line, over 4 feet as measured from above-ground, and visible from neighboring properties should be subject to the buffering requirement. Alternatively, because as described in the testimony of Barry Talkington,the plat design continues to evolve in the engineering process,there is the very real possibility that some walls on the perimeter may drop below four feet in height above the lower level of the ground surface,meaning that an altemative approach for the Condition language on p. 40 would be to omit the list of lots entirely and instead state that: "A 10 foot wide, site obscuring landscaping buffer shall be provided adjacent to azeas where retaining walls are four feet or more in height above the ground surface on the low side of the wall, and where those walls are located on the perimeter of the property and are visible to neighboring property owners." (02743372.DOCX;2) � Hearing Examiner Phil Olbr�. _� ` January 22, 2015 Page 3 4. There may be errors of fact or law on pp. 28 -29, discussion of Retaining Wall Height. The retaining wall height issue was raised as part of the preliminary ptat proceeding,not the SEPA Appeals. Accordingly, it should fall under the preliminary plat discussion that begins on p. 30 of the '� Examiner's Decision. 5. There may be enors of fact or law on p. 40, Examiner's Condition 3. Condition 3 should be deleted because it was replaced and superseded by Condition 4. Thank you for your time and attention to this request. Very truly yours, � � / --�� Nancy Bainbridge Rogers NBR/kgb cc: Rocale Timmons (02743372.DOCX;2} ` ` Date: Wed,Jan 21, 2015 To: City of Renton Hearing Examiner Phif Olbrechts mailto:oibrechtsiaw@�mail.com CITY OF RENTON� City of Renton � , 1055 Grady Way JAN 21 2015 �:��� Renton,WA 98057 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE From: Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group maiito:renton-opposites@comcast.net 1725 Pierce Avenue SE Renton,WA 98058 Subject: Reserve at Tiffany Park PP- Hearing Examiner Decision (LUA13-001572) Request for Reconsideration Dear Mr. Olbrechts: This(etter constitutes Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group's Request for Reconsideration pursuant to RMC 4- 8-110(E)(13). TPWAG has elected to pursue this Request for Reconsideration Pro Se and hereby designates Renate eeedon as the designated representative. References • Letter entitled, "RE:The Reserve at Tiffany Park-Preliminary Plat- Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeals- LUA13-001572, ECF, PP,CAE - Final Decision",from Phil Olbrechts-City of Renton Hea�ing Examiner, dated Jan 8, 2015. Scoae • The Hearing Examiner's decision provides inadequate mitigation for the impacts on the environment and on the surrounding community of Applicant's proposed development to support a DNS-M determination under SEPA. • The City of Renton has authority to ask for mitigation under SEPA, and TPWAG asks the City of Renton (via the Hearing Examiner�to exercise that authority in the areas discussed in this (etter. • An environmental impact statement is justified and must be prepared whenever significant adverse impacts on the environment are probable,not just when they are inevitable. If an environmental statement is required by the weight of the evidence and if the responsible city authority does not require an environmental impact statement then the decision is clearly erroneous. Wetlands Problems • Wetland determination, measuring and staking One of ou�concerns is the wetlands and the way they have been determined, measured and staked. As you can see from our comments below, we believe that the wetland depiction alone has been done incorrectly and therefore question the way other studies pertaining to this development have TPWAG Request for Reconsideration Page 1 of 20 L_ � - — — - -- __——_—_—� been conducted. An EtS� .�Id ttearly provide the city and a!1 inte_.,ced parties with infarmation that is correct and fully evaluate the significant adverse impacts on the environment. The OR1GiNAl study by t�tak pointed out many discrepancies in the ariginal study submitted by Schulz. Specificaity,this study claimed that the wetlands are actuaily(arger than the original study submitted by Schulz. After the Applicant received the Otak study, a meeting was held beiween the City of RenCnn, Schulz and �tak. This was an on-site meeting where apparently tl�e Applicant canvinced the Qtak consultants that the original study by Schulz was carrect and the OTAK study was not. !f you look at and campare bath reports,you can see signifkant changes between the two versions of Otak studies. t7ne thing they did agree on is the additianal wetland D. �� OTAK Sewndary Review Memo-43-1� • As you can see from the pictures taken On January 16, 2015,the wetland baundary markers and in some cases even the wetland buffer markers are standir�g in badies of water. This is NG1T after a record rainfall, but during a typical day in January. This is of great conce�n to us, as it suggests that the boundary of wetland B and possibly wetland C were not correctly delineated. ;�• — .�.�_� � - �� �!�- � .^����; ' � , i< ' � :: Y:r ��k {rnage8A65 .�_;� � . �, n�:. ,: ;. r� 4�S.r„ + ���+�•L'rl i�. � ;�i,� h .� t� : - it R . �;� ��� .,. ;.�� � ' �y ����*#��`�'�'�. t' ;`���,. z�,� n '!�� � ' �j: � , i .} ti�. �.,� . . . TPWAG Requesi far Reconsideration Page 2 af 2Q . L t a�J f " .. � '4''../w y�<� � ~n� .��^r I � �� +�a _;�,` � � i � �i�. ''���� . �{ ^�„j, �M ! ' .. - � . � .x . ' b���� t; � R:.i� � � � tr�.•'� v'.y' . � ' ry11�+�� \;� � 'f.: •# �S '� I � 7• �� �,� � �� , � ��� ,,� � '�t, ti r- .� ��� + �Y�E , , � � ��rr,' � � � �a y � `,��. Lf�S ' •,�r. �S � �',�� . ��` _ � � r , �` � . , � '��'� - - -"s i�',�'�.� " ' "` - ,� +t � � y � r i_ ','���' '�� . .�.� ��i �: f :�;���.� i,f. � -� �1 � .Y. �.� �:>;�.����"��� � ; � : � �� ��� . � �. - � �� ���, , . � . �. � , ' ' -^ . . s / r„�� ��r +�`. �� � t f* ` � � x� � , �� . • , ,' " , - . . ,t �:r ., . . � .�s: J� . .. � � ' r .. , ' ,. ' .., 1/�. '.#•'Il. . ` . t ~ �• �•~� `4 � . . M.t .' y� �A �•• I ' i _ . , �'��� � � - � . ,� ':`.�y� . '�i� rF`G' af, % �I .. "�`�.'�,,`�'*RL [\ <� _ . � *�:< n `;�k �. _ J 1' ,�2' x.)j"��}�•��f ': } _ �. �JM 3 x - ..�.•': �� ..�•�+ .� ?.. . `i" , � . >�' � �� ���� ,,t ` ,�'� t�.. ' �� ' . 'Zhi , y„" ���`� t � ` �i �� � � + +,'C'.YF !�: �. r.z; .,r ! `� a � r'' �' �'� j�" i } " F � t ! , i -, ..� ��,� �. `. , .� _ � � � ; �. #t ; �', ��. � � F t ,I.'. �;' " 1 ' � . j� 5i �'f n�r�a, lf� �! . � � , . � . �ti `' . r ,��\ '�,,1� p' <� . � z �2 ' r � .. ky } r>: t E '�.1 .;C: ',�',;� i 'f f ., d i t ' i �' � . . - 4 ty iY 1 .4��! � �.�yi . . �.Y -� . �' i f �, �;�.;�,; ���� ,� � R :�;i : , �, , . �:�?t���l;�;�`z , . , � . :,�.;.: �. { � . . , ;.M� ~ ;� � � . - � � �'.c� ��� � ,� � r • (� 4� . . � � r� . � • . � , . � •� . � . •f _� ' �� �. .�' j,'` ` �... ` { s I � . �J�, .���. �;� � �ry - . � R ' - ;� - V J".P`t - . 3'` - •s • • •' • .�- • t t.��� r , _, � ��.�r� A ��: �t�.���' .c i�.' «. t �� � � ` } ��!� .ti + �.'� s 7� .. �� Z� .' 'i • , � , �� G,� *�, ^'r ''t ``j�. 1 �� �.��� �1'�y �. *� , ^,, �� , ` "' � }�' � k'f �� 1� . � 1 � t• _� { _ 1 � ��'. �� *2 �, f ! � t 1 { � �i�� ( �� . . � t .k � .� � 7 1', � , x. '�' �'�'�' � � t ` � �� ��� !'t•,�������f e��.�^t � t, .� S. .�' ' �T t���%�(��. '!li,' }i t��y'�.��� . , ,.. . \ � `�` ' Y;i71;, ��,+�i��'k.'.� �� nt . � . 1 r. �*yYj.'y { �' -� �'J t .� � . , ' , +r y ,�', f �y(� t �.�i r���- +w. \7� ' J ' � . ? . r ' y, l ' ���_ .�; L� .)T. � � . � � - ,, >1< � � t T - � �� ' ' � � - - �y��,���� '� .t�rt�� � . _ � ' �t� � .. . . ., . ... { �`.��; -, � ,`.} . . , . ��.` . . � � � .. - .. _ � � . � . �����r^�' ' . . } �, .' . . . ' '��t, ' ' . � _ ..' ti4 - . , _ ��l''�jl , «4 .t , �a.. . : - �;`3q. � - , � � - '}� ��� , . ,�q�„'I�� i\,�� .� ` #h � ���~ �.-^ , e ' -�, R' . � 1 ^. . �1,� ^ � st`1 ,�� i�!- � �`'- -1 . 3 _ � . . l t . + ,1 � �*',, . �1�1 ., ^ ' - � , . � _ i� . . �..� ' - . , . �='. ., � y�.� r `, � \ ' ^ ' l. y . . _ . p �,, `' _ . . . ^e%,'t.. ',"�T+'y�� . h �w . .. • �^ F��.. �,{ 't Iii • � u �� '`. ��� ♦ 6"• '�.:.s'� �!�r�' �y'.., �i.�`� h ,'3'�� �.'��E ,. :� .� � , ,_ • _ � .� � - J _ _ " � '`x�y I I� y� � ��f �� � t `�.,�, .�`,�� � i� �� a:.. �r���:; .i «�e J � ' `�� } � ��! �� _ � � �'-� y; �t � , �. � �-d' y� 5� / � :;r� ��'+� . t. ".�,`� x�� ����; \ ��' A� . L.�3 . y �k� 4 .Y .,�_ K����! � w rl [ �'d >L. : �7 .. ) � ' ( r. . Lf r.�,, 4 �� t . � •Y � •. � - �, `};t". � r'�t � . '� . w 7 ! f ' "'`�. �� t � • ��r��.7 ,. � '� �4'�; �� �e�������Ti._ ` ��' � ' � - ��� � ,$, �� �e , lY4 � i�� �, � F4 {'�,,.���.- � � � �.� �` � � ` �'x�' �� } i`' �t�?4. �t� �ti.� 't�,' y� 4a�,� �.t .. . , � . . ' ,y �.t��t.i � k r 1 t *� � �. � � .�} ' LlT `-.� � i/ ��i;� '��, � . �� . .. . , � r� > �j j,'l ,� �, r {�;{ 1 •, j�r''S3 'A� ^ .�� $j .J- � ' . , ! .� 71,. . .e 1�y� , � _+� . } ��E r� i - +l.. H ; . _. t�� � . � � . _ �'j, } + . ,. `h�... . - \ tyj ' ' r .. � . , ,f#<r�� ' . . .. -`'^ } � �� ' :�� ," � r � ' ` ,'� ' � y R . . ' . ' . � '�t � i'` . . . �{ : ' . . �` `� 4 ' " 'a � � ���, t�f i .,. . _ � . � , . ;� � � -� ,� .fr� },�-�� � . .. - . ��f ;-:�4 • � . R. �� '���� . �.�. , �� , ��. ��. � - � -_ _. i � ' , .., w`R Y;a� ���y,3 „_M_K.•�•-. `�f' l. �� � 4 ... . . �.-. , r.r _ . r�� ' _ ~ �._,;� � `r� � � { � �`, � , , '��• ' ` / ,r�'w�' - �t� ' :4- . _'!'J„ � '� �„� , 4� n. ,� � � � 'f �j1� ~� vn' �In _. y� � ' n � i , . 1 � �� .�`�� T �- �" . � �"� ,�^. /�� - Y. � �. y � - r �t, � .� . � . ' '��., ' � � _k� � :. "r.�. . , ` . . , � ..,;•'., �.. ��'�, �� � , � �� ��� „ _ �� y ��� '�d `'� ��r.�� ' . . � . . � . :y' { t�� � � � � . �. } . . '�!. ' � �'. ",. � j t' . . 4 . � .� . . ; ' �re ;+� `R'_ . . i . ,i� ' _ ' �l � .� ir� . � � J . ! �� wz #� , •i .'. z " �� � 'i!� ��•4:�t � � .',t.�v '�+"�,.• � � . .• -_ - . - . _ ��. .� �� c. ; f ,'"�,,.�"""._"--.. ._ . . w � .�' ��� � ��' �� f� � � !� ' �:y ��. .. '�d �.�� - � � � � >��*+..� ' •s � ,,, �� � � � ��, ��� , � : x � �i� ' . �� y- -_ ,�..- . . . . r . . � � , y ; , ' ,'� ' �,' r � �: j • .��, ��. �'� � 1� ^. � t i� �f1 j . .� �. Z�''�' �y �� r,v : ; � - � " _;�#r: � \:ry��� ;. �'` ,+ �" {[ Z' ri, � � �)fi' . �' i. � ���� � ���� � . . . � .- -� i � : � t � �,1� 'i ' `�. , . .��i.g� ��4.. J'1'�� �'�... ( . _ ' _ . r ��{f j�-�-, �t-- . . _ . . � t f,� �R'i i.'i . . . , . . . '^ __{� � ��� �� . � t` . . � � ",4 � . � - . , � . _ . / /,'' � • '�!'_ '1 1� ' , _. .. .. . ��j f '� „y'�- . � �� ' �• . � f. ✓. � . ,Y _ .,j� ' . . f y' .�_� 1 r E, - ,_! . . . . . ., s ' . y � � � ����r;: � • ti . . . . � � , . a ` _ ,>'r . :;�: ' ,-.��i' _ . ,r., . ., f.,e - . r.�C�. ''.,a�,, . . . , ' . �+.a'i1M �i- ' � �i'r(1� ' a� �M�v .'�;v'.{ '/,.. � 1. �'1 , t . . � _�tiQk�-'.,� � ''� • •�. �P � j ,�, � ' ,� /�,' H � ���;f� ` , ,�i� ' s�"` f r � F ft ' t � F ' � /;� ;��.� kl�t-.� �� � '�{ ., y� ' , ' � r i � + _ � ., *t�j Tvf . _ . /p , .__ ', . '.4 t /�� � `�i � }v � . A e�� . �� f .. - . ' 4 �� ? 0 1-K� 4 0 � � ���� '� ( ; a . � . .�. � k � � �f !� �� � �� ;i� � �� f; t��'f�� ,{ �' .. " ��i �� �;� �f� � , ,� . y Xi ti . � � ,,r , . � ' . � Y i _ 'x.t . ��� .�� j��� �� � `+cy`'�. � , , ��V - . y � , , . � ,. . , . f �� � .i i� �.'l . �1�!`�� ti :� . ., „/ ! _ .t� t��,/.,,�� �� �'`�� � - � i � . � ` .� . �. � �t.( f � *.. ? l' \�� � k R / � j , ; � � _ . _ � t �, , '�. �►::; � � �',i �. a,;� , ,r _. - if ;, , � , � . , . , � \`.� `��r��. , . . � � K � � � � :. - ��� � �'� :t���..��� /. . . . � ,� t� J}` . � r , j , , �' ' . ,M r � - � � .3:',` �~ �,� ..''� , , j — . . . ' y - 4. l`f. ,. , ` � � . . � . � \ �• � .. �Y � . } . y _ ; `~t �' . � 1 �� • � •� � ���� 1 M / �� �t ,� ,� � �,� � � s�'� . ,�'. ' .� �,�;1 � ' + � i� 3; x .�. , .�. °'� _. p�� � ;i� z :� � � .`� i,a t , r } 1,.,�,� r, � � • ��.. i ' .f'. .�. . � { �� ' ',� �, _�� � �,� Ld,�� r� � � �' ��r �:;:�'���,��, ,� � � .r�� s � � � x,� ' , ` � � y` • ' �. �, ;�.� �i �•e �;� �` =� �� '�� , ; � � , � .. t , ;� :+ '. } f_. �1 'r'z } . 5 . � 1 r. � ! i j> ' �X(� TJ .. " `A" � . } °� � ' � � t ~�� � t ��. ,� � � f f �+/' y . . . •�.t a '(' " ., � - - � � � '�r,-. �s� . � ° . . . . t �'�' 9 , . , - ._�.. . _ -�...._ . `:�.r..�....-...w._ .., ;��✓ ..� S.:��( , 1',, , e ♦ , . . �;.r' y � , . �-0 2��,� .: "��� .•. �r �, . _. . ...s3 .... ; ._. - .. -,' � , . ' ..� .. . #� �/t, � � ' . �! � �� r _. a - .. � ��,'��!L�.�� �,� �t � �` ��'�, , , - � ��� �'�' , ,. . , .�l ' � , . . ' . - �yt� �.���;7j� �'�,�,��" . 4 ty�i,, /� : c . .._ '" � �� . °' F� f,� #;` . , . • ' .. �� , t\�\����. ;i l . ��i}t. . ._ Y ' ' � C � . , ti I 3�' � �.pr i��`� S • . - . � -r i t7� : . ;��{ � . ..i , . .. , ?i,�i ''S}�`.Yltl��.; 5 ' .� " ±1� . , � �� ♦ i ' ' . � .cr.lb�e� 13 -��t � �' �'� ��y�'�� `'� �. ':�,, . ( P'"Y���"� . r�r- . . r , _ ' . %,�x •?'""k . Z x . . _•: , . . , - � ; . -• • � �• • .�- • 1 . '� � �t� .._ s. �k,� + ' . � �t � } . •� II y4� .�f - #�;!'1, < � . a � #� � .} ,'�n � �# � �:�,'q��4." T .r� � �;t, ��a i . � .r ��� �y: � � �3� ��� x� i,,� } !"�Sn� >7 � rf '� ���' ,�� ri " � � "' .y . } �. .x .� .� �..�'� J`, � M� .� � . f. . ' {' ,t�-U`a _ + -�"` j „J' ��� —��.,w� µ�:� ��� .3yf .�� '1 ' .' �~ '�,c,a r ` . i / , ,,}. i �`:-�,y•�T, I ��� '+•' .l `�` E''.� ` ' �, �i ri ,� �`. f r���. .7� ;: . � . \ ,;,�A/��,r� ��� � �"_ •j�*! ,' � t�f 1` i�,}�,�'.f.+ +{ _��V 'T �. ,,�t � ,� .3 . � k,�� 1 �.��r.i i ;'� 15, 4' �„� � �. r�1";' ,° � ' .�: . r � i��i� �� €-R t � - ` � . t.�'! ...��f �i +� � x+' .'+�� �r,�� �.� .s` � t � j�l .����;i ..a -r `. i.�'t' �.. ._�}�j.. t ! .``.�':� ` } . ti� � �# ,t � .. ,� .. . . �, � .1 .� .� 7'y+' T �,j' . i � , . � .. ��. . �, � 1 � t � ,} � �'�+ �-otr'' X ���� + � k,, � �', � , � x. . �' .)�e � . � �.� ?Y r �' '���. r ..;/_ � _ . ' t . .f � ,.t� - � , � ` t � T � E' # . t {{ .� . ��i + fi j - ' � �: r � , Q� ; t� . . � - . � � :��� f }�r�rI � I,� o i i' , , , �` t�. e� '� ~'!, r�f�' . 11. f .. � ' i # �{i � ;. . � �� �� � '�.. � � �i. �- . -, � � ( � � �� ."�,�� , i � � '.. � � ,,' � � -� . ' � � �". :�`"` , � �- .� -.,,� �.;,!�,F" � t �,� ; �� � t - �l f � . �• , -� (((} r - �.,� � , , � � �p . jj� � - . -� . _ . H I�' �d '' '., . rt _�si� '. ' i _ .j ,'� '� � 'l � . ��� , � � �� r l y .T �" f� � � � _ � �� � � ' �, � ± � � � ` � '� , i 1 / � � � �� � 3/ ,{ i �� � � �x � J ti i � f � J . , , � � w � � , � � ! �: , . �: - �� ,� � , __ :; ,,•, . �`� � � • . . , '�y� • ' ? � ``�� . � +�� ��6 .�� �ry � .. a ,M ' �� ' � . t '� �.�:;i�': ; . � � •�!4 ' .. �' ... . a .� ^ e 1 � � � 4 *� II III �� �i � `..� ��,� � � �` �� " � - r�� ,��� •t ' j , ,,1 ti ; �• �'�S �: . . t; �, . .� ' . � � � �':�� .��` +� � r , 1 - ���. �. �j ,'.s ► " � ' 1� �`.�' '✓�'� � #�;'�',� �'�7: �� .'� �3 � \� ��� �� �r t, ' � ...yyy� � jJ•1 T� ) t � �+fK�, "s:�, f � �� �i F� s n�_a '�'. . ` *• q�a -..�' �.� „ -,_ '" � '�\ # � lr • � ��#���:. � !� ��� � ` 1 .` � a3 ,�� ..�t M�.�; � � ��f � , w .� , ..� "�'� ' , i £ 'f � . ' ��4} ` �' �r�t�� r • ��t .. "�l' . , �.. .,z, � . , � ��` } r � . '' � �.r, �Nr' � � nwt ��'' �f S �Y� t �e �� ;� '� -!- J , ` � ', `. � � ���� �.. � � , `'� ,. • .� _�!A i � . �.. . , � ��".^."'. `+ � A:,, � . i � � �k.� - 'S�r � � '� `r�'i\.R .„ . � .�. ��. ��..�,�+'s �_ {� � ` �.*� .�w^��� � ��' - � � .. �� � �}��� ,� _-�� R�:' ' _ . . . " � . �'l� +,.• l � • , �4y ' � . ;� ^ ,� .... .�� . �� - ` t� �4' '��� . f` `�.i . . .�s_Y.__. . �_ . , . , r �_ . ` '-�.,.. : '.� . Yy. , l f� � : . - .. ,y` r �,�� ��• - •,►.'J` i' :.� , 'r �ti,Y. " . - _ - �� . . . ;�,�' t '-� f `s ,,-. ; •�, - - � �-}t'+ ,���'3, " � -�t'�. Sr� . . `` '� ` T ' . . ".rf''.�s� � ..,�'� `r .!'fr " ,�++T.�.; t. - j t �Y .Ji � �� � . � 't� 'k��� , w _�'�� � � t� a�� � '��s �� �' ��,� •:! • � � ._.�t , _ � . ,,,� '� '',r �! , �. r ��s,; i ,� i +� � f+ r-; . � � f � �,rrA �� , r � . � ��. � ' ���' � . . . '� -r � . . � i , .. X ';iji. • � . . ' � � J ` ' %� � 4 * � �� "'�•� ! `•'t'1 ' �S.r,� . � , ,'� r ,�. �r- a � � :� t�� � • � � � � , , , , �r f j �-s"��t' ;��. � ;.� • � n. �+'.t�ti..`#+, `;�1' � � ' ` ,� r zj�� F \ . { = 1 y . t� f,l S � {�� 1 � : . tf ! r��:"� � , i � . � �. f'. � �,t _ a. � / \'M� r'"�O� �.. �. r - ,�> y . - ?�y� ". � � ,cu!-.. ';" l t f , .`�.,/ , � d � � �" 7� y`r+�� .,� � _ �•'A!.��� '�`e a�r e if: �i-. , 1 • • � • '` �'�" _�...el� �•- .�+� t�(�, � - ' { � � � —l ` � ',,�I''����� � . ,J \ ' � I J _ , � ' _ � ' c r . . }.� ..R .i��"". y' „, . � � .�w. -'�"`��� ' ���:;�cti 'y /�", „_—.r �`.1, �. �`` �'' ,* . �` -'�'i.. ` a _� w.� � /� , j -.. . '� .�� �4 �' � � ,` "-'�..�,«� � `� �► w� " i , �� � � a?� � � .�K""�'�� ��y•, + �� �, •" �#'� � " ��.i ' � `� � � �• ' ' -�.+ .'�',`",``.`.y;,.:" -%it, �, #''' -s. - � � —. .r,� - . � � . �.M ^ . '�. .-...... ._..�.,=^.:....A....�,.:...�' .� .�'", . � l �- l� _ � r—:., _ .-, .y `'� -r. "_ � - � �; . wm� �A ' '' -� 7Yf` ` �� �y-�.���' , ,...{ . '� . j .,+�# ! . `":�' � , . _._ t:., ��`�`"'',+ti""..+ei`�L.-..,,'"L'"��,\�!' +r�..`°'.M11 �'..T. . ., . � � � . 'f•f�'►^ r f, �z`_ , '_t� 'Y — ' '` �s' +'�'� 4 �' -,s,y• '' r' . . ,�+i� ' `. .,.,� !�, ,� ;r,. - , � ° 7 � t. �X�� t_n� �_ "' -• - • • �- • .a- • 1 i . - , s � - • { � '� ���{,�' , �� �I� r � -` ? � � '� �/� , ` y �',�5' .i."��µ'� } `t,1 i fL����`����tl '. � k � � ' z r : r� =.3� r� � �� . �r�- �y, - . , d -C .!'�'d.�,7.}' 7 .! .I •J.���;± k�" ;�� � .M!' , � �. `Sr+ . - _�`; .1' .� � t � . '�� .� � � , ;�u ���.: r �t-� # 3' T-���; � p � ���., t 4 ; y{I{f �1 c a . y�. +k o;, i t I FY� ,�_ l�� � .� ��^J� ��„. �l lV . " ' ' `{� �r *��'r iy"�� ` �;�`;� �:��1�`' L,��,'., `, � � r=�1 x�. ��T �,'�t ° � i � � � .,,��f, }��' ,x\.. ��; , �,�� �,�.�' ��'�� Y ,:�. ' , � � 'i -.�% � Q/",�i�/ ! `�j�� �. A '� . . � ` � � I� _` 't t � � �!; ��{ � 1 �b � � �� �w� ��;�i �, •f �`/``� , _�. � A �� �� �{� ��' �` �'"i y ., .r T ' � � '� �i �, ;�" v t '�, i' r ; i...,.'1 t�' y1� ti.: y ,� r . �j �'`a' r�, �;..- ,{.�4�.'' ( �f f r,� % r .� . i`. . ..�� \� ,.�,.. � �,� i �� :}�.� 1-`�, ^ }i ` �j 1„�\�f ,r f �. ���, s� `� ' . r J, � � � �'. � .�i � �t . �`, ��.. � � ,\r � � } 4 .�'y � Y]' 1 ' /. .13 )> �r � � f .��y ;�r '� s ? , �,, � ) �+ V ��� , ��. .�.� � .a�"�,'i!`� R{,�_�..��_ . . f�, ���,���f ' .�.....�l.'. . � . _ —� ,�'_-V��.��_. '1.,� .-%;,{ . . ' i �% :-�;'�'`,�T=�`��``h:� - , � ,�.., � , �� � ;� f � � ,,- , , ; � ��� , . _ . . ':,.,, ;-, � :�- _ � . .�� . . �. .. � . �;�r� ':'.S r�•'_.r• �_ ,�, �� .{' .�.} . r �,,� � r 9' � � . �. 3. i l ` � .. ./ f � Y . ' .. . . . . . � i _ „ .,. . ' � ,�� t- i . .�„'�1h , � �- k' ,,`��_ �.+er..� � . � ~���Z m. j' ���`�,�/�?--I�A�."",�.,, .✓�' 1 �� n � .��.� � �� 2�. � � � ?, . �, '{ �r_��,�. � '-. ._ ,�, 1'. _ �.`,��"' �. �y � `�'�,� ��. �,y. ' . ~ a _..� s � F�Y�.'�..1,. %.. .Y,S'l�5r_`i , ,,' -^ ' . � �".�.�.,.+��V►�. ��.i. •; . r . .:Q.� t ""w' � . . �.� ^,.. .ir � ,, _ •�' z ',V � `'�� �� n� i 'h���A. '� ���t ` �" �, � t'�'�'�!'�'-�• "�. •��j` ,,: `_ ,��.-' t'�, . � +._-, . . �'"�„ `�, . .. ���.`1i `�'��� � _►'..,�,t�...�^-'�``"s . 3'�.�= � S' � � .. ' . .. .v�, . �.f .� - ��.� - ' ��� � �-�,� ,-�._�\� 1,f! f�t��yrK� ¢'��/' �h t.`� Y� . � �l . �\ 'I'�� �s�'� ` .. •'r(•• --f♦ ` .\ / !.. _� � � ` .�,` �.y�-^ � �` � �' � 'r. . �`�'. 5.���`�,an .��� ,�����/;..Y � .'tc�.". C,� . ��,'1'r„� �' �? . " �.i�#�� �F �L, �. ^�' - t "�- .��� .J_ � �` "�" f,... � f -• - • • .- . ',•- i • i . r � �,.:�', i `�� , . ,A �: � �� r y,L, , • . . . � �? ^�� t � • �;.��i�r . . �, � "� r . � • � rs� �� . •t F � . � T . .�'t�i�+`� � . . r ° ,� ;��i`�:'���� �� t , y . , a , � . k� � . , . �-. � � , � -r � � � rfi * '�,;� � , ` � 4 � � , �, , • � � � �„ 1�� � �. � � � � ,` .1 . .� � ��� ��, � . Y . ^ ' � k . i _ _ - ' J ' . , ` � . � i.. . � . • " ' � � . .� . . . .. � ��� . . . t � � � j ' w , � wr�,�y~��5�,�;�,��7- � ' ' '#,���y �, S� e� � � F '-.�"Q+��"!�t- ' \ . ? : , t: , �, �_.,.�: ',�. .`�i`� {. ' ` = , � _. �.:_`s►,..� .�, •�; � '% �� � � ������ `� '� ��� `., .. . _ ��� � _` _ ,. 1 - - : , , � -`, � ', '' �' ,' , �_ / , . ,.eh� , � "�(t t{ 1. .+ � " � +�, ; � � � � , �.° ` �"'�,� �-'�f, - tif y •qr'_ r 'h.� " .i�a �1..'a!-- +�i .l' + ' �i � •• f " s �" t .f- • � � �, • We are supplying copy of a topographical map showing the location of trees and wetlands upon which we indicate location of photos taken on lanuary 16, 2014.. (Topographic Survey, Renton School District, February 2008) ,;\ � / ' . . . . \� \ 1\ :�� ` \•r y '�! � ��� /^`�. . • '.� ' �\ �� � 1t,'^ . '�\ ��_� -e . •} �\ . !. .o,,:-.—� \. //\ ' ��� .�^�—� �. ', �`�,.. �4J.2��,1 , ` „--i ; :.•�__ , `, .\ � . N N �, �` � _.-4,�,7 i �.` , i:�. N, Renton Schoal District Survey Map -=.F�„ � '�� '� -.,�� �+Zg�— .-. 1 .=� 6;< — ` 426—� �,�� f .; • 1 ` . � \ � --� \ ' � / . . .` T?y'J ` �,\\ _�`\-�,`_'+\ � L... � �" ' l � , � �..�;�— � � ; � � , � '�� � � ��� � ' " . :f�' '' \�¢ra_���-_�_ -' -- —�' '-� ��`,'`C �%(r :��, � '�` ' \ 8•r�Y, -" ---� 1 �?�./ � � '•.� / ���'� � \ �sf�', SsF:k �� " — m I N '�:;:r �� � � �� . .e ��0.�g^�\;` X5�_� '� � \y. -// �,; � � � ���/ �� � 1 � � ` : /, ,. �` �� ,� _ 5 �i ,_>00 ..o�^0Yti t {�6>I � �� i \% t�i . � \ �C . � 6 'S`'� 'R' 1�,� . � y. `� . . i . � , � `6> .�O0'.,. 0. � A�� � `0 `���s� � • v . • 1't h �. ' �l0� \ �. ` ' .��� \� �i t 1�� � },_� 3� � � ��, ;i � ' ' - ' � ��`� i� - . 3� ` �:��\\�\+..` ��� ' . t `• � �, ` 0 /� ), �i.j� • ti \ . =-y; \ ---� 1 � r�� � � , .��4l' `�"� �,�.,�"���•' � �-,�,� l.; - � '� oe���� �y� ti'� � "� 'L .. � � ��,', . �� - � �� ` ,t`�.� ��•'�i�` �e' �.�`�,,,.1 ! ,y� \�\ � �` + �\� ' ;-• � ? ►.�6� �� ' i /a,:�..'� , �'� -. � ,l l v� .�1 f 1 �" � ,� ,ti , � i �. �� � r � � �� . a�' . . � o���: o�� ,._ �:�. ��� e � � � ., � — � �' ). ,,� . �,No �l b t � � , � l \ �� J � ! �- . , —a � �.. � 0� :_, ` � ' i � I,...s' �\ ����� �1 �,�.,� . �� B S `�� t�ry' 'c \ \ '�`• l . -- _ pi i '�. ,�.� J�� . �4��� 1 aY` � ��� � �� ' � 1 ...�i _J��Pif ��" •�tit• � `c 1`���^�t� � ��,�StiQ ,y,- �,� �\ 1 � � ;, 4 /�' .i- ,1`� `�. �` , 0_:' 1� � . ` \ \ �'�':. `� i � '.''/ • �' • � ' '.�.� �_ `L, �O \ � � r'..; " '�4�_ J �^' �� �� �� � S�' �.� �' t �' �.\ �"'_--'�� _'", `^,�-!�•' '�r' ' yS�'a %�_'�... ���`P `:� �� \1 ��0'� \�� ` �.-- � ,'.. �� �4T,,._i. /y � ✓ `,� ,p�, g� .. .- .� °' 9` � } ) ` ,/� • �'41 \ ,�,_ �,O . �;:' � ..__a- — _ `�—;-`__ - _'.-. yn '',"� ��`n':=�� �,� E'� �e' t .�_ r�;�^ f �._/ „ ,%� � i / , • �- - -�- / 6 � ,,.-�r•�\ '4QE�� 1 .%���R�9�ti�S.``11 �,r� ,A.�. ' .,/A // � �. %/ � p. ;1�� 1 � 'J \ � �"� \ /'/ �'-' � 0� �f�` . � . \ �'6 � ' i/ / C_� � i� ,«� V - � � �� ��, t 1 �./ `._\ i 1�' p\ •�' . , '.`` `�� / ��.-" \ � �'� p —��-R '��Hl9C 'MRE�� • � �'�t ��ti� i � i �J:��rl —— �- l r� �'� `` � t , � ' +~ �. �' �;:x;1�,•.,.�;�, ;7 :��.��; �.. >� ? �A,�;oR�ve � • JA�� _ _ —-- — � �� gafi{, �48^ ca �r ____- - ' c�};1 84:{?- ti� ._ - --- --- a'- 8�`�;' o fin?L: � TPWAG Request for Reconsideration Page 12 of 20 � { • We are also providing you with a Tree Cutting/Land Clearing Plan,which shows how the proposed lots are appearing to encroach onto the wetlands B and C, in particular lots 70, 79 and 80. . �e:rr�oA.,,tt.:.�Axi�...n .�'� . � ' � ----- '�' -. -- RESERYE AT TIFFANYPARK '=f � _ ..�. .�. --'.,� : �'•�___ . �.. � ,, _ �-.� _ `'r _ =�-== j '; r .. ��" ` , � ;"'g� ' ' ' ' ' ,�, �� �`� .�'t� S'�i.��y� *y 3 f � - , •��.+ - �.� :�_,` , .., _ 1' . _ . .._ _ ' v� � !at�`-��ti - . f - - "T- • � + +c;r �� - �"`�-����-���.�' . .— ' � '- - - , or: s s �;."'--=�`s'i.'''i.'':. ' -- ' ,. i _ � > -:..: -�:.-- . . , � � �: � `�:=.�, �.��.,. - �-�� __ ' ,�,, . •�;,f . -. --. - � __ _ � , ,=� � � ---:_ �='�•_ ', -� -._•t,� _. i _r � .:�.''�"�-_=�;-,.��,_� . .,r. . ,� . a I , _ �,_. . �, -�`'"'�`�•=�'.,.��'�s. -�+ � ' , ,i= 'r. 'i-�`' -.-^'� �v�_ =� "�w _ • ' . ' ._ , �� . .,}1 � r�,( � 1. y "��-�� �� • "iC� �.{.'�S: ' . _ . ' '�; ' • � �� \' � -11L�I� � " �• . . , � L.�1 � ' . L w � ' . ♦ . .I 4• ��..y t.�, ��^`=�-._ � ' ' - . , y f`��Y �'. �_ ':_`'•. `� -�•:'�'riw��\s.�.... s�+, . � ' y �i:�'^ ,#. . -�� � �� #��'`,:' r -��.�*.��.�:s�z„� �=�ie--�„ _?.ti;"``;_-- . . • 3 • ♦ .• .. ' M'e�'- . _ � � T. •�...t - �, .. { ."�:- 'a ���? - ._ � , n'�'"°_ �`�-,';:�7��`��i`%- _d.- � •`+.'•:i��� _ - _ -- - s 'L�� ,Y � . � '�}f'��� .�,.. .. . �c- �t. r � a��� -�r -�''"lrra-' '. _ �a?;:,: - - - 4:' j ����.��.;:+ ' • . -- �� a�_ :".�w�;_.7'. � ���'._' t��,W �h'�`f- . � �,�� v\. • .'x'. . � tyt � '6 _v. •�1� �..` �1K�. i :r. �.�i✓"'Lr �Y .T'!.'� .Y;. ''j-,^:�` . _ •� . .__'_ *` v�i'' ' '�TF w . �'r��'_ • �� _i v!�( `` � � 1♦ . '—,'j y - _ . . �� � *� . � . . ' - -.-. .4 :�t . •i . ' _ ,. . � ��� � �j+� r � { ,' '✓`'•f' ��� � '' ��ucr 1'l217 ' �.i�^Z-� ._ i _ '. •L?�. --� ? !! . ' �� '+ J . . ,r;�K`� �� ' , ii:F � ' .. � � - �2lllSc:! ~�......... 'C�s� - � . - --'--- - �- - a.z? �� . �5.�.� ��� a..�.'� ^ " ' -" ' . _. - v` . ��s„' . ' . _ - �•. yYx;� . L V . � }. ��� ;�`. t ' �. �'. �� t i � _ � ..,. . EXHIBIT �, f N - —- --- --- __— ._--- --� -H TPWAG Request for Reconsideration Page 13 of 20 { +, � " `}�.... . . P!�Et.l�I:nPrlAh'C6CnPER.:vti naes..�ecw�.rY.�Joso � I `C� ' FQt � _ '._ - ---���� RESERYE A�' Tl�'FANYPARK r`�''`�.�" :.' --- � ��,, c�y �T.c.:,��,.�....�.: "' �'� # : r , ..... ""*�' `� t3''�LTT " .f � � �.=—��..` J T.-;tY,.�.�. I�. .�. :� � �'� �� ; - ' " _ �ldi: —_ �--- =�',ans- r•� _• � $ �F � \ { .I �� �� ��r�r�r.. a fi.Z�if��=����_�.� � � i, • ' ,` • '�, 'ltleti.��ww._...��_ _ ��: � `i .� �,�_�� : ��.�R"� �.--��-- �c.�a�.�,�srwn.�v+'+wr..ao�c �� � E . . _._ � !'- �z_� � j � � + `;��'!. _ • ; �i�/��.'_.�� ♦ �^ !� � V � �O .�reralo� •el ��__•_••' ��. . 1� i ��. �-• � � ` �;�' ' .�arS"caC'wi�� � ��sn��� ••`�.�. �'_,—t +� � � � .�l:�,_ � ,.....► � .. _ •--'--.. 1 ' F � ' � � •' _ �D,R .: 1�i�'T^.� '.:.•�� � ' r �t� �sYi v'�''+�eu�oraw�ur.W�.ta�: F ,^��`;,�,i,• ` __ s •'� Y � . `� �.� �.. .�.�.._.._..+�a.awc,�r_ �S� �- ♦~ T ••� , �'•.� _ . � •y�–�• , j Z7�r.� '.i� ,�.. ' '� ' • i..� � • ` i� �' ` s ''y , _ -. .rar.j �a :•OG:��� _ .�.�.. , ��� : :� i' � – t' r �:. . r`"'�.` ° '�''1� �i.'1. � ��� �' i �� �+ � i .J' r .+ a � . " ". , �l. — ■. —r.�.� t ..�..�.. '� , �p�•� .� `\ � "^� �' �' • y.. I C ; ' . s I i I � ' -` � •` �':� . } , ��-�H - - :r' „ ::�.= . . �--_: � . - .�- , } � =; ���` . . . - � �.�_ -- ,., p �* _. � � � . . i i ` »i l�' 1. _Ly `` .1 , ` - � . i#TV �L-�. ��'.� �- „ �'� � ~ _- ,. • Y �j �. �; �J_� , 1 ? -. . Y ��. _�� `� ' -•w • `} �./ ! 1 L� ♦ �f�S 1 }... .. .�.7.T� e'i.•� � .J.� o` �♦ �-vr� ' -- � � ��� �li { i • �w.' °�! . `• � -r.-' - "-–'� i . i- ' • i� � l�lll''�'. ,,�� .��'f � " i �! . • '�' i'Y i . �]�t l � Y ' i � lP'�� y�,' �•�:.�' ��y ��µ� i�g� �� S��'� �; . �„�� ' . _ � � . .. � ' . , � `` Y � , �r" � I�'`��;: _.�:�'' - ��:�� :;� _ �,,.:�.��L� � Y _����... — -- _,_..____.____---"� . ..---,,'y'-.-..------ ----- �HTBIT 18 _____'_. c � -� • Also encroaching onto wetland C is a street. On the"Preliminary Cover Sheet for Tiffany Park" chart it looks like the street is cutting right into the wetland. . I • These encroachments appear on the Tree Cutting/Land Clearing Plan dated in 2014. (date is too small to read). • • In addition,on the"Preliminary Cover Sheet for Tiffany Park"the wetland is encroached even more than on the previous maps. In other words, it appears that the wetlands keep shrinking to make room for proposed lots. TPWA� Request for Reconsideration Page 14 of 20 i � . � ' • The photos taken on January 16 clearly show that several wetland boundary and wetland buffer markers are clearly inside of the wetland boundaries and/or buffers. This is of great concern to TPWAG. The maps provided by the Applicant show that plats and streets already encroach onto wetland boundaries acknawledged by the Applicant. If we,TPWAG,are correct in our assumption that the wetlands have been marked incorrectly and that the wetlands are bigger than depicted by the Applicant,than the proposed lots and street will greatly violate the wetland buffers and therefore the wetland code/regulations, etc. . • We believe that this aspect alone should call for an EIS,since it is possible that more erro�s or oversights like with the wetlands have been made throughout the whole proposed development. . We hope that at least the wetland delineation will be�evisited and re-staked and then reviewed again Relief Requested • Discount the ane-sided testimony of Applicant's wetlands expert(because the property owner refuses to allow TPWAG to bring an independent expert on the property) • Require the property owner to allow TPWAG to b�ing a wetlands expert on site, allow adequate time for the expert to prepare a report,and then hold a meeting to examine the results. • Require an EIS to resolve the unanswered probable significant environmental impacts as raised by Steve Neugebauer in his testimony before the Hearing Examiner, and as are raised in this letter. Trees Problems • During the Hearing Examiner's meetings on Nov 18, 2014 and Dec 8, 2014, we witnessed public testimony from Claudia Donnelly and Ji(I Jones showing how the developer had apparently�emoved all trees from another development,even though the City of Renton requires them to retain trees. • Therefore,we request that the City of Renton ensure that the developer doesn't intentionally or carelessly damage the few trees that are required to be retained under city ordinance,and then use that as legal loophole to circumvent city ordinance and remove the "damaged" trees. Relief Requested • Consider assigning a person on site during construction hours to monitor activities to ensure code � compliance. • Consider steep fines for careless or intentional damage to trees. • If trees are damaged and must be removed, require Applicant to replace the damaged trees with ' equivalent*mature*trees, and prohibit them from using any of the original canopy from the removed tree for any purpose other than to allow the new tree to grow. Storm Water � Problems • Per Steve Neugebauer's testimony, removing trees will remove 75%of the property's ability to process I storm water. � TPWAG Request for Reconsideration Page 15 of 20 .. _� • 24"pipe (as proposed by A�, .�cant� is barely good enough for a 10•�y_.r storm. 100-year storms are I common. We may have a few 100-year storms in any calendar year.Thus,it is likely that the neighboring properties will be flooded regularly as a result of the proposed develapment. Relief Requested j + Consider requiring a larger storm water drainpipe along SE 18th Street. I • Consider requiring"pervious" pavement(that allows water through it)on all streets,sidewalks and I driveways,so that the storm water can be naturally mitigated on site. I • Consider requiring retentian of at least 6" of topsail on all expased surfaces(e.g., lawns}to minimize I the need for watering, and so that the storm water can be naturally mitigafied on site. • 7PWAG requests that storm water management studies, calculations be campleted in compliance with the City of Renton Storm Water Management Requirements, as further defined by the adopted King Caunty Surface Water Design Manual;sections which specifica!!y address this issue are titled: Core Requirements#2 t7ff site Analysis, and CQre Requirements#4 Conveyance 5ystems. The City of Rentan has some added amendments far special comsnunity situations. Roaf Runoff Problems • Although roo#runoff by itself may not be a pollutant,when it is mixed with chemicals and pestic'sdes used in the yard it becomes a pallutant. • Although roof runoff may not be a target pallution-generating surface, roof runoff is stil!subject to flow control pe�Core Requirement#3 which mandates Lhai the City may require design adjustments pe{the wetland hydrology protection guidefines in Referente 5. • KCSWDM Reference 5,Wetland Nydralogy Protection Guidelines, mandates that a wetiand may not be structurally or hydrologicaliy engineered for runoff quantity or quality cantrot in Category 2 wetlands. {We have attached the Wetiand Hydrology Pratection Guidelines.) Relief Requested • Appficant shauld camply with the Wetfand Hydrology Protection Guidefines. ��-. �—... Wetland hydrolagy � Protectfon guidelines.� Tfd�C Froblems � Applicant's expert has testified that the ievel of service on the roads surrounding the proposed development wili be acceptabie per the applicable city and state(aws. • However,that analysis did nat address the impact of converting SE 18th Street and 124th Place SE from quiet Cul-De-Sacs into arterials for the traffic from almost 100 new homes (over 1,000 vehicles per day-rnostly on SE 18th Street-by Applicant's own estirnates). • Reattors know that the difference in value between a house on a busy street and a hause on a Cul-De- Sac is significant. � TPWAG Request far Reconsideratian Page ib af 20 � ! o "Usualiy the differ�. .:in pricing is someplace between 6%1... 16%depending on what type of traffic is traveling on your busy street and at what times." , �http:Uwww.realestateabc.com/home�uide/sei(in�-busv-street.htm) o "For instance,you may have a stellar home, but if it's on a busy street,its value will undoubtedly be less than a comparable home on a road less traveled. Potential rezoning of adjacent areas also tan affect comps: If that lovely forest behind your home is due to become a sea of condominiums,your home's value is likely to be less than a similar home that will retain its forest view." (htta://www.realtor.com/home-values/HomeValuesFaa.asax) o "Nevertheless,the single obstacle to getting anyone interested in our home is the close ', proximity to the access road. ... It needs to be priced alot less than the comps. ... around here it seems a house siding a busy street sells for 10-15%less than the same house inside the subdivision." (http://www.zillow.com/advice-thread/Tips-SuQQestions-to-Sell-House-Near-Busv- Street/17954/) o "How much do you think the street knocks off the price tag? ... I'd say 10-25%, depending on the street." (http://forums.redfin.com/t5/Seattle/Sellin�-House-on-Busv-Street/td-n/53731 ) • A licant also seems to be well aware of this fact. The lanned devel m pp p op ent contams not ane, but two Cul-�e-Sacs(instead of building adequate roads to carry traffic in and out)! • We respect Applicant's right to develop their property, but we expect them to respect the property rights of the surrounding community. We believe that Applicant is maximizing their profit by unfairly externalizing their costs to the neighboring property owners. • With this proposed deveiopment,we estimate that Applicant will effectively be taking$1,560,000 from surrounding property owners without compensation. We ask the City of Renton to intervene to ensure equal protection under the law. o Based on City of Renton Plat maps. o Based on Zillow.com for typical property values of$300k. 0 14 houses along SE 18th Street with severe 1590 impact. 0 4 houses along 124th Place SE with severe 15%impact. o Another 50 houses on surrounding roads with 5%impact. o Thus, 18 property owners lose an estimated$45,000 each and 50 property owners lose an estimated$15,000 each. o Meanwhile Applicant's preliminary plat map shows that they intend to build 26 houses along their Cul-De-Sacs, giving an estimated 26 * $45,000=$1,170,000 in additional profit for Appficant. Relief Requested • Consider substantially reducing the number of allowable houses in the proposed development. • Consider requiring at least one more access road to the proposed development(even if Applicant has to buy existing houses to replace with roads). • Consider removing speed bumps that are blocking arterial streets to the South (especially 126th Avenue SE, SE 164th Street, and SE 160th Street). This will provide less incentive for drivers from the proposed development to avoid the back entrance (i.e., 124th Place SE)and for drivers coming from Fairwood to use Pierce Ave SE and SE 16th Street. • Consider street modifications to encourage traffic to use Royal Hills Drive SE instead of SE 16th Street. Royal Hills Drive SE is currently a bus snow route. It is a wide road, it has a gentle incline, it has good sight distance, and it is sanded when icy, so it is much better suited for the heavy volume of traffic than is SE 16th Street. TPWAG Request for Reconsideration Page 17 of 20 , 1. Re-open the end of Beae. . Way SE to Puget Drive SE. ' 2. Close the intersection at SE16th Street and Edmonds Avenue SE. Local traffic wiil be able to use the newiy opened Beacon Way SE,and traffic from Edmonds Way SE will no longer have to fight arterial traffic to leave their neighborhood. � � ,�, o` T���4 i sF �� `�s , � � :, ,� �� y � �'�o � �l �� �Yal KJIs Dr SF Xl"-"s, �� �� �� ��.f ��F'` gj��S f � 912 �XAp•p 9f f� � ^ x Qt S�' p SE t6M St � �tr SE �,,��' 9 °�'�v ��' T �rp., V�!Y CI.�!-.n�(!t.. r �'S Q�?� �� �'�,4 7 �s jL� C�,!a,. �7tYf St� � � h-� �y� �°f ,� .. SE ��.. rF ;� E sf��a: �� � .A'i rs`` � a �, 4 �1. q '�`,j¢ �r 4. � Jk�j, ��" 9�� ��� �f�� ���'b a fF � 7i� � ,� T� y �'r� 'TF ��r!, ,�, �n h-"i � SE t9�h�t ca:t<•.tr,N.�.•a ��A� '^ SEtS�u+S� fF rrr..yryt 3 •� ' � r� � ? � .��` N � SFIOtd�� y�`'��4 � j ,n �y5'- JFlS�u V 'F� r = d t i t�' °r N SE'si 11 v.uxiseCa�¢.;it: � � .£ �� � '�5,� r � �S . W r � � se ns�s� ,� �,S'� � » �.�s� � w � Cauacw V�" '� � �� �7 Cr'Q�u. � � "r �t¢rf r�rr SE 1E01l+St 'in SE 16Qth k SE 160th k v W N vXx�us � LE b'i:S: ?��. Cavalr � &scn� i g _ ' a taxidr vrk �`�d'iy a—, SE!61st St � 5 � ^ � � ` � ^ SE 167�,d Sc � .. '�' `� SE 162nd St � m N y/ SE 162nd St SE t63rd S! ~ 1y W N W W N N y t SE 163rd St i Y � � £ � c � � � 4 a s ^ � � F ^ SE 16ath St ^ N � N ^ SE 16ath St SE t6t�ti$t SE 164�h St rr v. � Figure 1-Area Map i i � i � � � � TPWAG Request for Reconsideration Page 18 of 20 1 Environmentai Impact Statemen� { I� Problems '� � An environmental impact statement is justified and must be prepared whenever significant adverse , impacts on the environment are probable, not just when they are inevitable. If an environmental �' statement is required by the weight of the evidence and if the responsible city authority does not require an environmenta) impact statement then the decision is clearly erroneous. • The problems raised in this request for reconsideration,together with the issues raised at the a eal PP hearing,coupled with ApplicanYs refusa!to provide full documentation of environmental conditions at the site and the full extent of structural retaining walls at the site, and the piecemeal manne�in which the City of Renton and the Applicant addressed problematic issues for the wetlands,detention vault, drainage and retaining walls weigh in favor of requiring preparation of an environmental impact statement. Relief Requesred • The City of Renton should require an environmental impact statement for the project. Respectfully submitted by Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group with the hope that you reconsider our issues. , Thank you. I a� � Qe o�,.. RENATE BEEDON President cc: Rocale Timmons mailto:RTimmonsC�Rentonwa.�ov Nanc Ro ers mailto:NRo�ers@Cairncross.com Y g TPWAG Request for Reconsideration Pdge 19 of 20 ...... .... ... .._J { i I . �� ` � q� r a* ( 4 � , � I �, �;� �,:. I � 'f'.y, i�U� �Yal MJIs Or� '�'y�;. � 6 v� r � �gi lL�� r i ,�it sE , , �rF i�� �ex{t ��i ope� severe"b "s p� 'h- � ��� � �'r � � impatf +tS# 4, 3 a Qt 5 s�i6n+st c S 4. '4 '� CI�.+!-ai a�en.• r a 'K. Q '3iq., �Jtee Y �:xrK g v+ QJ�� C�OSe � ��Y� � � �9a�,N �,n•'•=� ��7th S�� m d'�',rr, �'",�, �`JF '�4f tn�: �� w � �i� � .Q r" e 4 J8i 3 �S� 7`j �`$. ��K1i �� �� y��5@v2t8 c f`�'J �.rP 'A� 1`e f � !� impaCt f F f� � i�i �?�L � SE�9 propased c�,w�,•:�;ti�,�r� ', s�r {/� °�y f �'{� d elopment .� i q.�� �^ Sf 15hri Se '�'e� iW.�yra.� � �% �s '�i: . I `� ¢yw � vWt s SE 24th t� ir ,��'F �� � d � p,•s�� f�SlUrq � Sf t,y,� I r 1 e � � � ��m� 4� seve�e r �y ntz.v Ct4•'1.:. w � � � impaM SE 21st St `��r r�S�' „ Y I C�` > o. ` SE ! I Cazxle�':•� w T '$c /,� � ' Ct'Q�rr �" �ii �`St c�M�� SE�6CV�Se speed �, SE 160rh Sc „ UUtFt(}S ' $E 160th St M `i{i%'CUt speed �. ; �"fJ'l• ` � Cx.:st'L� Y$S t_^�an'i UU�TY � � G.�._�, � i . � �l4yd SE:615i St £ s.rs:c. � K � tncaderaek � P'3 w � ` � � �' '" � � ' SE 16Ind 5[ — ,.� 'i' SE t62rd St � �° SE t62nd St ���;fd St ~ y� �, � W N Y `^ " "' ' $ s t' SE tb3rd S! �+ `� i tE C � �, � � a t Y i � ` � � � speed .�,5 � � � '� �' buttlps SF 1lrtth St SE r SE 16A�h S� � � S£idttR St SE 1641h St Figure 2-Area Map II � TPWAG Request for Reconside�ation Page 20 of 20 I � — -- – - - . � I Technicai Memorandum � � TO: Rocale Timmons,Senior Planner Cit��of Renton-Current Planning 10130 t1��Point,r Dric� From: Darcey I�tiller,Senior��'etland 5cientist s�r�400 (425) 739-7977 Kirklund, [L"�4 98033 Phone(425)8224•1-16 Copies: Fax(42S)82i-9577 Date: Apri13,2014 Subject Resene at Tiffany Park � ��G'edand Delineation Re��iew Project No.: 3238s.� This re��iew pertains to the Preliminary Plat applicarion for the Resen-e at Tiffany Park(Cit�of Renton LUA13-Q01572) submitted by the applicant,No�astar Deilelopment,Inc.,to the City of Renton (City).The proposed Resen-e at Tiffany Park is located generallj to the east of Tiffanj Parl:, to the north of SE 158'h Street,and south and west of Pierce Avenue SE. Otak has been asked by the City of Renton(the Cit�) to re��iew the submitted cridcal areas document and to pro�-ide comments regarding its applicabilit�to the Renton nfunicipal Code (R1�1C),specifically,Section 4-3- 050,Critical tlreas Regulations. The follow•ing documents were retizewed in terms of compliance with the critical areas sections of the Citv code: • i�'etland Determinatron:Re�erUe at Tiffany Park,prepared by C. Gary Schulz,dated February 28, 2014; • Plan set for the Resen-e at Tiffan5 Park Preliminarr Plat,prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers,Inc.,signed February 27,2014. • Technical Information Report,prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers,Inc.,dated November 12,2013,and revised February 24,2014. The�ti'edand Detemunation identifies three Category 2 wetlands and one Category 3 wetland on the site,which are required to have 50-foot and 25-foot buffets,respecti�ely. The report indicates that wetland buffer averaging is proposed for the project site,and outlines the rationale for meeting the requirements for buffer averaging described in the R1�4C. K:\Fmject�32300\3?385:\\Reparts\Critical:lreas Ree•ic�c\(em�21)14_04U3.doc . .... . ....... . _-J � i � Rocale Trmmons,5en�iotPlanner, CityofRenton Page 2 Re.rerve at Tfffany Park Wetland Review Apri13,2014 Two Otak wettand biologists visited the site on March 17,2014,to confirm whether the wedand delineatian was consistent with the Wu,rhington State Wetlundr ldentifzcotion and 17eli�reatron Manuo! (Ecology 199�,as reqrxired by the RMC. An Otak biologist made an addiaonal site visit on March 31,2014.Please note that the wedand delineation was performed in June 2013,whereas the rainfall amaunt as ofMarch 17,2014,was appxoximatelp 5.58 inches abo�%e the nom�al amaunt for March (National«'eather Service�;and on�sarch 31,2014 was 5.$5 inches abo�e narrnal Eor 1�Tarch. Comment 1 — Delineation Method The wetland determination repart cites the US r�rmy Corps aE Engineers wetland delineation manuals (1987 and 2010 supplemen;t) for the methodology used.Hawever,the Warhingtan State Wetland.r ldeitt�cation and Delirteation Afanrra!(Ecology 1997)is requixed b�RMC 43-OSO.bi.4.a. Recammendation:The applicant should ensure that the wetland detineation is consistent with the methodfllogy xequited by the RhiC. Comment 2—Survey Map � '4�'e ha�•e not seen a sur�ey map sha�ving all of the wetland flags,which is necessar}foz confirming the wedand delineation.As discussed below,some wedand f�ags were nat found in the field; ' however,if�ce have a detailed map and sorne of the tlags temain,all of those rnissing flags may nat = need to be replaced. , Recommendation: The applicant should submit a map show�ing all af the sur�-eyed wetland flags (from June 2013 and anp upcoming reti-isians). In additian,missing wet3and flags shauld be replaced a as deemed necessary far Qtak's confirtnation of the wetland ed�es. i ; Comment 3—Wetiand A �t'e agxee with portions of�G'etland A's delineated edges. Howe�er,we could not find some of the � Elags (including��'etland A-1)in the southem part of the wedand. It appears that the aredand areas � estend farther out than the delineated edge,speci.fically near Flags A-1,A-3,A-5,and r1-6. In these areas,we observed hydrophytic�egetation(if any plants at all),hydric soils,and wedand h�dcalogy (mainly inundation). On I�Zarch 17,2014,in sarne areas that appeared ta be outside af the deli.neated � (flagged) wedand,inundation was over 1 fnot deep during our site visit{see Photograph 1).�`Ve I agree chat��G'edand�meets the cnteria outlined in the RMC for a Categor}�2 wetland,wMch is � required to have a 50-foot buffer. Recammendation: �'edand A sho�zld be reexamined and any cliffering edges re-flagged during the I early growing season{before mid-I�Tay}.Any changes ta the wedand should be included in the reti-ised 1�'etland Deter�nination Report and pzaject plans. h;:\pmject\3.'.3Q��\3?3R5.1\Re(xxCs\Lndcal.\reas Rcaiew htema_ZOl�04ci3.dex I , ! Rocale Timmons,Seuior Plaaner, City ofRer�ton Page 3 Re.re�ve at T�a�ty Park I�'itland Revierv Apri!3,201,� Comment 4—Wetlands B and C During our site visits,standing water estended generally 10 to 70 feet farther than the delineated edges of��'etlands B and C. In addition,�'�'edands B and C are not separated by upland area;they appear to be part of the same wetland. On I�larch 17,2014,inundation ranged from several inches to 1.5 feet deep in areas that may be outside of the delineated wedand edge. Hydrophytic vegetation (mainly salmonberry and red alder) and hydric soils were also observed in the majority of these areas.��'e agree that DG'edand C meets the criteria outlined in the R1btC for a Category 2 wedand, which is required to ha�e a 50-foot buffer;however,because�'etlands B and C are connected (one wetland),the area flagged as��G'etland B would also be considered a Category 2. Recommendarion: t�'ettands B and C should be reesamined and any differing edges re-flagged during the ea�ly gro�uing season (before mid-l�iay).Confirm the rating and buffer size for`Y'etland B.Any changes to the wedands should be included in the revised��'edand Determination Report and project plans. Comment 5—Wetland D ��'e agree with the majoritp of the wedand flag locations on��'edand D,although the wedand appears to extend approximately 25 feet to the south of Flags D-3 and D-4.��'e agree that��'etland D meets the criteria outlined in the R1�IC for a Category 2 wedand. Recommendaaon:The wedand should be reexamined and any differing edges re-flagged during the early growing season(before mid-D-fay). Any changes to the wedand should be included in the re�rised��'edand Detemunarion Report and project plans. Comment 6—O�site Wedand(SW side Mercer Island Pipeline ROV� r1n offsite wetland adjacent to the Reser��e at Tiffanp Park site was obsen-ed on the southwest side of the l�iercer Island Pipeline Right-of-wap(see Photograph 2}.The northwest end of the wetland is southwest oE(in line w-ith) 18`�Court SE.This linear a�edand is appro.Yimately 150 to 200 feet long and contains hydrophytic�egetation(creeping buttercup,reed canarygrass,and other grasses) and hydric soils.�Y'edand hydrology obsened on March 17,2014,ranged from saturation at the surface to saturation at 4 inches below the surface.This wedand likely meets the criteria in the R1�1C for a Category 3 wedand,which is required to have a 25-foot buffer. Recommendation: If permission is granted from the offsite landowner,the wetland should be delineated,classified,and added to the revised�Y'edand Detertnination Report and plans. If pemussion for delineadon is not recei�ed,the wetland location should be estimated and shown on the plans,along with the buffer. K:\pm�eet\32,�(N)\33385.1\Rc�wrts\Catical.�1mas Rc���Dtrmo 2014 Oa03.d�c � i Roc�le Timmons,Seaior Plaanet, City ofRenton Page 4 Re.re�ve at T'�any Park I�'etland Keviem Apri13,2014 Comment 7—Offsite Wedands (NE side Mercec Island Pipeline ROV� Several offsite wedands were obser�-ed on the northeast side o f the Mercer Island Pipeline Right-of- way(northeast of the gravel access road). These wedands appear to be Category 3 wedands;if so, thep aze likely far enough away so that their 25-foot buffers do.not extend onto the project site. Recommendaaon: The applicant should confirm that buffers from these offsite wedands do not extend onto the property. Comment 8—Wedand in Southwest Corner of Site A wedand was observed in the southwest corner of the site,to the north of SE 18`h Street and southeast of the adjacent development's fence. The area was dominated by salmonberry,Himalayan blackberry,and reed canarygrass.On March 17,2014,hy dric soils and up to 4 inches of inundation were obser�-ed,and water was draining Erom the wetland onto the sidewalk along the north side of SE 18`h Street. Recommendarion: The�vedand(if it is detercnined to be one) should be delineated,classified,and added to the revised��'etland Determination Report and project plans. Comment 9—Flowpath from Wedand B During our i1•farch 17,2014 site�-isit,water�vas observed flowing generally west out of��'etland B to the southwest comer of the project site (see Photographs 3,4, and 5),then offsite into the Cedar River Pipeline Right-of-way.The wetted width of the flowpath onsite on l�larch 17'h was approximately 3 to 6 feet,and the water depth was 1 to 3 inches.�'egetation on the edges of the stream generallv consists of upland species such as Indian plum.A defined stream channel with bed and banks was not obsenred. Sorted gravels were obsen ed in seceral small portions of the flowpath;howec�er,these gravels were generally angular and therefore have not been subject to flow strong enough to round their edges. Duung our blarch 31,2014 site visit,no water�vas obsen;ed along the flowpath that had been obser�-ed on l�farch 17`�'. Standing water was present at`�G'edand B (beyond the flagged wedand edge),but no flowing surface water was observed exiting the wetland. No streams are mapped on or adjacent to the site.The closest stream is Ginger Creek, approximately 800 feet offsite to the west. Ginger Creek is a Class 4 tributary to the Cedar River,per Rl'�iC Figure 43-050-Q4(Sueatns and Lakes). Gi�>en the aboce information,it is our opinion that water flo�vs through this area only during/after high tainfall events,drains quickly,and that the area does not meet the definition of a stream. Recornmen tion: No action is necessary. 1{:\pmj�ct�3231x1\323RSA\Repotts\Critical.lteasRe�iew�iemu_�14 o403.dx ' r . ; Rocale Timmons,SeuiorPlanner, CityofRebton Page 5 Re.rerve at Tiffany Park Wetland Raview Apri13,2014 Comment 10—Offsite Wetland (Cedar River Pipeli.ne RO� The flowpath described in Comment 9 drains into the Cedar River Pipeline RO��',to the southwest of the southwest corner of the Tiffany Park site. Inundation was observed in the area,as well as FAC or aetter vegetation and potentially hjdric soils;therefore,the area appears to be a wetland (see Photograph G). Recotnmendation:The wetland(if it is determined to be one) should be delineated,classified,and added to the rec-ised�Y'etland Determination Report and plans. Comment 11—Buffer Averaging ' The buffer averaging proposal in the�X'edand Determinadon Report has demonstrated that it meets all of the requirements in RMC 4-3-050.1�1.G.£However,revisions to wedand edges will likel} change this proposal. Recorrunendaao� The applicant should revise the buffer areraging proposal to be consistent with the anj-necessary revisions to the wedand edges and wedand buffers onsite. Comment 12—Temporary Buffer Impacts Sheets 6 and 7 of the plan set(Prelirninary•Grading Plan) show disturbed areas in wedand buffers that will result from grading and wall installation. These temporary buffer impacts are not discussed in the��'etland Detemiination Report,nor are they shown on Figure 2 in the report. Recommendation: The applicant should revise the wedand documentation to discuss all temporary� impacts to wetland buffers,including impacts to specific functions and how restoradon will replace those funcrions.A restoration planting plan for the disturbed areas should be pro��ided as part of 60% design. Encl.Photographs K:\pm�ecr\323(x)\32385.\\Repoas\Cdncal�reas Rcriew Stemc�_?�)li 0403.doc 't ri t� �r � - r s . � a - i � � t r . , �, �, � . . . �: f R � � � . 1 P �`: + �t .. .� `�� i , � ` �.'�,� �'k� ! i * r�'� �� '`�:�' t •a� .��.'4' + . '�i � _ � 1 � S, r���� J,�*� }i ,�t4•> �,��_ . ' 4i }t � '� . '���F�. !. � .•.i , . . a ,tw t-�^'`��,l .hf ' .. �� ' �`' , ,��y r _``',.'' _ k . `���,�A/�':;a;�� ; �,t+r ` " , ti,- _ _ �, r � fi• � � � - '� - «.� �. ia;,. }{ . *�; ' _ `:.�� � . � ��. �, � —. • i `- ' , ' ' �"! ' . r ;� �, �S._.� . .�� �f' 4 �� "_ . :1 '� �'� � �. ,yx+r'• . " x , �. � ..� . ���. ��a}�, tr�tt�+�j � , t � � 1 1 1 � , 1 � � • �" '* -�•- .� ' 1�'� � �� ! �� : �,�y " ,� � ��. i. � � ti����` I x,. l!. _! y. ,'�y. �Y�. ; .."� . + y�i � . 4� � i . ' � '��', [y �� i� � ti�. . . _ . . `' t 4 ..' d7M1A►m - , . J< �:.. . � " .�. .. . - � - . - ,.a�,s t�,;, +��.,+t ; � � . . - ...1�� '����.. .. fi� � x♦ �, -. w+r .-- ,� • . ' . „'����� �y'� «.,vf .w c,�,�� '` ���( �'�-. -�r r . i- . , ,� i ,+�t'�_'►>���'itt+�".�'�:: �4 .``�5'` ' . . � �C , .;t. _ .. sfTr� �_. _ � _ .,^ _�,�., i' . � � ' ,. . 1;��+ ` . .��,t�}. . .. 4 _��� �� + = .. r�rra. � Y� �.., . < ..rJ � �.�,� T^.i � ,�� �;��Y' . '�, .f, .. , . . . .�' , ."�'_.. 4 . _ ` i . . . . . � • . ` ' � � .tV ...� . . e � �,' v ' ._ , ,� - ..r � ��s . � .x . , �?i. . . . . . , �! �����.,�_'�'�� � ..r � ' `Vr-�` .�. #-��+ � ` . ' . ,� Y F .xs. � ��'r �' ._. � . . ' ... , r '�4 ��'�', - \ � ' r � ..* , . , � a :_�3 � 1 I I � . 1 1 � ' � � � � � �' � � .M � •/ /l / // / . / / - / � / / / � • I, , I / ,/ / / / �/ ) � ' '( .Y.n � - . .. � . �V _r,' � - �S: � - . y�� � .« J; .y <. � A�; � + < 't, �' .ti �. ,`t �iv , 2 �, . S. . ,: ,i. .�� �: 1�;� �`t ��' `� . . ��,� • , ,,a ="h".. ' f- ' ' ,,,f,� } ' �`� -`" '' � i ' '��- - „ :�� , , , � '�'t' . �` --_ ;Y� . �,z_. �.. , �Z Y > . ,,,,,-y_ J� _ ; ^� �� - • : � / 1` '�. . 'F'y . �_4 _ .. _ ;rf /��'„ ,,� .'�{� ��►, .��y /F� " i i' , =��1 y �� T, � » ' . T . 3Y, ' �.'w�.�Y �:. ,+„ . �l'`'�� Y, e� a..`. , . , \j�(.Y/���' ` �'�(.�c�+��� $ /,� � Y �t:I ? .'' 'S 1,t• ' �'-! �S:f•'!� � . . . �' � \f' ' -��� Y�.�,�' .�, . . .' . . . .� j: . iF-�� . l�i'�` �4 ;„_��'1-� .,��Y• ~ �' .��_. IL`1L�7° •f r'`��--� . . �.t :a • � ,1 � �'� J:A � / 1 1 ' . 1 � •� �. � �. /. � ■ . . '' �+ ' . .' '�. ' ! �. �� '�� .. r' ..� t - . {� �� � , � , 'i"' .�, � �, ' j +!F�';�, F� s �•~ '� °h.+�`` �� S�� ..� ��+� ��{`. i�<rt-��'. �' �w � ~'f'r� I'�+3 t��s�� .1 ,a ' �. .�. �_,�.: X�l,. . , %�'. '�` - f "k ' 'b. . r ( ` � 'M,C. ' ' :��� '�-..��}.^ � , )' - fz . + ��Y - _ �:.1��� ^ . '� _ .Iv --- '^- `� ,,; * ��,�/R!�A� �=fs. �_� • . ` ��� _ �? '��- ,y��'��`+'+• � �,y'�'i� +. } �: , . `'� .� � .� „�:/^ " "�' { t ".�-' r . - _ j� ' ' '_ •♦ • :a, '1�;.4._ " �� i-�x( tic►'' r ,��_' �f :} ,�:i ;� --- .�f.•-.0_ �''^���� ' � '�'� ., � . � -,���i~r;- . '6`.����. : - ' � ` . ✓c'J�� �' _ -' ,�. ..'. .{ �i --...•��.I � � "�'�7� \ '��- `'r ,� I<�('� `�it��� }���.,- '!►y � *t . �r, �. ^ . .. ;�..?�` 'y� ' - . .��.r�' `�`� ,T . • � . �J .�-'y4� �.�,�� �• '' ' � � � � � � •� •. � �. �. � . . �� �s �r e � - : s , r e + � r ++ � - � � � �� � � r i '� i .��•,S - ,� • 7' �T.{rr ��-x_r ��.� . . 1 _ ���Y / � F � � _ ' ". /' ���� ���` ��y i �, , t . ` i i � ,� � S•: , ..e~, �� w �� • S��t �R� ' �� 1 j.$.� � � — _ _: , � :,� ��{�d,� - . �-�-� 'a. !. �.t.; �� f . � \ �^�,. ;�" aL. �S . - .' '* . } `�.��� � � ...�.. q,� V —P� r Y.: `� -� ti,. ,'`'�� Y{ `C.�� �� '�,' � k . t *a� � ���.� .�"_ � 12- t `�. J f� �,�* '• I 7t „�,.�# •i } ~ j ..� -"'�' ' .a �� t � a- �.i� '��+µ`Z�{�. r.i. � �J� '�' ;�- � �'y,,,, ���,�: ,.,' l .� � Y ' t�." .i �� . � , ��y 1��T 1 ,�.� 'af+ . )! �` l ��. ��J/' �• ^• +I��, �a. }j � .L.0 �M1x. " .} "': 'P' ' � S; :,1;� .; �„ ' '- "`-,* y � �,. ,.: _ � � ���. 4 f {�,�_ !1�t� ' }, � -J r �� �, • '^,arv-..it4"„� N ,�'�l"�t„'. . � '� � " f',� � �t ��*'`� �-" ! �.' ^`.� Y#"'i 4� "Y f•'t f ��"' , �w �' ';��i�Ic .i�lt�» � � 'L.} �/�� .=� �`� n.�Y �t r r,�k t�t� � ` ,J �,I�".`�1�y,I. . �.. j 3 zy�'S�� �1�, �.� � r_ i �� � �_ y_ �#`M i�r:V ' ` . 'R� �r. , �.. -. � _ �`;S�'" y� Ct`.' . ,�.7. �, '.�`� � � �.� , � / �� . • ,/ � � � _ �. . ....t„� ,; +�. \ !�`�' .�.t f' ,{E\ �ta ..,2 � ` _ : :.6'����t-_J';.i a.�.;��.�3�i`r'��'t �y. �K•�S, � ! 4 w! . ! t - f - i • • i �� ' � ��� ���.� ' • \• . '�` '� / '!.±' . , a ' � .. • � 1 y ,a'��:.+, ' '*, ,' ' � �l ' � - � .ri:�' . . 4 � - � � � � � - . �� �' �' � . '� ' ' +F � - - �,�: ��� �`�:`�_ � rt� r j � t 1 l .��, �h�� �'w. . .. . t^ f . . 1.,4E, , r j.. � .I �� � �� ~:�i�s��'������f, ,.yf.+' � �f .Y . ;r,�'.{IM L�(I��'.� ,y : ' .. . . :..� f.,.'fy#. �,. �Y.��, �� .�y•t y +, / \\ J�� R � . . �� l���.`?�i`��c,.� � � � .. � � �` � �`�` .y� i(e . , . f /' '?_ i t.� � �y1`�1 . t+�� . _ � ' �v "�����/�t Y�r t '� . . ' ,`,1'il�~x i��. .>rY� �., ��/R'�( +, " ..�,� .,`�!"`�-rr �i '�' . ' ^ 'l �`r` �. r . � ., '`C • ..,"� ��.�. ` . { � y • ,�� �'w.�'"�� �- �•`�• . ti�?�„ .�'�� �• , h. , i � �. �� ' { r�• �` M� •; �,.�{��` ,� � ��.�.r,y 'Z a ..�.� �, .� . !� a �l� a � . "!►� 1 �. �� T� f t.� �'�- y�" �" '' rt 2.,!yy`=�' • ..�('� �4 �~ �� � � .� Ik N� Y'�A+i •,7 f-..• ,,� •+� � r,�: � ! f � • . � t i � ' ! f 'i. � �- _ > ��. . • 1 �� .� . - . ��� �1�a�o9� �I'o��1�N���i t1�5-1,p�� � r l SF.CTiOV 6 2 GENERAC REQL'IREMENI�S FOR W'Q fACILITIFS runoFt'is unaffected b} whether or not the runuff is de�ained. Therefore.facilities such as��•et�nds. e�•hich are sized by a simplr�olume-based approach that does not route flotis throueh a detention facility. are the same sizc whether the� prcc�de or fal(m��detention. � ?�otr[hat facilities tvhich are sized based on tolume and��hich include routing oFtlo��s through a d�tention facilit},such as the detailed sand til[er method.are si_ni�ie;antl��smaller�chen located do��nstream ot drtentiun.e�en thoueh the same�olume ot��ater is treated in either situation. This is becausc the detention facilih routine seyuence stures pcahs within the pond and releascs them at a slu�� rate.reducing the size of thc sand lilter Fwnd subseyucntly needed(the�olume needed to stc�rc thc peaks need nol be pruvided aeain in the sand tilter pond). Flow Volume to be Treated �"hen��•ater yualit} trea[ment is rcyuircd pui:r•uant to thc core and spccial reyuirements of this manual.it is intended that a minimum of 95%of the annual averaee runoff volume in the(8�ear)time series.as detcrmined��ith lhe 1�CRTS model.hr trcate�l. Desi:ns using the��'Q design tl<���•(as discusscd abo�el a�ill treat diis minimum��olume. � Treatable Flows As statcd in Chaptcr I.onl� runott�from[arget pollution-gcncrating surfaces mus[br U�eatcd usin=the �rater yualit� f'acilit� options indicated in the applicable��ater yualit� menu. These surtaces includc lx�th po/%dion-renern/ing impen�inu.r-surjace and pn/lu�ion�enern�ing pen�inus surjace. "Tareet"means �hut pcnlion fmm��hich runoff must be trcatcd usine a��ater yualih facilih as speritic� in Chapter I. Pollu![n/�se��cratu�g inrpen�ious surjaces arc those impei�ious surfaces��hirh are suhjcct tu�ehicular use or sturagc oCerudiMc or Ica�hablr materials.«as�es,or chemicals;and�thich recei�e dire�l rainfall or ' thr ivn-on or Mu��-in of rainfall_ For subdi�•isions.tarnct po!lulinn pe�terntin�inrpervious surjaces t}pically include right-ot=��•a)�impro�emen[s(roa�is).parking arcas and dri�•ewa�s diat are notfiilll' dispersed as sprcitied in Section l.?.;.?. hfetal ruufs are also considered to hc po/lution-generatin,� , impervious srojace unless the� are�reated tu prr�ent leuchins. Po/lution-genernlin„pen•ious stirjnces arc those non-imper�ious surfaccs suhjcct tn use ot prsticides and fertilizers,loss ot'soiL or the use or stora_e of crodiblc or leachahl�matrrials.��as[es.or chemicals. For subdi�isions,tareet palhrliorr- „enerntiie„per�•ious surjaces t�picall� in�ludr la��ns and landxaprd areas that are not jull��dispersed and from��hich there��ill not he a conccntratcd suriace discharee in a natural channel or man-madc cum r�ance s�stcm f�om lhc sife. � The tiillv��in_�+uints summarize��hich sile tlo��s must bc treated anJ undcr��hat circumstances: • :111 ivn<�ff trom t�r._el pollu[inn-generating inrpen•ious surjnces is to b�treated through thc«ater � yualit} fae:ility or tacilities required in Chapter 1 and sprciticd in the Chaptcr 6 menus. • Runoff f�om la��ns and landsc��ed area�eenerall� o�erllous to��•ard strect drainage s}stems���here it is com eyed tu trcatment facilities alons�cith thc ruad runotf. Hu��e�er.sometimes runot'f f'rom buck}ards drains irto open s�acc or buffer areas. In these cases,buFFers ma� be uscd to proi icle the rcyuisite�rater yualit� u•catment pro�ided(I>runuff shect flu��s into the buffer or a dispersal lrench is pro�ided to disperse floa�s hruadh into thc hul'ler.and 12)the flo�� path th�•oueh the pollution- gcnerating area is limited to atwul 2U0 feet. � • Drainagc Crom impen iuus surlaces that are not pollution-generating Isuch a5 most roots)or are not target pollution-generating surfaces ma� h�p�us the treatment facilit}.'� Roof runut�f is,ho��e�er. still suhject to tlo��contml per Core Rcyuirement#;. Note that metal roofs are considered pollution- gencratin�unless[hr.•are treated to pre�ent leaching. ��Available data on the quality of roof runofi was exam�ned Although there are instances of polluted roof runoff,they tend to be related to galvan¢ed mo5ng matenals or industnal processes. There is also data that suggests the pollutant concentrehon ot atmospheric faAout decxeases with vertical eleva�on. See"Water Qualiry Thresholds Decis�on Paper,"Apnl 1994.K�ng County Surtace Water Management Drvision(now Water and�and Resources Diwsion). �'Q'��OQ 2009 Surf'acc 1�'atcr Desien Manual 6-18 � . ± i SEC'CIUN I.Z CORF RGQIfIREtitENTS TABLE 1.2.3.A Sl1MMARti'OF FLOW CONTROL PERFOR�IANCE CRTTERIA ACCEPTABLE FOR IM1IPACT MiTiGATION�° IDENTIFIED PROBLEM � AREA-SPECIFIC FLOW CONTROL FACILITY REQUIREMENT DOWNSTREAM I Basic Fiow Control(FC)Areas I Conservatlon FC Areas I Flood Problem FC Areas PPY PPY . ..Pp_y, ,....,_......9.-�-•---•-- No Problem Identified A I the Level 1 flow control A I the historic s�te A i the exisUn or historic Apply[he minimum area- standard,which matches ezisting conditiorts Level 2 flow control site conditions Level 2 flow specific flow control site conditions 2-and 10-year standard,which matches controJ standard(whichever is performance criteria. peaks historic durations for 50%of 2- appropriate based on yr through 50-year peaks AND downsVeam flow conVol area) I matches historic 2-and 10- AND match existing site year peaks conditions 100-year peaks Type 1 Drainage Problem Additional Flow Control Nc addihonal flow control or No additional flow control or , Conveyance System Hold 10-year peak to overflow T, I olher md�gafion is needed I other m�tigation is needed Nuisanee Pro6lem peak'z��" Type 2 Drainage Problem Additional Flow Control IVo additional flow control is No additional flow contro!�s Severe Erosion I Apply the existing site conditions I needed,but other m�tigat�on I needed,but other mdigation Problem Level 2 flow control standard�'"•� may be required`� may be requiretl�`� Type 3 Drainage Problem Additional Flow Control Additional Flow Control Additional Flow Control Severe Flooding Apply the existing site conditions Apply the historic site If flooding is from a clased Prob/em Level 3 flow conVof standard to tonditions Level 3 flow control depression,make design peak flows above the overflow 7, standard. If flooding is from a adjustments as needed to peak. If Flooding is from a dosed closed depression,make meet the"special provision for depression,make design design adjustments as needed closed depressions"�sus� adjustments as needed to meet the to meet the"special provision "special provision for closed for closed depressions""��s� depressions"���i51 Potentiai impact to Addibo�al Flow Control Additional Flow Control Additional Flow Control WeUand Hydrology as DDES may require design DDES may require design DDES may require design Determined through a adjustments per the wetland ad�ustments per the wetland adjustments per the wedand Critical Area Review per hydrology prolection guidelines in hydrology protection guidelines hydrology protection guide- KCC 21A.24.100 .�Reference Section 5 in Reference Section 5 lines in Reference Section 5 Notes �" More than one set of problem-specific performance criteria may apply if two or more downstream drainage problems are identified through offsite analysis per Core Requirement#2. If this happens,the performance goals oT each applicable probJem-specific criteria must be met. This can require ex[ensive,time-consuming analysis to implement multiple sets of , outtlow performance criteria if additional onsite flow control is the only v�able option for mitigating impacts to these problems. In these cases,it may be easier and more prudent to implement the historic site conditions Level 3 flow control standard in place of the otherwise required area-specific standard. Use of the historic Level 3 flow control standard satisfies the specifled performance criteria for all the area-specific and problem-specific requirements ezcept if adjustments are required per the special provision for dosed depressions described below in Note 5. '�' Overflow T,is the retum period of conveyance system overflow. To determine T,requires a minimum Level 2 downstream analysis as detailed in Sectlon 2.3.1.1. To avoid this analysis.a T of 2 years may be assumed. "� Offsite improvements may be implemented in lieu of or in combinat�on with additional flow control as allowed in Section 12.2.2 (p.1-28)and detailed in Section 3.3.5. �" A tightline system may be required regardless of the flow control standard being applied if needed to meet the discharge requirements of Core Requirement#1 (p.1-27)or the outfall requirements of Core Requirement#4(p.1-54),or if deemed necessary by DDES where the risk of severe damage is high. �5j Special Provision for Closed Depressions with a Severe Flooding Problem: IF the proposed project discharges by overland flow or conveyance system to a Gosed depression experiencing a severe flooding prob/em AND the amount of new impervious surlace area proposed by the projed is greater than or equal to 10% of the 100-year water surface area of the dosed depression,THEN use the"point of compliance analysis technique" described i�Section 3.3.6 to veri(y that water surface ievels are not increasing for the retum frequencies at which flooding occurs,up to and induding the 100-year frequency. It necessary,iteratively adjust onsite flow control performance to prevent increases. Nole The point of compliance analys�s relies on certain field measurements taken diiectly at the closed depresson(e g.soils tests,topography etc.). If pe�nission to enter private property for such measurements is denied, ODES may waive th�s provision and apply the exisUng site conditions l�evel 3 flow control standard w�fh a mandacory 20% safety factor on the storage volume I 9�?009 ?p09 Surtace W'ater Dcsi¢n Manual I-36 � i f F:I�G COUNTY, �L ASHINGTON. SURFACE W'ATER DESiGN v1ANUAL KPvG COUT�;T�',W'ASHINGTON SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL REFERENCE 5 WETLAND HYDROLOGY PROTECTION GUIDELINES DOE GUIDE SHEET 1B: STORMWATER WETLAND ASSESSMENT CRITERIA DOE GUIDE SHEET 2B: GUIDELINES FOR PROTECTiON FROM ADVERSE IMPACTS OF MODIFIED RUNOFF QUANTITY DiSCHARGED TO WETLANDS 2009 Surface bVater Desisn Manual I%9/2009 __� t � � � Guide Sheet 18: S#ormwater Wetland Assessmen#Criteria Excerpted from 2005 DOE Stormwater Manuai far Westerrr Vllashingfon This guide sheet gi�•es criteria that disqualif} a natural wetland from being structurally or , hydrologically engineered for cantrol of stormwater quantiry,qualiry,or both.These criteria should be applied only after performin�the aiternatives analysis autlined in Guide Sheet 1 A. Y I 1. A�vetland should nat be structurally or hydrologicalty engineered for runoff quantiry or qualiiy cantrot and shc�uld be�iven n�ati�num prateccion from overaif urban impacts{see Guide Sheet 2. Wetland Protection Guidelii7es)under any ot the follou�in�circumstances: � • 1n its present state it is primarily an estuarine or forested w�ekland or a � � prioritr peat system. j • Ct is a rare or irreplaceabie titietland ty'pe,as identifseci by� the t�'ashington Natura! Heritage Program,the Pu�et So�snd Water Quality Preser��ation Program.or local govern�a�ent. � • It provides rare, threatened,ar endangered species habitat that could be � impaired by the proposed action. Detennining whether or not the � conserved species wifl be affected 6y the proposed project requires a carefi�l ar�alysis of its requirements irz relation to tfie anticipated habitat CI1c�Cta�S. • It peo�•ides a hi�h level af many functions. I In �eneral.khe��etlanc3s in these groups are classitied in Cateaories ( and I( in the "Wasi7ington Stai�Wetland Rating System of t7�'estern Washington."That pubi'scatiun is i availabie on-fine at l3tto:Ji�ti ec•�c.ec�.�t a.<�c»'t�ibliolsea.htnil�s. 2. A wetland can be considered for structura!or h}�drologica( modification for runoff quantity or quality cantral if most of the following circumstances exist: � it is classified in Categar} IV in the"R'ashin�ton State Wetland Rating System of l�,'estern Washington". En g�neral,Category IV wetlands have monot�•pic vebetation c�f similar a;e and class, kack specia! }�abitat features,and are isolated from other aquatic systems.Any functions lost d�roi�gh hydrolo�ic ar structural madification in a Category [V wetland «ould have to be compznsated/replaced. � � � . The�vetland has been previously disturbed by human activiry,as evidenced by a6riculture, fil[.ditching,andlar introduced or invasive weed��plant species. r { • The wetland has been deprived of a significant amount of i[s water supply by draining or previous urbanization(e.g.,by loss of ground��ater supply),and stormwater runoff is sufficient to augment the water supply. A particular candidate is a wetland that has experienced an increased summer dry period, especially if the drought has been extended by more than tw o weeks. • Construction for structural or hy�drologic moditication in order to provide runoff quantity or qualin�control will disturb relativel}' litde of the w etland. • The wetland can provide the required storage capacity for quantity or quality control through an outlet orifice modification to increase storage of «ater. rather than through raising the existing overflow.Orifice modification is likely to require less const►-uction activity and consequent ne�ative impacts. • Under esisting conditions the«etland's experiences a relatively high degree of water level fluctuation and a range of ve(ocities(i.e.,a�vetland associated with substantially� flo�ving water, ra[her than one in the headwaters or entirel� isolated from flo«ing water). • The��etland does not exhibit an�� of the follo«ing features: - Si�nificant prioriry peat s}�stem or forested zones that will experience substantially altered hydroperiod as a result of the proposed action; - Regionallv unusual biological community types; ' - Animal habi[at feattires of relatively high��alue in the region(e.g., a protected, undisturbed area connected through undisturbed corridors to other valuable habitats,an important breeding site for protected species): - The presence of protected commercial or sport tish; - Configuration and topography that will require significant moditication that may threaten tish stranding; - A relatively high degree of public interest as a result of, for example,offering valued local open space or educational, scientific, or recreational opportunities,unless the proposed action ��ould enhance these opportunities; � _ i 1 • The��etland is threatened by potential impacts exclusive of stormwater management,and could receive greater protection if acquired for a stonmvater manaeement project ra[her than left in existing ownership. • There is good evidence that the�vetland actua(ly can be restored or enhanced to perform other functions in addition to runoff quantity or quality control. • There is�ood evidence that the wetland lends itself to the effecti��e application of the Wetland Protection Guidelines in Guide Sheet 2. • The we[land lies in tl�e natural routing of the runoff. Local regulations often prohibit drainage diversion from one basin to another. • The��etfand allo���s runoff discharge at the natural location. ► ( Guide Sheet 26: Guidelines for Protection from Adverse Impacts of Modified Runoff Quantity Discharged to Wetlands Excerpted from 2001 DOE Stormwafer Manua!for Westem Washington I. Protection of wetland plant and animal communities depends on controllin�the wetland's hydroperiod,meaning the pattern of fluctuation of��ater depth and the fi•equency and duration oferceeding certain levels, including tl�e length and onset of dryinQ in the summer. A hy�drologic assessment is useful to measure or estimate elements of tlie hydroperiod under existing pre-de�•elopment and anticipated postde�•elopment conditions.This assessment should be perfom�ed with the aid ot a qualified hydrologist. Post-de��elopment estimates of uatershed hydrology and�vetland hydmperiod must include the cumulative effect of all anticipated watershed and wetland modifications. Provisions in these guidelines pertain to the full anticipated build-out of the�tietland's watershed. This analysis hypothesizes a fluctuatin����ater stage over time before development that could tluctuate more, both higher and low�er after development; these greater fluctuations are termed stase excursions.The guidelines set limits on the frequency and duration of excursions,as well as on overall water level fluctuation,after development.To determine existing hydroperiod use one ofthe following methods, listed in order of preference: • Estimation by a continuous simulation computer model— The model should be calibrated with at least one year of data taken using a continuousl} recording level gage under existing conditions and should be run for the historical rainfall period.The resultin_data can be used to express the magnitudes of depth tluctuation,as w-ell as the frequencies and durations ot' surpassing gi��en depths. [Note: Modelino that yields high quality infonnation of the t}�pe needed for���etland hydroperiod analy�sis is a compfet subjec[. Providing guidance on selecting and applying modeling options is beyond the scope of these guidelines but is being de�•eloped b} �ing Count}�Surface Water Management Division and other local jurisdictions. An alternative possibility to modeling depths, frequencies,and durations w�ithin the�tietland is to model durations above�iven discharge levels entering the«�edand over various time periods(e.g.,seasonal,monthly.�veekly). This option requires further development.] • Measurement durin a series of time intervals(no longer than one month in g length)over a period of at least one}•ear of the maximum water stage,using a crest stage gage,and instantaneuus�cater stage, using a staff gage--The resulting data can be used to express water level fluctuation(WLF)during the interval as fal lo«�s: Average base stage=(lnstantaneous stage at beginning of interval+ Instantaneous sta�e at end of interval)/2 WLF=Crest stage-Average base stage ! i Compute mean annual and mean monthly WLF as the arithmetic averages for each year and month for which data are a��ailable. To forecast future hy�droperiod use one of the following methods, listed in order of preference: • Estimation by the continuous simulation computer model calibrated during pre- development analysis and run for the historical rainfall period— The resulting data can be used to express the magnitudes of depth fluctuation,as well as the frequencies and durations of surpassing given depths. [Note: Post- development modeling results should generally be compared with predevelopment modeling results,rather than directly with tield measurements, because different sets of assumptions underlie modeling and monitoring. Making pre-and post-development comparisons on tl�e basis of common assumptions allo�vs cancellation of errors inherent in the assumptions.] • Estima[ion accordin�to �eneral relationships developed from the Pu�*et Sound Wetlands and Stormwater ManaQement Program Research Program,as follows (in part adapted from Chin 1996): -Mean annual WLF is�•er�� likely(I 00°/a of cases measured)to be<20 cm(8 inches or OJ ft)if total impervious area(TIA)co��er in the ��atershed is<6%(rou�hly corresponding to no more than I�%of the ��atershed converted to urban land use). -Mean annual VvLF is�•er� likely (89%of cases measured)to be>?0 cm if TfA in the watershed is>?I%(rouEhly corresponding[o more than 30%of the��atershed converted to urban land use). -Mean annual VVLF is some��hat likely(�0%of cases measured)to be> 30 cm (1.0 ft) if TIA in the��atershed is>21%(roughly correspondin��to more than 30%of the watershed converted w urban land use). -Mean annual WLF is likely(7�%of cases measured)to be> 30 cm,and some��hat likely (50%of cases measured)to be�0 cm (20 incl�es or I.6 ft) or higher, if TIA in the��atershed is>40%(roughly corresponding to more than 70%of tl�e watershed converted to urban land use). -The frequency of stage escursions greater than 15 cm(6 inches or 0.� ft) above or below pre-development levels is somewhat likely(�4%of cases measured)to be more than six per year if the mean annual WLF increases to>24 cm(9.5 inches or 0.8 ft). { � —The average duration of stage excursions greater than I S cm above or below pre-development levels is likely(69%of cases measured)to be more than 72 hours if the mean annual V4'LF increases to>20 cm. 2. The following hydroperiod limits characterize wetlands with relatively high vegetation species richness and apply to all zones within all �+��etlands over the entire year. Ifthese limits are exceeded,then species richness is likel}' to decline. Iftlie analysis described above forecasts eXceedences,one or more of the management strategies listed in step � should be employed to attempt to stay�vithin the limits. • Mean annual WLF(and mean monthly WLF for every month of the year)does not exceed 20 cm. Vegetation species richness decrease is likely�r�ith:(I)a mean annual (and mean monthl}•) WLF increase of more than 5 cm(2 inches or 0.16 ft) if predevelopment mean annual(and mean monthly)WLF is greater than I 5 cm, or(?)a mean annual (and mean monthly) w'LF increase to 20 cm or more if pre- development mean annual (and mean monthly) WLF is I S cm or less. • The fi•equency of stage e�cursions of I�cm above or belo�v predevelopment stage does not exceed an annual a��erage of six.Note: A short-term lag�ing or advancement of[he continuous record of��ater levels is acceptable. The 15 cm limit applies to the[emporary increase in maximum water surface ele��ations (hydrograph peaks)after s[orm events and the maximum decrease in water surface elevations(hydrograph valley bottoms)between events and during the dry season. • The duration of stage excursions of I�cm above or belo�� predevelopment sta�e does not exceed 7? hou�s per escursion. • The total dry period(�vhen pools dry dow•n to the soil surface every�vhere in the �edand)does not increase or decrease by more than t�vo�r-eeks in any year. • Alterations to «atershed and��edand hydrology'that may cause perennial wedands to becort�e vernal are a�oided. 3. The follow ing hydroperiod limit characterizes priority peat wetlands(bogs and fens as more specifically defined by the Washington Depaitment of Ecology)and applies to a!I zones over the entire vear. ff this limit is e�ceeded.then characteristic bog or fen �vetland ve�etation is likely to decline. Ifthe analysis described above forecasts exceedence.one or more of the management strategies listed in step�sliould be emplo�ed to attempt to sta�� ���ithin the limit. • The duration of stage e�cursions above the predevelopment sta;e does not exceed 24 hours in anvi cear. . � • Note: To appl}�this guideline a continuous simulation computer model needs to be employed. The model should be calibrated with data taken under existing conditions at the«�etland bein�analyzed and then used to forecast post- development duration of escursions. �. The followin�hydroperiod limits characterize wetlands inhabited by breedinb native ampl�ibians and apply to breeding zones durin�the period I February through 31 May. If these limits are e�ceeded,then amphibian breeding success is likely� to decline. If the analysi�described above forecasts e�ceedences,one or more of the management strategies listed in step 5 should be employed to attempt to stay within the limits. • The magnitude of stage excursions above or below the pre-development stage does not e�cceed 8 em, and tlie total duration of tl�ese excursions does not exceed 24 hours in an} 30 day period. • Note: To apply this guideline a continuous simulation computer model needs to be employed.The model should be calibrated�vith data taken under existing conditions at the��etland being analyzed and then used to forecast post- development magnitude and duration of excursions. �. !f it is expected that the hydroperiod limits stated above could be exceeded,consider strategies sucli as: • Reduction of the level of develo�rment; • Increasing runoff intiln-ation [Note: (ntiltration is prone to failure in many Puget Sound Basin locations with �lacial till soils and generally requires pretreatment tu avoid clogging. (n other situations infiltrating urban runoff may contaminate groundwater.Consult the storm��ater management manual adopted by tlle jtirisdiction and carefully analyze intiltration according to its prescrip[ions.]: • lncreasing runoff storage capacity;and • Selecti��e runoff bvpass. 6. Atter development, monitor hydroperiod with a continuously recording level gauge or staff and crest stage Qau�Tes. If the applicable limits are exceeded,consider additional applications of the strategies in step� that may still be available. It is also recommended that goals b�established to maintain ker'vegetation species, amphibians,or both,and that these species be monitored to determine if the goals are being met. CI1Y OF RENTQN � �./ ; JAN 0 8 2015 � RECENED j CITY CLERK'3 OFFICE 2 3 ° 4 � 5 6 7 - 8 9 ' BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON 10 : � 11 RE: The Reserve at Tiffany Park � 12 Preliminary Plat � FINAL DECISION 13 � ) 14 preliminary Piat and SEPA Appeals � 15 � LUA13-001572,ECF,PP,CAE ) 16 l� � I. SUMMARY l g The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for the subdivision of 21.66 acres into single-family 19 , residential lots and several critical areas tracts located at the dead end of SE 18`h Street and bordered by the Cedar River Pipeline along the southern property boundary and the Mercer Island Pipeline 20 along the eastern property boundary. The appiicant is requesting a Critical Area Exemption for the I 21 ,extension of SE 18th Street through portions of the buffer associated with Wetland E. Two appeals of a mitigated determination of nonsignificance ("MDNS") issued under the Washington State 22 ; Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") were consolidated with the review of the preliminary plat. The 23 .Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group ("TPWAG") filed one of the two SEPA appeals and the applicant submitted the second appeal. The preliminary plat is approved subject to conditions. The 24 `TPWAG SEPA appeal is denied. The applicant SEPA appeal is sustained, in part. The Criticat Areas Exem tion is a roved. 25 P PP 26 TPWAG raised numerous issues in its SEPA appeal regarding the conversion of the 21.66 acre PRELIMINARY PLAT- 1 � n./ l subject property from a community recreational resource to a residential subdivision. The property 2 is entirely undeveloped and is covered with trails, tree forts and other similar structures that reveal yeazs of community use. In its SEPA appeal TPWAG argues that the loss of this long-time 3 recreational use is an environmental impact that shouid be subject to SEPA review. As detailed in 4 this decision, the fact that the applicant has allowed neighbors to use its property in the past (or worse,the fact that neighbors may have trespassed in the past}does not justify the imposition of any 5 SEPA requirements because the neighbors will lose that privilege as a result of the development. 6 Similarly, the fact that the applicant has chosen to retain the trees on its land in the past and through that choice provided neighbors �vith an appealing arboreal view does not put the applicant in a 7 position where it must now continue to offer that type of view to neighboring properties. With one g exception the applicant proposes development that is aesthetically similar and compatible with surrounding uses. For this reason, there is no legal basis for imposing any further environmental 9 review or mitigation to address aesthetic impacts. The one exception is retaining walls. The applicant proposes numerous retaining walls that will reach heights of up to 21 feet. Retaining walls 10 �of this height are not present in the vicinity and the aesthetic impacts of these structures are not 11 similar or compatible to the structures on neighboring properties. Consequently, the MDNS mitigation measures will require ten foot wide perimeter landscaping designed to aesthetically buffer 1� these walls from neighboring uses. 13 TPWAG alleged more technical environmental impacts related to the geotechnical studies, 14 hazardous materials, drainage, wetlands impacts, groundwater impacts, landslide hazards, seismic �5 I hazards, and retaining walls. The expert testimony and reports provided by the applicant, verified by experts from the City staff and in some cases, third party peer review, proved to be more compelling 16 than the experi testimony provided by TPWAG, especially when factoring the substantial weight that �� must be given the SEPA responsible official's determination that the proposal will noi create any probable significant adverse environmental impacts. One issue that did require some additional 1 g mitigation was hazardous waste. An appellant expert testified that the prior ownership of the 19 property by the US Department of Defense raised a concern that the property may contain hazardous waste. The applicant refused to grant access to the subject property for purposes of testing for 20 hazardous waste or any other site investigation. The applicant also acknowledged that it did a Phase 2� I hazardous waste environmental review when it purchased the property, but never offered the review into evidence. Given the somewhat suspect conduct of the applicant, an MDNS condition of 22 -review will require that the applicant submit its Phase I review to staff prior to development, to 23 verify that there is no hazardous waste issue with the site. 24 The applicant's SEPA appeal was more limited in scope and only challenged three of the City's MDNS conditions, specifically Conditions 1, 3 and 6. At hearing the City and applicant agreed to 25 revised language for Conditions 1 and 3. Condition No. 6 remained the only contested issue in the 26 applicant's appeal. The condition required a 15-foot landscaping buffer around the entire perimeter PRELIMINARY PLAT-2 � � 1 �of the development. This decision only found a ten -foot buffer necessary, limited to areas adjoining 2 proposed retaining walls to conceal the walls from neighboring view. 3 �A summary of testimony is attached as Attachment A. The summary is provided as a convenience and reference to those who would like an overview of the evidence presented at the two days of 4 �hearings on this application. The testimony section should not be construed as any formal findings 5 of fact and also do not represent what was determined to be important to the final decision. 6 � CONTENTS � I. SUMMARY................... ...................................................................................................... 1 gII. TESTIMONY....................................................................................................................... 3 ;III. EXHIBITS............................................................................................................................ 3 q 'I V. FINDINGS OF FACT..........................................................................................................4 V. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW................................................................................................24 10 ° SEPA APPEAL...........................................................................................................24 PRELIMINARYPLAT..............................................................................................30 11 VL DECISION ...................... ..............39 12 13 � II. TESTIMONY Please see Attachment A for testimon summa . 14 . Y rY 15 TII. EXHIBITS 16 __ _ - �, ,,��' i 1 � IV. FINDINGS OF FACT Procedurat: 2 1. Applicant. Henley USA,LLC. � - - 4 2. Hearin,g. A consalidated hearing on the preliminary plat application and SEPA appeals was I held an November 18, 2014 and continued to December 8, 2Q14 in the City of Rentan Council City I 5 �Chambers. The record was left open for the appel(ants to provide a SEPA Closing Argurnent by .December 12, 2414. City staff was also given until December 12, 2014 ta pravide a SEPA Rebuttal. � I ' `Cit staff and the a plicant had unti! December 19, 2014 ta provide SEP� ciosing argutnents and I � � Y � � relimina lat camments. I � . P rY P I (Substantive: 9 � ;3. Proiect Description and Aaneal. 1Q � 11 j A. Proiect Description. The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for the �subdivision of 21.66 acres into 47 single-family residential lots. There is ar► alternate plat with 46 I I2 �lots to allow far 3Q% tree retention {Exhibit 3). The property is located at the dead end of SE 18�` , 13 �Street. It is bc�rdered on the sauth by the Cedar River Pipel ine and on the east by the Mercer Island ;Pipeline. Two appeals af a mitigated determination of nonsignificance ("MDNS") issued under the I � 1� �t�ashington State Environmental Policy Act ("5EPA"} were cansolidated with the review of the j I S ;preliminary plat. i �6 (The subject property cansists of four parcels. The majority of the site is located in the R-8 zone. A l? !small portian is located in the R-4 zone. All proposed lots are located in the R-$ zone. The proposed ;lots would range in size from 4,500sf to 8,456sf. The average lot size is 5,399sf. Under either the 96 i� �lot or 97 lot scenarios,density would be equal to or less than 5.70 dwelling units per acre. In addition ' I� 'to the residential lots, 13 tracts are proposed far sensitive areas, tree retention, storm drainage, access, pedestrian connections, and open space including an existing 1 Q foaL wide vegetated buffer I 20 = ce s to the site would be ained fram SE 18th Street with secondary I� :along the northern boundary. Ac s g I� 21 access extended from 124th Place SE. 22 .The site is currently vacant with 1,305 significant trees. The applicant has praposed to retain or ,mitigate l88 trees in order ta achieve the abjective of 30°lo tree retentian requirement. Adequate tree 2� °re ten tio n r e q u i r e s a p p r o v a l o f t h e 9 b-l a t a l t e rn a t i v e. T h e s i t e s l o p e s g e n e r a l l y t o t h e w e s t l n o rt h w e s t 24 at an appraxinnate average slope of 1 Q-1 S% with localized slopes af 25%. The site contains three j Category 2 wetlands(Vljetlands A,C, and, D) and two Category 3 wetlands (Wetiands B and E). The j 2$ applicant is requesting a Critical Area Exemption for the extension of SE 18th Street through � �( portians of the buffer associated with Wetland E. � � PRELIMINARY PLAT-4 I � � ' ' 1 The applicant has submitted a Wetland Report, Drainage Report, Traffic Impact Analysis, , 2 Geotechnical Engineering study, Arborist Report, and Habitat Data Report. Independent secondary studies for Transportation and Wetlands are included with the application. 3 B. SEPA Avveal. A mitigated determination of nonsignificance ("MDNS") was issued for the 4 proposal on September, 2014. Two timely appeals of the threshold determination were filed by the 5 Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group (TPWAG) and Cairneross & Hempelmann on behalf of Henley USA, LLC. 6 : 7 1. App1lCaTlt SEPA Anpeal. The applicant challenged three of the City's MDNS ` conditions, s ecificall Conditions 1 3 and 6 on the rounds that the im i P Y , g y pose unlawful , 8 : obligations on the applicant and restrict the applicant's ability to develop the plat. 9 a. MDNS Condition 1. The applicant argued MDNS Condition 1 should be 10 � revised because the condition required earthwork to comply with an earlier, preliminary version of the geotechnical report which has since been superseded. The applicant requested 11 the SEPA condition r �' be e�ised to state the earthwork shal l be consistent with the final 12 geotechnical report submitted prior to construction (Exhibit J). City staff and the applicant then agreed u on the followin lan ua e for Condition No. 1 which is found to ade uatel P S g g , 9 Y 13 ; address ertinent environmental im acts: P P 14 = All earthwork performed, implemented by the applicant, shall be consistent with the 15 recommendations of the geotechnical report, prepared by Associated Earth.Sciences, Inc., daled September 28, 2012 or consistent with the recommendations of the final 16 = Ci -a roved entechnical re or . �Y PP g P t 1? b. MDNS Condition 3. The applicant's concerns over MDNS Condition No. 3 1 g became moot since the filing of its appeal and the City and applicant have been able to agree 19 ° upon a revised condition that acceptably mitigates against environmental impacts. 2p : MDNS Condition 3 provides as follows, � 21 The applicant shall be required to retain 30%of the significant trees on site with 22 exelusions for those trees that are considered dead, diseased, or dangerous, trees localed within proposed rights-of-way, and trees located within the critical areas 23 and their associated bu,f�`�ers. The a licant initiall az ued the condition h 24 pp y g s ould either be struck as a SEPA condition or modified to require compliance with the Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan, completed by 25 Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. (August 27, 2014) which complies with the 30% 2C retention requirement(Appeal Exhibit A, Attachment 11). PRELIMINARY PLAT- 5 . __, � - *r✓ `'� � � 1 City staff disagreed. They argued that there are prabable averse environmental irnpacts that 2 _ are being mitigated by the MDNS conditian. The City argued the MDNS Condition grevents � the applicant from using mitigation under RMG 4-4-134(H)(1)(e)(i} to replace trees and 3 � instead requires retention of significant trees. `� `_ The Tree Cutting at3d Land Clearing Plan, completed by Washiregton Forestry Consultants, S . Inc. (Au�ust 2'7, 2014} established that overat! the praposal will actually meet the City's SEPA 30°lo tree retention requirement. To meet this requirement, the applicant must retain ar � mitigate 188 on-site trees. The Washington Forestry Consultants plan propases to save 181 of 7 these trees and mitigate the fmal seven trees. The applicant's tree retention plan analyzed just ` the 96 lot alternative. Hawever,Mr. Galen Wright af Washington Forestry Consultants stated g � new field studies perforrned since the August 27, 2Q14 report have identified additional � significant trees on-site beyond those mapped in the original field survey. These trees will be retained, bringing the total retention to well above the 188 required trees. Mr. Wright stated 1� � he was mnch more confident now regarding the location of trees, their health and which 11 might be viably preserved. I �� � Since the applicant ultimately achieved the 30% retention abjective, the City and applicant ' agreed to the foltowing tree retention language as a condition of approval, 13 � � 14 � 1� ( The applicant shul!provide a�nal Tree Retention Plun, complying with the 30°ro tree ; retentian mitigution measure while demonstratrng proposed walls would not impact 16 ° trees proposed for retention. The Final Tree Retention Plan shall t�e submittet�to, ancl I,� ap�raved by, the Current Flanning PrUject Manager prior to construction �ermit ° uPProval. � 18 c. MDNS Canditian b. MDNS Condition No. 6 remains the anly cantested I; 14 ° partion of the applicant's appeai. MDNS Condition Na. b as adapted by the SEPA 20 : responsi6le afftcial required a 1 S-foat tandscape buffer around the entire perimeter of the j ' development. For the reasons identified in FOF No. 5,this perirneter has been reduced to ten I Z� - feet and must only be placed in areas to conceai propased reiaining walts frorn neighboring ', 2� ; view. 23 � 2. TPWAG SEPA Appeal. TPWAG raised several issues in its SEPA appeal, alleging I both inadequate review and prabable significant adverse environrnental impacts. The 24 _ impacts identified by TPWAG are addressed in FOF No. 5. 25 = I 26 ; PRELIMINARY PLAT-b I I � �/ ,�' 1 4. Surroundin�Area. The subject site is surrounding on all sides by single family residential 2 development. To the south it is bordered by the 100 foot wide Cedar River Pipeline. To the east, it is bordered by the 60 foot wide Mercer Island Pipeline. The zoning surrounding the subject on all sides 3 is single family residential(R-8),though there is also a small portion of R-4 zoning to the east. 4 � 5. Adverse Impacts. The proposal does not create any probable significant adverse 5 environmental impacts. Adequate public facilities and drainage control are provided as determined ` in Finding of Fact No. 6. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 5, two appeals to the threshold were filed. 6 The issues on appeal from the applicant, Henley, are discussed first. The issues on appeal for the � , project opponent, the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group, are then discussed. Finally, other � impacts not related to either appeal but related to the preliminary plat are discussed below. 8 ; 9 � A. Annlicant SEPA Issue. As identified in FOF No. 3, only one issue remains in the Applicant's SEPA appeal, spccifically the need for perimeter landscaping. It is 10 � determined that only the applicant's proposed retaining walls create probable significant environmental impacts and that these impacts can be reduced to 11 nonsignificant levels with ten foot sight obscuring landscaping limited to perimeter 12 areas in front of the retaining walls. �3 ' 1. Proposed Develonment Aestheticallv Comnatible with Surroundin� 14 � Development. With the exception of retaining walls (addressed separately), : the proposed development does not create any probable significant impacts �5 � because of aesthetic incompatibility with the sunounding neighborhood. A 16 ' site visit and aerial photographs (Ex. K.6.c) reveal that the surrounding neighborhoods are not exceptionally wooded or treed and that the amount of 1� ; trees proposed for retention by the appiicant would not be less than l g � surrounding development. Further, although the applicant proposes a modest : increase in density, reasonable minds would certainly differ as to whether this 19 difference in density would create a significant aesthetic impact. The 20 developed portions of the plat are all in the R-8 zone, though the proposed � residential density will be 5.7 dwelling units per acre. The minimum density 21 requirement in the zone is 4.0 dwelling units per acre. All adjacent properties 22 � are zoned R-8. Proposed lot sizes would range from 4,500 square feet to 8,456 square feet with an average lot size of 5,399 square feet. While the proposed 23 lots appear to be, on average, somewhat smaller tlian those of the surrounding 24 developments, they are not significantly smaller and are at a density that is lower than would otherwise be allowed within this zone. Further, because of 25 the presence of the two pipelines and the perimeter location of the critical 26 areas tracts, very few of the lots will be directly adjacent to existing residential PRELIMINARY PLAT- 7 i �� `�� i � � lots. The pipelines do not offer much in terms of vegetated screening but they 2 do physically separate the proposed lots from existing lots. Any difference in the size of the lots will not be aesthetically significant, especially given the 3 separation of the project from the surrounding neighborhood. 4 ' 2. Loss of Trees Not a Probable Si�nificant Environmental Imnact. It is 5 : determined that the loss of trees beyond those required to be retained by City � code does not qualify as a probable significant adverse environmental impact. 6 � In its environmental review, the City suggests that the perimeter is necessary � � to make up for the fact that a significant number of trees will be removed, � thereby adversely affecting the views currently enjoyed by neighboring � g I properties. Numerous adjoining property owners also commented on this q ' impact. It is determined that the loss of trees owned by the applicant does not 10 �� qualify as a significant adverse environmental impact. Of course, almost all development of vacant parcels involves the removal of trees. As discussed in 11 � COL No 5, in order to justify mitigation beyond the minimum standards set by � the City's landscaping code, the project must involve some fairly unique or 12 , significant impacts that were not anticipated in the adoption of that code. The 13 existence of such a largc parcel (and large number of associated trees) is arguably unique, but that argument is undermined to a large degree by the 14 _ subjectivity involved in aesthetic review. Given that the applicant is retaining 15 30% of the trees, it is debatable whether the loss of the other 70% creates a significant aesthetic view impact to neighboring property owners, especially 16 � with the buffering that will be required by this decision to obscure retaining 1� � walls. , 1 g . The assessment of aesthetic impacts occasioned by the loss of trees is also 19 � tempered by the fact that it is debatable from a legal standpoint whether the applicant can be made to mitigate against the loss of a voluntary aesthetic 20 � benefit it has provided to the surrounding community. The applicant has had � no obligation to retain all of the trees on its property in the past. Surrounding 21 � property owners have no entitlement to this currently existing aesthetic 22 ' benefit. SEPA only requires mitigation and analysis of impacts created by development. The loss of trees in excess of those required by Ciry code is not 23 an impact created by the development, since those trees could have been 24 removed at any time prior to development. The site visit, the record and the 25 ; code do not reveal that any other properties in the vicinity have had to retain perimeter landscaping or that they provide a similar aesthetic benefit to the 26 : sunounding community. Given that no such need was found in the past when PRELIMINARY PLAT- 8 r., v 1 trees were removed by other development it is at least somewhat questionable 2 why that is found necessary now in the absence of any code provision expressly requiring such a perimeter. 3 ' , 3. Retainin� Walls Create A Probable Si�nificant Adverse Environmental 4 Impact. It is determined that the retaining walls proposed by the applicant in 5 excess of four feet create a probable significant adverse environmental impact. . As noted in the Staff Report, the applicant is proposing multiple walls on the 6 proposed project. Some of the walls will be rockeries. Some walls are � ; retaining walls which will face into the site. These are walls that allow for a finished grade for a lot to be below the surrounding grade.,Other walls will be g lock and load walls that allow for a finished lot grade above the surrounding 9 � grade. Six foot fencing is atlowed on top of both types of walls. These walls are visible from outside the site. Staff notes the applicant has proposed lock 10 and load walls ranging in height from four feet potentially up to 21 feet high. 11 During testimony, Mr. Talkington stated revised grading plans may allow for reduced retaining wall heights. 12 A site visit to the sunounding neighborhoods was conducted December 28, 13 _ 2014. Though the subject is largely surrounded by pipeline easements, these 14 easements are cleared of vegetation allowing a direct line of sight into the development and of the retaining walls. The site visit demonstrated that high 15 retaining walls are not a common feature of the surrounding development. The 16 = applicant proposes solid rock or concrete walls of up to 21 feet in height. These walls will impact the view of the property from surrounding residences, 1� � especially given they are an uncommon feature in the area. As Qroposed, the 1 g � view from surrounding residences will be significantly impacted as they change from forest canopy and surrounding homes to rock wall faces of neazly 19 ' two stories tall in places. The Staff Report notes several walls will be seen by 20 the public (proposed Lots 40, 41, 46, 47, 80, 82, 83-90, 93 and 94)�. 21 When considering retaining wall impacts, the height of the wall affects the 22 significance of the impacts. Low retaining walls do not block sunlight and air or obstruct views. The building codes only require building permits for 23 24 � In any discussion of lot numbers, this decision is referring to the numberin scheme utilized in the 97-lot g alternative Exhibit 2 . The nomenclature of the 96-lot alternative i x ( ) s e actly one lot lower for each lot because the 25 Tree Retention Plan recommended the elimination of Lot 1 of the 97 lot altemative to maintain 30%tree retention. ' 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT- 9 1 __..-1 � � 1 retaining walls four feet or more in height (RMC 4-5-060(E)(2)(c)(iv)). This 2 serves as a good threshold height for aesthetic impacts. Retaining walls lower . Ehan four feet c!a not obstruct views for a person of average height. They also 3 tend to be more commanly faund in neighborhaads since no building permit is 4 ; required. For these reasons, the findings in the preceding paragraph on retaining wall aesthetic impacts are timited ta retaining walls over four feet or 5 � rnore in height. Retaining walls less than four feet in height are not found to � : create prabable significant adverse environmental impacts. I 4. Ten Foot Perimeter Landscapin� FuIlv MitiQates Reta'rnin� Wall Imnacts. 7 � The aesthetic impacts of the retaining walls can be fully rnitigated by the by a g � ten foat perirneter landscaping strip. The Gity is recornmending a fifteen foot ! buffer of trees. During tes#imany, the applicant's arborist stated a ten foat 9 � j wide baffer with a staggered daubte row of canifers would create a very dense �Q � screen in 10 years. He nated a 15 foot buffer is not sufficient in width to p]ant 1� � a third raw of canifers, which wauld require a 30 foat buffer. The City's arborist concluded that at least 35 feet was necessary to provide for a site- �2 ; obscuring buffer af trees and that ten verses fifteen feet wauld not rnake any 13 I material difference in screening (Decision Attachment A, page 7). Given that staf�s 1S faot recomrnendation is counter to the recammendation of its own 14 i arboristZ and that the applicant's arborist provides a reasonably good 1� : explanation of how a ten foot buffer can effectively screen tl�e groperty, it is � determined that the ten foot buffering advocated by the applicant's arborist 16 _ will pravide a fully sight obscuring buffer to the retaining walls and as such 17 : i g _'' 1 Staff also advocated for a I S foat buffer because it would hefp retain some af the treed character of the project =site_ See Exhibit A l,page 14.As outlined in F4E No.5.A.1,the appticant cannot be legatiy made ta compensate for 14 �the loss of trces on its property. Furthar,staff also based iis l5 foot buffec requirement upon RMC 4-4-070(F)(4xb). This perimeter buff`er provides for aesthetic screening between single and multi-family housin�.This standard daes 20 serve as a good anatogous standard for retaining watl impacts. Unfartunatety, the standard only requires six faot �high vegetatiac�. A six foot high hedge set against a 2! foot high retaining wa11 does not accompiish a great deat of �t aesthetic mitigation. For this reason, the RMC 4-4-p70(F}{4�(b} buffer daes not serve as an idea! analagous landscaping standard. What the RMC 4-4-070(F)(4)(b)and other RMC 4-4-070 perimeter buffer requirements daes �� show is that the City Council was uncomfortablc requiring more than a fifteen foot wide buffer in any situation. Requiring mare than I S feet does in fact to place an unreasonable burden upon the applicant far samething as I� 23 subjective as aa aesthetic impact. It is for this reason likely that the City went against the findings of its arbarist and only required a fifteec� foot buffer instead of a 30 faot buffer. This was an appropriate approach, but did not go far enough since as testified by the applicant's arborist,a fifteen foot would not prnvide for any significant protection I �� beyond a ten foat buffer. Given that a 30 foot buffer would be unreasonable mitigation,the imposition of a ten foot ;buffer has ta be found aeeeptable even though there a smali chance it may not provide for 100% screening as 25 conctuded by the City's asbarist. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT - 10 � I E . _.-._ _ _ __ _ _ - _ � � �i 1 ; will prevent the retaining walls from creating probable significant adverse 2 environmental impacts. 3 . Limiting the landscape perimeters to the areas where the retaining walls are four feet or more in height should also completely obstruct them from the 4 ' view of neighboring property owners. For these reasons, the conditions of 5 approval will require the applicant to revise its landscaping plan to provide for site obscuring perimeter landscaping adjacent to areas where the retaining 6 walls are four or more feet in height, specifically in the perimeter areas close � � to Lots 40,41,46,47, 80, 82, 83-90, 93 and 94. S ' B. TPWAG SEPA lssues. 9 ; 1. Aesthetic Imnact Due to Loss of Trees. The appellants argue there is a �� significant adverse aesthetic impact due to the loss of trees. With the exception of retaining walls (addressed separatety), the proposed development 1� � does not create any probable significant impacts because of aesthetic 12 . incompatibility with the sunounding neighborhood. As discussed above in Finding of Fact S.A.I, the sunounding neighborhoods are not exceptionally 13 wooded or treed and the amount of trees proposed for retention by the 14 = applicant would not be less than surrounding development. As described in ; Finding of Fact S.A.2, the is retaining 30% of the trees. The applicant has had 15 = no obligation to retain all of the trees on its property in the past. Surrounding �6 � property owners have no entitlement to this cunently existing aesthetic � benefit. The loss of trees in excess of those required by Ciry code is not an . 1� : impact created by the development, since those trees could have been 1 g removed at any time prior to development. It is also at best debatable whether the loss of the other 70% creates a significant aesthetic view impact to 19 = neighboring property owners, especially with the buffering that will be 20 required by this decision to obscure retaining walls. 21 2. Potential Presence of Hazardous Materials. No impacts from hazardous materials are anticipated. The appellants demonstrated the subject property 22 had at one time been owned by the Department of Defense. They alleged there 23 might be hazardous materials on site based on this former user. For the past 65 years, for all intents and purposes, the site has been covered by a seemingly 24 healthy forest canopy. The appellants were unable to demonstrate evidence of 25 any overt signs of contamination visible on the site that might justify overturning the substantial weight due the SEPA official's determination that 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT- 11 � _ , .. ...... ....._� . tir+, n"/ I 1 the praject site does not cantain any hazardous waste necessitating further z environmental review. However, nor were the appellants granted access ta perform their own studies. The applicant also neglected to submit a Phase l 3 ' Enviranmental Site Assessrnent it said was prepared for the praposal, even after the appellants made the study an issue during the hearing. The actions of � ¢ : the applicant on the hazardous waste issue create uncertaznty as to wl�ether the 5 ; project site is free frorn hazardous waste, Given that this issue remains � unresolved, a condition af appraval will require the applicant to submit the 6 results of the Phase l ESA to City staff for canfirmation that there are na � � hazardous materials on site. ' i � j 3. Wildlife Habitat and Connectivitv. No probable significant adversc impacts ta 9 � wildlife habitat are anticipated and the SEPA Responsibte Official had sufficient information to adequateIy assess the impacts. The applieant Z d � submitted a Revised Wetland Determittation and Response Letter (Exhibit 5), �� : a Habitat Assessmcnt (Exhibit 6), and twa Habitat Assessment Technical Memorandums �Exhibits 15 and l7). The City required an independent 12 � secondary review af the wetlands report (Exhibit 14). As noted in Conclusion 13 � of Law 3.B below, the SEPA responsible official must make a prima facie showing that he has based his determination upon informatian reasanably �� � sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal (WAC 197-11-335). These l� multiple studies and mernoranda were rnore than adequate to fully assess the wildlife impacts of the proposal as the appellants have not dennonstrated any 16 � additianal inforrnation that could have made any material difference in the 17 official's conclusions. 1 g : No significant adverse irr►pacts are anticipated for wildlife or habitat ; connectivity. With the exception of pileated woodpeckers and Townsend's 1 g � bats, the fish and wildlife habitat assessment fo�cnd no listed or endangered 24 ; species or priarity habitat on site. Though ihe property may function as ; marginal habitat for many common species, it is geagraphically isolated €rom 21 � the Cedar River corridor by the Mercer Istand PipeEine easernent, a residentiat 22 � street, residential tats, a steep slope and the Banneville Pawer Administration's easement, Testimony from aIl sides spoke to the heavy 23 ; human disturbance on the site including recreational walkers, bikers, �4 unleashed dags, and the presence of unpermitted structures and pits including . forts and paint ball hides. The applicant's wildlife expert, Racheal Villa of �5 ' Soundview Consultants testified that the formalizec!pratection of the wetlands �6 i and buffers on site would result in an improvement in habitat canditians for PRELIMINARY PLAT- 12 J � �../ I ' both pileated woodpeckers and Townsend's bats over the present situation due 2 : to the fairly degraded condition of the habitat at present. ; 3 ! 4. Seismic Hazards. The SEPA Responsible Official had adequate information to I assess the seismic hazards and no probable significant adverse impacts are ' 4 ° anticipated in regards to these hazards. As to adequacy of review, the 5 _ applicant provided a geotechnical report by AES (Exhibit 7) that was reviewed, by the request of the applicant, by Earth Solutions, NW (Exhibit 6 . K.2). The AES conclusion in the geotechnical report stated the site, from a � - geotechnical engineering standpoint, is suitable for support of conventional i paving, lightly loaded structures and typical buried utilities, all typical g - improvements in a single family residential subdivision. The AES preliminary 9 : geotechnical report and subsequent peer review by Earth Solutions, NW I provide information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the environmental 10 impacts of the proposal under WAC 197-i l-335. 1� The appellants note the nearest USGS mapped fault zone is 3.9 miles away, 12 though they feel additional testing should occur to determine if there arc unmapped fault zones. The appellants argued there was evidence of ground 13 , movement in the form of bent trees and hummocky land which could indicate 14 several things including seismic shifting or landslide activity caused by a ' shallow groundwater table. The City has mapped the site as a Low Seismic I S � Hazard area and outside of the Coal Mine Hazard areas. The applicant has 16 � provided a geotechnical report by AES that was reviewed at the applicant's � request by Earth Solutions, NW, the firm hired to perform geotechnical work 1� ; for the applicant going forward. Mr. Coglas of Earth Solutions, NW testified i g � there are no seismic hazards on the property (Decision Attachment A, Pa�e 21). Mr. Coglas went on to state with respect to site stability and groundwater, 19 the stability of the predominantly flat to gently sloping property is good. In his 20 opinion and based on geologic mapping and subsurface data for the site and � surrounding area, the site is very similar to the surrounding developed 21 residential area. There is nothing in the record to indicate an increased danger 22 : of seismic hazard beyond that of the surrounding properties. A single-family � residential p(at in this area is in no more probable seismic danger than the 23 surrounding developed properties. The proposal will not create any probable 24 significant adverse environmental impacts in regards to seismic hazards. 25 : 5. Landslide Hazards. The SEPA Responsible Official had adequate information 26 to assess landslide hazards. They appellants argued the soil under the plat has PRELIMINARY PLAT- 13 �rr� �"� 1 structural anomalies that require further study to determine if there are � , landslide or other gealo�ically hazardous conditivns, The appellants point to bent trees and uneven surfaces located on the site may indicate shallow or 3 ' slightly deeper ground movement which rnay be indications of landslide 4 activity in the past or future propensity af siides. They nate they requested access to perform their own stud'zes but were denied. Specificaliy, the 5 appellants have requested expanded soits tests, percolatian tests and more test pits and borings to measure localized hydraulic conductivity. As noted above, �' the applicant has provided a geotcchnical report by AES that was reviewed by I 7 Earth Solutions,NW. Mr. Coglas of Earth Solutions,NW testified ihere are no I landslide hazards an the property {Decision Attachrnent A, Page 24). The $ City's I?evelopment Engineering Manager, Mr. Lee, testified he concurred g with Mr. Coglas' assessment of the la�dsiide hazard risk. Mr. I.ee is a professional engineer with extensive experience in site devetopment and civil 14 �ngineering in Washington. He noted, the steep areas are very small (15-20' I 11 feet long) and do not warrant slope stability analysis. Overall on the project site, the approximate slope is anly 10% or so. There are no sensitive or l2 protected slapes on the subject property. The majority of the subject site has 13 less than 15 percent slopes. There are a few areas with slopes of 1 S percent to 35 percent. These arcas are characterized as Medium Landslide Hazard areas. 14 Mr. Lee stated the City code daes not require additional slape stability 15 analysis for these areas. l6 The appellant also asserted thaE the number and locatian of test pits were 1� insufficient to evaluate slope stability. Mr. Lee testified there were sufficient nurnbers of test pits ta gauge impacts on ground mavernent from groundwater 1$ an site. �Ie would have preferred to see a few mare, especially in the vault lg area. However, as Mr. Coglas testifed, the City may require extra analysis during final engineering as the design is finalized. He stated he does not 20 typically require additional geotechnical analysis at this stage of the process. 2 j Mr. Lee felt the information pravided was adequate to allow for a determination af impact on the site(See Decision Attachment A, Page 24). z� Mr. Lee's objectivity as a staff employee and his engineering expertise are . 23 determinative on the slope stability issue. He clearly reviewed the 24 ' geotechnicai reports in detail and faund no need for ficrEher investigatian or additionat infarmation. The fmdings of the geotechnical anatysis are also 2� compelling an theiT own and the relativeiy modest slopes of the project site do z6 not raise any apparent cause for concern. For these reasons, it is conctuded PRELIMINARY PLAT- I4 `r.+ � 1 . that the SEPA responsible official had reasonably adequate information to 2 � assess the slope stability of the project site. 3 ' 6. Groundwater. The SEPA Responsible Official had reasonably adequate information to assess the groundwater impacts and there are no probable 4 significant adverse groundwater impacts associated with the proposal. The 5 appellants argued there was insufficient study of the groundwater situation on site and the potential affect groundwater might have on development. They 6 note they requested access to perform their own studies but were denied. � Specifically, they appellants have requested expanded soils tests, percolation tests and more test pits and borings to measure localized hydraulic g conductivity. The applicant provided a geotechnical report (Exhibit 7), a peer 9 � review of the geotechnical report (Exhibit K.2), a wetlands report and a revised wetlands report (Exhibit 5), and a drainage report (Exhibit 8). The 10 : wetlands reports were independently reviewed by Otak (Exhibits l4 and 15}. 11 The City's Development Engineer, Mr. Lee stated the applicant had provided a sufficient number of test pits to gauge impacts of potential groundwater on 12 site (Decision Attachment A, page 24). Given the extensive information 13 � provided and the peer review, the applicant has provided information sufficient for the SEPA Responsible Official to issue a threshold 14 determination with res ect to roundwater im acts. P � P 15 There are no anticipated adverse impacts related to the groundwater table. The 16 ' appellants argue groundwater saturation levels at this site make it undevelopable. They point to the AES geotechnical report (Exhibit 7), the 1� = Shultz wetlands report (Exhibit 5), the Technical Information Report by 1 g Barghausen and the Otak wetlands reviews (Exhibits 14 and 15) as all demonstrating the groundwater table is at or within seven inches of the surface 19 � in all wetland areas. Groundwater near the surface is defining feature of 20 wetlands. However, the appellants argue the water table is a flat contour ' throughout the project site and, as a consequence of a high water table, water 21 _ intrusion will disrupt or prevent proper installation of utilities, foundation 22 drains and the stormwater vault. 23 The applicant's geotechnical engineer, Ray Coglas, testified there is perched 24 groundwater on the site, rather than a flat table, a statement Mr. Lee concurred with during testimony (Decision Attachment A, pages 22 and 25, 25 respectively). If the site had a flat water ta.ble close to the ground surface all 26 over the site; the whole site would be underwater because of the varying PRELIMINARY PLAT- 15 _ -, I � � � � I � 1 � topagraphy, which is of course not the case. He stated perched waters trapped � 2 : by impervious soils are limited in area and capacity and will drain away when � ; cuts are made to hilisides. The water AES encauntered was seepage from 3 , perched water rather than the actual graundwater table (Decisian Attachment 4 � A, page 22). Mr. Caglas referred #o the AES test pits and stated they showed I ; no caving ar seepage which would indicate weakness in the soils ar significant I � groundwater at or near the surface autside of wetiand areas. He stated though I � there will be some graundwater seepage, he does not expect the site will j � � require dewatering ar extensive pumping. AE5 found no groundwater in its I � 7 : test pits. Mr. Coglas stated even if the appellants are correct and that � ` groundwater is at zero elevation, it could be managed without damaging the i g E feasibility af the project. Mr. Lee also cancurred�vith this statement. i 9 1VIr. Coglas noted the soils at the subject are not unique to this subjeet. The 1Q ! entire subject is surrounded by existing development at a similar intensity to I ' � 1] i r�� P�'aPa��d development on similar topography and sails. There is na ° indication frorn the record or from the site visit to suggest the utiiities; j t2 � infrastructure ar house foundations in the surrounding neighborhoods have l� ! faiied due to perched groundwater or a high water table. Mr. Caglas noted the � presence of groundwater will nat preclude development if best management 14 : practices are followed. � l$ ` Given Mr. Lee's concurrence in the opinian of Mr. Coglas and the substantial �� � weight required of the findings of the SEPA respansible official, it is determined that the proposal will not create any probable significant advcrse 1� groundwater impacts. 18 7. Dawnstream Imt�acts. The SEPA Responsible Official has information 19 reasanably sufficient to evaluate the downstream impacts of the propasal. The ZO City required a Levei l downstream analysis. The proposed Level 2 Flaw IIControt (Exhibit A, page 31}will restrict the flow of the 2-year release rate to � 21 . 50% af the pre-cievetoped site canditians, which will hetp ta reduce an 2� � existing drainage issue. Mr. Lee stated the City is uncertain of a segment of the pipeline that takes the water downstream of the project site and have � 23 � therefore requested a Level 2 downstream analysis to be performed prior to � �4 : building permit approval. They want to make sure the project will not � � exacerbate existing downstream flooding issues. An NPDES permit will be 25 ! required for the praject, which will stipulate the allowabte discharge inia the 26 � canveyance system (Decision Attachment A, Page 25}. The Ciry additionally II .PRELIMINAItY PLAT- lb � - - - -- - - - -- - p - � � 1 ; established a SEPA miti atin condition re uirin Level 2 downstream g g q � 2 ' analysis for '/. mile from the project site. All of the requirements must be met � before a building permit or construction permits are issued. With these 3 - conditions in place,the City has reasonably sufficient information at this stage 4 : of review to evaluate down stream impacts. 5 8. DischarQe into Wetlands. The proposed discharge of roof run-off into wetlands will not create a probable significant adverse environmental impact. 6 The detailed local, state and federal standards applicable to stormwater run-off � are determinative on the existence of adverse impacts. If the proposed drainage is compliant with applicable regulations, there are no adverse g impacts. The appeliants assert that thc proposed roof run-off into wetlands is 9 in violation of the Clean Water Act. As noted by the applicant, the King ' County Surface Water Drainage Manual specifically excludes drainage from 10 � roofs (except untreated metal roofs) from consideration as pollution 11 generating sources (Exhibit AF). The appellants have not provided any citation or court opinion that roof run off discharge constitutes a violation of 12 an a licable re ulation and no such violation is a arent from the readin , Y PP g PP g 13 , of the Clean Water Act. Mr. Talkington, in his testimony for the applicant, noted that discharge of clean or non-point source polluted stormwater into 14 wetlands is common practice and is required to hydraulically chazge the 15 wetlands. Mr. Lee stated the applicant had complied with all city, state and federal code requirements with respect to stromwater. Mr. Lee testified the 16 � codes are sufficient to address all probable stormwater impacts. He further 1� noted a National Pollution Discharge and Elimination System permit will be ! required for the project, which will ensure that no stormwater pollutants are 1 g released into wetlands or groundwater. The permit will include background 19 and discharge monitoring. No building permit or construction permits will be issued until the NPDF.S conditions are met. Since the proposed stormwater 20 discharge is consistent with all applicable regulations, is a standard practice 21 for development and also meets the approval of staff, it is determined that the proposed dischazge to wetlands will not create any probable significant 22 adverse environmental impacts. 23 � 9. Air ualit . No si nificant adverse im acts to air uali are an i i ted. Q v g p q ty tcpa 24 During the construction phase of the project,there will be exhaust from trucks i and heavy equipment. However, after the construction phase is over, the 25 � subdivision will function similarly to the surrounding development with 26 respect to emissions and air quality issues. The proposed development is �PRELIMINARY PLAT- 17 ... � : � � ` th i `n develo ment attern. Nothin in the 1 functionally the same as e ex stt g p p g record indicates there will be significant adverse impacts with respect to air � I quality. 3 ` C. Other Imtracts Related to the Preliminarv Plat. 4 ; 5 1. Wetlands. As proposed and conditioned, the groposa! will not create any � significant adverse impacts to wetlands. There are five wetlands on site. Three 6 af the wetlands are Categary 2; the athers are Categary IIi. The appiicant submitted a Wetland Determination, prepared by C. Crary Schuiz, Inc. 7 (October 3Q, 2013} and a revised Wetland Determination in response ta I 8 � revisions to the plat including the use of a drainage vauit, instead of a drainage I � ( detention pand, and the inclusion of a vegetated buffer along portions of the I ! site perimeter(February 28,2014). I 10 � � �l ' Based an public camments {See Exhibit 1 Q.6), staff required an evatuation by I ( an independent qualified prafessional regarding the appticant's wetland �2 � analysis and the effectiveness of any propased mitigating measures. On April � 3, 2014 an independent secandary wetland review was provided ta the City by I �� � Otak (Exhibit A, Attachrnent 14}. Following the completion of j 14 : recommendatians in the Otak mema, the applicant submitted a Revised I Wetland Determination and Response (June 3, 2014) (Exhibit A, Attachment I ]5 5� j 16 ° ° At the hearing, members of the public expressed concern regarding the 17 � I protection of wetlands and wildlife habitat. There was specific concern , 1 g - regarding remavat of trees and wetland hydrology. During testimany, Ms. Viita of Soundview Consultants stated she was hired by the applicant to 14 perform supplementary wettand review.for fish and wildlife habitat. In her j 20 study, she found no state ar federally listed or pratected species on the site. j I� She nated the habitat is fairly disturbed naw with evidence of a lat af human I � �� ' intrusion. In her opinion, protection of the wetlands and habitats with proper I 2� I fencing and signage would result in better pratection for the habitat than exists � � currently. 23 ' � 2,� The C?tak Supplemental Independent Secondary�Review conctuded water ' quality, wetland hydrologic functian and fload starage wiil be protected. The 25 � a iicant ra ses buffer avera in ravisions RMC 4-3-050 M 6 . The • PP P PQ g g P t t )� )��) � 26 = buffer averaging ptan provides additional buffer area at ratias that range fram � �PRELIMINARY PLAT- 18 � I - - - - - - -- �.r� '� 1 A 1.6:1.0 to 9.5:1.0. Wetlands A, B, C, and D would have buffer areas 2 ' significantly greater following the buffer averaging proposal. However, staff ' are concerned the proposed adjustments will not provide adequate buffering 3 ` on the north and east sides of Wetlands B and C to take into account the 4r proposed "lock & load walls" in those locations. The applicant will be required to submit a Final Mitigation Plan (RMC 4-8-120(W)) demonstrating 5 ' appropriate mitigation for all wetlands and buffer impacts prior to permit ! approval. 6 � 7 The applicant has requested a critical areas exemption allowing a permanent g buffer impact to 14sf of the Wetland E buffer. The exemption would allow the applicant to construct the required full street improvements at SE 18`" Street 9 (RMC 4-6-060). This area (219sfl has already been impacted by past infrastructure construction. Staff recommends approval of the critical areas 10 : exemption with mitigation for the impact. 11 ; � The critical areas on site have a total area of l 18,494 square feet (2.72 acres) 12 � and would be located in(Tracts B, G, K, & M). The applicant is proposing to � increase wetland buffers which would result in a total native open space used 13 � ` to preserve native forest habitat of approximately 175,199 square feet (4.02 14 acres). As conditioned,no impacts to wetland habitat are anticipated. 15 Given the extensive review of wetland impacts, staf�s review and approval of 16 ' wetland mitigation, and the applicant's compliance with all applicable wetland - regulations, it is concluded that the proposal will ttot create any adverse 17 impacts to wetlands. 1 g 2. Tree Retention Required. The proposal provides for adequate tree retention 19 - because it complies with the City's tree retention standards, RMC 4-4-130(C). The applicant submitted two versions of the preliminary plat application. The 20 � first version is a 97 lot alternative that does not achieve 30% significant tree 21 retention. The second plat alternative is a 96-lot preliminary plat that achieves , 30% significant tree retention and implements the applicant's Tree Protection 22 ' Report(Exhibit 3). Since the 96-lot alternative implements the applicant's tree 23 . retention plan and is consistent with the agreed upon SEPA mitigation measure requiring 30% retention, this is taken as the applicant's proposal and 24 is the design approved by this decision. If the applicant was stilI intending to 25 pursue a 97-lot design, it should request reconsideration. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT- 19 ....._..__..� � � 1 'No other significant impacts are reasonably anticipated from the evidence contained within the � administrative record. � 6. Ad�uacy_of Infrastructure/Public Serv_ices. The project wil] be served by adequate infrastructure and public services. Preliminary adequacy of alt infrastructure facilities has been 4 reviewed by the City's Pubiic Warks Department and found to be sufficient. Specific 5 �infrastnactureJservices are addressed as follows: � b � A. Water and Sewer Service. This site is tocated in the City of Renton water service � baundary. There is an existing $-inch water main stubbed to the site in SE 20th Court, in 7 ' SE 19�' Court and SE 18`h Court. This site is located in the 590-water pressure zane. g Static pressure in the area ranges from 65-82 psi.The site is located in the City af Renton � sewer service area. There is an$-inch sewer main in SE 1�`�' Street. 1 a - g. police and Fire Protection. Poiice and Fire Prevention staffs indicate that sufficient �� ; resaurces exist to furnish services ta the proposed develapment; subject to the pravision � af Code required improvements and fees. A Fire Impact Fee, based on new single fannily 3� ' lots, will be required in order ta rnitigate the proposal's potential impacts to City 13 � emergency services. The fee is payable ta the City as specified by the Renton Municipal � Code. Currently the fee is assessed at $479.28 per single family residence. This fee is 14 ; paid at time of building permit issuance. 15 C. Draina�e. As conditioned,the proposal pravides for adequate drainage facilities. In arder l� to address concerns raised by staff, as recommended by them a conditian af appraval 17 i requires a Levei 2 dawnstream analysis far '14 rnile from the project site to determine if � the proposed project would exacerbate existing downstream capacity issues. The I$ ' applicant submitted a Preliminary Drainage Report prepared by Barghausen, dated i February 24, 2014 (Exhibit $). Staff has determined that the preliminary plan is lg � consistent with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of Renton 20 Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. Full connpliance with the Manual will � 2� � be required during engineering review. 22 � I}. Parks/Ot�en Space. The proposal is consistent with adopted parks and open space : standards and, therefore, provides for adequate parks and open space. RMC 4-2-1I5, ' 23 � which ovetns o n s ace rc uirements for residential development, does not have any g Pe P q 24 ' specific requirements for open space far residential deveiopment in the R-8 district. 25 j However, the appiicant is proposing a totai of 1.26 acres of passive artd active open . space, in addition to critical areas on site, for the open space needs of the subdivisian. I 26 ° PItELIMINARY PLAT-20 � - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - -- - - - � �' 1 � The applicant will also be require to pay park impact fees prior to building permit issuace 2 to ensure that the development pays its fair share of system wide park improvements. 3 E. Streets. The proposal, as conditioned, provides for adequate streets and associated 4 infrastructure. The applicant is proposing two points of ingress and egress into the plat; SE 18th St and 124th Place SE. The primary neighborhood streets which would serve 5 project traffic include 116`h Avenue SE, 126`h Avenue SE, SE 168'h Street, SE Petrovitsky 6 Road, S. Puget Drive, and 108`h Avenue SE-Benson Road S. The pro}ect site is currently served by King County Metro Route 148 with Routes 102 and 155 also operating within 7 the vicinity of the subject site. The nearest transit stop for Route 148 is located on Lake g , Youngs Drive SE and 123`d Avenue SE. 9 ' Staff received comments from interested parties with respect to traffic specifically related �0 ; to the need for additional analysis, trip generation, lack of public transit, level of service, sight distance, the Edmonds Avenue SE/SE 16`h Street-Edmonds Way SE intersection, ll : the use of speed bumps for traffic calming, stop signs, and traffic impact fees (See Exhibit 10). 12 13 ' The applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by TranspoGroup, : (November, 2013) as part of the original submittal. Based on public comments received, 14 staff required an evaluation by an independent qualified professional regarding the 15 appticant's transportation analysis and the effectiveness of any proposed mitigating � measures. The TIA concludes that all affected intersections will continue to operate at an 16 ' acceptable level of service, except the intersection of Benson Drive S/S Puget Drive, �� ` which will fall to LOS E by 2018 with or without the proposed project. The addition of AM peak hour project traffic would add approximately five seconds of average delay to 1 g this intersection. Staff concluded that this minor amount of delay did not justify 1 g N additional mitigation and the reduction in LOS will not violate the City's adopted level of service. The applicant wil] be required to pay traffic impact fees prior to issuance of 20 building permits, which provides adequate mitigation against the modest traffic impacts � 2� created by the proposal. 22 The TIA noted limited sight distance exists today for southbound motorists on Monroe 23 Avenue SE approaching SE 18`h Street due to the roadway geometrics and existing obstructions (fence and on-street vehicle parking). The site distance issue was remedied 24 - by an MDNS condition that requires the applicant to install a stop sign. 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT-21 � � 1 � Included in the Independent Secondary Review (E�ibit 13) was a recommendation for 2 sight distance analysis at the 124`� Place SE and SE 158'h Street intersection. The report ! identifies this intersection as a possible sight distance cancern, Given the provided TIA i 3 does not include an analysis of the sight distance at this intersection, a SEPA mitigatian 4 ; measure was issued requiring the applicant subrnit a revised TIA including an anaiysis of � �` S E an d S E 1 5 8�' S t re et intersection si ht distance and recommend the 124 Place g 5 ; appropriate mitigation if needed (Exhibit 22}. Site distainces at all other study 6 � intersections were deemed adequate with the exception of Beacon Way SE at 5E 1 6 cn Street. � 7 � The vertical curve af SE 16`" Street presents a visibility cancern. A crest vertical curve g obstructs sight distance where SE 16`h Street crosses Beacon Way SE especialty if car g speeds exceed posted speed lirnit signage. There are existing signs {Steep Hill, Slippery When Wet, Advisory lSMPH Speed) at SE 16`h Street nartheast of Beacan Way SE �Q 's in traffic at this intersection. A roximatel 60% af the wh'rch help ta catm e� t g PP Y � 11 praject's trips are anticipated ta utilize this intersectian. Therefore, the ERC issued a , SEPA mitigation measure requiring the applicant to install an additional warnin� sign for 12 a CROSSROAD (W2-1 symbol) w%th a 15MPH advisory speed on the southwest 13 � directional approach to Beacon Way SE, along the north side of SE 16`h Street (east of � Beacon Way SE)(Exhibit 22). The ERC issued another SEPA mitigatian conditian at this 14 intersectian ta reduce cut thru traffic. The applicant is required to install directional 1� infarmation signage {white letters on green background) at S. Puget Drive and 1]b`�' Avenue SE facing west{Exhibit 22}. The signs are required ta read "TIFFANY PARK" ��' with a left arrow and"CASCADE"with a right arrow. 17 • Several public comments requested the use of speed bumps as a traffic calming measure 1$ along SE 16`h Street to address sight distance (including vertical), cut through traffic, a.nd 14 spin out cancerns which would be aggravated by traffic generated by the gropasal. The City does not support tne use of speed bumps an public streets. Speed bumps are not 20 desired due ta noise, excessive speeds between installations {sa drivers can make up � 2� time), and result in a reduction in response time of public safety vehicles such as fire � engines and aid cars. ( 22 � I Several public comments requested internal pedestrian connectivity, connectians to I Z3 : � neighboring deveiopmentsJabutting pipelines, connectivity to Tiffany Park Elementary, � 2� and the crossing at 5E 16th St and Edmonds Way SE intersection (See Exhibit 10.22). No 2� � frantage improvements are required on adjacent street frontage, The internal public streets have been propt>sed with a right-af-way width af 53 feet which meets the City's 26 : j PRELIMINARY PLAT -22 l � � 1 complete street requirements for residential access streets. Pavement width of 26 feet, 0.5 2 foot wide curbs, 8 foot wide landscaped planters(on both sides of the street), 5 foot wide sidewalks (on both sides of the street), drainage improvements, and street lighting aze 3 required. T'he applicant is proposing two pedestrian connections to neighboring 4 developments and an abutting pipeline via Tracts C and E. ' S City staff evaluated the intersection of Edmonds Avenue SE/SE 16`h Street-Edmonds 6 Way SE with respect to pedestrian improvements in 1996, 2005 and again in 2007 and determined that crosswalks were not warranted at this location. The additional 7 ; development traffic will not exceed the threshold to warrant installation of a crosswalk at this location. 8 . 9 ` As noted in staff testimony above, the proposal will not exceed six dwelling units per � acre and therefore is not required to provide alley access. 10 ' 11 Several public comments dealt with construction traffic (See Exhibit 10.30). The + developer will be required to comply with the Renton Municipal Code for haul hours, 12 � construction hours, and noise levels. A final Traffic Control Plan complying with the , 13 = Renton Municipal Code will be required to be submitted and approved prior to - construction. 14 _ 15 _ F. Parkin�. Sufficient azea exists, on each lot, to accommodate required off street parking ' for a minimum of two vehicles per dwelling unit as required by City code. 16 : 17 = G. Schools. The Renton School District anticipates it can accommodate any additional students generated by this proposal at the following schools: Tiffany Park Elementary 1 g (0.4 miles from the subject site), Nelson Middle School (1.7 miles from the subject site) 19 ; and Lindberg High School (0.9 miles from the subject site). RCW 58.17.110(2)provides that no subdivision be approved without making a written finding of adequate provisions 20 � for safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from school and/or bus stops. 21 � Tiffany Park Elementary and Lindberg High School are within walking distance of the subject site while Nelson Middle School would require future students to be transported 22 ' to school via bus. 23 As part of the proposed project, sidewalks would be constructed along on-site roadways 24 . which would connect to the existing sidewalk system providing adequate provisions for 25 i safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from school and/or bus stops. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT-23 - - —.— —. —. —.—. —--- ........_......----� ' � '+n+�` 1 � Sidewalks wauld provide a route between the project site azid nearby Tiffany Park 2 ; Elementary Schoal, including available marked crosswalks at the Kirkland Avenue SE1Lake Yflungs Way inters�ction. The Kirkland Avenue SElLake Yaungs Way 3 ' intersection is appraximately.300 linear feet from where SE t 8th St intersects Lake 4 ; Youngs Way. Given the number of homes proposed, it is very Iikely that a large influx of students wautd attempt to cross La.ke Youngs Way SE, at the SE 18`h Street intersection, 5 which does nat currentiy have a marked crasswalk. In order to provide a more practical � : safe route to Tiffany Pazk Elementary from the project site, a SEPA mitigation rneasure was issued requiring the applicant provide a marked crosswalk at the intersection of SE 7 I 18th Street and Lake Youngs Way. g � No current bus stops exist for this property as it is currentty undeveloped. The Renton ; 9 . School District will be making provisions far the tocatian of bus stops far thase students who will be attending Netson Middie School. 1Q X t A Schoai Impact Fee, based on new single-farni[y lots, will alsa be required in order to mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to Renton School District. The fee is payable to I2 the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code at the time af building permit 13 � application. Currcntly the fee is assessed at $5,455.Q0 ger single farnily residence and would increase to$5,541.04 on January l,2Q15. 14 ; ; �� � V. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 16 ; 17 ; ]. Autharitv. RMC 4•7-020(C) and 4-�-050(D)(5) provide that the Hearing Examiner shall i$ .hold a hearing and issue a final decision on preliminary plat applications_ RMC 4-9-47Q(R) and �RMC 4-8-110(A)(2) grant the Examiner authority ta review and make finat decisions on SEPA l9 �appeals. "�� �2. Zonin�lCornt�rehensive Plan Desi�nations. The majority of the subject property is zoned 2I 'Resident'ral 8 dwelling �nits per net acre (R-8}. A small portion of the subject property is zaned R.esidential4 dwelling units per net acre (R-4). 4nly the R-8 partian of the property is proposed for 22 residential development. The camprehensive plan map iand use designatian is Residential Single 23 Family(RSF}and Residential Low Density (RLD}. za SEPA APPEAL 25 ' 26 ' PRELIMINARY PL.AT -24 .. � -- -- — — — - - - - - - - - - - - . ., � ' y . . � 1 �3. I�eview Standard. There are two reasons a DNS can be overturned to averturned: (1}there are 2 � unmitigated probable significant adverse environmental impacts; or(2)the SEPA responsible official i has nat undertaken an adequate review af environmental factors. Each grounds for reversal will be 3 'separately addressed below. 4 ;A. Prabable Si�nificant Adverse Environmental Imnacts. 5 �The prirnary relevant inquiry fvr purposes of assessing whether County staff carrectly issued a DNS 6 ` is whether the project as prapased has a probable significant environmental impact. See WAC 147- � 1 l-330(1){b}. WAC 19'1-11-7$2 defines"probable"as follows. � `Probable'rrzeans likely or reasonably likely to occur, as in `a reasonable probability af more than a moderate effect on the guality of the environ»zent`(.see W�IC' 197-11-79�}. Prabable is � ' used ta distinguish Iikely impacts from ihose that merely have a possibitity af occurring, but 10 : are remote or specutative. This is not meant as a strict statistical probability test. 1 I ,If such impacts are created, conditions wili have ta be added to the DNS to reduce impacts so there �z �are no probable signi�cant adverse environmental impaets. in the alternative, an environnnental impact statement would be required for the project. In assessing the validity af a threshold 13 �determinatian, the deterrnination made by the City's SEPA responsible afficial shall be entitled to =substantial weight. WAC 197-11-680(3)(a)(viii). An appeal of an MDNS is judicially reviewed 14 ;under the clearly enroneous staridards. Under the clearly erroneous standard, the decision of the �� �SEPA respansibte official can only be overturried if, after reviewing the entue record, the decision maker is left with the definite and firm conviction that a'mistake has been made. RMC 4-$-114- l� `(E)(12}(b}�v}. The pracedural determination by the Environmental Review Committee or City staff . I� shall cazry substantiat weight in any appeal proceeding. RMC 4-8-110(E}(12}(a}. 1$ B. Adec�uate Environrnental Review I� �� The second reason a DNS can be averturned is if the SEPA responsible afficial did not adequately �, 20 review environmental impacts in reaching his threshoid detetmination. The SEPA respansible official i must make a prima facie showing that he has based his determination upon information reasonably 21 sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposai. WAC 197-11-335. 22 � C. No Grounds for an EIS. z� : -TPWAG has not demonstrated a need for additional SEPA mitigation, environmental review or the �� issuance of an environmental impact staternent. Al( of the grounds for SEPA appeal are addressed in �S � Finding of Fact No. 5. As determined in that finding, none of the impacts identified by TPWAG qualify as probable significant adverse environmental impacts and TPWAG has not identified an 26 , .PRELIMINARY PLAT-25 , - — -- - - - - - - - - -::._: : � t � � ��,, �•s' 1 i impact for which the SEPA responsible official did not have sufficient information to reasonably 2 ;assess irnpacts. � �D. Perimeter Landscaping. 4 MDNS Conditian No. 6 is rnodified to only require l0 foot perirneter landscaping along the retaining S walls that are aver four feet in height, specifically in proximity to lats 40, 41, 46, 4?, $Q, 82, 83-90, 93 and 94. 6 The applicant argues that no perimeter buffering is required because the City's landscaping standards 7 �do not require buffering and that those standards should be determinative in assessing the need for g landscaping. The applicant is conect up to a point. RCW 3b.70B.030(3} and RCVV 43.2IC.240(2)(a} does allow a city to use its development standards as the exclusive source of mitigation for � environmentat impacts. However, RCW 43.21C.240(2)(a) provides that in arder to use development 1Q regulations in this manner the City must make a determination in the course of permit review that the development standards in question are adequately addressed by the development regulations. RCW 11 43.21 C.240(4) further clarifies that for development standards to be found to adequately mitigate I2 ' imgacts, impasition of the standards must either avoid or mitigate the impacts; or the legislative body 'of the city has deiern�ined that the development standard sets acceptabte levels of impact. 13 � = Renton's landscaping standards do not adequately address all of the aesthetic impacts created by the �4 �propasal. t�s noted previausly, one af the two ways that a development standard can be found ta l� adeqaatety address impacts is if the City Council intended the standard to set acceptable levets of impact. See RCW 43.21 C.240(4}(b).The Renton City Council expressly determined that the 1� � iandscaping standard would not set acceptable levels of aesthetic impact, stating the purpose clause of 1� C the landscaping standards that"it is not the rntent of these re�;ulations that rigid and znflexible design 'standc�rds be imposed, but rather that minimt�m stundards be set." I8 � �� �The ather, more difficult issue involved in ascertaining whether the landscaping standards would adequately address aesthetic impacts is if the standards actually mitigate the irnpacts. Given the 2� : subjectivity of aesthetic perirneter impacts, one would have to conclude that in the vast majority of 21 � typical subdivisians the landscaping standards do set an adequate standard. In nat irnpvsing any �perimeter landscapin� requirements between single family residential uses, the City Council must 22 �have determir�ed that far the typical subdiviszon, such landscaping is nat necessary. However, the � � proposed subdivision is not typicaL As determined ia Finding of Fact No. b,the proposal will involve 23 = 'up to 16.b foot high retaining walls that will create a stone wati to the neighborhoods across from it, I 24 :which in turn can be topped with 6 foot fences. The site visit revealed that no other homes in the 2� �vicinity have such retaining walis or similar edifices bordering on public roads. Cansequently, the �mpacts of the subdivision aze not typical and likely not the type of impact the City Council 26 cansidered when it omitted any buffer requirernents far adjoining residentia] uses. Additianal � � � �PRELIMiNARY PLAT -26 —. �.r V 1 ;mitigation through SEPA is well justified in this case to mitigate against the impact of retaining 2 walls. 3 The City's environmental report also cites that buffering is necessary to off-set the impacts of the densities of the proposal, which are higher than adjoining densities. This does not serve as an 4 ° adequate justification for buffering. Setting a threshold for adverse aesthetic impacts based upon a 5 �difference in density or lot sizes is a completely arbitrary action in the absence of any legislative i guidance. The difference in density between the proposal and adjoiriing uses is not so high that 6 : reasonable minds would share the same opinion as to whether the difference is aesthetically adverse. � Though both the sunounding areas and the subject are zoned R-8, the developed density of the proposal will not exceed 5.7 dwelling units per acre. Indeed, unlike the retaining walls of the project, g differences in residential densities are something that one would reasonabl antici ate the Council Y P 9 °would have considered in adopting its landscaping standards, and it adopted no perimeter requirements between residential zoning districts with different densities, except as between multi- 10 family and less intense residential uses. For these reasons, the comparatively higher density of the 11 proposal does not create a probable significant adverse environmental impact. 12 Another issue with respect to the SEPA's mitigation measure is to ensure that the City has adopted a ' SEPA policy that requires the impact to be addressed. RCW 43.21C.060 requires that SEPA 13 mitigation must be based upon policies adopted by the local government authority. Interestingly, the 14 City hasn't adopted its development standards as part of its SEPA policies, so the purpose clause of ;the landscaping regulations, which promote aesthetic compatibility, can't be used. There are plenty of 15 other SEPA olicies that romote aesthetic com atibili RMC 4-2-070 M 2 ii rovide that one of P P P �'• � )� )���)P 16 i the goals of SEPA review is to assure aesthetically pleasing surroundings. T'he City's comprehensive plan is another adopted SEPA policy. One of its community design goals is to "raise the aesthetic 1� :quality of the city". Objective CD-M recognizes that well designed landscaping provides aesthetic 1 g appeal and makes an important contribution to the health, safety, economy and general welfaze of the community. Policy CD-88 provides that street trees and landscaping should be required for new 19 _ development to provide an attractive streetscape in areas subjected to a transition of land uses. All of 20 these policies are served by the perimeter landscaping required by this decision, since such landscaping will raise the aesthetic quality of the city, provide for aesthetic appeal and buffer against 21 .the transition from the higher density residential development and its associated retaining walls to the 22 lower surrounding residential densities. 23 The applicants argue in their briefing that requiring perimeter landscaping would be unreasonable 24 because homes would lose yard space. In the alternative, of course, the applicant may have to lose some lots. Given the judicial construction of"reasonable" in due process and takings cases, the loss 25 � of a few lots or yard space would not be considered unreasonable. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT-27 V � � I 1 ! As a final matter, SEPA mitigation can only be used to impose mitigation against probable significant 2 :adverse environmental impacts. As determined in the Finding of Fact No. 5, the solid walls created ' i by the higher portions of the retaining wall easily qualify. No reasonable minds could differ on the 3 'opinion that high retaining walls are at odds with the general design of the community and create a 4 ;mass of rock or concrete wall that is aesthetically adverse. The remaining issue is how high the wall 'should be to be considered adverse. Again, reference to existing codes is useful as it provides an 5 ,objective and consistent standazd for application. Retaining walls fewer than four feet in height do 6 � not require building permit review. Consequently, it can be reasonably anticipated that decorative retaining walls under four feet may not be that uncommon, whereas property owners will only go 7 ;through the time and expense of building permit review for higher walls when they are necessitated �I g ; for stability as opposed to decorative purposes. A four feet height is also still low enough to retain the ' 'views of surrounding trees, vistas and other natural and landscaped features. For this reason, those 9 portions of the proposal with retaining walls that exceed four feet in height shall be subject to the 15 10 � foot wide perimeter landscaping requirement imposed in the MDNS. 11 i E. Retainin� Wall Hei�ht. 12 �The six-foot retaining wall height limitation recommended by staff will not be adopted. Renton does not have any standards imposing height limits on retaining walls outside of setback areas. There is 13 nothing in the record that establishes the potential for any adverse impacts other than aesthetic, and 14 those impacts will be adequately addressed by the staff s recommended landscape perimeter. I 15 . The retaining wall condition presents two code interpretation issues: (1) whether the City's fence and 16 I hedge regulation (RMC 10-4-040) applies to retaining walls, and (2) if RMC 10-4-040 does apply, ' ; whether it imposes a six foot height limit on retaining walls. As to the first issue, RMC 10-4-040 1� �probably does apply to retaining walls. RMC 4-4-040(A) provides that the purpose of RMC 4-4-050 1 g •- is to regulate the material and height of"fences and hedges." "Fence" is not defined in the RMC. 19 I' However, walls are addressed throughout RMC 4-4-040. Most pertinent, RMC 4-4-040(C)(1) provides in relevant part that, "In cases where a wall is used instead of a fence, height shall be I 20 �measured from the top surface of the wall to the ground on the high side of the wall." This sentence I ; strongly suggests that the wall in question can include retaining walls, since the sentence �I 21 :acknowledges that one side of the wall can be at a higher grade than the other. Retaining walls that I 22 I project above the higher grade would meet this definition. The applicant argues that this reference to '"wall" as well as others pertains to "European or California-style stone walls." Nothing in the 23 = language of RMC 4-4-040 suggests that walls be limited to stone walls. 24 In addition to providing some clarity on the applicability of RMC 4-4-040 to retaining walls, RMC 4- 25 '4-040(C)(1) also establishes that retaining walls that do not project past the higher grade have a height of zero feet, which is below all the height limits set for walls by RMC 4-4-040. The sentence 26 : PRELIMINARY PLAT- 28 � � 1 clearly states that retaining wall height is to be measured from the "high side of the wall", which 2 would be zero in the case of the retaining walls proposed by the applicant. This result makes sense in light of the other limitation of RMC 4-4-040, that it applies only "in cases where walls are used 3 instead of a fence." If a retaining wall does not extend above the higher grade, it doesn't take the 4 place of a fence and hence is not subject to the height limit. In short, retaining walls that only serve to retain soil, as proposed by the applicant, are not subject to the height limits of RMC 4-4-040. 5 Practically speaking, this means that RMC 4-4-040 doesn't apply to retaining walls solely used to 6 ;stabilize grade separations, since no other provisions in RMC 4-4-040 apply as well. Since the six foot hei ht limit is not re uired RMC 4-4-040 staff woul h , � g q , d ave to find some other code �provision to require the fence. Plat criteria requiring conformance to the comprehensive plan, see g RMC 4-7-080(I}(1), include the policies addressing aesthetic impacts identified in COL No. S.A.1. 9 :As determined in Finding of Fact No.6.C, the aesthetic impacts of the retaining walls can be fully m i t i g a t e d b y p e ri m e t e r l a n d s c a p i n g. S t a ff a c k n o w l e d g e d as m u c h a t p a g e 1 3 o f t h e s t a f�' r e p o r t. 10 Therefore, the record contains no adequate justification for a limitation on retaining wall height. 11 ;F. Loss of Recreational Use. 12 � :The appellants assert that the project site has been used as a recreational resource by the surrounding 13 :community for decades and that its loss is a probable significant adverse environmental impact. The 14 loss of recreational use from the property is not an environmental impact of the proposal subject to SEPA review and mitigation. Even if it were, that loss does not result in any violation of the City's 15 detailed park policies and regulations, compliance of which assures that development will not create 16 demand upon pazk facilities that exceeds legislatively adopted level of service standards. 17 As a preliminary matter, it should be noted that this decision does not address the prescriptive rights claims made b the a eilant t y pp s o the project site. As ruled in Ex. AG, the Examiner has no authori ty 1 g to address the prescriptive easement claims asserted by the SEPA appellants. Practically speaking, 19 � this decision will not prejudice the appellants' prescriptive rights claims if the appellants diligently pursue those claims in superior court, the proper forum for such a claim. Should the appetlants 20 actually succeed in persuading a court that the public has prescriptive rights to the public school 21 property (which appears unlikely at this juncture), they could acquire injunctive or other judicial relief to prevent development of the proposal. 22 � _ 23 : No additional SEPA review or mitigation is merited on the recreational use issue because the loss of I that use cannot be considered an impact of the proposal. In the absence of any prescriptive rights to 24 the project site, project opponents are left with the argument that the applicant should fund further 25 ,environmental review or provide for additional mitigation to compensate for the fact that either (1) the applicant was benevolent enough to allow the public to use its property; or (2) the public 26 , repeatedly trespassed on the applicant's property. From an equitable standpoint, such a position PRELIMINARY PLAT-29 . , i I Y �r �� I � II � 1 barders on the absurd. More importantly, the applicant could prevent the public from using its I 2 property at any titne,with or without the propasal. For this reasan,the loss of recreational use should � ;not be considered an impact of the proposal for purposes of environmental review. 3 . ; Even if loss of the recreational use of the site could be legitimately considered an environmental `� �impact for purposes of SEPA, its tass would not c}ualify as a probable significant adverse � j environrnental irngact. The City's camprehensive plan,park impact fees and open space requirements �are all designed to assure that each develaper is required to provide its propartionate share ' � :contribution to the park needs of the city and that the park needs of the public will be met as � 7 �development pragresses. The applicant°s proposal is consistent and cornpliant with all of these I �requirements. In point of fact the applicant will be required to pay park impact fees at the tirne of I g �building permit issuance. The applicant is alsa providing for l.2 acres of open space,even though no � ;open space is required for subdivisivns in the R-8 zone. As would be expected, none of the City's jgark policies or regulations penalizes a developer for withdrawing the ability of t he pu b lic ta use or 10 ��.��p�� up�� its praperty. Since the applicant is aeting futly within the requirements of the City's I 1 i �detailed park policies and regulations, its praposal canrsot be considered to create adverse impacts to �the City's(i.e.public's}parks and recreatianal system. l2 � 13 " PR.ELIM[NARY PLAT 14 i {,. Review Criteria. Chapter 4-7 RMC governs the criteria for preliminary review. Applicablc � 1� standards are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. 16 RMC 4-?-08Q(B). A subdivision shal!be consistent with the following�rineiples of'acceptability: 1� ( 1. Legc�l Lots.� C'reate legal buiCding sites which comply with all provisrons of the City Zaning Code. , � 1$ � �2. Access: Establish access to a public raad for each segregated parcel. � � 19 � � 3. Physical Characterzstics: Have suitahle physicul characteristics. A proposed plat may be denied I 2a ; because of Jlaod, inundation, ar wetland conditions. Construction of pratective improuements may �� ;be required as a condition of upprvval, and such irtzprc�vements shall be noted on the frnal plat. I, i 22 ( �. Druinage: Make adequate prUvision fQr drainage ways, streets, alleys, vther public ways, water 23 �supplies and sanitary}wastes. I, , 24 � RMC 4-4-084(I)(7}: 25 �a. &ene�ts of: Joint use driveways reduce the num6er of curb cuts alvn�; individual streets and thereby improve safety and recluce congesti�n while praviding for udditional on-srreet parking I 26 = I PRELIMINAIZY PI.AT- 30 � v r..� 1 opportunities. Joint use driveways should be encottraged when feasible and appropriate. (Ord. -�517, 2 5-8-1995) 3 ;b. Where Permitted.�Adjoining commercial or industrial zrses may utilize a joint use drivex�ay where such joint use driveway reduces the total number of driveways entering the street network, subject to 4 �!he approval of 1he Department of Communiry and Economic Development. Joint use driveways 5 must he created uporr the common properry line of the properties served or through the granting of a :nermanent access easement when said driveway does not exist upon a common property line. Joint 6 � use access to the driveway shall be assured 6y easement or other legal form acceptable to the City. 7 , 7. As to compliance with the Zoning Code, Finding I(2) of the staff report in the portions 8 related to density, lot dimensions, setbacks and building standards (Pages 12-13) are adopted by 9 :reference as if set forth in full, with all associated recommended conditions of approval adopted by this decision as well. 10 � As depicted in the plat map, Staff Report Ex. 2, most of the lots will directly access a public Road 11 (Road A, SE 18th Street or 124th Place SE). As noted in Finding of Fact 6.G, shared driveways are 12 proposed for Lots 12-14, Lots 15-17, Lots 38-40 and Lots 79-81. Staff additionally suggests Lot 11 and Lots 78 take access from the shared driveway. There are no topographical or critical areas issues 13 to preclude these three lots from having shared access. The shared access would reduce the number 14 of curb cuts at the entrance of the plat at 124th Place SE and along the cul de sac at the end of the �same street.Potential vehiele and pedestrian conflicts would be lessened by consolidating driveways. ' 15 However, the applicant testified use of the shared driveway for Lot 11 is problematic because the 16 ; driveway would be at an angle to the roadway which would also change the design of the house to allow side loading of the garage. The applicant objected to the inclusion of Lot 78 in a shared 1� driveway. There appear to be no material differences between Lots 78 and 81 in terms of orientation ' or width. As these lots are very near to the subdivision entrance, limiting potential vehicle and 18 - -pedestrian conflicts is desirable. Though a change to the design of the house on Lot 11 is not an 19 unreasonable accommodation to atlo�v for vehicular and pedestrian safety at the cul de sac, the 20 driveway for Lot 11 would be at an undesirable angle to the shared driveway. The cul de sac serves a limited number of houses. In this instance,the safety effect of removing one driveway access to a cul 21 de sac does not outweigh the impact to Lot 11 caused by the creation of off kilter driveway. The 22 � approval will be conditioned to require the inclusion of Lots 12-14, Lots 15-17, Lots 38-40 and Lots 78-81 in shared driveways. 23 . ; As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5 and 6, the project is adequately designed to prevent any 24 � impacts to critical azeas and will not cause flooding problems. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 25 : 6,the proposal provides for adequate public facilities. 26 : PRELIMINARY PLAT-31 ; . I `/ �.r� 1 'RMC 4-7-080(I)(1): ...The Hearing Examiner shull assure conformance with the general purposes 2 ;of the Camprehensive Plan and adopted standards... � 3 � 8. The proposed preliminary play is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan as outlincd �in Finding I(1)of the staffreport, which is incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. 4 5 RMC 4-7-120(A): No plan for the replat[ing, subdivision, or dedication uf any areas shull be approved by the Hearing Examiner unless the streets shown therein are connected by surfaced road 6 or street(according to Ciry specifications) to an existing street or highway. � ° 9. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 2,the internal road system connects to SE 18`h Street and 124'n g i Place SE, both public roads. 9 RMC 4-7-120(B): The location of all streets shrzl!conform to any adopted pluns for streets in the lo c�ry- 1� 10. The City's adopted street plans are not addressed in the staff report or anywhere else in the , administrative record. However, the proposed internal road system extends two existing stub roads, ' ]2 th th SE 18 Street and 124 Place SE. Both extensions will be constructed to City road standards. 13 Consequently,the criterion above is construed as satisfied by the proposal. 14 � RMC 4-7-120(C): If a subdivision is located in the area of an officially desi�;ned�sicJ trail, provisions shall be made for reservation of the right-of-way or for easemenls to the City for trai! 15 ;purposes. 16 : 11. According to the Renton Trails and Bikeways Map (Exhibit 20) a pedestrian trail is 1� i designated within the Seattle Pipeline abutting the site. The applicant would be required to obtain 18 �right-of-way or an access easement across the pipeline for secondary access via 124th Place SE (see ; Finding 35.6, Streets). In addition, the applicant would be required to provide a safe crossing for the 19 :designated trail across the extension of 124th Place SE. As a condition of approval, the applicant 20 � shall submit a revised plat plan depicting a safe pedestrian crossing, across the 124th Place SE 'extension, for the Seattle Waterline Pedestrian Trail. 2] ' �RMC 4-7-130(C): A plal, short plat, subdivision or dedication shall be prepared in conformance 22 :with the following provisions: 23 � : 1. Land Unsuituble for Subdivision: Lund which is foirnd to be unsuitable for subdivision includes ' 24 �land with features likely to be harmful to the safery and general heulth of the future residents (such 25 ;as lands adversely affected by flooding, steep slopes, or rock formations). Land which the :Department or the Hearing Examiner considers inappropriate for subdivision shall not be 26 i subdivided unless adequate safeguards are provided against these adverse conditions. PRELIMINARY PLAT- 32 � `.�/ 1 ` u. Flooding/Inundation:If any pvrtion of the land within the boundary of a preliminary plat 2 � is subject to flooding or inundation, that portion of the subdivision must have the approval of : the State according to chapter 86.16 RCW before the Departmen!and the Hearing Examiner 3 shall consider such subdivision. 4 ° b. Steep Slopes:A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication which would result in the creation o a!ot or lots that rimaril have slv es ort ercent -�0% or eater as .� p .v I .v l 5 P P ) S�' measured per RMC 4-3-OSOJI a, without adequate area at lesser slopes upon which 6 . development may occur, shall not be approved. 7 � 8 !3. Land Clearing and Tree Retention:Shall comply with RMC-�-4-130, Tree Retention and Lund 9 Clearing Regulations. 10 �!. Streams: I1 a. Preservation: Every reusonable effort shall be made to preserve existing streams, bodies 12 of water, and wetland ureas. 13 b. Method: I a stream asses throu h an o the sub'ect ro ert , a Icrn shall be resented .T P S Y .f I P P Y P P 14 � which indicates how the stream wil!be preserved. 7he methodologies used should include an � overllow area, und an attempt to minimize the disturbance of the natural channel and stream 15 : hed. 16 � c. Culverting: The piping or tunneling of x�uter shall be discouraged and allowed only when 1� � going under streets. 1 g . d. Clean Water.• Every effort shull be made to keep all streams and bodies of water cleur of 19 ! debris and pollutants. 20 � 12. The land is suitable for a subdivision. As determined in Finding of Fact S.B, the stormwater 21 ; design assures that it will not contribute to flooding and all critical areas will be protected. As 'determined in Finding of Fact No. S.B, no lots with primarily 40% slopes will be created. No piping 22 i or tunneling of streams is proposed. Trees will be retained as required by RMC 4-4-I30 as 23 determined in Finding of Fact No. S.A. 24 � RMC 4-7-140: Approval of all subdivisions located in either single family residential or multi- �family residential zones as defined in the Zoning Code shall be contingent upon the subdivider's 25 dedieation of land or providing fees in lieu of dedication to the Ciry, all as necessary to mitigate the 26 adverse effects of development upon the existing park and recreation service levels. The PRELIMINARY PLAT- 33 _ __ _ _ T � � +,�,,, ti.+�' � 1 �requirements and procedures for this mitigation shall be per �he C'iry of Renton Parks Miti�atzon � 2 Resolution. 3 13. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to building permit issuance. �See alsa the discussion on loss af recreational use in Canclusion of Law 3.F above. 4 : S �RMC 4-7-150(A}: The proposed street system shall extend and create connecticans between existrng ;streets unless otherwise a�aproved b}� the Puhlie Works Department. Prior to a�proving a street 6 �system thttt daes not extend or cvnnect, the Revic=wrng Offrcial shull�nd that such exception shall 7 �meet the requirements of subsection E3 af this Seetian. The roadwcry classifications shall be as !defined and designated by the Department. $ � ( 14. As shawn in Staff Report Ex. 2, the proposed internal roads extend two existing stubs, SE 9 ' 18ch Street and 124`h Place SE, The internal Road A creates a Ioop connection between the two ! 1 a �public streets which did nat exist previously. 1 l :RMC 4-7-150(B): All proposed street names shall be approved by the Ciry. � �2 � 15. As conditioned. 13 ! :RMC 4•7-150(C): Streets intersecting with existing or proposed public hrghways, major or �4 ;secortdary arteriats shall he held to a minimum. � 1 S � 1�. None of the proposed streets intersect with a public highway or arterial. i 1� .RMC 4-7-150(D}: The alignment of all streets shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works 17 Department. The streel standards set by RMC 4-6-060 shull apply unless atherwise appraved. Street alignmen�offsets ofless than one hundred twenry five feet (12S)are nat desirable, but may be 1 g =approved by the Depurtment upon a showing of need buF only after proviszon of all necessary sufety 19 �measures. • ZO ; 1'7. As determined in Finding of Fact 6, the Public Works Departrnent has reviewed and 2� :approved the adequacy of streets,which includes compliance with applicable street standards. z� 'RMC 4-?-154(E): 23 � 1. Grrd.• A grid street pattern shall be used!o cannect exrsting and new development und shall be the �� �predominant street pattern in uny subdivisivn permitted by this Section. �� 2. Linlutges. Lrnkages, including streets, sidewalks,pedestrian vr bike paths, shall be provided within and between neighborhoods when they can create a continuous and interconnected nerwork 26 �PRELIMINARY PLAT-34 v � 1 :of roads and pathways. lmplementation of this requirement shall comply with Comprehensive Plan 2 Transportation Element Objective T-A and Policies T-9 through T-16 and Communiry Design Element, Objective CD-M and Policies CD-SO and CD-60. 3 3. Exceptions: 4 � 5 � a. The grid pattern may be adjusted to a `flexible grid"by reducing the number of linkages , : or the alignment between roads, where the following factors are present on site: 6 ' i. Infeasible due to topographical/environmental constraints; and/or � i g "; ii. Substantial improvements are existing. � 9 � �. Connections: Prior to adoption of a complete grid street plan, reasonable connections that link existing portions of the grid system shall be made. At a minimum, stub streets shall be required 10 within subdivisions to allow future connectivity. , �� S. Alley Access:Alley aceess is the preferred street pattern except or ro erties in the Residential .r P P 12 �Low Densiry lund use designation. The Residential Low Density land use designation includes the � 13 I RC, R-1, and R-�zones. Prior to approval of a plat withou!alley access, the Reviewing O�cial shall ;evaluate an alley layout and determine that the z�se of alley(s) is not feasible... 14 : ! 6. Alternative Configurations: Offset or loop roads are the preferred alternative configurutions. 15 7. Cul-de-Sac.Streets: Cul-de-sac streets may only he permitted by the Reviewing Official where dzre 16 �o demonstruble physical constraints no future connection to a larger street pattern is physically �� possible. 1 g 18. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 2, the proposed street system contributes to the grid system by 19 :, creating loop access which did not previously exist. Both of the intersecting public streets are currently stub roads. Alley access is not required because the proposed density does not meet the 6 2� :dwelling unidacre threshold. The internal roads are looped as encouraged by the criterion above. 21 The cul de sacs proposed cannot be extended to connect the road network because of the presence of two pipeline easements. The criterion is met. 22 ' RMC 4-7-15U(F): All adjacent rights-of-wuy und new rights-of-way dedicated as part of the plat, 23 includin streets, roads, and alle .s, shull be aded to their ull width and the g y �' f pavement and 24 sidewalkr sha11 be constructed as specifred in the street standard.s or deferred by the ;Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee. 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT-35 � � I 1 19. As praposed all raads wili meet City street praf"tle s#andards for road with and frontage 2 :impravements. � � �RMC 47-150{G}: Streets that may be extended in the event of future adjacent platting shall be �requr"red to be dedicated to the plat boarndary line. F.xt�nsxons of greater depth than an average lot `� �shall be improved titi�ith temporary turnarounds. Dedication af a firll-width boundary street shall be $ 'required in certain rnstances lo facilitate futarre development. i 6 �20. As shawn in Ex. 2 to the Staff Report, the proposed roads may not be extended due to the � �presence of pipeline easements. The subject is surrounded on all sides by existing residential `developrnent. � I RMC 4-?-170(A). Insofar as practical, ,ride lot lines shall be at right angles t�street lines�r radial 9 i ta eurved street lines. l� '21. As depicted in Staff Report Ex. 2, the sidc lines are in conformance with the requirerrzent 1] 'quoted above. 12 =RMC 4-7-170(B); Each lot must have access to a puhlzc street or road. Access mrzy be by private 13 ���r�'�'��'asement street J�er l�te requirerrzents vf the street standards. i �4 '22. As previatzsly determined and canditianed,each lot has access to a public street. 15 �� 4_�_�74{C): The size, shape> und'ori�ntrztion of lots shall meet the mini,mum area and tividth 16 requirements of the a�plieable zvning classifrcation and shall be apprUpriate for the type of develapment and use contemplated. Furth�r subdivision of lots wirhin a plat approved thrau�h the �� I provisions of this Chapter must be eonsistent wlth the ihen-current applicable mcr�rimum density 1� ':requirement as measured within the plat us a whole. �9 i 23. As previously determined and as canditioned, the proposcd lots comply with the zoning : standards of the Tt-8 zone, which includes area,width and density. 20 i 21 �RMC 4-7-170(D): Width between side lot lines at their foremost points (i.e., the points where the side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way line)shall not he less than eighry percent (80 0) of 2Z I the required lot width except in the cuses of(1)pipestem lats, which shall have a minimum widlh of 2� `twenty feet (20) and(2,1 lots on a street curve or the turning circle of cul-de-sac (radial lots), which 'shall be a minimum of thirty fi4�e feet{35). 24 - ;24. The applicant has proposed several lots including Lots 14, 15 and 38 which do not meet the 25 -minimum frontage width requirement. As discussed below in Conetusion of Law 27, each af these 2� :lots must be etiminated or revised to meet the minimum frontage width requirements. C?r, as PRELIMINARY PLAT-36 J � �.r ti./ i 1 i discussed in Conclusion of Law 5 above, the applicant may also submit an alternative plat plan 2 :which includes a combination of all lots fronting onto a public street meeting minimum lot widths � and those portions of the lots now proposed for shared driveway/access easements. 3 � � RMC 4-7-170(E): No residentially zoned lol shall hcrve a depth-to-width ratio greater than foz�r-to- 4 �one (-�:1). 5 i 25. As conditioned, all pipestem lots will be eliminated or revised to meet minimum lot width 6 'requirements which will bring all of the lots into compliance with this criterion. � i RMC 4-7-170(F):All lot corners at intersections of dedicuted public rights-of-way, except alleys, g �shall have minimum radius offifteen feet (1 S'). 9 '26. As proposed all lots meet this criterion. 10 ; RMC 4-7-170(G): Pipestem lots may be permitted for new plats to aehieve the minimum densiry 11 �within the Zoning Code when there is no other feasifile alternative to achieving the minimum densiry. 12 Minimum Lot.Size and Pipestem Width and LenQth: The pipestem shall not exceed one hundred fifty feet (150) in length and not be less thun twenty feet(20) in width. The portion of the lo!nurrower 13 than eighty percent(80%) of the minimum permitted width shall no! be used for lot area calculations• 14 or for the measurement of required front yard setbacks. Land area inclzrded in private access easements shall not be includecl in lot area calculations. Pipestem lots shall not abut one another. 15 : 16 ;2�• The proposal exceeds the minimum density of 4.0 dwelling units per acre by 1.7 dwelling units per acre and therefore pipestem lots are prohibited. The applicant has proposed several 1� ;pipestem lots including Lots 12, 14, 15, 17, 38, 40 and 79. As a condition of approval, each of these 1 g ' lots must be eliminated or revised to meet the minimum frontage width requirements. As an ,alternative, the applicant may also submit an alternative plat plan which inctudes a combination of 19 =all lots fronting onto a public street meeting minimum lot widths and those portions of the lots now 20 proposed for shared driveway/access easements as discussed above in Conclusion of Law 5. 21 ` RMC 4-7-190(A): Easements may be required for the maintenance und operation of utilities us specifted by the Department. 22 23 28. As conditioned. 24 - RMC 4-7-190(B): Due regard shall be shown to all natural features sz�ch as large trees, watercourses, and similur community assets. Such natural features should be preserved, thereby 25 �adding attractiveness and value to the properry. 26 � .PRELIMINARY PLAT- 37 � . . � �r � i 1 f 29. Trees will be retained as required by City code as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5. There Z �are no other natural features that need preservation as contemplated in the criterion quated above. 3 :RMC 4-7-240(A): Unless septic tanks are sperifically apprvved by the Public Works Department �and the King County Health L?e�artment, sanitary sewers shull be provr"deci by the developer at no 4 ;cc�st to the City and designet�rn accardance with City�standcrrds. Side se�ver lrnes shrcll be installed � �j eight feet ($') into eaeh lot if sanitary sewer mcrins are avaitabte, or provided wr"th the subdivisian (devedopment. 6f 7 ,30. As canditianed. g �RMC.4-7-200(B): An adequctte drainage system shall be Provided for the proper drainage of cill i surface water, eross drains shall be provided to accvmmodute aCI natural water flaw and shalt be of 4 � stffcient length to permil full-width roadwuy and required slopes. The drainage system shall be 1 Q � designed per the reqirirements of RMC 4-6-030, Drainage (Surface Water) Standurds. The drainage ; system shall include detention capaciry for the new slreet areas. Residentiul plats shall also include 11 � detentian capucity fc�r future develapment of the lots. Water guality fec�tures shctll al.so be designed to 12 provide cttpacity for the ne»�street paving for the plat. 13 � 33- The propasal provides for adequate drainage that is in conforrnance with applicable City drainage standards as determined in Findings af Fact No. 5 and 6. The City's stormwater standards, 14 which are incorporated inta the technical infarmation report and will be further implemented during �� �;civil plan revie��,ensure campliance with all of the standards in the criterion quoted above. 1� < RMC 4-7-200(C}: The wuter distribution system including the locatians of fire hydrunls shall be 17 �designed and instalfed in accordcrnce with t'iry standard,s as defincd by the Department and Fire i Departmenf requirements. �g I � 31. Cornpliance with City water system design standards is assured during final plat review. 19 � 20 ; RMC d-7-200(D}: Atl utilities designed to serve the suhdivision shall be ptaced unc�er�round. Any i utitities installed in the parking .strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth ta permit the 2I °planting of trees. Those utitities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including ull 22 servrce connections, as apprvved by the Department. �Such installation shall be completed and approved prior to the application of any surfuce muterial. Easements may fie required for !he 23 :maintenance and operation of utilities as spec�ed by the Department. �`� - 32. All utilities including the stormwater vault are proposed to be placed underground. As z� 'conditioned, utility installation will be inspected and approved prior to paving of suxface materials above the utilities. 26 - PRELIMINARY PLAT- 38 � �./ 1 RMC 4-7-200(E): Any cable TV conduits shcrll be undergrounded at the same time as other basic 2 a�tilities are installed to serve each lot. Condui!for service conneclions shall be laid to each lot line by subdivider as to obviate the necessiry for disturbing the streel area, including sidewalks, or alley 3 improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The cost of 4 .trenchin� conduit, pedestals and/or vuults and laterals as well as easements therefore reguired to bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land owner. The subdivider 5 =shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development. Condt�it ends shall be elbowed to 6 :final ground elevation and cappec� The cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to the subdivider and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed. 7 : 33. As conditioned. 8 9 -RMC 4-7-210: 10 :A. MONUMENTS: 11 :Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling corner of �the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the Department. All szrrveys 12 ;shall be per the Ciry of Renton surveying standards. 13 B. SURVEY.• 14 �All other lot corners shall be marked per the City surveying standards. 15 16 C. STREET SIGNS: 17 The subdivider shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision. 18 34. As conditioned. 19 � 20 VI. DECISION 21 �The proposed 96-lot preliminary plat as depicted in Ex. 33 to the staff report, and critical area exemption as described in the fmdings of this decision, are approved subject to the following 22 �conditions: 23 24 ' 3 All references to the plat map in this decision in the findings and conclusions have been to Exhibit 2 of the staff 25 report. Those references are accurate. However, the plat approved by this decision is depicted in Exhibit 3 of the staffreport,which is the 961ot subdivision as opposed to the 97(ot subdivision. , 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT- 39 ....,. �„..J I - � � l i I I . . 1 ' 1. The applicant shall camply with the mitigation measures issued as part of the Deterrnination 2 of Non-Significance Mitigated,dated September 22, 2014 except as modified below: 3 . a. MDNS Conditivn 1 shall be revised as follows: 4 I All earthwark erformed, im lemented by the applicant, sha11 be cansistent with the , . P P 5 � recommendations of the geotechnical report, prepared by Assaciated Earth Sciences, � j Inc., dated September 28, 20t2 or consistent with the recommendatians of the finat. , Citv-ap�roved�eotechnical report. i I 71 I b. MDNS Condition 6 shall be stricken and replaced with the following: 8 I g The applicant shall revise its landscaping plan to provide for a 10 faot wide on-site landscape strip for all lots ar�d a 10 foat wide, site abscuring gerimeter landscapin� 1 Q adjacent to areas where ihe retaining walls are four or more feet in height, specificatly 1� in the perimeter areas c�ose to Lots 40, 4I, 46, 47, 80, 82, 83-90, 93 and 94. Landscaping at rnaturity must exceed the height of the adjacent reta.ining walt. The j 12 final detailed tandscape plan shali be submitted to and approved by the Current �3 Planning Project Manager prior ta construction petmit approval. Such landscaping shall include a mixture of trees, shrubs, and graundcover as approved by the 14 Department of Community and Economic Development. i 1� ; ( 2. 'The apglicant shall be required to demonstrate compliance with the minimum 50-foot lot 16 � width requirement for all lots with less than 50 feet in width at the foremost points{where the �� ; side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way line) pursuant ta RMC 4-11-12�. The average distance between the side lines cannecting frant and rear Iot lines shalt be submitted I8 to the Current Pianning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. , 14 3. The applicant shall be required ta submit a revised plat plan and landscaping plan depicting ', 20 curb bulb-outs where on-street parking is located. The revised plat and landseaping plans �� i shall be submitted to and approved by the Gurrent Flanning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 22 i ' 4. The applicant shall be required to submit a revised plat and landscaping plari, which are � �'3 ` elements of the City's required constructian plari set, depicting curb bulbauts at street 24 � intersectians where on-street parking is located or catling for na curb bulbauts and I� installatian af "no parking" designations where street parking is prohibited at street 2� . intersections. The revised p3at and landscaping plan shalI be submitted to and approved by 26 the Current PIanning Praject Manager prior to�canstructian perrnit approval. I FRELIMINA[ZY PI,AT-40 �— - -- -- - - - - - - - - �.• V � i 1 � 5. The applicant shall eliminate individual access directly from internal public streets for those 2 � lots abutting private streets and/or shared drivew•ay access easements, speciftcally Lots 12- _ 14, Lots 15-17, Lots 38-40 and Lots 78-81 in shared driveways. Said lots shall be required to 3 � take access from the abutting private street and/or access easement and shall not exceed 4 access thresholds pursuant to RMC 4-6-060.J and K. Lot 11 may access the public street directly. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning 5 Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. Furthermore, the access restriction for 6 � such lots�is required to be noted on the face of the Final Plat prior to recording. 7 � 6. The applicant shall revise the proposed mitigation plan to depict all retaining walls on site, including lock& load walls on the north and east sides of Wetlands B and C. 1�he applicant g shall also identify if proposed walls are anticipated to impact criticaI area buffers and provide i 9 ` appropriate mitigation for such impacts. A Final Mitigation Plan, pursuant to RMC 4-8- 120.W, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior 10 � to construction permit approval. 11 7. The temporary buffer impacts consisting of minor intrusions or disturbance from 12 � construction activities shall be restored with appropriate grading, soil amendments, and the 13 � planting of native species to the satisfaction of the Current Planning Project Manager. The revised mitigation plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project �4 _ Manager prior to construction permit approval. 15 8. The existing wetland mitigation plan already assures that 1,331 square feet of additional 16 � wetland buffer area is being provided to mitigate for both existing buffer impacts to Wetland 1� E that are not associated with the Plat, as well as the loss of 14 square feet of the Wetland E buffer which loss is associated with the extension of SE 18`h Street. To provide an additional 1 g offset for the impacts resulting from the requested exemption associated with the fill of 14 19 square feet of buffer to extend SE 18th Street. The applicant has agreed to provide and shall � provide enhancement to the Wetland `E' buffer immediately abutting SE 18`h Street, as w�ell 2o = as enhanced plantings adjoining that buffer area within Tract M. A revised mitigation plan 21 - shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Cunent Planning Project Manager prior to cbnstruction permit approval. 22 23 � 9. The applicant shall be required to estab(ish a Native Growth Protection Easement over those parts of the site encompassing wetlands and their associated buffers and place fencing and 24 _ signage along the outer buffer edge prior to Final Plat approval. 25 10. The applicant shal( be required to submit a fill source statement, if fill materials are brought 26 to the site, in order to the City to ensure only clean fill is imported prior to construction. PRELIMINARY PLAT-41 _, �r '``/ 1 � 1 l. The applicant shall pravide a final Tree Retention Plan, complying with the 30% tree � retention SEPA mitigation measure while demonstrating proposed retaining walls would not ; impact trees proposed for retention. The Final Tree Retention Plan shal! be submitted to, and 3 ` approved by,the Current Planning Project Manager priar to constructic�n permit approval. 4 I2.The applicant shall submit a revised plat plan, which is an elennent of the City's required $ constructian plan set, depicting a safe pedestrian crassing, across the 124`�' Place SE ' extension, for the Seattle Waterline Pedestrian Trail. The revised plat plan, as part of the � � construction plan set, shall be submitted to, and approved by the Current Planning Project � � Manager, Community Services Departrnent, and the Transportation Department prior to g j construction permit approval. � g ! 13.The applicant shall be required to obtain right-af-way or a public access easement through the Cedar River Pipeline, far the extension of t 24th P1ace SE, to the satisfactian of the Plan 10 Reviewer priar to construction permit appravat. lI � 14. Pedestrian lightin� shall be depicted on the Iighting plan at the entrances of Tracts C and E �2 ` (fram the propased right-of-way). The lighting plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, 13 � the Cunent Planning Project Manager and the Plan Reviewer prior to canstruction permit � approval. 14 : � 15. The Prelirninary Plat plan shall be revised so that no more than 41ots may gain access via a : I� ` shared driveway and that at least one such lot shall tneet minimum lot width requirements 1 5 =. atong a street frontage pursuant ta R M C 4-?-1 7 0.D (a minimum o f 8 0°lo a f t he require d la t 1� widthi40 feet or 35 feet along a street curve}. The tat(s) which pravides physical frontage along the street shall only be allowed vehicular access from the shared private driveway. In t$ order to provide shared access, Lots 14, 17 and 38 shatl be widened to 35 feet and take 1 g � prirnary access fram the shared driveway. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 20 i 2 j ' 16. Thc plat plan shall be revised so that al l lots have no less than a 4Q-foot lot width where side ; lot lines intersect with the street right of way or for radial lots be a minimum of 35 feet in 22 � width. Specifically,proposed Lots 14, l 7, and 38 wauld be required to be widened to 35 feet ` in arder to comply with the condition. The revised ptat plan shall be submitted to and 23 ( approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 24 I7. The applicant shalt submit a revised plat plan depicting the elimination of all pipestem lots 25 ' (lots wiuch are less than 40 feet in width where the side iat lines intersect with the street 26 � right-of-way or for radial lots are less than 35 feet) within the subdivision. Speci�cally, PRELIMINARY PLAT-42 � - - - - - - - v ..� ; 1 proposed Lots 12, 14, 15, 17, 38,40, and 79 would be required to be eliminated or revised to 2 � meet minimum frontage width requirements. The applicant may also submit an atternative plat plan which includes a combination of all lots fronting onto a public street meeting 3 ' minimum lot widths and those portions of the lots now proposed for shared driveway/access 4 easements could be placed in Shared Driveway Tracts with easements placed over them pursuant to RMC 4-6-060, Street Standards. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to and 5 approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 6 � 18. Any proposal to convert the Stormwater vault within Tract A to a Stormwater detention pond 7 be considered a Major Plat Amendment subject to the requirements outlined under RMC 4-7- ` 080M.2. 8 9 � 19. The applicant shall be required to create a homeowners' association and maintenance agreement(s) for the shared utilities, landscape areas and maintenance and responsibilities for 10 all shared improvements of this development. A draft of the document(s) shall be submitted � 1� � to Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval by the City Attorney and � Property Services section prior to the recording of the final plat. ' 12 � �3 = 20. The applicant shall submit the results of the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment to the City for review. Appropriate mitigation, if any, shall be completed prior to issuance of 14 . building permits. 15 � 21. All road names shall be approved by the City. I 16 22, Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the 1� Department. � ° 23. Sani sewers shall be rovided b the develo er at no cost to the ' 18 �'Y P Y p Crty and designed in accordance with City standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet(8') into each lot 19 � if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision development. 20 � 24. Any cable TV conduits shall be under rounded at the same time as other basic utilities are � 21 :` instalied to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line. 22 : 25. Conerete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling corner of the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the 23 - Department. All surveys shall be per the City of Renton surveying standards. All other lot corners shall be marked per the City surveying standards. The subdivider shall install all 24 street name signs necessary in the subdivision. 25 26 = PRELIMINARY PLAT-43 ..„ �,...I i � � � ! � 1 : DATED this 8`" day of January,2015. 2 - —`�� � r.-'t� C�..-�'" .,�-� �-P _--"�--- � Phif A.4ibe�chts �} � City of Renton Hearing Examiner 5 ; ( 6 ' APPEAL R[GHTS AND VALUATCON NOTICES � i 8 I RMC 4-8-0$0 pravides that the final decisian of the hearing examiner is subject ta appeal to the � Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(14) requires appeals of the hearing exarniner's decision ta � � be filed within faurteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision. A 10 I request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal � i ' l� ' period as identified in RMC 4-&1]0(E}{13) and RMC 48-100(G}(9). A new fourteen {14} day ! appeat periad shali commence upon the issuance of the recansideratian. Additionai informatian 12 � regarding the appeal process may be abtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City HaII —7th 13 � fl�ar,(425}430-b510. �,q ; Affected property awners may request a change in vatuation far praperty tax purposes i notwithstanding any program of revaluation. 15 " 16 17 . , , i 18 . � 19 � za ! 21 ' � I 22 ; : 23 � �� ' l � 25 � I 26 : PRE[.IMINARY PLAT-44 � `�'� ATTACHMENT A The Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeals (LUA13-001572,ECF,PP, CAE) ' TESTIMONY SUMMARY SEPA Appeal#1—Applicants Applicant Testimonv Ms. Nancy Rogers, applicant's Attorney, stated the applicant had filed an appeal to the City's SEPA MDNS based on three issues. They felt the geotechnical report should be updated to reference the current geotechnical report. They have issues with Conditions #3 and#6. They believe it's better for the project and environment to have Henley comply with a tree protection plan and have Henley's arborist work with the City's arborist to assure that as many trees as possible are preserved. They requested amendments to Condition 3. In addition, Condition 6 was imposed in the MDNS. It would impose a 15-50 foot perimeter buffer around the entire site. This is overreaching and unduly burdensome. The applicant is going above and beyond to provide buffering, which is not necessary because they are proposing single family uses next to single family uses. There are two rights of ways along substantial portions of the borders, the Mercer Island Water Pipeline and the Cedar River Water Pipeline. One is 60 feet wide; the other is 100 feet wide. There is already substantial buffering between eacisting uses and the project site. They have an analysis responding to the City staff SEPA analysis filed last Friday (Exhibit K11). Ms. Rogers summarized this analysis. They appealed CondiCion #1. Staff felt that Condition #1 would be acceptable if they amended the condition to include comptiance with the revised geotechnical report. The applicant agrees. With respect the appeal to Conditions #3 for tree preservation and #6 for the proposed perimeter buffer, mitigation conditions under SEPA are subject to state and federal law, statutory and case law that establish a nexus of rough proportionality. That nexus is required to be shown by the City prior to imposition of these mitigation conditions. Case law dealing with the imposition of buffers had held that buffers need to be imposed when two very dissimilar uses are proposed adjacent to each other.That is not the case here. With respect to Condition#3, the scope of that condition has morphed from the SEPA MDNS to the staff s current opinion. The applicant appealed this condition to require compliance with the applicant's tree protection plan rather than the more general requirement that they comply with relevant City codes. Staff is requiring 30% retention of trees rather than the Code requirement that - � � allaws for replacennenc of trees thraagh mitigatian (RMC 4-4-130(H}(1}{e}). The canditian is overreaching and averly burdensome. The City has failed to identify an adverse significant environmental impact related ta tree preservation in the applicant's propasat. They are intending ta preserve 30%of the trees.The developer needs to be able ta replace trees that might be inadvertently damaged during construction rather than complying to a hard set retention percentage. They aren't intending to clear cut. They glan to protect the 30% of the trees. A few extra might come down through inadvertent damage. If sa,those will be groperly mitigated. With respect to Condition#6,the perimeter buffer, as stated in the original MDNS condition it was a "rninimum 15 foot buffer°' which became 15-50 feet in width around the entire peritneter. There is no significant environmental impact here and the City is noc entitled to irrtpose mitigation here. There is no legal autharity or justificatian by the City to reqaire Henley to pratect ane use fram another when the use is the same. The neighboring property owners coutd plant trees in their own yards. As designed by Henley, the project already minimizes visual impact to neighboring uses in ways that are not required by the cade. The code does not impose a perimeter buffer of any sort on a single family project like this. The majority of this site includes a perimeter buffer of 10-15 feet. There is rnore an critical areas tracts. The average buffer width is 55 feet. In addition, they have the twa pipeline rights of ways, which are 60 feet and 100 feet wide. Adding in the pipelines, the average buffer goes up ta 104 feet between homes from th'rs project and adjacent homes.This is well outside of rough propartionaiity. 1YIr. Barry Talkington is a civil engineer with Barghausen Consalting Engineers. Mr. Talkington described his education and qualifications. He prepares designs and layouts far single family projects. He designs roads, infrastructure, starm pands, etc. He's prepared about 50 prelirninary piats. It is typical far him. to design a pretinninary plat and then start into more detailed engineering design.They have prepared preliminary and final grading plans. Ms. Rogers presented Exhibit A-11, the uttimate plat tayout. Mr. Talkington described the exhibit, the 96-lot version of the plat. There was an earlier version with rnore lots but they removed one to meet the 30% tree retention requirement. They eliminatefl Lat 1 from the original submittal. In response to Ms. Rogers, Mr. Talkington described the various perirneter buffers, ranging including 50 feet in Tracts B and M and near Lots 13 and 14, the buffer is 15 foat wide. They have a 10 foot buffer that increase to nearly $Q feet by Lc�t 19 by the Mercer Island Pipeline. The minimum propased buffer is 1Q fee�. By Tract G, the buffer is 1(� feet. The Mercer Island Pipeline is 6Q feet wide. The minimum setback along this area is 70 feet. Some lots do touch the praperty baundary, though that is adjacent to the lU0 foot wide Cedar River Pipeline. There is additional greenspace in Tract H, G and J. in some places the buffer goes frozn 15 feet to 200 feet. The average buffer width is approximately 50 feet. With the pipeline areas, the average buffer width is over 100 feet. Only six l � �.r� ' lots touch the perimeter of the property, all along the Cedar River Pipeline. In his opinion, the project does not result in a significant adverse aesthetic impact to the neighbors. With respect to retaining walls, Mr. Talkington stated retaining walls are not purely cosmetic, though they can be. The purpose is to shorten the distance needed for a grade transition. There is grading involved in nearly all projects in the Pacific Northwest. Grading is accomplished via slopes or retaining walls. To create a hypothetical lot,either grade more land or build a wall along the edge and grade less. Lots with significant trees were designed with retaining walls to retain more trees. A building permit is required for a wall of 4 feet high or greater. Mr. Talkington has prepared building permit applications for this project and the associated grading plans which will be submitted today. Ms. Rogers asked about Exhibit K6, related to the grading plans. Ms. Rocale Timmons asked if this was the Erosion Control plan set. Mr. Talkington confirmed it is. In response to Ms. Rogers, for Lots 18-21, Mr. Tatkington stated the retaining walls would be rockeries. The lot grade is below the existing grade. He noted the top and bottom of the wall elevations. For example, Lot 19's wall is 4.5 feet. A cut wall is for when a retaining wall is retaining the existing grade when the pad grade is below the existing grade. For a pad above the existing grade, they would use a fill wall. These walls are constructed differently. Fill walls require extra stabilization. In every place where there is a cut wall, the face of the wall will be to the interior of the project. For the fill walls, the face is to the exterior of the project. Mr. Talkington addressed the staff Report (Page 13) concern about the height and visibility of walls along the Cedar River Pipeline. The wall at Tract A will be visible, though there will be landscaping planted between the walls and the perimeter. For Lots 79 and 81 (Exhibit K6a, Lots 80 and 82), there is a cut rockery wall. This wall will not be visible from outside the project. For Lot 40, there is a retaining wall. It is 4-6 feet to prop up the access drive. This will be visible. There's another wall at 7.5 feet. Lots 45 and 46 have a fill wall at 16 feet tall. In response to the staff Report, Mr. Talkington reviewed the heights of the walls. They prepazed an alternative design to reduce the heights of the walls. The wall will now be 6 feet tall (Exhibit K6b, the revised grading plan for Lots 44-47). The portion of Lot 46 that borders the Cedar River Pipeline has a 2 foot wall. The wall at Lot 47 is 1.7 feet to 6 feet tall. Henley wi11 be willing to agree to a Plat Condition that will call for the walls to be the revised height. Ms. Timmons asked about the relevancy of this line of questioning to the SEPA Appeal, specifically Conditions#3 and#6. Ms. Rogers stated she understood the staff s buffer requirements to screen the adjacent neighbors from the development, including the impact of retaining walls. Ms. Timmons agreed to relevance. Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Talkington to speak to the walls along Road A near Tract K. Mr. Talkington referred to this wall as a fill wall. There is an open space tract, Wetlands B and C, which will provide a screen for the wall. Focusing on this part of the plat, Mr. Talkington stated there was no significant adverse environmental impact with respect to the aesthetics. �r �./ Ms. Rogers addressed staff Report(page 21) regarding retaining walls. She stated the staff felt those retaining walls would interfere with tree retention. She asked, in general, does designing a site to include retaining walls help or hinder tree preservation. Mr. Talkington responded it can help by reducing grading requirements along the perimeter of the site and protect trees. When he designs a plat, the cost of construction is considered. Retaining wall construction is more expensive than grading. They were directed to save trees, which meant construction of retaining walls. Ms. Rogers asked who Mr. Talkington turned to when he needed to determine the effects of his design for retaining walls on tree preservation. Mr. Talkington said that's a question for the arborist. Ms. Timmons asked Mr. Talkington to describe his thought process on providing the buffers he provided and their merit. Mr. Talkington stated it started with the road network. They had two locations to tie into for an internal road. In creating the road corridors, they tried to lay out lots that would be evenly distributed on both sides of the road. They looked to use the property most efficiently for the lot layout with respect to the grading. They tried to reduce the overall grading. Ms. Timmons asked if Mr. Talkington saw merit in providing a perimeter buffer. Mr. Talkington stated he didn't show as many buffers initially. They initially looked to retain trees in larger pockets in other azeas. As the project evolved to its cunent configuration, they considered saving trees as part of the buffer. Ms. Timmons asked as a practical matter, how would a 15 foot buffer affect plat design? Mr. Talkington stated that he had considered it. There are many alternative scenarios. They looked at how the buffer would irnpact their original design. There was a significant change in lot yield. Ms. Timmons asked if Mr. Talkington considered aesthetics in his design. He stated he did because he wanted the project outcome to be pleasing. Mr. Steve Lee, Renton Development Engineering Manager, stated typically the City doesn't see as much of a concise grading plan proposed for preliminary plat. He is glad Mr. Talkington prepared one. He asked Mr. Talkington to describe the setback from the walls. Mr. Talkington stated that is a question for the geotechnical engineer,however there is no need for a setback from the geo-grid. Mr. Lee asked if construction of the geo-grid caused excavation in to natural areas. Mr. Talkington s[ated it did. Also, cut walls will require a wall drain behind them. Mr. Lee asked if the walls would need to be setback into the lots in order to reduce the impact on the natural areas. Mr. Talkington said they design the walls to be entirely on the subject lot and not within the open space. Mr. Lee asked if a tree is located near a drainage wall, would the tree be impacted. Mr. Talkington stated he didn't know. Mr. Galen Wright, of Washington Forestry Consultants, is an arborist. Mr. Wright described his education and qualifications. He has owned his company for 21 years. Their focus is on urban forestry consulting. He personally has 35 years of experience. He's worked on 1,400 similar projects +.� �r/ of many scales since 1994. He stated in general, his tree protection plans are accurate. The trees he has designated for protection aze saved. Though, occasionally, they will find an edge tree that doesn't look as good after the project and before. In that case, they mitigate the tree. The tree protection plan exhibits aze Exhibit A4 (June) and Exhibit Al2 (August). The August plan is tied to the most recent layout. Ms. Rogers noted the report concludes this is a "well treed site". By that, Mr. Wright stated means he was able to save two or three clusters to break up the clear cut look. If they supplement with lot trees and street trees, in 10 years the property will be well treed. There is a nice low brush community on the site that improves the buffer capacity of the vegetation. The wetlands on site are also well treed. Ms. Rogers stated the 30% tree retention requirement translates to preserving 188 on-site trees. The August tree retention plan proposes to save 181 trees and relocate others. Mr. Wright stated his understanding of the Renton code with respect to construction damage means the tree can be replaced at a ratio of 2:1. He stated he is familiar with SEPA staff Condition #3. He said his understating of the requirement was not to mandate a hard 30°Io requirement without field judgment. The code allows them to save trees but mitigate those that can't be saved. Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Wright how many trees would be saved. Mr. Wright replied well in excess of 188 trees would be saved. They have re-analyzed the edges and found there were more trees than they had earlier expected before a more formal survey was undertaken. Mr. Wright discussed the relationship between retaining walls and trees. He stated he had the grading plan in hand when he did his follow up evaluation. They had been very hard on the edge trees initially. Later, he was able to perform a tree by tree analysis with the grading plan in hand. Trees respond very differently to walls based on where the majority of their roots are growing. He did a tree by tree analysis to determine how much, if any, intrusion could be done to a tree's root protection zone. This is usually a later stage analysis. He's very confident in his current estimation of the number of tree that will be viably preserved. He knows exactly which trees will be impacted, and how for each edge tree. Mr. Wright said the next step is to have a pre-construction meeting. They always ask to be included in that conference. At that time the clearing limits aze staked. He walks those boundazies. If there is anything different from current knowledge, then they will make field adjustments. They mapped tons to trees. Sometimes, they'll find the survey and field location don't quite match. They adjust clearing limits during the field observation. They'll remove hazardous trees if they find them. After that, they put up tree protection fences. If anything changes during construction, then Mr. Wright asks to be included in the decision of how to treat the trees. tir/ � Ms. Rogers asked if this process is described in the tree protection plan, Mr. Wright said it is. He stated he has na daubt this project wiil retain more than 30°l0 of trees even accounting for field adjustments far hazardous trees or others that can't or shouldn't be saved. Ms.Rogers asked Mr.Wright about the perimeter buffer. She said the City is concerned about a 50% sight obscuring buffer. She asked about the 1Q foot buffer specifically. Mr. Wright stated he understaod the buffer and the tree retentian within the buffer. He stated he also is familiar with Henley's plan to provide 6 foot fences along the backyards. With the 10 foat buffer and fences, the SO�o screening requirement will be met. New trees ca.n alsa be planted in any gaps. In his opinion, a 1S foat buffer would add a few more trees, but nat a huge amount. Ms. Ragers asked if Mr. Wright thought there was a significant adverse environmental impact fram the project. The City Attorney objected. The Examiner stated the question limited to aesthetic impacts is allowed.Mr.Wright stated the b foat fence is sight obscuring. There are trees everywhere but the stormwater facility and a few in the pipelines. There are severai layers of buffering. There will be places where you can see new hauses better than athers, but there will be a fence and trees. Within a few years trees will fill the gaps. Ms. Rocale Timmons asked Mr. Wright if he knew how many trees exist on the site. He stated there were 1,305 trees on-site. This is a contiguous canopy cover. The canapy is viewed by surrounding propercy owners. They are proposing to keep 181 trees plus the trees in the critical areas and buffers. There are 626 significant trees in the buildable areas. There are many other poor quality trees. They will remave over 400 significant trees. Ms. Timmons asked how the remaval af so rnany trees would impact the surrounding property awners. Mr.Wright said it's aesthetic.There is no other icnpact. Ms. Timmons asked about the revised tree retention plan. She asked if the new plan is agprovable as is. Mr. Wright stated it was and they wili exceed the minimum 30% requirement. He stated it is a valuable cantribution to the enviranment. In response to Ms. Timmons, he stated an adequate width far a naturat vegetated buffer depends on the type of trees, the age of the trees and the how they are growing. There aze places on site where the screen is dense and others that are thinner. They didn't map alders and cottonwaods. They didn't include those in the survey. Ms. Timmons asked what buffer width is necessary to provide screening in a natural vegetated state. Mr. Wright stated it depends on site conditions. Mr. Wright stated if they plant in a 10 foot buffer with a double staggered row of conifers, it will create a very dense screen in 1Q years. A 15 foat buffer is not adequate ta add a third row that would require about 30 feet of buffer. Citv Testimonv Rocale Timmons addressed the applicant's testimany wikh respect to Conditions #3 and #6. The City's mitigation measure is nat intended to preclude replacement of trees damaged during I � I t — — -- �.r � construction. The applicant is citing the wrong code. Condition#3 is solely designed to require a tree retention plan. The applicant has provided a plan that does not meet the requirement. It is not detailed enough to be used during construction. Staff analysis (Exhibit N) goes through the significant adverse impact of removing such a large tree canopy. The staff feels the MDNS condition defines a significant impact and provides appropriate mitigation. With respect to Condition #6, Ms. Timmons stated staff has demonstrated a significant impact to surrounding property owners with respect to aesthetics. Staff feels the mitigation measure adequately addresses these impacts. Mr. Terry Flatley, City of Renton Urban Forestry and Natural Resources Manager, described his education and qualifications. He has reviewed at least 50 tree retention plans for the City. Mr. Flatley stated he had not visited the site personally. It is a fully timbered site with 100% canopy cover. He described the site as a lazge woodland azea in the middle of the City in the middle of a subdivision.This is a rare site. He believes it is necessary to protect the tree canopy. The City tries to retain as much canopy as possible. He believes the appropriate amount of trees to pratect is a minimum 30%. In response to Ms. Timmons, Mr. Flatley stated a 10 foot buffer is adequate to support a natural vegetated perimeter, depending on the type of vegetation. This strip will retain smaller vegetation, but not large mature trees. He provided a recommendation for a perimeter buffer of 35 to 100 feet. To his knowledge, the City requested a 15 foot buffer. In terms of accommodating trees, there are some extra trees being protected. Five feet is a very minor increment. It would allow for more planting. Mr. Flatley stated he felt a buffer is needed along the southern perimeter because buffers are to moderate climate and obscure sites from view. It's an aesthetic issue for trail users and adjacent neighbors. The buffer would provide privacy. Mr. Flatley stated without an adequate screen there would be significant adverse aesthetic impacts to trail users and neighbors. A 15 foot buffer would reduce the impacts. In response to the Examiner,Mr. Flatley stated the difference between a 10 foot and a 15 foot buffer � is not significant in terms of mitigating impacts. Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Flatley had reviewed the revised tree protection plan for the project. He ' stated he had reviewed Exhibit 11 today but his review is based on the 2013 version. Ms. Rogers asked if it was possible Mr. Wright's tree retention plan would assure protection of 30% of the trees on the site. Mr. Flatley stated with oversight it is possible. Ms. Rogers asked if he provided that oversight. He said he didn't. Ms. Rogers asked if the City's MDNS Condition #3 was essentially a restatement of City code. Mr. Flatley agreed that is was. Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Flatley had rovided SEPA miti ation measures P g , to staff and asked the staff to implement them. He stated he hadn t. Ms. Ro ers asked if the g rrr+ `r/ condition would be adequate to require a tree protection plan and have it approved by the City. He stated it could. With respect to MDNS Condition#6, the buffer requirement was for sight obscuring and was 15 feet wide. The staff analysis (Exhibit N) increased that buffer from 15 feet to 15-50 feet. Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Flatley had read Exhibit N. He stated he hadn't. Ms. Rogers asked if he was familiar with the City's Comprehensive Plan. He stated he was generally familiar with it. He stated he was not familiar with specific policies. � Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Flatley to review a large area photo with respect to his eazlier testimony (Exhibit K6c). Mr. Flatley stated he recognized the azea and that there aze a number of green, treed areas around the subject. He agreed there is a large protected corridor along the Cedar River and at Tiffany Park. He further agreed that with or without Tiffany Park, there will remain treed areas near the project. Mr. Flatley stated the City's landscaping code with respect to screening allows planting and fencing. He agreed the project plan includes fences and vegetation. Mr. Flatley stated he didn't have any knowledge of buffers on adjoining properties but didn't see any in the aerial photo. Ms. Timmons stated that staff is standing by their analysis. For mitigation measure#3 it sounds as if the appellant intends to meet the 30% requirement. That's all the City is requesting. The applicant is failing to consider the City's intend is to protect the existing tree canopy. The mitigation measure is intended to preclude replacement tree. The code is inadequate to do that without the mitigation measure. However,a tree retention plan is amenable to the City. For mitigation measure#6, the staff feels they have proven impact and provided adequate mitigation. Staff feels the public are the appropriate people to provide information on impacts. Annlicant Testimonv In response to the Examiner, Mr. Talkington stated in the northern portion of the plat, the 15 foot buffer would be preserved but clearing and a wall would be located in the lots themselves (Lots 11- 14). No additional clearing will go into the buffer area. For Lots 15-18, there will be no wall. All other improvements would be within the lot area. There will be no additional clearing. Ms. Rogers asked the Examiner to read the SEPA Appeal argument letter dated November 18, 2014. As stated in that letter, the City staff and the applicant are in agreement to Revised Conditions #1 and#3. However, they would azgue to keep the existing language in the condition, but add a comma and add a statement that an updated tree protection plan and land clearing plan to be submitted and approved prior to construction. Condition #6 deals with a perimeter buffer. No perimeter buffer is required in this zone and none exist sunounding the subject. The requirement would be unique in this area and they would be buffering their single family uses from sunounding single family uses. v � There is no significant impact in tenns of aesthetics. They have voluntarily provided 10-200 feet (50 I foot average) buffers and two pipelines of 60 to 100 feet (Mercer Island Trail and Cedar River Trail corridors, respectively). Only six lots touch a property boundary. Some have fill walls, the highest currently proposed is 6 feet high. There is a 100 foot Cedar River Trail buffer adjacent to these ' properties and between adjacent properties. The City's SEPA analysis cited Comprehensive Plan Objective CDG and Policies 50 and 55 as justification for the perimeter buffer. T'hose policies do not apply here. The City omitted the citation of the objective, which does not apply here. These uses are not different. The proposed use and adjacent use are the same. The tree canopy is being protected. There is no need for a perimeter buffer of 15 feet, let along 50 feet. Addition of a buffer after the fact will invalidate the proposal and violate state law. Public Testimonv Ms. Claudia Donnelly lived in the Renton Potential Annexation Area in Renton Highlands. Ms. Donnelly stated she had submitted questions. In Februazy 2014, in an article in the Renton Reporter, Ms. Timrnons stated all 1,300 trees would be coming down. How will the protected trees be protected? This developer will clear cut all of the trees and put in replacement trees. At Ms. Donnelly's subdivision, Windstone, and at Piper's Bluff, this same developer clear cut all of the trees. Who will make sure the trees won't be clear cut? Ms. Donnell stated she was concerned about the ro osed stormwater detention ond failin and Y P P P g impacting the development. At Windstone, the detention pond failed three times spilling water and mud into a wetland and Honey Creek. At Piper's Bluff,the detention pond failed and dumped yellow water into May Creek. Renton officials do not work on the weekend; they will not protect the wetlands. Ms. Donnelly stated Renton allowed Safeway to build on wetlands three summers ago. They started getting water coming up through the floor and had to rope off the azea. The hours of construction ordinance must be followed. How will it be? Renton has an ordinance keeping dirt off of the road and protecting streams during construction. The laws are not being enforced. Renton doesn't allow working on Sundays. This developer had contractors working on Sundays in at least Windstone and Piper's Bluff. No staff person will be there to monitor them. The City does not require the contractor to get the necessary NPDES permit from DOE prior to start of work. Additionally, the City doesn't require erosion control fences near wetlands,private property or streams before clearing starts. They don't make the contractors have the necessazy permits for clearing before building pernuts. In the late 1990s a builder cleared without permits and there was no consequence. Ms. Donnelly expressed concern about the Renton appeal process. On November 26, there was a notice in the paper talking about the appeal timeframe for this development, yet the document itself _ _ _ _ � � `�'� I had not been released. She had to request it from the director. If there is no notice before the appeal starts, how can the City be trusted? On June 14, 2012 the Renton Reparter asked if Renton's tree i preservation policy was just for show. I Ms. Dannelly presented pictures af Piger's Bluff. Forty-seven trees were supposed to be retained vr mitigated Same af the trees were saved. Many were cleared. The trees being planted are decorative and re lacin Dou las Firs and ather large trees. Some trees must be saved. She also showed P � g exam les of construction dirt on the road in front of her house. The dirt is washing into Green Creek P I and May Creek.No one at Renton cares about the street or the environment. I . arbara Srnith stated considerin the eenbelt surroundin the i lines is not realistic. Thase Ms B g �' � P Pie are dirt paths without trees. Ms. Smith stated she should not have to plant trees on her yard, plus the trees are 80-100 feet high. Replanting trees won't campensate. They are losing their quality of life. The wildlife that's there will be removed. The school district shouldn't have sald it. They didn't provide proper notice of sale. They were denied access to do further studies but the developer was allowed on it. She encourages the City to put strict enforceable timelines. She found 9? reviews on this developer anline. Only 5 were positive. They are local and speaking io gaor construction, leak issues, mald in new homes and paor customer service. People wait years ta have cansEruction defects repaired. j SEPA Appeal#2—Project Opponent TPWAG � Appellant Testimonv I Mr. Daniel NIcMonagle is the attorney for the project opponents, the Tiffany Park Woods � Advocacy Group. The opponents have lived in this neighborhood for 34 years and have histarically I used the woods. I Mr.David Beedon is a member of the TPWAG and has lived in the neighbarhood since it was built 34 years ago. He lives at 1'725 Pierce Avenue SE in Renton. Mr. Beedan lives directly adjacent ta the project. He can walk to the former school property in �ve minutes.The TPWAG is composed vf five persans who hold afficer gositions in a non-profit corporation formed in March 2414. The purpose af the group is to mitigate as much as gossible any environmental or other impacts coming out af chis development. He has experience in the woods. He has been walking in these woods since 14$2. He exercises there and watches wildlife. The character of the waods has been mostly unchanged for all that tirne. Some changes there were related ta dirt embankments on paths to facilitate mountain biking. There are teepee and treehouses built here. The waods have never been fenced, except atong the Cedac River Pipeline.The fence has been there at Ieast 34 years. It has been unmaintained. The fence is along the City of Seattle Watershed property line. It is not a schoal district fence. The woods property has never been signed no trespassing. � v � There is an extensive trail s stem in the woods that were there when he moved in. There are nin y e separate access points along the two pipeline rights of way and other at the end of 18th Street. These are trailheads. The trails are a large loop with several connector trails. The outer loop is about a 15 minute walk. Mr. Beedon has personally been pruning and trimming trails to keep them open. He believes the school district performed maintenance there four times in the last three decades including cutting down dangerous trees and removing trash or yazd waste. He is aware of no other activity from the school district on the property. The school district performed maintenance there in 2000, 2010, and twice in 2011. Each of these incidents was related to a request for action to the school district by a member of the public. Mr. Beedon spoke to the school district in 2000 about illegal activity on the property. That prompted the 2000 maintenance and the placement of signage discouraging dumping. In 2010, Mr. Beedon called the school district to ask why some trees had been removed. The school district stated there were dangerous trees. In 2011 he spoke with the school district about illegal trash and a fire pit on the property. The school district responded by cleaning up the trash and removing the fire pit. Mr. Beedon quoted an email sent to him by Mr. Mike Rouch of the school district. The email stated, "I got the sense this is an important asset to your neighborhood and I wanted our folks to do what we could to restore the beauty there." Mr. Beedon stated the school district had essentially left the property alone. Mr. Beedon stated the trails have been used for recreational walking, running, dog walking, bicycling, socializing, wildlife viewing, and inventorying plants. Kids build forts and tree houses. This area is used extensively for recreation, on a daily basis there are at least a dozen people in there. Over the years, thousands of people have used it. Use of the area has increased due to the informal maintenance of the paths. Aesthetically, the woods are beautiful. It's a wild area with a variety of vegetation and wetlands. The topography is interesting. There are seasonal creeks. It reminds him of the foothills of the Cascades, i though with less dramatic topography. Mr. Beedon described wildlife he has seen on the property including bobcat, pileated woodpecker, red headed sapsuckers, ducks, crows, other types of birds, deer, and owls. Mr. Beedon stated there are a rich vaziety of plants on the property. There are also at least two geocaches on the property. Mr. Beedon showed pictures of stormwater accumulated on the two pipelines on the property. The pipelines drain onto the school district property. Recently,the City of Renton cleaned out drain pipes to improve the drainage and reduce flooding. In response to Mr. McMonagle, Mr. Beedon stated he had hired Mr. Neugebauer in September 2014 to perform studies on the property and review the applicant's studies. The TPWAG had asked the \.r V school district to allow them to do a third party wetland evaluation. The school district denied the request stating it did not further the interest of the school district or the developer. The Examiner asked Mr. McMonagle to tie the historic use of the property to a SEPA impact, noting the public did not have a right to use this property in the first place. How is there an adverse impact under SEPA? There could be a prescriptive use, but the Examiner does not have the authority to adjudicate prescriptive use or adverse possession. The Examiner noted Halverson v. Bellevue, and the limits on restrictions of Hearing Examiner authority, specifically Legune v. Clallam County, and others. The Examiner's authority is limited to those described specifically in the City code. The Examiner asked Mr. McMonagle to provide a brief on the issue of the authority and relevance of the public prescriptive right to the property by November 28th with applicant and City response by December Sth. Mr. Steven Neugebauer of SNR Company is a licensed hydrogeologist and engineering geologist. He presented a PowerPoint presentation highlighting the relevant issues from his report (Exhibit M49). Mr. Neugebauer described his qualifications. He stated the biggest issue with this project is groundwater and the engineering geology of the site. The big thing is the SEPA document is inadequate. His scope for this project is to assess the applicant's studies and to review the environmental impacts of the project. SEPA should produce information regarding impacts. The SEPA checklist is not designed to gather all the impacts. There should be more intensive studies done here because of the intensity of the development and of the surrounding development. There are only preliminary studies, which are inadequate. Mr. Neugebauer stated the history of the site needs to be reviewed as far back as possible. His presentation will focus on the SEPA issues. Only four studies have been incorporated in the SEPA checklist, there are now 22 studies. Mr. Neugebauer described the wildlife corridor link along the greenbelt from the subject to the Cedar River. This is the only significant open area in the local region. The moor is surrounded by development except for this narrow wildlife corridor on the northeast corner. He showed maps dating back to 1865 to show historical water flows. In 1898 the Black River still flowed, the Green River Valley was the White River Valley and the Duwamish Waten�vay was still a river. There are wetlands shown on the map in this azea as back as 1898. The entire regional drainage system has changed since then. The title report shows in 1936 this subject property had been cleared and was owned by the railroad and in 1945 by a Department of Defense corporation. This is an important issue to SEPA because there might have been wartime activity here with potential contaminants. Mr. Neugebauer states there should have been a Phase 1 ESA. Mr. Neugebauer showed the development pattern in 1990. It has been forested si�ce the 1940s. The oldest trees are about 65 years old. Mr. Neugebauer showed the geomorphology of the area. The property had been in a melt water channel from the last ice age that became the Cedar River. Drainage goes both to the southwest and northeast. The area has many depositional environments for soils. There are structural anomalies in � � the azea. There are no geological reports performed by the applicant and they couldn't perform their I own. He stated there should have been more soils tests, percolation tests, more test pits and borings. There is neither engineering geology nor hydrogeological studies. He showed a geologic map of the area and pointed to geologic issues from the confluence of two seismic faults. This might influence landslide activities. The USGS maps show that the closest fault zone is 3.9 miles, though there may be others nearby that haven't yet been mapped. Geologists look for bend trees and uneven surfaces. There are many bent trees here. That indicates ground movement. The ground is moving slowly and the trees are bending with it. There might be shallow or slightly deeper ground movement. He walked the site, but didn't perform studies because the school district wouldn't allow it. The SEPA documents say there are no structures on the site, but there are treehouses and forts. The site is vacant but not unused. The Opponents state there is no SEPA document, only a report from the City's Environmental Review Committee. Mr. Steven Neugebauer discussed the title report's historical accounts of ownership of the project site (Page 12). There is an easement for a natural gas pipeline. There aze several other easements for various purposes. Ms. Rogers asked about the relevance of this testimony. Mr. McMonagle asked Mr. Neugebauer to describe the relevance of this testimony in terms of SEPA. Mr. Neugebauer stated the SEPA checklist asks about potential hazardous wa.stes on the property. No studies were conducted. The title report shows potential hazardous uses in the past. A phase 1 environmental site assessment should have been conducted. Mr. Neugebauer stated the applicant hadn't shown how they were dealing with the City's drainage easement, which is part of the City's drainage system. Ms. Rogers noted that the drainage easement was released. Mr. Neugebauer stated his concern from a geologic perspective is that there were no geologic or hydrogeologist studies performed for this site. There isn't enough information. This site could have fault zones. Also, there is potential evidence of ground creep or slumps. His specific concern is that these mobile soils must be dealt with, which would require further study. He also stated the SEPA Checklist is wrong because the studies came later. He stated the Checklist was wrong because it ignored recreational activities and recreational structures on the property. Mr. Neugebauer stated 14 days is insufficient to review the many studies that were performed as part of this application. He stated he had reviewed all of the documents and believes an Environmental Impact Statement should have been required. The SEPA Checklist was the only document presented. The SEPA document should show what the conditions are in a summary format. Another issue is the hydrology and geology of the site. The wetland determination by Gary Shultz and the Technical Information Report from Barghausen and the Otak report show groundwater saturation levels that make this site undevelopable. The groundwater will be too high in the rainy season. Mr. Neugebauer referred to the Shultz report. He stated the depth to the water table is zero ... ... ..,-_J I � � inches beiow ground level. Groundwater is a flat line, zt is not contaured. This site needs additianal study to determiz�e haw it can be developed. An EIS should be required. Mr. Neugebauer read definitians for various types of groundwater and hydric soils from the USGS. The applicant's report shows so rnuch water there that development without punnps may not be feasible. Groundwater is j also protected fram perllutants. It's illegal to discharge pollutants into groundwater. Water from the hames cannot be discharged into the wetlands. Mr. Neugebauer stated the AES geotechnical repart is not adequate to satisfy SEPA requirements. It stated that in the report. 'There have nat been the extensive studies that should have been prepared. There were inadequate numbers of test pits. Thaugh they acknowledge groundwater wiil be near the , surface in winter{8'" from surface}, but dan't describe haw they plan to deal with it. The repart was paid for by the schaoi district and was iaadequate in scope. The report shows the site has geotechnical critical areas, speeifically erosion, site stability and other indicatocs of shallow ground creep or slumping. The site will need deep infiltration strategies to get the stormwater down below the high water table i and inta a more permeable layer. There is no capacity for stormwater infiltration on this site. This " may be why the developer has chasen a stotmwater vault because a pond won't infiltrate. Anything excavated below the surface will have roundwater issues. Draina e ditches will be full of water. If g � you put a vault where grvundwater is at the surface, the vault will have to be tied down to bedrock or it will float out of the ground.There need to be much mare detailed studies. Tl�e geatechnical report says the sloge angles are far areas where graundwater seepage is nat present at the face of the slope. There will need to be socne sart of temporary de-watering, Mr. Neugebauer stated the water will came back and fload basements and keep stormwater fronn flawing. Based an our review, the depasits are not the type the repart suggests. This soil is impermeabie. The AES report assurnes the soil is permeable.The soils promote shallow ground creep and slumping. Mr. Neugebauer reviewed the Environmental Review Cammittee report. He believes it is inadequate and an EIS should have been prepared. This praject was dane in too many disjointed steps. On page 8 af AES, the report says the wetlands may be groundwater influenced. However, there is no further study to deternune what to do. Having groundwater withi❑ 8" of the surface is a major issue. There , is a 12" culvert discharging stormwater into the wetland. That's illegal under the Clean Water Act. I They cannat discharge to a point saurce. There need to be better studies. ' The Environmental Review Camrnittee repoct states the project will result in minimal loss of vegetation to the site. That's impossible given the current propasal. AccQrding to the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife,there is griority habitat here. The removal of'existing vegetation will remove a great deal of the evapotranspiration on Lhis site. The trees rnay remove as much as 75�10 of the water from the site. The ERC is more warried about views than the more critical water issaes. ti.r' � Mr. Neugebauer stated the ERC is basing its opinions on studies that are too prelirriinary. The issue of liquefaction isn't addressed at all. There is no study as to how the displaced groundwater will affect neighbors. Mr. Neugebauer's final point is that there is no cohesive and conclusive SEPA document. You can't make a final environmental determination on a document that doesn't exist. Ms. Timmons asked Mr. Neugebauer if he'd read the drainage report in the application packet. Mr. Neugebauer stated he had. Ms. Timmons asked Mr. Neugebauer to relate his testimony to the drainage repoR. Mr. Neugebauer stated the applicant put the cart before the horse because there are , no studies for groundwater hydrology.There isn't enough information to form a drainage report. In response to the Examiner, Mr. Neugebauer stated he would have done test pits and boring, piezometer studies and look for the groundwater. If the wetlands are there, the groundwater is there. We need additional studies to determine where the water really is. If it's at the surface, the drainage report is incorrect. The Examiner asked if they know the groundwater is, why does there need to be additional study. Mr. Neugebauer stated the drainage plan isn't taking into account the groundwater. A building pad cannot be placed where the groundwater at the surface. Utilities cannot be placed within the groundwater, particularly sewer which would be continuously draining groundwater. Ms. Rogers asked if he was familiar with the 1995 Local Project Review Act (RCW 36.70B). Mr. 1Veugebauer stated he wasn't. Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Neugebauer was aware of the SEPA provisions that provide that city regulations can be sufficient to mitigate environmental impacts. Mr. Neugebauer stated he had looked at it and at the requirements for an EIS. Ms. Rogers asked if he had worked with real estate developers who are speculatively buying property. He stated he did and that develo rs did feasibilit studies. He stated hase 1 Pe Y P environmental site assessme�ts (ESA) were common. He had not seen the applicant's Phase 1 ESA and couldn't speak to whether one existed. It is a typical procedure. Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Neugebauer was familiar with the City's preliminary plat procedures. He responded he was slightly familiar with them. Mr. Neugebauer stated a project of this size would typically have an EIS. He had never seen a development of this size with this much contention without an EIS. Ms. Rogers stated the applicant had prepared a SEPA Checklist June 2014. Mr. Neugebauer was not aware of the newer checklist. In response to Ms. Rogers, Mr. Neugebauer stated the test pits from Mr. Shultz's report were taken throughout the project site, though most are in the wetland areas. He stated there aze high levels of water throughout the site because water tables are flat. He stated he was not aware of a 303D listing for any water on the site, though all wetlands are expected to be so listed to alIow discharge. _ _ � .....,..._......,._...,__.J � � � Mr. Neagebauer stated starmwater is being directed ta a vault but it will nat treat the stormwater for �I heavy metals. Ms. Rogers refened to the 2022 AES repart. The top of page 2 states the site is � suitable for buried utilities, paving and structures. Mr. Neugebauer stated they also said additianal studies would be conducted. Ms. Rogers asked if he understood that detailed canstruction and engineering review and much more intensive studies will be canducted before final plat. Mr. Neugebauer reiterated he felt the cart was being placed before the horse in that the SEPA review is now for a reason. It allaws far adequate public comment. Later phases do not. Ms. Rogers referred to the aerial photo (Exhibit K6c) and asked Mr. Neugehauer if the project site isn't cotnpletely surrounded by similaz residential develogments. He stated there is farested land around here and existing development is less dense. He did agree there are existing houses and roads suzrounding the praject. He doesn't know if there are existing geological or hydrolagical issues affecting the existing homes, however he speculates that may be why the areas ta the northeast and east are not developed. Appiicant Response IYIr. Kevin Jones, Transgortation Engineer, Transpo Graup, prepared the traffic repari for this project. He also reviewed the public camments and will respond to them. He's responding specifically to letters fram Mr. Roenicke and Ms. Garlough. Mr. Roenicke was concerned that the traffic counts were canducted in June 2013, a time period when the adjacent elementary school is out far summer. Mr. Jones responded by nating that they acknowledged schooi was out of sessian. As such, they added to their counts schoal traffic based on the enroliment of school at the time, which is within eight students of the current student count. They laoked at average trip rates for elementary schoals and inflated the counts by 210 AM Peak and 70 PM Peak hour trips. Ms. Garlaugh claimed to have taken counts themselves and compazed them ta the Transpo report. Ms. Garlaugh stated the traffic volume was 3Q% higher than Transpo's measarements. Mr. Jones agreed that traffic valunnes fluctuate day to day; however, the traffic valume in the neighborhoad is low. The volumes are law enaugh that yau could double traffic ar�d siitt have I.evel af Service (LOS) A or B at a11 af the surrounding interseetions. The intersectian operation wilt stay high and not fail belaw an acceptabie LiDS that would require mitigatian. Mr. Janes responded ta another camment about the impact af new residential traffic an school pedestrian traffic by stating that the averiap in traffic conditians woutd be in the morning. The residence peak happens after schoal is out. The projected increase in volumes an Lake Youngs Way is 10-45 +/- trips in the AM Peak hour. This increase, on average, is one vehicle or less per minute during that time period. Traffic volumes fluctuate and there may be an extra car ar two in that time periad. The sehool traffic tends to be coacentrated in 30 minute intervals. Mast of the project traffic won't mix with school traffic volurnes. ti,, V Mr. Jones spoke to potential safety issues for school pedestrian traffic. He stated there won't be much impact because the volumes are low. Also, they are providing a pedestrian crosswalk at 18th and Lake Youngs Way. Given the speed limits, the pedestrian crossing and relatively small increase in volumes, there do not anticipate a safety hazard. There is concern about visibility on 16th Street and there was a suggestion this is an accident prone area. They review the accident logs from the City for this location. Specifically, they reviewed collision records for SE 16th Street between Beacon Way SE and Lake Youngs Way SE. For a four year period, there were no collisions reported in this area. There is a grade difference between Beacon and Ferndale. They looked at the collision records and measured daily traffic volumes over a seven day period. 16th Street serves about 3,300 vehicles per day. 4.8 million vehicles traveled along that section in four years without a single reported collision. There was one in February of this year, though that was related to icy conditions. Mr. Jones stated the data dces not support the assertion this location is a collision prone location. They will also add additional signage on the north side of 16th Street indicating there is an intersection approaching. The geometrics of the road make it difficult to see the intersection. There is a sign now recommending speed limits of 15 mph in this area. There aze sidewalks along the route to the school (Exhibit A9, Figure 1). Mr. Jones responded to a comment from Ponderosa Estates. Residents in this subdivision are concerned about long waits nearby intersections, specifically the intersection labelled Intersection 13 in the Transpo report. They evaluated the intersection from a delay standpoint in the AM and PM Peak. The intersection was not originally reviewed, but was added at the City's request. The review of this intersection was this year while school was in session. Based on the data and the stop control of this intersection, they found this intersection has 15 seconds of average delay or less. The delay will not significantly increase with this development looking out to 2018. It's currently 13 seconds in both the AM and PM Peak. The LOS is B now and will stay that way. This is an acceptable delay under the City's standards. No change in traffic control is necessary. Another issue with respect to school traffic is whether there will need to be extra traffic control personnel from the school. Mr. Jones stated he didn't know, but that the use of traffic crossing guards is a typical occurrence in this area. He doesn't anticipate the school district will need to hire traffic control personnel they don't already have. Mr. McMonagle asked Mr. Jones about the changes from the original to the revised traffic study. Mr. Jones stated that in both cases, there were the two proposed entrances there are right now. Mr. McMonagle asked Mr. Jones to explain the route persons in the subdivision would use to get out to a minor arterial. Mr. Jo�es stated that 60% of the Tiffany Park traffic was assumed to go to the west and the remainder would go south. Of the westbound traffic, they assumed the majority of it would go to SE 16th Street via some route. They would then access Edmonds Avenue. They revised the study because there was a lot of public comment about the absence of that intersection in the study. For the southbound traffic, they assumed the traffic would mostly go to SE 18th Street to Lake _. ._..._.:_J � � I Yaungs Way. Some wa�ld ga to 5E lbth Street; others wauld go to RoyaI Hills. tJther traffic wauld go to Beacon, Ferndale or other routes ta SE lbth Street and Edmonds Avenue. He stated SE 16th Street had mare grade than SE I8th Street; otherwise the raadway geornetry was comparable. Mr. MeMonagle asked Mr. Jones about the development's propased roads. Mr. Jones stated the devetopment will have roads designed to the current standards. Ms. Racheal VilIa, of Soundview Consultants, described her experience and qualifications. Her company conducted the fish and wildlife habitat assessment for the property (Exhibit K, page 40). Together, all the scientists who worked on this report have about 80 years of experience. She is a qualified senior author for biolagical assessments under WSDOT,which is fairly unique. Ms. Villa stated she had visited the project site. She was hired to perform supplementary wetlands review for fish and wildlife habitat. They reviewed the wetlands assessment. They reviewed lists of species fram the USFW and the WA DFW for priarity habiEats and species affsite assaciated with the Cedar River corridor. There was nothing specifically mapped on site, so they looked to see what was on-site. In their normal critical areas assessment, they would usuaily incorparate wetiands and habitat scientists. They found nothing specifically listed for priority protection. They reviewed a wider area for naise and stormwater impacts (Exhibit A, Attachment 16), Ms. Villa noted the habitat here is fairly disturbed on a large scale basis. There is a lot of human intrusion. It's nat directly connected to the Cedar River carridor. There are trees, but the wildlife has to cross the 60 focrt wide water easernent, cross a residential road, cross residential yards, crass a 40% slope and then the Bonneville Power Administration's easement to khe Cedar River corridor. It's discantinuous, isolated and highly disturbed. The priar testimony dacuments that by mentianing the extensive use practiced here. Ms. Villa stated they looked at all potentially regulated species on site including aIl state and federal listed species and habitat. They found habitat patentially assaciated with pileated woadpeckers and Townsend's bat, both �Vashington 5tate listed species. Ms. Villa stated there is a great deal of I woadpecker activity. She didn't see nests, but she did see snags. Pileated woodpeckers utilize 1,480 j acres, which would inciude the whole Cedar River corridar. It is possible the woodpeckers are I faraging on site. Woodpeckers are a residential, non-migratory species. Ms. Villa stated Townsend's I bats might use the site seasonally during the sumnner for foraging for insects. The DFW would I require protecting wetlands, associated buffers and large trees. Ms. Villa stated the plat will not I result in a loss of significant,protected habitat for these two listed species. Ms. Villa stated the bobcat is not a listed species. It's a hunted species that doesn't have specific requirements for habitat protection. Ms. Rogers asked Ms. Villa her opinion of the impaet of the proposed project. lVls. Villa stated if the I wetlands and buffers are protected and off-leash dogs and people c�n bikes were kept out, the �.,,, v wetlands would be better protected than they are now. A typical buffer around a critical area is split rail,which does not keep wildlife out.They function to keep humans and their pets out. , Ms. Rogers asked Ms. Villa to sammazize her November 18, 2014 memo. Ms. Villa summarized the letter by saying they reviewed for potentially regulated species and habitats in accordance with the City of Renton's codes. They concluded the proposal will not likely cause adverse impact on listed species or critical habitats with implementation of best management practices. Protection of wetlands, buffers and significant trees are proposed. She also mentioned the current condition with anthropogenic structures, unleashed pets and many other disturbances to wildlife currently occurring on the site.With respect to non-game species,they were surveyed in the review. She reiterated this is a highly disturbed,isolated patch. Ms. Villa discussed the stormwater filtration system which will remove many pollutants. There is no direct downstream connection to Ginger Creek, which is a tributary to Cedar River. The plan as proposed will protect the downstream areas. Mr. McMonagle stated he didn't understand the description of the critical areas fence. Ms. Villa described what a wooden, split rail fence looks like. Mr. Gary Schulz is a wetlands ecologist. Mr. Schultz described his education and qualifications. He is a sole proprietor who does habitat assessments, mitigation planning, and wetland and stream studies. He is a water and sewer district commissioner. Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Schultz if he had visited the project site. He stated he had, many times. His work was focused on wetland delineation and stream identification. He used the ACOE, the DOE Wetlands Manual. He put transects on the property and walked the site in a pattern to determine the location of wetlands. He delineated the wetlands. His delineation was reviewed by Otak, the City's peer reviewer. Mr. Schultz concluded the wetlands are isolated and separated from downstream habitats and water. The southern pipeline dams the site and prevents the flow of surface water off site. They are pocket depressions that are in�luenced by perched groundwater on a seasonal basis. He visited the site during Mazch and June to view where the water was by season. Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Schultz tracks weather patterns. He stated he used the SeaTac rainfall record. His review was conducted in March 2014, when the rainfall was 5-6 inches above normal for that time of year. According to the news, it was record breaking month, though he couldn't quote the record. " Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Schultz about shallow groundwater and the data plots described by Mr. Neugebauer. Mr. Schultz stated they were all near wetlands boundaries. Mr. Schultz reviewed these , extra data points at the request of Otak. Mr. Schultz stated Mr. Neugebauer used the term `aquake regime'. This term means hydric soils. A lot of these plots were outside the wetland boundaries and didn't have hydric soils. They aren't part of the wetland, though it was a wet time of year. Mr. Schultz stated the soils on site are Alderwood, which typically overlay an impervious till layer. —— - - -- — �... `�"'I � Perched, seasonal high water is common. Mr. Schultz stated the areas that will be wet in the winter � will be protected. In June 20I3,there was no water at alI on site. Mr. McMonagle asked Mr. Schultz whether he's a hydragealogist. Mr. Schultz stated he wasn't. He is a wettand ecologist. Mr. McManagle asked if Mr. Schultz can inteipret hydralogy. Mr. Schultz stated delineating wetlands requires an understanding af wetland hydrology, thaugh he didn't provide either a hydrology report or a geologic report. Mr. Ray Coglas, of Earth Solutions NW, described his education and qualifications. He is a licensed geotechnical engineer. He's been a registered geoengineer since 1998. He is the president of Earth Solutions NW. Mr. Coglas stated he had been present for the TPWAG testimany and had � visited the project site. He submitted a letter as part of the exhibit gackage (Exhibit K,page 33}. Ms. Rogers asked Mr.Coglas ta discuss his letter and his response to Mr. Neugebauer. �' Ms. Rogers asked to discuss the sail and groundwater characteristics on the site, s�cifically as they �' related to the ability to develop the praject. Mr. Coglas stated his roie was initially to review the , AES repart. His pt�rtion was review of prior reports, fietd surveys and review af public ccrmments. With respect to the AES repart and same of the testimony he'd heard, the AEA report is standard practice. The site is fairly ta moderately slaping site, mainly glacial till though there may be some outwash. The level of investigation that was done as part af the AES report was similar to what his firm would have dane. A lat af time geotechnical reports aze driven by the proposed use. Kurt Menyman authored the AES report. He is reputable. The repart was valid, They adequately characterized on site conditions. The one thing that stood out to Mr. Coglas is that AES didn't throw up any red flags. There's nathing in the report that would suggest major problems. AES was working for the school district and would have been required ta tell the district if they thought there wauid be issues for '', devetopment. AIl sites are nnique,however this is a typical glacia!till site. The level of investigation was appropriate with test pits. If it had been him,he'd dane the same type of review far the intended ase. If this was proposed to be a 25 story affice building with three levels af underground parking, � then far more intensive study would have been needed. The analysis that was done was apprapriate for the scale of the site and proposed type and intensity of use. In preparing his summary, he looked at all that. He agrees with the AES conclusions. A lat af what a geotechnical engineer does is � deterrnining the scope af analysis needed. They cauld have done a lot more, but the budget and type of project didn't require it. Most of the activity will be near surface and low intensity, Ms. Rogers asked if there would be additional geatechnical analysis ta support constructian and engineering design at the permit stage. Mr. Coglas stated as far as the actual engineering of the project when it comes to assigning actual values for designer, his firm will prepare a geotechnical report that may ar may not include more information. The final design isn't finished, so they don't know yet where they'tl need tnore specific infarmation. , — - — - � � , With respect to shallow groundwater, Mr. Coglas stated there is groundwater in the northwest. He ' stated the various depths of groundwater testified to before (6", 8", or 2'), AES characterizes the water table at 8' in depth during the summer. It tluctuates seasonally. There's nothing in the AES report suggesting 2' in the summer. It reports 8' in depth. The thing he wants to point out is this site is a perched groundwater condition. Glacial till is dense and cemented and does not allow vertical penetration of surface water to depth. That's common. He is not surprised that during wetland studies they encountered shallow or ponding water in the depressional wetland areas. To suggest the whole site will be underwater is not consistent with a perched groundwater table. There are recessional sands at the surface that allow water to pass through. That water then gets trapped in the impervious layer. He deals with groundwater on all of his projects. It is not a condition that precludes development. There's nothing unique to the plot of Tiffany Park or its surrounds geologically speaking. The Kent Valley is a flat, deep alluvial deposit with a level groundwater table that fluctuates evenly across the valley floor. The Kent Valley is like a deep bathtub. That's not the case here. The till layer is shallow and undulating in Tiffany Park. The elevation change across Tiffany Park is 40'. For example, if the groundwater table were level here, a change in 40' in elevation across the site would cause most of it to be underwater. That's not the case. There are seep environments that are seasonally wet, but they are localized based on the topography and glacial till layer. Groundwater seepage is managed during construction; it doesn't preclude construction. Mr. Rogers asked Mr. Cogias to discuss managing stromwater during construction, specifically, will the stormwater vault float?Mr. Coglas stated that almost every single project he's on has stormwater facilities, many of them are vaults. He's done hundreds of vaults. They look at excavation, the base, ' storage capacity, stability of the side slopes, and backfill. Tiffany Park is not an environment where he would be concerned with buoyancy of his vault structure. There might be a large seep at the beginning of the cut because of built up water pressure. This usually attenuates over time as the trapped water is drained. They always put a footing drain around the vault if they are concerned the groundwater seam might create excess hydrostatic pressure on the concrete walls. They aren't concerned about buoyancy here. He has done projects that do have buoyancy issues. In that case, there are many best management practices to prevent the vault from being displaced. Ms. Rogers asked to tum back to the AES report. She asked Mr. Coglas to discuss the log reports for the test pits. Mr. Coglas stated geotechnical engineers dig test pits to evaluate soil profiles. Notes suggesting no caving or seepage are very useful because it speaks to the strength of the soil. Groundwater see a e is different from the roundwater table. In the Kent Valle the would call P g g Y, Y any water they found the groundwater table, rather than seepage. In this case, there is a difference. Mr. Rogers noted Mr. Neugebauer asked for additional studies. Mr. Coglas described his report and its detail of the geological hazards on site. Mr. Coglas stated there were no slopes that met the City's criteria for sensitive or protected areas. There aze some local, isolated areas that may meet the 40% criteria, but as a geotechnical engineer, he looks at stability. The code specifies the boundaries. Mr. Coglas stated there are no landslide hazards or high erosion hazards on the project site. ..- --- ---._� w�.r `""� Erosion is something to be managed. They derive the characterization of erosion from the USDA {now NRGS} soil characterizatian. These soil types were derzved for agriculture. When warking � fields, it was gaod to knaw which saiis had high erosian qualities. In devetopment, the type of erosion hazard is not significant. Tiffany Park has some slight to moderate erosion areas. However, they control erosion through many different methodologies. The final product is stabilized. Erosion I is rnanaged through engineering solutions. I Mr. Coglas stated there are no seismic hazards on this property. The Seattle fault is 3.7 miles north. I 1 or her f atures under Tiffan We live in a tectonically active enviranment. There might be a sp ay ot e y I Park, but nane are known. It's important to know that the residential building code for this area is sufficient to offset seismic risk in this region. A more intense structure ar development wauld require tnore studies, but low density residential development does not. There is a law seismic hazard here,according to the City. j With respect to caal mine hazards, Mr. Cagias stated they had reviewed the coat mine maps. AES also addressed this. They are autside the boundary where further study is needed for coal mine j 'i hazards. j , Mr. Coglas stated there are no potential adverse environmental impacts in relation to geotechnical I issues. � In response to the Examiner, Mr. Coglas stated he was hired as peer review for the AES report. He I was also hired to respnnd ta public camments. Mr. Caglas stated he disagreed with Mr. i Neugebauer's conclusions the entire site is somehow going to be underwater or flooded. The I groundwater is perched on glacial till that undulates and is uneven. Mr. Coglas said in these environments, based on studies and his experience, it's likely there will be some groundwater seegage when they do utility excavations t�r cutslfills. This is not a site that will require dewatering i ar extensive pamping. The groundwater table is perched with various, isalated seams. In the Kent Valley, pulling water out would draw the whole water table down. This isn't the case here. The water tahie wi�l be sha2tow near the wetlands. The AES report, except for the narrative, doesn't ' dacument any observed graundwater in the test pits. In exploration pit #6, they noted weak groundwater seepage below 8 feet. It was the dry season. The Examiner asked if Mr. Neugebauer is correct in his canclusion the groundwater level is at zero II elevation, would that cause a prablem for construction. Mr. CogIas said that would be a problem,but I that is not the case. However, if it was at zero elevation, they cauld rnanage it. The stormwater I ' system might need ta change, but it could be feasibility changed. Mr. Caglas stated the notian that I the groundwater is right at the surface everywhere on the project is absurd. i Mr. McManagle asked Mr. Coglas about the test logs in the back of the AES report, Mr. Caglas stated the pits were all test excavations, rather than borings. He agreed there were 12 test pits on the ' 22 acres dug on September 6, 2Q 12. He agreed all of the pits were dane an the same day (Exhibit � � I I I - '�.� `�' A7, Figure 2). Mr. Coglas stated he is a licensed civil engineer, not a licensed geologist or I hydrogeologist. They have them on staff. He reviews those reports and has studied these specialties. He's familiaz with the two basic groundwater environments at this site. Mr. McMonagle referred to Page 1 of the AES report that there is a caution the report should be reviewed and revised to support a specific development proposal. Mr. Coglas stated he was retained � in October 2014. He was hired to provide peer review of the AES report, prepare a site evaluation, review the plat proposal and provide feedback on community comments. Mr. McMonagle asked if Mr. Coglas had done physical investigation of the site. Mr. Coglas said he had not and was unsure of whether he would be asked to going forwazd. He anticipates what he would do on a follow up report which would include further review of lat lans. Mr. Co 1 s p p g as tated construction is done year round right now. He prepares different recommendations to deal with groundwater, depending on the season. With respect to the vault, the physical dimension for this vault is very large, but he doesn't know exactly how big. His role is to help the contractor to install the vault and deal with any groundwater or geotechnical issues to ensure the vault is installed correctly and will function. The vault will probably be 12-18' deep. They will have 100 times more bearing capacity than is needed. There will be a soil cap. He'll look at the stability of the excavation to ensure the walls hold. Mr. Coglas showed where the stormwater vault will be located on the plat. Mr. Coglas agreed the deepest test pit ' was 10.5', though he's gone deeper on other projects. The shallowest test pit was 8'. He agreed the � only test pit in the vicinity of the vault was Test Pit#11,to a depth of 8.5'. Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Coglas to clazify his role in the project going forward. He stated his firm is the geotechnical engineer of record and will assume that role going forward. Mr. Bar Talkin on, of Bar hausen Consultin En ineers is the civil en ineer for the r ' rY � g g g , g p o�ect and designed the plat. Mr. Talkington spoke of the drainage release on the title. A drainage release states there is stormwater leaving a property and draining on another property. It is not an easement with an exact location. His design of the plat addressed the release by looking at upstream drainage basins around the property. The drainage release in the title is for the Ponderosa subdivision, at least a half mile from the propeRy. It is uphill, but there is no physical way water can drain from that property on to the project property. The drainage release was executed in 1965, before much of the present development was constructed. The drainage release described the entire section (640 acres). It's just an historical remainder. Mr. Talkington stated discharging clean stormwater into wetlands is a common practice. The drainage is discharged into the buffer to recharge the hydrology of the wetland. With respect to street widths, the streets inside the project are narrower than in the surrounding communities, in conformance with cunent city code. �.,,, v Mr. Talkington stated the preliminary plat process starts with city approval. The n:ext step is prepa.ration af full construction plans and drainage reports. Additianal informatian will be requested from sub-cansultants. They prepared a preliminary drainage report far the general storm drainage design. They will do a final, more specific drainage repart next.The final drainage report is usually a fine tuning,though there may be changes that require more extensive revisions. Mr. McManagle asked if Barghausen Consulting is an engineering firm. Mr. McMonagle asked whether Barghausen was paid hourly from the consultant or as a cantingent fee. Mr. Talkington stated it wasn't cantingent. Staff Resnanse Mr. Steve Lee, City of Renton Development Engineering Manager, described his position with the City and his relevant work experience and qualifications. Mr. Lee he had reviewed the project files and performed a site visit. He has experience in the Cedar River area for the last ten years. Mr. Lee responded to Mr. Neugebauer's testimony. He stated Mr. Neugebauer's paints were very general. Most of the issues Mr. Neugebauer raises were dealt with well by 1VIr. Coglas. Mr. I.ee stated the Cedar River issues will always be gresent. The river system is yaung and new. There have been � sloughing issues, but they were caused by deforestation in the early 20th century, earthquakes and atl�er acts af natare.The Cedar River is now contrailed by the US Army Corp of Engineers(ACOE}. There is a bit af control in the form af two upstrearn dams. Seattie Public Utilities (SPU) has the capability af inetering the flow of the Cedar River. Within the last five years, there was an 8Q year event of 10,00pcfs. In the past, that would have causes landslides and flooding at Boeing. That didn't occur because of the contrals in place by the ACOE and SPU. Mr. Lee stated Mr. Coglas has perfornned at least 20 prajects in the City af Renton. He is correct in his review of the geatechnical study by AES, The site is very similar to other sites in the city. The steep areas aze very small (15-2Q' feet long) and do not warrant slage stability analysis. Overall on � the project site, the approximate slope is 1Q%a ar sa, The City does not require additional sloge , stability�nalysis. With resgect to the number of test pits in the AES study, Mr. Lee stated t'here were sufficient numbers of test pits to gauge imgacts af potential groundwater on site. He would have preferred to see a few more, es�cially in the vault area. However, as Mr. Coglas testified, the City may require extra analysis. He stated he daes not typicaliy require additional geotechnical analysis at this stage of the process. They may ask for deeper borings or excavation pits. The residential nature af this propasal wouldn't usually require it. They will look at this again to determine if more geotechnical information is needed far the walls, cuts, grading and the stromwater vault. Mr. Lee felt the information provided was adequate to allow for a determination of impact on the site. The AES didn't mention issues of groundwater on the site. Therefore, they didn't feel the need to require secondary review.The City detetYnitned the AES repart was adequate. � �`"/ Mr. Lee spoke to the stormwater drainage issues. The only concern the City may have is the placement of the vault. They may require additional and deeper test pits to determine if there is groundwater that would have'a detrimental effect on the vault structure. In that instance, they will do a buoyancy calculation to determine the static water volume. A certain amount of water will hold the vault down. They need to know how much water that is and when it will be in the vault. In response to Ms. Timmons; Mr. Lee stated the storm drainage water will be pre-treated and will prevent polluted water from running off into the wetlands. The vault will treat all PGIS run off and dischazge to a closed conveyance system. None of the pollution generating systems will dischazge into a wetland. Mr. Lee stated the City of Renton will require a Level 2 downstream analysis to describe the downstream conveyance after leaving the site. They are uncertain of a segment of the pipeline that takes the water. They want to make sure there is no downstream flooding. An NPDES permit will be required for the project. The pernut stipulates allowable discharge into a conveyance system. That will include background monitoring as well as dischazge monitoring. Ail of the requirements must be met before a building pernut or construction permits are issued. Mr. Lee summarized the local, state and federal code requirements. The applicant has complied with all code requirements. He stated these codes aze sufficient to address all probable stormwater impacts. He said the Seattle pipeline is monitored by SPU. If they see even a fraction of a movement in that hillside, they'll know. This is the drinking water in the City of Seattle. In response to the Examiner, Mr. Lee stated the deep, static groundwater level was uniformly along the wetland level at the project, it could affect the development. They would discover this instance during construction. If grades aze lower than the wetland level, they will require more borings and test pits. The Examiner asked if the code regulations would allow the City to ask for more borings. Mr. Lee stated it comes down to professional liability as defined in the RCW. The person stamping the plans is responsible. The City is responsible for life safety only. The engineering staff can require more borings if they think there might be an issue. If there aze groundwater issues present, the proposed vault is the best solution. In response to Ms. Rogers, Mr. Lee stated there is a difference between the perched groundwater table and the static, deeper groundwater level. There are no indications of the static groundwater level above 8'. Mr. Lee agreed with Mr. Coglas' assertion that the surface groundwater could be addressed during construction. Mr. McMonagle asked if Mr. Lee was awaze the geotechnical report was prepared for the school ' district rather than the applicant. Mr. Lee stated he was. Mr. McMonagle asked if there shouldn't have been at least one test pit per acre. Mr. Lee stated the geotechnical engineering consultant will get a representative sampling of the site. They add more bores if they see dissimilarities in the site. Mr. McMonagle asked if Mr. Lee was aware AES limited its number of test pits based on budgetary _ � _ _-� �.r � i constrainEs. Mr. I.ee stated he was not aware of this. With respect to the stormwater, Mr. Lee stated the initial design was far a pond but changed to a vault sometime this year. lVlr. McMonagle asked if , the vanit addition would typicaliy trigger the need for additional review. Mr. Lee stated they would typicalIy ask for mare information but they haven't yet requested more geotechnical information from the applicant. Ms. Timmons asked if the City can get the extra infarmation in an engineering packet. Mr. Lee stated it could. � Ms. Rocale Timmans stated the studies provided by the applicant; especially the technical studies will be fine-tuned in detail at the time of construction permit submittal. These studies are used to determine if there are probably adverse impacts from the develogment. The apgellant has asserted there hasn't been adequate ticne to review the groposal and the attendant studies. This praject has been in review for n'rne months. The file has been available. The appellant has been provided with these studies, includ'ing the revised studies from June 2013. There were two Notices af Application reieased. Ms. Timmons entered Exhibit AK. The September 2014 notice inctuded the revised SEPA checklist. With respect to wetiands, the City asked for a third party study. That study was campleted by Otak. Otak pravided two separate memos in response to revised studies frotn Mr. Schultz. Otak aff'irmed the final wetland determination (Exhibit AS). Otak deternnined there was a wetland missed by the applicant. The studies were revised ta acknowledge the fifth wetland an-site. Otak then af�rmed all of the revisions made by Mr. Schultz. Staff agrees with the TPWAG appellant regarding tree preservation for wildlife on site. With respect to transportation, staff agrees with testimQny pravided by Mr.Jones af Transpo Group. Perteet, the City's consultant, concurred with the Transpo study. They feel alt potential impacts are � mitigated. Staff agrees with the testimany pravided by Ms. Villa with respect to criticaI areas and buffers. Anolicant Rebutta! Ms. Rogers stated the applicant agrees with staff on every issue with the exception of the requirement of a 15 foot buffer. Apvellant Rebuttal Mr. Neugebauer stated he was cancerned about the stormwater vault filter. There are no specifications on this. He has never seen a filter that can remove dissalved metals. He is concerned about the maintenance of the filter. Who will change it or maintain it? � --- - -- - - - - -- -- - - - - — – - �r `�' Mr. Neugebauer said he's been practicing hydrogeology for 33 years. He stated perched� groundwater doesn't occur on slopes. The water drains through. The groundwater follows the contour of the land. He stated the unsaturated zone flow is at negative pressure. Groundwater is at atmospheric pressure. The applicant is describing an impossible scenario. They can see the groundwater through pressure gradients. He stated the water table at an elevation is a water table. He stated they are using the applicant's information which is incomplete. The groundwater will go with the slope of the ground. Either the water's at the surface and there is a wetland or it's not. In the upper 30", the bioturbation zone, the ground is unsaturated. The water flows through the pore space and creates a vacuum behind it. There is just not enough information to really say where the groundwater is and where it's going. Finally, Mr. Neugebauer stated groundwater is regulated under the Clean Water Act. Point sources cannot be wetland hydrology. Preliminary Plat Staff Testimonv Ms. Rocale Timmons gave a PowerPoint presentation (Exhibit AL). The site is located in the Benson Hill community planning area in the Tiffany Park neighborhood. It is 22 acres located in the R8 zone. It is bordered by the Cedar River Pipeline and the Mercer Island Pipeline. There are 1,300 trees on this vacant site. It is owned by the Renton School District. It is sunounded by existing single family residences. It ties into two existing street stubs which will be extended into the site. The applicant is requesting critical areas exemptions and preliminary plat approval. The City has received 72 comment letters. Staff was present at a community meeting held by TPWAG and conducted a separate meeting in September 2014. On September 22, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued a MDNS decision with 11 mitigation measures. Two appeals were filed. The environmental deternunation did not include new issues related to zoning, pernutted uses, density,construction mitigation, and others. The applicant is proposing 97 lots. There is a 96 lot proposal to allow 30% retention of trees. There will be a 5.7 du/acre density. Average lot size is 5,400s£ The site has five wetlands (three Category II and two Category III). The applicant is proposing buffer reductions with mitigation in the form of buffer extensions. The applicant is asking for a critical areas exemption for the extension of SE 18th Street to allow for a small buffer impact. Staff supports the requested exemption. Staff relied heavily on the Comprehensive Plan. There aze many significant trees, critical azeas, wildlife and an established density and use pattern that aze unique. Ms. Timmons described the Comprehensive Plan policies the staff relied on in their analysis. The staff attempted to provide harmony and balance between existing and new neighborhoods. The proposal complies with the Comprehensive Plan as conditioned. ti.. v Ttie proposal meets most bulk and dimensional standards if all conditions of approval are met. The only issue is Lot 19. This lot may not meet minimum lot width standards, but will be conditioned to meet the standard. The applicant has provided a landscape plan. This plan does not comply with the code, but could with minor modifications. Per the development standards, there are several proposed walls ranging from 4' to 21' on-site. These walls are outside the height limit. Staff has requested a height limit on walls. Staff would be open to terracing of walls to reduce the overall height. With respect to critical areas, most requirements are met with conditions. The applicant has asked for modifications to wetland buffers.There are impacts from walls that must be revised. There were public comments related to habitat. The site provides habitat for non-listed species. The tree preservation plan is sufficient to provide habitat. Based on the provided tree inventory, � approximately 679 trees were excluded from retention calculations. At least 188 trees must be preserved on site or replaced at a mitigation ratio to allow 30% tree retention. The applicant proposes to protect 181 trees and mitigate seven others. In terms of the analysis from subdivision regulations, the proposal complies if all conditions of approval are met. The applicant must provide a safe crossing for the trail. In response to the Examiner, Ms. Timmons stated there is no applicable street plan in the area. There were several comments regarding transportation issues. The proposed development would generate 1,000 weekday trips. Intersections near the project would remain at acceptable levels of service. A SEPA mitigation measure requires a new stop sign at Monrce Avenue. Staff has included an additional condition of approval to address sight distance,concerns. Staff has also recommended additional signage. Staff feels as conditioned, all impacts for transportation are mitigated. With respect to residential lots, there are several pipe stem Iots. Staff would like to see the applicant revise these lots to comply with code or provide for shazed driveways. Shared driveways are prefened to reduce curb cuts. Parks, police and fire staff indicate there are sufficient resources to support the development if all fees are paid. Adequate provisions for safe walking conditions for students are provided. Sidewalks will be constructed to connect to the existing sidewalk system. Staff has recommended a SEPA mitigation measure to include a crosswalk improvement at Lake Youngs Way at SE I8th Street. Adequate provision for water and sewer are provided. The drainage report complies with the 2009 Stormwater Manual. There will be a vault within Tract A. The applicant will need to provide a downstream analysis for stormwater conveyance. � `�1 In response to the Examiner, Ms. Timmons stated there will be no alley access. This proposal does not meet the threshold. There are two zones on the property. Annlicant Testimonv Ms. Rogers presented a letter describing the applicant's rationale for revised conditions of approval along with a set of revised conditions for the plat (Exhibits AM and AN, respectively). Ms. Rogers asked for approval of the plat subject to revised conditions. They are generally supportive of the staff report. They have a few azeas of disagreement. Ms. Rogers wanted to emphasize a point that the client is under contract to purchase the project from the Renton School District. This is surplus land the district cannot use. Ms. Rogers noted they aze asking for revisions to Conditions 4, 5, 6, 9, and 16-18. They are requesting additional changes to conditions to fix typographical errors, repetition, and non-contested issues. The City has recently changed its justification for Condition 3 for the 15 foot buffer. The City had originally enoneously relied on incorrect Comprehensive Plan policies. They are now turning to policies that also don't support the need for a buffer. Aesthetics are not an adequate basis to impose a perimeter buffer. There is already an average 50 foot perimeter buffer proposed along with two pipelines. There is no need for an additional buffer. With respect to Condition 4, they have proposed a modification to the location of curb bulb outs. They feel the City will agree with this revision. Condition 5 is the biggest issue. This is the condition that City is asserting that retaining walls must be limited to 4 feet in the front yard and 6 feet in the back yard. The City is referencing a condition related to aesthetic dividers, not retaining walls. None of the retaining walls concepts are referenced in this condition. Even if this particular code were to apply, the measurement of height does not apply. The walls they have designed are essential to the design of the plat. Exhibit AM, Attachment B, are two staff reports for current amendments to the walls and hedges section of the code. Title 4 does not have standards for retaining walls. Exhibit AM, Attachment C is a city handout that establishes a difference between fences, hedges and walls and engineered retaining watls. Exhibit AM, Attachment D is the pre-application memo for the original meeting Henley had with the City. You never get a written report again until you see the Hearing Examiner. The City stated the proposed retaining walls aze not subject to the fences portion of the code. Even if the code has recently changed, they are vested to the old code. If the retaining walls are reduced or eliminated, we'll end up doing more grading. That will result in impact to trees and increased construction impacts. They have submitted a grading plan with reduced retaining wall heights. Conditions 6 and 16 are about shared private driveways. They are concerned the City is demanding an extra lot use the shared private driveways.There is a specific instance when this will not work. '`r 'r/ Condition 9 is the wetland mitigation associated with Wetland E, at the southeast section of the site. The wetland mitigation plans show they have already exceeded the required buffer. They have to extend the street. The critical areas exemption is for 14sf of impact from the required sidewalk. The City has asked for additional buffer area. They disagree but will agree to provide enhanced plantings. Condition 17 is a typographical error. Condition 18 is related to pipe stem lots which are really about the shared driveway issue. Mr. Gary Schultz, the wetland ecologist, described the mitigation impacts the applicant is providing. His testimony is specifically related to Condition 9. Mr. Schultz described the 1,331sf of additional buffer the applicant is proposing. �Ms. Rogers stated Ms. Timmons agreed to the revised Conditions 1, 4, 9, 13 and 17. Ms. Timmons stated the disa ree with a licant revised Conditi Y g pp ons 3, 5, 6, and 16. In response to the Examiner, Ms. Vanessa Dolby, stated she would not be opposed to changing Condition 5 to allow them to request a variance. She could not comment on whether staff would support a variance. These would be administrative variances. Ms. Rogers stated that they did not apply for a variance because they � were told they didn't need to. Mr.Barry Talkington spoke to the difference between cut and fill walls. A cut is needed when the finished lot grade is below the existing grade. The wall stabilizes the grade. A fill wall includes fill on top of existing grade. The finished lot is above existing grade. This is and engineered wall with reinforcing fabric. Mr. Talkington stated the revised plan reduces the 21' high wall above Tract A and the 18' high wall along the Cedar River Pipeline. That wall will come down to 6'. The height from the high side of the walls is zero if they apply the code in effect when they submitted. In their case,the finished grade is the top of the wall. Mr. Talkington described the limits on site grading imposed by two entrances, ADA standards, etc. The overall objective is to balance cut/fill on site. They are limited by the road access and ADA standards for road slopes through intersections. They can only change grades on site so much. As the plan is laid out there are grade differences from lot to lot that requires walls. They attempt to maximize lot azeas and reduce impacts to surrounding buffers. If they meet the City's conditions, they will lose lots, reduce lot sizes and impact the buffers. Use of walls allows them to decrease impacts. For Conditions 6 and 16, Mr. Talkington spoke to a set of maps (Exhibit AO) depicting the shared driveway plans. He prepared the plans. For lots 9-14, the shared driveway easement will be used Lots 12-14. Lot 14 has direct access to the cul-de-sac but there will be no driveway there. The City would also require Lot 11 to use this driveway. This is not desirable because the driveway would be at an angle to the roadway which would also change the design of the house to allow side loading of � � the garage. The City is attempting to apply the amended code to the plot rather than the code under which the project vested. The staff Report stated Lot 14 had inadequate frontage. This has been corrected. For Lots 15-17, they had originally designed the shared driveway to service Lots 15 and 16. They have now included Lot 17 on the shared easement. They have also corrected the frontage of Lot 17 to comply with code. Next to Lots IS-17,there is a pedestrian tract. For Lots 38-40, the issue is the same as for Lots 15-17. They have revised the lots to allow Lot 38 to comply with the width requirement and access the shared easement. For Lots 79-81, Lot 81 was added to allow access to the shared right of way. Lot 78 will not access the shared driveway. With the applicant's revised condition language, they are willing to ensure access to shared driveways for three lots rather than the City's suggested four. Public Testimonv Ms. Jill Jones is a Renton resident. She's heard experts testifying and noted that many of these people testifying have not walked the roads. She has lived there and walked therefor yeazs. This is a valuable resource. The Cedar River conidor cannot be walked by residents. There is no access here because it is steep. The woods are fully canopied, with easy trails. Henley says because the development is single family residences,they shouldn't have to provide a buffer. The development is much denser than the existing neighborhoods. The trees aze mature and were pre-existing 30 yeazs ago. The road is wide. There are many trees. Grass planting stnps absorb the rain. Ms. Jones showed an example of other Henley developments that have no trees and narrow parking strips. The homes I will be taller and larger than the existing houses on much smaller lots. There will be no stormwater azeas. Currently Tiffany Park floods in heavy storms. She has serious doubts about the ability to provide adequate stormwater drainage. She also observed a pileated woodpecker in the woods on A ril 14 2014. P � Ms. Beedon would like to ask the Examiner to walk the woods before he makes a decision. This is important. She has listened to all of the testimony. The experts seem to care but they have shown no concern about what they are tearing down. This piece of wood should be preserved. They aze taking away something irreplaceable. She feels this piece of property should be preserved for future generations and all of us. She asked the Examiner to walk this area. Also, she has observed pileated woodpecker nests in these woods. They don't migrate. This is not about not wanting development. This is about preserving a precious piece of woods. She wouldn't care if they built a prison there is it was cleared. This is about nature and the trees. She can't imagine all these trees being tom down. If the citizens hadn't become acdve, the forest would be clear cut. They have a right as citizens to be heard and care about the environment. I II � � Ms. Barbara Stnith stated she didn't realize she needed to submit the reviews far Henley Homes (Exhibit AQ}.Ms.Ragers noted they were nat a camprehensive review. I Staff Rebuttal Ms. Timmons stated for the driveway partion of the code, please review RMC 4-4-Q80. This code allows discretionary authority in the code to limit the number af driveways accessing the street. staff does not agree with the graposed revisioas ta Conditions 6 and 16. They want to see I.ots 11 and 78 to access abutting shared driveways. jl I � I � — �� ti.r � ATTACHMENT B The Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeals � (LUA13-001572,ECF,PP,CAE) EXHIBITS ADNIITTED DURING HEARING SEPA Appeal Exhibits Exhibit A: City of Renton Environmental Analysis (Attachments 1-18 are listed as Preliminary Plat Exhibits 1-18 below) Exhibit B: Environmental (SEPA)Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated (Preliminazy Plat Exhibit 22 below) Exhibit C: Environmental Checklist(June 10, 2014) Exhibit D: Comprehensive Plan (Land Use,Transportation and Community Design Elements) Exhibit E: Acceptance and Notice of Application Affidavit Service by Mailing(November 24, 2014) Exhibit F: Notice of Application and Off Hold Notice Affidavit Service by Mailing(July 25, 2014) Exhibit G: Commitment for Title Insurance Exhibit H: TPWAG Letter to Renton School District(September 10, 2014) Exhibit I: Renton School District Letter of Denial to TPWAG (September 16, 2014) Exhibit J: Henley Appeal Exhibit K: Henley SEPA Appeal Exhibits 1. a. HEX Staff Recommendation Report b. Pre-Application Notes c. Wetland Determination(October 30, 2013) d. Wetland Determination(Februar 28, 2014 Y ) 2. Letter Re rt from Ra Co las P� Y g 3. RSD Resolution No. 0312/13 4. SPU Letter(November 4, 2014) 5. Drainage Release 6. Site Maps and Aerial Photos 7. Airsoft Guns Documentation 8. Revised Plans, Alternate Layouts 9. COR COW Meeting(September 9, 2013) 10. Area Water Well Logs 11. Legal Analysis and Argument(November 18, 2014) 12. Soundview Consultants Letter, Racheal Villa 13. Grete Associates Report, 2008 Exhibit L: TPWAG Appeal Exhibit M: TWPAG SEPA Appeal Exhibits 19. TIR Report(November 12, 2013) '�.r V 21. TIA Report (November 2013) 23. Tree Protection Report(November 13,2013) 24. SEPA Checklist(November 13, 2013) , 39. Miscellaneous Photographs of Surrounding Site 40. Professional Qualifications—Steven Neugebauer 41. Neugebauer Expert Report (November 17, 2014) 47. Pre-Hearing Statement regarding Prescriptive Easement(November 18, 2014) 48. TPWAG Correspondence with Renton School District Exhibit N: Staff Appeal Analysis (November 18, 2014) Exhibit O: Henley Pre-Hearing Order Request ' Exhibit P: Hearing Examiner Order Requesting Reply to Pre-Hearing Order Request Exhibit Q: TPWAG Response to Pre-Heazing Order Request Exhibit R: City Response to Pre-Heazing Order Request Exhibit S: Henley Response to Pre-Hearing Order Request Exhibit T: Pre-Heazing Order Exhibit U: McMonagle Notice of Appearance Exhibit V: Flatley Resume Exhibit X: Lee Resume Exhibit Y: Declaration of Timmons Exhibit Z: Not Used Exhibit AA: Renton Reporter Article (Donnelly) Exhibit AB: Letter to Editor(Donnelly) Exhibit AC: 5 Photographs(Donnelly) Exhibit AD: TPWAG Memo on HEX Authority and Halverson v. Bellevue (November 28, 2014) Exhibit AE: City of Renton Response to TPWAG Memo of 11/28/14 (December 5, 2014) Exhibit AF: Henley Response to TPWAG Memo of 11/28/14(December 5, 2014) Exhibit AG: Hearing Examiner Ruling on Examiner Authority and Halverson v. Bellevue (December 7, 2014) Exhibit AH: Title Report/Chain of Title (TPWAG) Exhibit AI: Rcenicke TPWAG Summary Testimony Exhibit AJ: Garlough TPWAG Summary Testimony Exhibit AK: Timeline Preliminary Plat Exhibits Exhibit 1: HEX Report Exhibit 2: Preliminary Plat Plan (July 16, 2014) Exhibit 3: Tree Cutting and Land Cleazing Plan (July 16, 2014) Exhibit 4: Tree Protection Report (June 6, 2014) Exhibit 5: Revised Wetland Determination a�d Response Letter(June 3, 2014) Exhibit 6: Habitat Assessment (Januazy 16,2014) Exhibit 7: Geotechnical Report (September 28, 2012) Exhibit 8: Drainage Report(February 24, 2014) Exhibit 9: Traffic Impact Analysis (Apri123, 2014) � � Exhibit 10: Public Comment Letters: '10.1-10.70 Exhibit 11: Alternative Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan(August 29, 2014) Exhibit 12: Alternative Tree Protection Report (August 27, 2014) Exhibit 13: Independent Secondazy Review -Traffic Exhibit 14: Independent Secondary Review—Wetland(April 3, 2014) Exhibit 15: Supplemental Independent Secondary Review—Wetland (July 9, 2014) ' Exhibit 16: Habitat Assessment Technical Memorandum(February 11, 2014) Exhibit 17: Habitat Assessment Technical Memorandum (June 12, 2014) Exhibit 18: Landscape Plan(July 16, 2014) Exhibit 19: Transportation Concunency Approval Exhibit 20: Renton Trails and Bikeways Map Exhibit 21: Environment Review Committee (ERC) Staff report Exhibit 22: SEPA Determination and Mitigation Measures(September 22, 2014) Exhibit 23: Public Meeting Notice Exhibit 24: Notice of Application Affidavits Exhibit AL: Staff PowerPoint Presentation Exhibit AM: Applicant Letter of Revised Plat Conditions (December 8, 2014) Exhibit AO: Shared Driveway Exhibit AP: Jones, Photographs Exhibit AQ: Henley Homes Reviews from Internet CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL . � , Subject/Title: Meeting: 2015 Neighborhood Project Grant REGULAR COUNCIL- 06 Apr 2015 Applications Exhibits: Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board: A. Issue Paper Community Services Staff Contact: Norma McQuiller, Neighborhood Program Supervisor, ext. 6595 Recommended Action: Refer to Community Services Committee. Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required: $ 45,252.00 Transfer Amendment: $ N/A Amount Budgeted: $ 72,950.00 Revenue Generated: $ N/A Total Project Budget: $ N/A City Share Total Project: $ N/A SUMMARY OF ACTION: Five 2015 Neighborhood Project Grant applications were received for a total funding request of $45,252. The interdepartmental Grant Review Team analyzed the applications and recommended the five projects for funding based on the criteria of ineeting the overall objectives of the Neighborhood Program. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve funding all five 2015 Neighborhood Project Grants and authorize expenditures in the amount of $45,252 from the budgeted 2015 Neighborhood Program fund. COMMUNITY SERVIGES '— p ����0� .,� DEPARTMENT �� M E M O R A N D U M DATE: March 24,2015 , TO: Ed Prince,Council President I, Members of City Council VIA: Denis Law, Mayor FROM: Terry Higashiyama,Administrator STAFF CONTACT: Norma McQuiller, Neighborhood Program Coordinator, Ext.6595 SUBJECT: 2015 Neighborhood Project Grant Applications ISSUE: Should five applications for 2015 Neighborhood Project Grants be approved for funding? RECOMMENDATION: Approve the five requested 2015 Neighborhood Project Grants and authorize expenditures in the amount of$45,252 from the budgeted 2015 Neighborhood Program fund. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: The City Council appropriated$72,590 in the 2015 General Fund budget for the three Neighborhood Grant Programs: Neighborhood Newsletter/Communication Grants; Neighborhood Project Grants; and Neighborhood Mini-grant Projects. The Neighborhood Program announced the availability of funds in January for the 2015 Newsletter/ Communication Grants for Officially Recognized Neighborhoods. The total amount of the eligib►e communication grant requests came to$14,894, leaving a balance of$57,696 for the remaining two Neighborhood Project Grant categories. Five Project Grant applications were received for a total request of$45,252 in funding. The inter-depart- mental Grant Review Team analyzed the applications and recommended five projects for funding based on the criteria of ineeting the overall objectives of the Neighborhood Program,which are: ■ Project developed with a realistic budget. ■ Documentation shows neighborhood participation and adequate volunteer labor reflecting community support for the project. ■ Project includes maintenance after project completion. ■ Physical improvements are visible and benefit a large area of a community. ■ Sufficient matching funds exist through volunteer labor,cash,and/or materials. A total of$45,252 in matching funds is recommended,which will leave a balance of$12,444 avaitable for the Mini-grant Program and funding for a second round of 2015 Neighborhood Project Grants. Ed Prince,Council President � Members of Ciry Council March 24,2015 Page 2 The eligible applications are listed in the following table with a brief project synopsis. 2015 Neighborhood Project Grant Recommendations *Note: The above amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar. Total Yes Nei hborhood Grant pro ed Pro ect Descri tion g Request > > p Meets Neighborhood Cost Program Objectives South Renton $3,367 $6,734 Plant 17 Apollo Maple Yes. Neighborhood trees within the Association neighborhood. Starwood HOA $19,888 $39,776 Certified Playground Yes. Company will install a play A Building Permit is needed structure in the if the play structure exceeds neighborhood common 10-feet in height and 150 area. This will allow square feet. children to play,as well as serve as a gathering place. Sorrento HOA $4,111 $8,222 Install an entrance sign to Yes. identify the neighborhood. Signs are attractive,will provide a neighborhood identity and also pride and ownership. Certified Playground Yes. Victoria Park HOA $13,560 $27,120 Company will install a play A Building Permit is needed structure in the if the play structure exceeds neighborhood common 10-feet in height and 150 area. This will allow square feet. children to play,as well as serve as a gathering place. LaCrosse HOA $4,326 $8,652 Expand current community Yes. garden to include irrigation Irrigation and added and a Blueberry Patch and blueberries and grapes will Grape Arbor to be shared benefit residents and the by all. local food bank. h:\deputy city clerk\agenda\agenda 2015\04-april\4-6-15\issue paper 2015 neighborhood project grants 03252015.docx 3/30/2015 � Ed Prince,Council President Members of City Council March 24,2015 Page 2 CONCLUSION: The Neighborhood Grant Program continues to provide neighborhood associations with opportunities to promote and improve their community while getting to know their neighbors better. The recommended expenditures are an appropriate use of City funds. cc: Casey Stanley,Neighborhoods,Resources and Events Manager Norma McQuiller,Neighborhood Coordinator Jennifer Jorgenson,Administrative Secretary ' h:\deputy city clerk\agenda\agenda 2015\04-april\4-6-15\�ssue paper 2015 neighborhood project grants 03252015.docx 3/30/2015 . ' t CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL (^ h N Subject/Title: Meeting: ' May Creek Property Acquisition REGULAR COUNCIL-06 Apr 2015 Exhibits: Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board: A. Issue Paper Community Services B. Agreement C. Addendum to Agreement Staff Contact: D. May Creek Fawcett Location Map Leslie Betlach, Parks Planning and Natural Resources i E. May Creek Fawcett Site Map Director, ext. 6619 i Recommended Action: � Refer to Finance Committee. Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required: $ 824,000.00 Transfer Amendment: $ 0 Amount Budgeted: $ 868,334.00 Revenue Generated: $ 868,334.00 Total Project Budget: $ 868,334.00 City Share Total Project: $ 0 SUMMARY OF ACTION: The City of Renton, King County, and more recently the City of Newcastle, have been acquiring property along May Creek since the late 1980's for a continuous corridor extending from Lake Washington to King County's Cougar Mountain Regional Wildland Park. The 5.73 acre Fawcett property is a critical missing (ink in making this connection. In December 2014,the City and the property owner executed a Purchase and Sales Agreement with several contingencies- one of which included each entity securing an independent appraisal. The appraisals were within $1,000.00 of one another and the City agreed to use the higher appraised value of$785,000.00. With project expenses to include title and appraisal work, an environmental assessment, closing fees, etc., the estimated total project costs are $824,000.00. Two King County Conservation Futures grants totaling$868,334.00 are proposed to fund this acquisition. In 2014, the City was recommended for an award of$174,000.00 which will be available to the City mid-year 2015. In 2015,the City applied for a $694,334.00 grant with a recommendation for the award to be made in September 2015; funding will be available in 2016. Should the City not be recommended for full award of the second grant,the City's King County 2007 Proposition 2 Levy Fund and/or the City's Park Impact Mitigation Fund (fund 303) will cover any shortfalls.The Addendum to the Agreement commits the City to purchasing the property for$785,000.00 once all of the remaining contingencies have been met. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Addendum to the Purchase and Sale Agreement for the Fawcett property with an agreed upon price of$785,000.00. Once all remaining contingencies have been met, authorize city staff to acquire property with total project expenses estimated at$824,000.00. Adjust the budget as described. . COMMUNITY SERVICES ��ra� � DEPARTMENT - D Q��OO Q� ''�' M E M O R A N D U M DATE: March 30, 2015 T0: Ed Prince, Council President Members of Renton City Council VIA: Denis Law, Mayor FROM: Terry Higashiyama, Community Services Administrator STAFF CONTACT: Leslie Betlach, Parks Planning and Natural Resources Director SUBJECT: May Creek Property Acquisition Issue• Should the Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Addendum to the Purchase and Sale Agreement for the Fawcett property for$785,000.00? Once all of the contingencies have been met,should the Council authorize the City staff to acquire the property with total project expenses estimated at$824,000.00? Should the Council authorize the potential transfer af funds and adjust the budget if grant proceeds do not fully cover acquisition costs? Recommendation: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Addendum to the Purchase and Sales Agreement. Authorize City staff to acquire the property, once all contingencies have been met. Authorize the transfer of funds and adjust the budget if grant proceeds do not fully cover the acquisition costs. Backaround: Since the late 1980's the City of Renton and King County, and more recently the City of Newcastle, have been acquiring property along May Creek. The long term goal is for a continuous corridor from Lake Washington east to King County's 3,115 acre Cougar Mountain Regional Wildland Park—which also connects to Bellevue's Coal Creek Park and the Lake Washington Loop Trail system. City staff has been conversing with the Fawcett family since 1990 regarding this 5.7 acre acquisition as this is a key parcel in the overall corridor. In (ate 2014,the City was approached about acquiring the property and the City and property owner entered into a Purchase and Sales Agreement with several contingencies to include: • Completion of a satisfactory Level I Environment Assessment at the City's expense(in progress) ; h:\deputy city clerk\agenda\agenda 2015\04-april\4-6-15\issue paper on fawcett acquisition.doc . Ed Prince,Council President ' Renton City Council Members Page 2 of 2 March 30,2015 • Obtaining committed funding for the purchase (see below) • Approval of the purchase by the Renton City Council (seeking) � Obtaining insurable title satisfactory to the City (in progress) The Purchase and Sale Agreement intentionally did not identify a purchase price. The City and the property owner agreed to secure independent appraisals at their own expense, and within five days following receipt of the appraisals negotiate in good faith to agree upon Fair Market Value. The appraisals were within $1,000.00 of one another. The agreed upon value of$785,000.00 is included in Addendum "A"to the Purchase and Sale Agreement. Once the Addendum is fully executed and per the Purchase and Sale Agreement,the City has thirty(30) business days to deposit$5,000.00 in Earnest Money. The Earnest Money will be held in escrow and accrue interest which will be credited to the City and applied to the Purchase Price of$785,000.00. The total estimated acquisition costs to include title and appraisal work, environmental assessment,closing fees, etc., is$824,000.00. Two King County Conservation Futures grants totaling$868,334.00 will fund this acquisition. In 2014,the City applied for and was recommended for an award of $174,000.00 which will be available in 2015. In 2015 the City applied for a$694,334.00 grant to fund the Fawcett acquisition and utilized the value of two recent property I donations as part of the grant match (Kenyon-Dobson Park and May Valley Meadows). The City will be notified in September of this year the amount of the award;funding will be available in 2016. Should the City not be recommended for full award of the second (Fawcett)grant,the City's King County 2007 Proposition 2 Levy Fund and/or the City's Park Impact Mitigation Fund (fund 303)will cover any shortfalls. The current balance of the KC Levy Fund is$457,486.00 and funding can only be used for open space acquisition and trails. We anticipate transferring$150,000.00 from the KC Levy Fund to the Riverview Park Bridge Replacement project leaving a remaining balance of $307,486.00. The current balance of the Park Impact Mitigation Fund is$1,219,359.00. Due to the funding constraints of the 2007 KC Proposition 2 Levy monies,the Levy fund would first be utilized to offset any shortfalls. Conclusion: The 5.7 acre Fawcett property is a missing link in the May Creek Greenway and critical to completing a continuous greenway system. This parcel will one day be a part of a multi- jurisdictional soft surface trail system. The Greenway also serves as an urban separator between more developed areas and protects steep and sensitive slopes, provides habitat for endangered salmon species, provides a wildlife and habitat corridor, and land for surFace water storage capacity. Cc: Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer Iwen Wang,Administrative Services Administrator Larry Warren,City Attorney h:\deputy city clerk\agenda\agenda 2015\04-april\4-6-15\issue paper on fawcett acquisition.doc t REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT �� THIS AGREEMENT,dated December�� ,2014("Agreement"j,is between Creek Partners LLC, a Washington limited liability company�"Selier"),and Ctty of Renton,a noncharter code city I under RCW 35A, and a munidpal corporation under the Jaws of the State of Washingtan, i ("Purchaser"�, and is made for the purpose of purchase and sale of the following described real � property. i In consideration of the covenants and agreements hereinafter made,the parties agree as , , follows: � 1. Description of Prooertv: Purchaser agrees to purchase from Seller, and Seiler agrees to sell unto Purchaser,the following described real property,referred to in this Agreement as"the premises": SEE EXHIBIT A,attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Seller and Purchaser hereby authorize the insertion over their signatures of the correct legal description of the above-designated property if unavailable at time of s�ning, or to correct the legal description previously entered if erroneous or incomplete. 2. Purchase Pirice: a. The Purchase Price to be paid by the Purchaser to Setler for the premises shall be the Fair Market Value of the Properry, as defined belaw. The Purchase Price shall be paid in cash at Closing. ' PURCHASE AND SAIE AGREEMENT-1 . - b. As used herein, the term "Fair Market Value" shall mean the fair market value of the premises as of the date of this Agreement as determined by the appraisal procedure in this Section 2{b). Following mutual execution of this Agreement Purchaser and Seller shall each select and retain, at its own mst,an M.A.I. appraiser to determine the Fair Market Value of the premises and issue an appraisal report. By on or before April 1,2015,each part�s appraiser shall complete its appraisal report and a copy shall be delivered to both parties. Within five(5) days following the date of receipt of both appraisal reports by the parties,the parties shall negotiate in good faith to agree upon the Fair Market Value of the premises by reference to the values in the appraisal reports. If the parties agree upon the Fair Market Value, the parties shall execute an amendment to the Agreement specifying the Fair Market Value as the Purchase Price. If the parties are unable to timely agree upon such Fair Market Value,this Agreement shall automatically tenninate,upon which the Earnest Money shall be refunded to Purchaser and neither party shall . � have any further rights or liabilities under this Agreement, other than Purchaser's indemnity obligations in connedion with pr�closing investigation activities. c. Eamest Monev. wthin thirty(30)business days after the mutual execution of this Agreement, Purchaser shall deposit Earnest Money in the amount of five thousand dollars and no/100($5,000.00)with the Closing AgenG The Earnest Money is in the form of cash deposited with the Closing Agent. The Earnest Money shall be non-refundable to Purchaser, except as provided in this Agreement. The Eamest Money shall be held by Gosing Agent,in escrow. Except as othervvise provided in this Agreement, the Earnest Money and a�l accrued interest wiil be credited to the Purchaser at Cbsing and applied to the Purchase Price. PURCHaSE AND SALE AGREEMENT-2 3. Title: Title to the premises shall be conveyed free of encumbrances or defects, at closing, except the foliowing (the "Permitted Exceptions"): encumbrances, restrictions and reservations of record and general to the area, rights reserved in Federal Patents or State Deeds, reserved oil andJor mineral rights, building or use restrictions general to the district, existing easements not inconsistent with the intended use of the premises,any encroachments or claims of adverse posseuion or prescriptive easement which a survey of the legal description herein may reveal,and building and zoning regulations or provisions. The title insurance policy to be issued sha{I contain no exceptions other than those consistent with the foregoing sentence and as provided ln the standard form. lf title is not insurable as above provided and/or cannot be made so insurable by the termination date set forth herein,Seller shall not be in default under this Agreement,unless Setler has intentionally failed or refused to deliver title, this Agreement shall be terminated and Purchaser shall receive the return of its Earnest Money. . � A preliminary commitment for a standard form owners policy of title insurance has been ordered from First American Title,Order No.70Z450. The final standard from owner's policy of title insurance will be ordered by the Closing Agent and issued at Purchaser5 expense. 4. Convevance: Transfer of Sellers interest in the premises shall be by Statutory Warranty Deed subject to the Permitted Exceptions. 5. Prorations: Taxes for the current year,assessments that are Permitted Exceptlons for the current year, rents, insurance, interest, mortgage reserves, water and other utilities constituting liens on the premises shall be prorated as of date of closing. PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT-3 6. Closin : This purchase shall be closed on that date ("Ciosing Date")that is a date selected by Purchaser and reasonably aaeptable to Seller that is within thirty (30) days after Purchaser's removal of all contingencies, but in any event not later than luly 20, 2015; provided that the Closing Date may be further extended by agreement of the parties to a date that is reasonably acceptable to both parties. The parties will deposit in escrow with the Closing Agent al{ instrume�ts and moneys necessary to complete this purchase in accordance with this Agreement. The cost of escrow shall be paid by the Purchaser. Closing of the purchase and sale shall occur when the statutory warranty deed has been delivered and recorded and the purchase price has been delivered to Seller o�is available to Seller.The dosing Agent shali be Sherri Smyth,Chicago Title of Washington,15215 SE 272"d ST,Suite 101, Kent,WA 98042,(253)856-9760. 7. Possession: Seller shall deliver possession to Purchaser on date of closing. 8. Seller's rearesentations and warranties: Seller represents and warrants to . � Purchaser as follows: a. Seller has fuil pawer and authority to convey the premises to Purchaser. b. Seller has nat received any notice of non-compliance with applicable zoning, land-use, building, construction, subdivision and other local, state and federal laws, ordinances and regulations or with existing covenants,conditions,restrictions and easements. c. Ta the Sellers knowledge, Seller has not purposefully altered or withheld any Due Diligence Materials and other instruments and documents delivered to Purchaser pursuant to this Agreement(the"Warranted Materials"). PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT-4 d. Seller has not received notice of any special assessment or notice of any condemnation proceedings affecting the premises. e. To the Seller's knowledge, there is no litigation pending or threatened against Seller that arises out of the ownership of the premises. f. Selier has received no notice of any failure of 5eller to comply with any applicable governmental requirements in respect of the use, occupation and construction of the premises, includi�g, but not limited to, environmental, fire, health, safety, zoning, subdivision and other land use requirements that have not been corrected to the satisfaction of the approp�iate governmental authority, and Seller has received no notice of, and has no knowledge of,any investigation relating to any such govemmental requirement. g. Seller has received no notice of any default or breach by Seller under any covenants,conditions, restrictions,rights of way or easements that may affect Seller in respect . � to the premises or may affed the premises or any portion thereof and no such defauft or breach now exists. h. To Sellers knowledge, no building or other improvement encroaches on the premises. i. There are no leases affecting any part of the premises other than those delivered to Purchaser, and there are no written or oral promises, understandings or agreements between Seller and any tenant that have not been disclosed by Seller as part of the materials provided to the Purchaser. PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT-5 i j. To the Sellers knowledge there a�e no permits, licenses or consents requi�ed by any governmental authority in connection with the Seller's current use of the premises except those previously obtained by Seller and delivered to Purchaser, and Seller has received no notice of the formation of any local improvement districts proposed which will affect the premises. k. [Intentionally Omitted.] i. [Intentionally Omitted.] m. Seller is not a foreign person as defined in Section 1445 of the Intemal Revenue Code. n. All of the representations, warranties and covenants of Seller contained in this Agreement are true and correct as of the effective date and as of the Closing Date and will survive the closing of the transaction contemplated by this Agreement. . � As used in this Agreement,"Seller's knowledge"or"Seller's actual knowledge" refers to and is limited to the current actual knowledge of Greg Fawcett without additional inquiry or investigation. PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT-6 9. Hazardous mate�ial: • a. Definitions: (1) Definition of "Envi�onmental Laws": The term "Environmental Laws" means any and ail state,federal and local statutes, regulations and ordinances relating to the protection of human health and the environment (2) Definition of "Hazardous Material"': The term "Hazardous Material"means any hazardous or toxic substance,material or waste,including,but not limited to, those substances, materiais and wastes listed in the United States Depattment of Transportation Hazardous Materials Tabie(49 C.F.R.§ 172.101),as it exists or may be amended; in the United States Environmental Protection Agency Table 302.4 — List of Hazardous Substances and Reportable Quantities(40 C.F.R.§302.4),as it exists or may be amended;in the State of Washington Model Toxics Control Act(RCW 70.105D),as it exists or may be amended; . � as defined in the Hazardous Substance Tax—Model Toxia Control Act(RCW 82.21.020(1)),as it exists or may be amended; and any other substances, materials and wastes as become regulated or subject to cleanup autho�ity under any Environmental Laws. b. Compliance with Environmental Laws: Seller rep�esents and warrants that: (1) Seller has no actual knowledge of the release o�presence of any Hazardous Material on,in,from or onto the premises; PURCHASE AN�SALE AGREEMENT-7 �_ (2) Seller has not generated, manufactured, refined, transported, stored,handied,disposed of or released any Hazardous Material on the premi5es,nor has Selter permitted the foregoing; (3) To the Seller's actuai knowledge,Seller has obtained all approvals and caused all notifications to be made as required by Environmentai Laws; (4) To the Seller's actual knowledge, Seller has not received any notice of any vioiation of any Environmental I.aws; (5) To the Seller's actual knowledge, no action has been commented or threatened regarding Seliers compliance with any Environmental Laws; (6) To the Seliers actual knowledge, no tanks used for the storage of any Hazardous Material above or below ground are present on or about the prernises;and I (7j To the Seller's actual knowledge, no action has been commenced I . � or threatened regarding the presence of any Hazardous Material o�or about the premises. c. No waiver of liability: Seller has not released or waived and will not release or waive the liability of any previous owner, lessee or operator of the premises or any party who may be potentialiy responsible for the presence or removal of Hazardous Material on or about the premises. Seller has made no promises of indem�ification �egarding Hazardous Material to any party. d. Re�resentatio�s: Condition of Premises. Purchaser acknowledges that prior to Closing, Purchaser shall have inspected the premises,and as of Closing, Purchaser will have satisfied itself in all respects therewith,including,but not limited to,all matter5 related to PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT-8 Hazardous Substances,and that Purchaser will be purchasing the premises on an AS IS,WHERE IS basis. Purchaser agrees that,other than the express warranties contained in Sedion 8 herein or in the statutory warranty deed, Seller has made no representations, warranties or agreements of any kind or nature regarding the premises, express or implied and Seller expressly disclaims any warranties or representations, whether express or implied, including any warranty of habitability, merchantability, o� fitness for a particular purpase, including without limitation any of the following matters in any way related to or arising from: (1) the stability or suitability of the soil on the premises;(2)the presence or absence of any hazardous substances in, on, under or about the premises; (3) building, zoning, sensitive area, and all slmilar State and local laws or other law, rule, ordinance or regulation restricting the use, renovation, repair,improvement,or occupancy of the premises for any purpose;(4)the size o� area of the premises and the lotation of boundaries; and (5) any defective condition of the . � premises; and Purchaser hereby releases, waives, and renounces any claim against Seller related to any or all of the matters discussed in this Sedion 9(d). The provisions of this Section 9(d)shall survive the Closing. e. Environmental Studv. Purchaser, upon �easonable notice to Selle� wit! have the right to take soil and water samples (including groundwater sarnples) from the premises,and to test and analyze those samples to determine the extent of any co�tamination of the soils and water (including groundwater) on or about the premises. If, based on the � results of those inspedions and/or tests, Purchaser determines that the condition of the premises is unsatisfactory or if Purchaser believes that its ownership of the premises would PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT-9 expose Purchaser to undue risks of government intervention or third-party liability, Purchaser may, without liability, upon delivery of written notice to Seller ("Cancellation Notice") cancel the purchase of the premises and terminate this Agreement, and, provided that such Cancellation Notice is delivered to Seller by on or before one hundred twenty (120j days after the date of mutual execution of this Agreement ("Notice Deadline"), Purchaser shall receive a full refund of the Earnest Money and all accrued interest. If Purchaser delivers a Cancellation Notice after the Notice Deadline,this Agreement shall terminate,Seller shall retain the Earnest Money and neither party shall have any further obligation to the other under this Agreement, other than Purchasers indemnity obligations in connection with pre-closing investigation activities. 10. Continuation and survival of rea�ese�ations and wamanties: All representations and warranties by the respective parties contained in this Agreement or made . � in writing pursuant to this Agreement are intended to and will remain true and correct as of the time of closing,will be deemed to be material and will survive the execution and delivery of this Agreement and the defivery of the statutory warranty deed and transfer of title. Such representations and warranties, however, are not assignable and do not run with the land, except as may be expressty provided herein or contained i�a written instrument signed by the party to be charged. 11. Governintt law: This Agreement will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the state of Washington. PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT-10 12. Nonmer�[er: The terms and provisions of this Agreement, including, without limitation,all indemnification o6ligations, will not merge in, but will survive,the closing of the transaction contemplated under this Agreement. 13. DefautL• a. If Purchaser fails to purchase the premises in accordance with its obligations under this Agreement,Sellers exciusive remedy for such failure shall be to terminate this Agreement and retain the Earnest Money,the parties agreeing that the damages that would be inaRed by Seller in such event would be difficuR or impossible to determine with precision and that the amount of the Earnest Money is reasonable in light of such difficulty or impossibility, the purchase price,and the nature of the premises. The foregoing shall not, howeve�, limit any right of Setle�to indemnification or defense provided ln this Agreement, o�the provisions of this Agreement providing for payment of attorneys' fees in the event of a dispute, or any of Selle►'s . � rights under applicable law in the event that Purchaser breaches any covenant o� agreement, except for the covenant to close. b. If Seller defautts in its contractual performance herein,the Purchaser may elect to: (1) seek specific performance pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, damages, or rescission;or(2) receive a refund of the Earnest Money and all accrued interest. Putchaser shall be deemed to have elected the remedy in clause (2) unless Purchaser files a lawsuit for the relief described in clause (1) within sixty (60) days from the date Purchaser has knowledge of Seller's default. In no event shall Purchaser be entitled to recover consequential damages, such as bst profits. PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT-11 �-- - I c. The non-defaulting party shall be entitled to recover its costs and attomey's fees In the event counsel is retained as a result of such default. 14. Miscellaneous: There are no verbal or other agreements which modify or affect this Agreement. Time is of the essence of this Agreement. Purchaser has not consufted with,nor discovered the respedive parcels through the use of a reaitor or other agent and there are no finders fees or commissions due upon this transaction. Faaimile or electronic transmission of any signed original document, and retransmission of any signed facsimile or electronic transmission, shall be the same as transmission of an original. At the request of either parly, or the dosing Agent,the parties will confirm facsimile or elect�onic transmitted signatures by signing an original document. Notices given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be delive�ed personally or sent by United States regular mail, postage prepaid,to the following addresses,or , by email sent to the email addresses identified below: . � Seller: Gregory M.Fawcett,Registered Agent 'i Creek Partners LLC 5408 324"'PL SE Fatl City,WA 98024 Email: gfawcett@nwlink.com Creek Partners LLC PO Box 402 ' Fall Gty,WA 98024 Email: gfawcett@nwlink.com Purchaser: City of Renton ATTN:Leslie Betlach 1055 S Grady Way PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT-12 Renton,WA 98057 Ema il:Ibetlach�rentonwa.gov Lawrence J.Warren,City Attorney City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton,WA 98057 Email:Iwarren@ rentonwa.gov 15. Residencv of Seller: Seller warrants to Escrow Agent that ff Seller is an individual, Seiler is not a nan-resident alien for purposes of U.S. income taxation or if Seller is a corporation, partnership,trust,or estate,Seller is not a foreign corporation,foreign partnership,foreign trust or foreign estate. 16. Contin�encies: The obligation of the Purchaser under this Agreement is contingent upon the occurrence of the following on or before the date of closing: a. Complete a satisfadory Level I Environmental study, at Purchase�s expense,as spedfied in Sedion 9(e)of this agreement. • � b. Obtain committed funding for the purchase. c. Obtain approval of the purchase by the Renton City Council. d. Obtain insurable title satisfactory to the City. 17. Real Proaertv Transfer Disclosure Statement:The Seller agrees to provide to the Purchaser within five(5)days of the mutual acceptance of this agreement a Rea!Properly Transfer Disclosure Statement pursuant to RCW Chapter 64.06. PURCHASE ANO SALE AGREEMENT-13 ' SELLER: CREEK PARTNERS LLC,a Washington limited liability company By: �� � ��rc� u�u��r l aI ao �`� � � Gre�M.Fawcett,Manager Date� By: .Q n�(N,c �-cu�_7P� tro�.lh�. �2�Z O f�� Sabra Fawcett,Member Date By: l�l�� �Q- �a:t� 1�R a,naga.� �a-j a0�� � ., Ge�ge A.Fawcett,Manager Date PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT-14 I PURCHASER: CITY OF RENTON By: Denis Law,Mayor Date ATTEST: By: lason A.Seth,City Clerk Date PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT-15 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) � �55 COUNTY OF KING ) THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on this�� day of 1�C.CQ�� 20� , before me, the undersigned, a notary public in and for the state of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared Greg M.Fawcett to me known to be a Manager of Creek Partners LLC, the limited liability company that executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged the said instrument ta be the free and voluntary act and deed of said limited liability company for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he was authorized to execute said instrument, and that the seal affixed, if any, is the seal of said company. WITNESS my hand and official sea! ihe day and year in this certificate first above written. s Signature: �— Notary Pub ic in and for the state of�Washington. Notary(pr _ Residing ii My appoir ��-- � � PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT-16 STATE OF WASHIN6TON ) )ss COUNTIf OF KING ) THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on this �� day of ��'.P1�1�� , 20 ��{, before me, the undersigned, a notary public in and for the state of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn,personally appeared Sabra Fawcett to me known to be a Member of Creek Partners LLC, the limited liability company that executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said limited liability company for the uses and purposes therein mentioned,and on oath stated that he was authorized to execute said instrument, and that the seai affixed, if any, is the seal of said company. � WITNESS my hand and official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. Signature: ��. , Notary Public in and�the state of Washington. Notary(print): �'S�1k 0. C�,t \k�/l G(vt u✓G� Residing in: '�jS��Q (,C�+ ,(/� ( p� My appointment expires�(l� C�! . 1 �'� , PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT-17 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss COUNTY OF KING ) THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on this �� day of 1yeCQ, V"` , 20�` before me, the undersigned, a notary public in and for the state of Washington, duly commissioned and swom, personally appeared George A. Fawcett to me known to be a . Manager of Creek Partners LLC, the limned liabllity company that executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged the sald instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said limited liability company for the uses and purposes therein mentioned,and on oath stated that he was autharized to execute said instrument,and that the seal affixed, if any, is the seai of said company. � WITNE55 my ha�d and official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. Signature: Notary Pub`rc in anc�.€br the state f Washington. Notary(print): ��l �i A ���l Gl�t d��� � Residing in: l�,C� /� �[1,�n f �r My appointment expires:_��� � (�I . ��-'�'r i � PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT-18 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss COUNTY OF KING ) THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on this day of , 20 before me, the undersigned, a notary public in and for the state of Washington, duly commissio�ed and swom,personallK appeared Mayor Denis Law to me known to be the Mayor of the City of Renton, the municipal corporation ihat executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said municipal corporation for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he was authorized to execute said instrument, and that the seal a�xed, if any, is the corporate seal of said corporation. � WITNESS my hand and o�cial seal the day and year in this certificate first above wr'rtten. Signature: Notary Public in and for the state of Washington. Notary(print): Residing in: My appointment expires: PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT-!9 i ! PURCHASER: ' ClTY OF RENT r � � ��30�� �v: _i, , Denis law,Mayor t3ate ATfEST: �y: l ate ��� � � �* SEAZ *_ ��� x ��� ���a►�'`. ����tNtlNN�fflll4n�'�� � I� I � � I PURCNASE ANt?SALE AC�REEMENT-15 EXHIBIT A TO REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT Le¢a!Descriotion of the Premises Order Ro. 702450 A.L.T.A. CON,N12ThIEN^ SC:-iEDiiL� A ?age 2 ^�e land r�'ezzed �o ir. this co:unit�nsz:. is situa=ad in the Stata o: «ashington, an�! desc�ibed as �ollows_ YA?CcL A: Tha� por�:o^. oi che fo_lowing described prooer_y lying sast ard scutheast of Sta�e 'r'ighway No. 1: Tha= portion of Government :,ot 1 in Ssc_ioa 32, To•�+nshig 34 I�or=h ' 3ange S East, a.b!., in King Coua[y, Washington, describod as follows: 3eg`_naiag o:: tha Ed3t line o: eaid Governmer_c iot 1, south 01°42'13" wes: 30 Eeet frors the nostheaet correr thereo'_: Thenc= south 01°�2'13" v:est 963.80 fee:; 2hanc� nor�n BB°L8'S5" wes� 644.C: fee�: Thence scu=h O1°11'02" wes: 329.55 fee� to a noint 11 f+�et Ror�h of the south Iine o� eaid Governm=nt Lot 1; ` ?haace norch BB°<d'S8" we�: 20 feet; 2hence nozth O1°11'0?" eas� 151.5H fee:; • ' Thence r.or�n 53°55'45" wes� 426.57 feet: Thence nor�a 77°10'3�^ wesc ao9.2 •'eet co che eascezly margir. o'_ Lake hashingtor_ eouleva-d; Thence norti: 30°56'13^ eas: along eaid easteriy margia 9D7.35 �eet; Thenee or a curve tc :he right haviag a radius of 65.49 faet, dis�ant 6b.84 feet to a poin� 3 �eet sou�� o' the north iina o' said Govern.�aent �ot 1; Thance sou�i: B8°50'10" eas= 907.5: fe�t to the poin: of begirr.:na; �xCEPT tha_ por�+on conveyad co Kinc County for 108� Aveaue ' d under Recordin Nur.ber 5700801. Southeast by deed recozee g PARCEL B: iha� port=o� of the fo_lowing dsscribed oroner`_y lyina eas: of 5=at= Highway vo. 1 as deedad :o �he S�a�� of riashington hy dsed r=cordad ur_dar �eco:ding Fvmb<r 4073375: A aortior. of Gc-re=amen: Lot _, Sec�ion 32, TGV.2ISL'�D 2� Nor�h, Ranae 5 East, 'rl.h:., in ICir.g Cour.ty, Washington, described as foilows: 3ag'_xL11r.g at a poiat on the east iine o' aaid Iot from wh'_c'_: the aor=heast carr:e- t::ereo' �ars r_cr�h 1 t2'�3" east a nis�ance o� 993.80 f?e:: Shsnce sou=?: 1':3'13" Y:ESC aZorg the east line o� said lo=, 340.55 fae= to th� sou:heast cozrer �ereoi; (coa[inued) D(HIBITA r- - - - Qrdez No. ?02d50 A.L.T E1. CONT;ITh1Et3^_ SC:^:EDLZE A ?age 3 LEG� �ESCRTPTI4N, conti_^_u�d: x^hence along the south lir.e of sa`_d lot north 88 48'S8" west 641.35 ' Eee�; Th4nce aorL:^. 1°31'03'� east 3�0.55 feat; , Thence sou�n 88°48'S8� WC�4 647..35 fe�t 4o ths poin� of begir.n:ng; a^}CCEPTING ��ere�rom t?�e par_ioa o= tl:e above described tract lyino cou�h of ih� fo=_o.ring describe8 1`_nes: 8egin:�ir_g at a point 1� feec aorth of the sou4heast cozr_=r of the dbOYe QeSCrlbed ixaCt: Thence wzs�erly 559 feet, raore cr :.ess, co a point �hich is 13 feet �or=h of th� sau�h. line of �he trac� hsr�inabas�e described; , Thence can�iauing w¢s�erly s2 feet, m re aa Iass, to a point an �"r_e wes�erlV line o= �aid CTdCt C�?StdA' 1�. ':!'2L P_O�tYi Oi i.f22 80Utt] i].Ilc of said�Go�e�r.ment Lo� 1. i�V� ALSO EXC�PT t�at oortion canveyed ta xir.g County ior 148" Avenue Sou�i!eas= by deed rEcardad under Racord�ng Nur.iber 5700802. alv� 0= SC:-?Et�ULE w NOTE ?O� IY3Q:4MAT=dIdAT_ PU�?CS=S V:,'3: �`r.e €ai2asving may be used as an abbrevsac.ed lega2 description or_ che docuraents to be recordad, p�r a-nand�d �Cw 65. 4. Safd abbre�iated legal description is no� a substitute for a compiete legal descrip�ior. �ithin t_^_a bcrny O_ t�? CIOCUltt2A�. NE/NW, 32-2�-0� � EXHIBtT A Form�7C SELLER OISCLOSURE STA7ENENT4 �P�oM2o�� sener olsdosure swtement un6nprovved 1 Mortnwesc Mualple ustlnp servlce Rev.7n t UNIMPROVED PROPERTY �RiGFrrs�s�tven Page 1 W 5 SELLER: C•'r��k �a r���r,S L.�,l_, • 1 t To be used ia traasfcis of unimproved residen6al real pmperty,includiog prvpaty zooed for residrntiai tue that is not i�roved by ene a 2 mois residential dwelling units,a tesidential mndominiurn,a residentiel timeshare w a mobile or m�ufachaEd home.Unimproved n.sidentiel 3 real propvty does not include oommercial real estate as defined in RCW 60.42.005 or properly de6aed es"timber land"under RCW 84.34.020. 4 See RCW Chapter 64.06 for[wther explanations. S INSTRUCTIONS TO THE SELLER 6 Please e�omplete the foliowing form.Do not leave auy spnces blank.If die quesbion tlealy does not eq�ply W tLe propaty write"NA"If the 7 entitiver is`yes"to any asterisked(')item(s�please explain on altaehed sheets.Please tefer to t6e line numb�a{s)of ihe quescion(s)whea you 8 provide your explenation(s).For your protection you must data ar�d initial each pege of this disclaaure stateaxnt end each auachmeat Delivery 9 of the disclosure slaten�ent must occur not later than Bve(S)businas days,uoless othawiu agned, after mutusl accoept�ce of a writtea 10 purchase end sale a�cemrnt betwern a Buyer and Seller. l 1 NOT[CE TO TEiE BUYER 12 Tf� FOLLO G,DiSCLOSURES ?�RE MADE BY S LLER ABOUT TEIE C9�n N OF 1'HE P OPE LOCATED AT 13 Tax�oT 3�ayo� 9oro eas� ef +�p5 +� WCJT o �'wnL,f ��r.� , 14 Cft'Y Of RG/il On ,can�nr o f �k�n�, ,("fF�PROPERTY^) 15 OR AS LEGALLY DESCRIBED ON ATTACHED E7CHIBIT A.SELLER-I�(AKES Tf�FOLLOWIMG DISCLOSURES OF EXiSTING 16 MATERIAL FACTS OR MATERIAI.DEFECTS TO BUYER BASED ON SELLER'S ACTUAL KNOVNLEDGE OF THE PROPERTY AT 17 THE TIME SELLER COMPLETES TFIIS DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. UNLESS YOU AND SELLER O'1}IERWISE AGREE IIV 18 WRttWG, Y041 VE TMtEE (3) BUSINESS DAYS FROM THE DAY SELLER OR SELLER'S AGENT DELIVERS THIS 19 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT TO YOU TO RESCIIJD 7'E� AGREEMENT BY DEL[VERIIVG A SEPARATELY SIGNED WRTITEN 20 STATEI�'NT OF RESCISSION TO SELLER OR SELLER'S AGENT. ff 'fHE SELLER DOES NOT GIVE YOU A COMPLETED 21 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT,TI�N YOU MAY WANE 7�{E RIGHT TO RESCIND PRIOR TO OR AFTER Tf�7'IME YOU ENTER 22 aVTO A PURCHASE AND 3ALE AGREEMENT. 13 THE FOLLOWING ARE DISCLOSURES MADE BY SELLEIt AND ARE NO"f THE REPRESENTATlONS OF ANY 24 REAL ESTATE LiCENSEE OR OTHER PARTY. TH1S INFORMATlON IS FOR DISCLOSURE ONLY AND 15 NOT 25 INTENDED TO BE A PART OF ANY WRITTEN AGREEMENT BETWEEN BUYER AND SELLER. 26 FOR A MORE COMPREHENSIVE EXAMINAT[ON OF THE SPECIFIC CONDITION OF THIS PROPER'CY YOU 27 ARE ADVISED TO OBTA(N AND PAY FOR THE SERVICES OE QUALIFIED EXPERTS TO IN�PECT THE 28 PROPERTY, WfIICH MAY INCLUDE, WiTHOUT LIMITATtON, ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS, LAND SURVEYORS, 29 PLUMBERS, ELECTRICIANS, ROOFERS, BUILDiNG 1NSPECTORS, OAi-SITE WASTE�VATER TREATMENT 30 INSPECTORS, OR STRUCTURAL PEST INSPECTORS. THE PROSPECTIVE BUYER AND SELLER MAY WISH T� 3� OBTAW PROFESS(ONAL ADVICE OR INSPECTIONS OF THE PROPERTY OR TO PROVIDE APPROPRIATE 3Z PROVISIONS IN A CONTRACT BETWEEN THEM WITH RESPECT TO ANY ADVICE, INSPECTION, DEFECTS OR � WARRANTIES. Sellu O is/O is�t accupying the property. 35 L SELLER'S DISCLOSURE9: 36 ' 'If you m�swer"Yes"to a question with�astaisk(��please explain your aasw�er�d ettach doaunents,if available and not othawise 37 pubtidy recocdod.ICneassaiy,use an attached sh�ec 38 YES NO DON'T 39 1. TTfLE KNOW 40 A. Do you have legal mi�thoriry to setl the ptnperty?If no,please explain.................................................._..... ❑ ❑ 4l i 'B. Is ade to the property subjecx W any of t6e following7 42 ', (1)First ri�t of refusa!.................................................................................................................................O ❑ 43 (2)UPtion ..................................._.........................................................................................._....................0 O 44 (3)Lease or rental egreement .......................................................................................................................O ❑ 45 (4)Life estate?..................................._.......................................................••••_••...................._....................O 0 �36 •C. Aie there any encroachments,boundery ageements.or bouadary disputes� ................ ............. .�O ❑ �( 47 'D. Is thae e privete road or easement egeement for access ro the property?..S.4.r.�!Il.{��..��.�.Q...�. ❑ ❑ 485�� •E. Are thue any rights-of-way,easements,or acoess Gmitetions thnt a@'ax the Buyer's use of the propeity?....'� O O 49��� •F. Aie there�y written agreemmts fw joint meintenena of an eaument or rigfit of way?_.......... ....._..._.....0 0 50 'G. Is thae anY�R�'�Y Project,or notix tbei would advasely affect the pmperty?.............. .. . 0 O 51 ............... •H. Are ffiere any pending or e�dsting assessments ageinst the property?.............. � ........_.................................•-O O S2 •I. Are there any aoning violati4a�s,nonconforming uses,or aay unusuat restridions on the 53 property that affect future coostruction or remodeling7................................................................................O O 54 *J. [s there a boimdary survey for the property?................................................................................. 55 ...............0 ❑ 'K. Are there any cavenanta,conditioas,or Rstrictions rccorded against tide to the property?.........................0 0 56 PLEASE NOTE:Cova►ants,oonditions,and teshictions w}uch purpoR W forbid or restrid Ihc conveyance,eacumbtaoce,ocapaacy+or lease � of real property to individusls based on raa,creed,oolor,sex,nahionai origin,fmnilial s�tus,or disebility are void,imenfor�eable,md illegal. S8 RC W 49.60.224. 39 SELI,ER'S INITIAIS:V � 1 ' DA1'E: I� � ` 1 SELLER'S INPI7AIS: DA7'E: L _ Fom�17C C�(;apyripht 2011 Seuer Disdosu�e Statemerrt-Urrimproved SELLER DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Northwest MuMiple lls�ng service Rev.711 t UNIMPROVED PROPERTY ALL RiGHTS RESERVED Page 2 of 5 (Corttlnue� YES NO bON'T 60 ; 2. WATER KNOW 61 A. Household VJater 62 (1) Does the property have poteble weter supp[y?............._...._...._..............................................................� O 0 63 (2) 1f yes,the source of water for the property is: 64 � Privau or publicly owned watcr syskm 65 ❑ Private well sesving only the property � 'O Other wata sysrem 67 •If shared,ere Nxre any written egreemeats?.............................._..._..........................._.._....................0 0 ❑ 68 '(3) is there an easement(recorded or unnecorded)for access to and/or maiurenance 69 ofthe water source?..................................................................._........................................................�.0 ❑ �( 70 �(4) Me there eny proble�s or repairs needed?........................ ................................... . � 7] ......._......_....... ........❑ ❑ (S) Is there a connection or hook-up charge payabie before the prvperry ca�►be oo►u�ected 72 tothe watcr main?..................................................................................................................................❑ O � 73 (6) Have you obtained a certi6cate of water aveilebility from the water purveyor serving �q thepmpert}�!(IfYes,Pleace atlac6 a copy.)...........................................................................................❑ ❑ � TS (7) Is there a weter right pecmit,catificate,or claim essociated with household water 76 supply for the ProPerty�(If yes,please attach e copy.)..........................................................................❑ O � 77 (a)If yes,has the wata right permit ccrtificatq or ctaim becn a5signcd, 78 iransferred,or changed?........................................................................................................................❑ ❑ ❑ 79 •(b)Ifyes,has all or any portion of the water right not been used for five or more gp sucassiveyears?........................................................................................_.........................................❑ ❑ ❑ 81 (c)If no or don't Imow,is the wata withdrawn fivm the water soura less th�5,000 gallons a dayT....❑ p B2 '(8) Are there any defects in the operetion of the water system(e•B•P�P�.�k P►wP,ecc.)?....................❑ O � 83 B_ lnigation Wata � 84 (l) Are thae any iirigalion water rights for t6e P�P�Y,such as a water right permit, SS certificate,or claim7�f Y�Please auadi a copy.) ......_.....••••.......••-....-•••-•-•........................................❑ O J� $6 (a) if yes,has al l or any portiou of the water right not been used for 5ve or more 87 succxssiveyears?.................................................»»..............»......................................................❑ ❑ ❑ gg (b) tf yes,has the water right peimit,certi6cate,or claim been asdgaed, 89 transferted,or chaagod?..................................._..................._......................................................❑ ❑ 0 � I '(2) Does the property reaive irrigation water from a ditch oompany,irrigation 91 distrid,ar other en6ry7If so,please identify the entity that supplies irrigation waber to 92 the property. ................._.D O ,� 93 'I C. Outdoor Sprinkla System 94 (1) Is fhas an outdoor sprinkler systun for the property?................................_........................................_❑ � O 95 •(2) If yas,am there any defects in die system?..........»...--_•-••-•••••.._........•--•••••-••-••-•........_....................._..❑ ❑ 0 96 •(3) If yes,is the sprinkler system connected to irrigation water?........................................................_.......O O O 97 3. SEWER/5EP'fIC SYSTEM gg A. Th�PmPerty is served by: 99 Public sewer system �pp O On-site sewage system(ic�ciudinS PiPes.t�s,drainSelds,aad alI other component parts) t01 O Otha disposal system i02 Please descn'be: 103 S. Is the p�perty subject to any sewage system fees or cherges in addiGon to those mvered'm your 104 1 regularly billed sewer or on-site sewage system mainten�ce service?.........._...............................................❑ ❑ f� 105 � I SELLER'S INI1'IAIS:V m � DATE: a �� 1 SELLERS INTflALS: DA7'E: — -- -- — _..-- - . i Form 17C OCopyri�ht 2011 Setler Disdosue Stalement-Unimproved SELLER DISCL03URE STATEMENT Northwest Mul�ple Usvng 5ervtce Rev.7��1 UNIMPROVED PROPER7Y ALL RtGF(TS RESERVED Pa9e 3 of 5 (Cortdnus� YES NO DON'T I06 KNOW 107 C. If Ihe properry is connecxed to en on-site sewage system: 108 '(i)Was a permit issued for its cw�structioa?................................................................................._............❑ ❑ � 109 •(2)W�s it approved by thc local health departrnent or distrid following its construction?.........................O ❑ I 10 (3)Lr thc septic system a press�uized system?........................................................................................_...❑ ❑ � 111 (4)ls the seplic system a g�svity system?..._......................................_............................._.......................❑ O � l l2 •(5)Have the�s beea eny changes orrepairs to the on-site sewage system?............ ,�( 113 .....................................O ❑ (6)ls the on-site sewage system,including the drainfidd,tocatecl entirely l 14 within the boundaries of the property?.................................................•-••••••._.._..................._...............0 ❑ � 1!S If na,please explain: 116 •(7)Does the on-site sewage system requiro monitnring end maintenaoce savias more 117 fr+equmtly than once a year'? .................................................................................................................❑ ❑ � !i 8 4. ELECi'RICAIJGAS 119 A. Is the ro served b oatursl � • P Pe�Y Y Sas•••................................................................._.......................................0 ❑ � 120 B. Is there a comiection charge for gas7.............................................................................................................❑ ❑ � 121 C. is the property served by electricity?.........................................................................._.................................O ❑ 122 D. (s there a connection charge for e[ectricity?...................................................................................................❑ ❑ 123 'E. Ace the�z auy electricaf problcros oa t6c pmpaty?.......................................................................................❑ ❑ l24 5. FLOODING 125 A. Is the property located in e governmmt desig�ated flood wne or floodplain?........................_........._......_..O O � 126 . ' 6. SOQ.STABILJ'I'Y �Z7 ' 'A. Are there any settlement,emth movement,slides,or similar soil problems on the property?.......................O O � I28 7. ENVIRONMEIVTAL 129 •A. Have Ihere been any 800ding,st�ding watc,or drainage p�ubkms oa d�e property ffiat affoct 130 thepmperty or acas�lo the prope�ty?................._....................................................._..........._....................❑ 0 131 •8. Does any part of the property contain SII dirt,wacte,or other filt material?.......................... 132 .......................❑ ❑ •C Is there any materiei damage to the property from 6re,wind,800ds,beach movea�enLs. l33 exrthquake,expaasive soils,or landslides?............_..........._................................_................_....................0 O � l34 D. Are thae my shorelines,wetlands,800dplains,or citical areas on the pmperty?........................................� O ❑ 135 •E. ,4ro thes say substances,materials,or products in or on the pioperty that may be envicomnentel 136 concems,such as agbestos,formaldehyde,eadon gas,lead-based peint,&el or chemicat 137 storage tanics,or contaminated soa or water? ....................................................•••-•-•...._................_............O ❑ � l38 'F. Has the property been used for wmmercial or industrial P�P��s?........................ .-........-0 � O 139 � .__..................._. •G. Is the�e�y soil or gmundwata contamination?........................................................_............................._..0 O � 140 •H. A�s there uansmission poles or ather etectrical utilitY�9WP���I�,���ed, 141 or buried on the property thet do not p�ovide utility service to the structuies on the properry7................._..O ❑ � 142 •L Has the property bxn used as a legal or illegal dumping site7..._....._...................... ...........❑ O 143 ._...................... � 'I. Has the praperty bcrn used as an illegal drug manufacb,ring�te?..._._.•••--••-••....._......................................❑ � ❑ �qq j •K. Ais there any radio towers that ca�ue inlerfatnca with allular telephone reaption?_._.............................❑ ❑ � 145 ( I SELLER'S INfITALS:V� � DATE: I � SELLER'S 1N1TiALS: DATE: i I � I ` Form 17C OCopyAgM 2011 Sei�er o(ados�xe State�nent-Unimproved SELLER D{3CLOSURE STATEMENT NwUxvest Multlpk Llsting Servir.e ��-�»� UNIMPROYED PROPERTY ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Pape 4 of 5 (Cbntinue� YES NO DON'T 146 8. HOMEO�VNERS'ASSOCIATION/COMMON IIY1'ERESTS K1VOW l47 A. Is thece a homeowners'ffisociation?..................................................................................................._.........❑ l� ❑ 148 Name of associetion and contact infurmation for en officer,director,employce,or other 149 suthorized agent,if any,who may provide the msociation's�cial statements,minutes, 150 bylaws,6ning policy,and other information that is not publicly available: 151 152 B. Ate there regularperiodic assessmrnt�?.......................................•••..............................................................0 � ❑ 153 S per ❑month 0 years 154 O Other ISS •C. /�e thers�y pending specisl azsasments7............................................•••••........_.._...................................:❑ � ❑ 156 'D. A�e thae�y sbme�"common meas"or any joint maintenmce agameats(fadlities 157 such as walLs,frnces,landscspin&pools,tennis courts,wa0cweys,or other enas 158 co-owned in undivided incerest wiW others)?................................................._.........................-••.................❑ 0 159 9. OT�R FAt.'I� 160 •A. A�s t6ae ffiy disagreements,disputes,encroschments,or legal actions conaming the property?...............❑ 0 � 161 •B. Does tht property have�y pleuts or wildlife that are designeted as species of concem,or listed 162 esthreatened or endengerad by the govemmeat7..........................................................................................❑ 0 163 •C. Is the pmpeRy classified or desi�ated as forest land or open spacc?............ .. . . . . .O ❑ 164 .........._............................ I D. Do you have a forest m�agert►ent plan?[f yes,attach. .................._................................................_...........O � ❑ 165 •E. Have any developmeot-releced permit spplie�tions been submitted to any governmeot agencies7...............O ❑ � 166 tf the ansvver to E is`y+es,^what is the status or artmme of those applications7 167 � l68 F. Is the property locxted within a city,county,or district or within a depa�tment of nahusl resouras 169 Sre protec6on zone that provides 5re protedion services? ..........................................................................0 ❑ � 170 HL FULL DISCLOSURE BY SELLERS l71 A. Other coaditioas ar dekcts: 172 'Are theee any other ezisting material defects aftectiag the pmperry Ihat a pmspective buyer 173 should Imow about?................................._................................................_............. .._...❑ ❑ t74 ............................... B. Verificatioo 173 'tlie foregoing�svvas and etlached explanatia�s(if aoy)are oomplete md oorrect w the best of Seller's Imowledge md Sdkr has 176 rxeived a oopy heroot Shcer agttcs to defa�d,indemnify md hold�eal astate lioen�harmless from aad against eay�d all cleims 177 that the above infortnation is ineax�rate.Seper authmizes real estate licensees,if any,W deliver a copy of this disciosure statement to l78 otber rcel e li and all prospective buyers of the property. l79 Dste: �G,! �� - . . Dote: (80 Seller: Seller. I81 , NOTICES TO THE BUYER 182 SEX OFFENDER REGI3TRAT[ON 183 INFORMA7701V RECARDWG REGISTERF.D 5IX OFFENDERS MAY BE OBTAINED FROM I.00AL LAW ENFORCEMENT 184 AGENCIES.T�S NOTICE IS INTENDEII ONLY TO INFORM YOU OF Wf�RE TO OBTAIIV T�S INFORMATION AND IS L85 NOT AN WDiCATION OF'1'HE PRESENCE OF ItEGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS. 186 PROJQMITY TO FARMINC !87 THIS NOTICE iS TO IIYFORM YOU THAT THE REAL PROPERTY YOU ARE CONSIDERING FOR PURCBASE MAY LiE IlV 188 CLOSE PROXIMITY TO A FARM.THE OPERAT[ON OF A FARM INYOLVES USUAL AND CUSTOMARY ACRICULTURAL 189 PRACTICES,WHICH ARE PROTECTED UNDER RCW 7.48305,1'�WASkflNGTON GHT TO FARM ACT. 190 SELLER'S IIJTf W.S: DATE: SELLERS INT17AL5: DA1'E: Fom,»c �y�nt 201� Seder Disdosure Statement-Unimproved 5ELLER DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Northwest Muldple usUng Servioe ������� UNl PROVED PROPERTY �u-i.wGHrs RESERVFn Page 5 of 5 (Contin+red) Q. BUYER'S AC OWLEDGEMENT �g� Buyer hercby acimowledges that: i y2 A. Buyer 6as a duty W psy diligmt attentiaa to eny material defects thet�e Imo►w to Buyer or can be Irnowo to Buyer by util'urng 193 di6grnt attention and observation. l94 B. '[lie disclowres set forth iu this statement and in aoy amendments to this st�ement aie made only by the Seller aud uot by m�y real 195 estate liansee or od►v pmty. I96 C. Buya aclmowledges that,pursuan!to RCW 64.06.Oi0(2�real estate lioe�s are not liable for inacauate mforaiation provided by 197 Seller,except to the extent that�eal estate licensas lrnow of such inaccutatc infortnadon. L98 D. This information is for disclosnre only end is nol intended tv be a paR of the wrilten egceement behveen the Buyer and Seller. 199 E. Buyer(which term includes all persa�s signing the'�uyds acaptauce"portion of this disc(oaae stateinent bebw)6as received a 200 copy of 16is Disclosuis Statcment(iadudiag attachments,if any)bearing Selier's signet�ae(s). ' 201 DISCLOSURE5 CONfA[NED IN THIS DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ARE PROVIDED BY SELLER BASED ON SELLER'S ACTUAL 202 KNOWLEDGE OF 7'HE PROPERTY AT TE�'I'Du� SELLER COMPLETES THIS DISCLOSURE. UNLESS BUYER AND SELLER 203 OTf�RW[SE AGREE aV WRITING,BUYER SHALL HAVE THREE(3)BUSINESS DAYS FROM TF1E DAY SELLF.R OR SELLER'S N� AGENT DELIVERS TEIIS DISCLOSURE STATEMENT TO RESCIND AGREEME BY DELiVERIIVG A SEPARATELY SIGNED 205 WRITTEN STA''fEl1�NT OF RESClSS10N TO SELLER OR SELLER'S AGEI�IT.YOU MAY WAIVE TF�RIGHT TO RESCIND PRIOR 206 TO OR hFPER TQ12E YOU ENTER INTO A SALE AGREEMEM. 207 BUYER E�REBY ACIQ�TOWLEDGES RECEIPT OF A COPY OF TFIIS DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND AClQdOWLEDGES THAT 208 11� DISCLOSiJRES MADE HEREIN ARE THOSE OF THE SELLER ONLY,AND NOT OF ANY REAL ESTATE IICENSEE OR 209 OTHER PARTY. 210 DATE: DA'fE: Z�1 BUYER: BIJYER: 212 BUYER'3 WAiVER OF RIGAT TO REVOKE OFFER Z�3 Buyet hag read end reviewed the Seller's responses to this Seller Disclos�e StatemenG Bayerapprvves this statem�nt and waives Buyer's right 214 to revolc�Buyer's offer based on this disclosure. 215 DA7'E: DA7'E: 216 BLIYER BUYER: 217 BUYER'S WAIVER OF RIGHT TO RECEIVE COMPLETED SELLER DISCLOSURE SfATEMENT Z�g Buyer has betn advised of Buycr's rig6t to rcoeive a compteted Seller Disdosme Statemm�8uyer waivea that rig6l However,if the mswer W Z l9 any of the questions in the section a►tidcd"Environmental"would be`yes,"Buyer may oot waive the ceaipt of the"Enviraimental"saxion of ZZp the Seller Disctosiue Statement 22� DATE: DATE: � BUYER BUYER: �3 If the aoswv is"Ya"to any aste�isked(•)iteou,pleme ezplain below(use edditional sheds if necGssery�Plcase�efc m thc line numbec{s)of 224 the question(s). � 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 SELLER'S INTtIALS: DATE: SELLER'S INITIALS: DATE: � ADDENDUM "A"TQ PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT I � The Real Estate Purchase and Sale Agreement ("Agreement"), dated December 20, 2014, between Creek Partners LLC, a Washington limited liability company ("Seller"), and City of Renton, a noncharter code city under RCW 35A, and a municipa) corporation ("Purchaser"), for the purchase and sale of the property described in said Agreement, is amended as follows: 1. Pursuant to Paragraph 2.a of the Agreement, Fair Market Value is Seven Hundred Eighty-Five Thousand Dollars and No Cents($785,000.00). 2. In reference to Paragraph 2.c of the Agreement, the mutual execution date of the Agreement shall be the mutual execution date of this Addendum. 3. All other provisions of the Purchase and Sale Agreement shall remain the same. I ' DATED this day of , 2015. SELLER: CREEK PARTNERS LLC � B .�� m � � � �� y. � Gre�M. Fawcett, Manager Dai�e By. ,GS c,(�•c-c.. .�a��.�" 3 - I 9 -�S Sabra Fawcett, Member Date By: `'�0. �- ���� �—,�,i— �5 GeorgejA. Fawcett, Manager Date -1- �-- - --- - - STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss COUNTY OF KING ) THIS IS TO CERTI FY that on this ��' � day of ' t�'�� , 20 15 before me, the undersigned, a notary pubiic in and for the state of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared Greg M. Fawcett to me known to be a Manager of Creek Partners LLC, the limited liability company that executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said limited liability company for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he was authorized to execute said instrument, and that the seal affixed, if any, is the seal of said company. WITNESS my hand and official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. ``�����\�1t1{�� ���{� _"��_`�+.pr��tVv'9C�����i�� Signature: r��1,(Ll.(Jll�. �. �J`�=��� �� Notary Public in and for the state of Washington. � J4,� x��.. � � Notary(print): �.Q t�V'a !�� �uVa�1 ' Residing in: No+�7� .�.d � (��' ��,� �f+�tiy�i g.p9'���`�� My appointment expires: �'DQ�it� �, �q ka�.��*` �► � ''�, �OF W P���`"., ''�i�ti��������`�� -3- I STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss COUNTY OF KING ) �1 �• THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on this �a ' day of ��L�f , 2Q �5 before me, the undersigned, a notary public in and for the state of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared Sabra Fawcett to me known to be a Member of Creek Partners LLC, the limited liability company that executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said limited liability company for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he was authorized to execute said instrument, and that the seal affixed, if any, is the seal of said company. WITNESS my hand and official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. ```����������R<<���t Signature: (����. Ui. ��+W'a,c�`' �i f�i� Notary Public in and for the st te of Washington. '� 4;.a.z t� �Q�*' �i ;J r��*� � Notary(print): �tl�ra �• kVa�ti ; g o :°�,. � ! Residing in: Uar1'!� $�kd� W�4' ; s� ��,,��� � = My appointment expires: �'�'l� , �%, tS���+��5�9,r�`r �,,? �,5 ,- .- , �,;CLOF\W`��� -4- � STATE OF WASHINGTON ) �5S COUNTY OF KING ) THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on this �� day of /�a+-� , 2Q� before me, the undersigned, a notary public in and for the state of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared George A. Fawcett to me known to be a Manager of Creek Partners LLC, the limited liability company that executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said limited liability company for the uses and purposes therein mentioned,and on oath stated that he was authorized to execute said instrument, and that the seal affixed, if any, is the seal of said company. WITNESS my hand and official sea! the day and year in this certificate first above written. .-�• �— v � - - �-��- Si nature. � 7� Public - g -/ Notary Nota Public in and for the��,te�of Was,},i��ton. : StAte of Wasltiagton - ry � '�,' � �1 �JASON CHUNG PAK Nota (print�: ` v pIRES MY �p�nM�sStot�Ex _ Residing in: (�,(/cJUe 27,20i7 Ma'c�' � My ap ointment ex ires: �1'�ar� �-r_ �or7 'h �..�. P P -s- PURCHASER: CITY OF RENTON ay: Denis Law, Mayor Date ATTEST: By: Jason A.Seth,City Clerk Date -z- ! � . . � . . • �. � i�`, � �: � ein n• r �. . . , . � � . i ,���, ., . ti � � . 1 + ���t�4�.�� ���2� Unit • � �r y� .. •^;: ,# , `3�' ae8 ,.R :'-+.` !� ._ , ati',� � " �°f,��3t '.►J�{ �* �., , r L.'r �;•�•+�"' '� �i�.a. �, � . �„t ~ �i r, • ;l ,2 ;r _ � ,�+A � ...��� `�.., �'�' f t . � .:..-' -.., w'st -., .�'` , _ .4, ,�.;+ w �� bn�: ` . -� - '( � J �1 ♦� i f �..1 ;t �%S�SSIE�t �!i f.e .t . �..a.r( ' Y {� x` h' 1 i-: l J� • i" , ti ♦.. .� . � . . � ,���.:wM � '� � . •;� el.. .. . r J , � � �',.4 rt � . ' ', ► � ��,y{�.�a"- ' -c- y x . .r ,_. `�:r u �� � `. - �,:4�1 �' {#' �'�' t�.� � 4'�'. .� ,. �u ,� 1� c 1 � �'�: ' '� . , • �', '- �-�'�t�` i 1 , � �✓y-. %�� .rr � .. y 4LL."` � �� `: 4�y 1:. .1_� . . 1 _ x i 1+w1 . �.. .�:. � i� 4�•�,�, ' �r �S ��� ,�r ., . �. . � • �`="- , —�:r.sx . :�.J �.t ,. �. . t: � ,�,� to.. -_s+�� j� r� = Fv wR�: 9�i , f� 1 ,. 1. _ . . �.�y� �if..��t�t.._ . . .t . �� �,} .�'. �ar�t { .�".l `....1 �S Y :�.�. ��+ . �r ' z � .t'�"r`�"r,., -�+� rx =r ,, ;�r�� � � ; ,,� __ � 1�� ..{;�� .� ;�: . y .'e"'"S i . . i'�i"C�t , � . 1, . �`� a ':o" s$ `u,� ! sr .�� �w1ay.� . .+��: . . , '� � . . . _. �.. ; . � ` �.� '�} ^r �! � � .. Fk � �� • 't' � �/` �- _ S Y �� . .`,t� t .. ` J p �r� i��n r "P�� t�t� � e � ,�i} � ��i " ... t. I., F ���� �r.+�+'�' `i . { �t. .. � �/'v �- : �''� � •� � - ,:��.� .. ... . �ye.an«.�e , --y�� .,,6f. , � , w- �ki. .�_�n11- . ���,,.� t`✓ .r . y� � ,. ,. � � � }+iyc�t�. ' ` `' ,q. . . , i,3.r' � . � � . . .. �.;♦ ,��� Y�; � )s� �. ��_ , s� e�k�.� � � , � 4��„ � ,�, , -.� ; , ,.. . �' . .� r 4� .-•y �� '�` q a�+ , � 1"G >-r�' ^�M �F f-. ... . " : �e t . .. Mc.�. t� , w . r �,, .. �„ . � . .',w.fe . .r s . .. t . ru. ,- �. i: � :. �� . -_' r�vflf7� . � i. 4 f��� � . . � 1 � " •' -.. . .,.. , h t a' � q J.�. h�' , � - `i , •�"�tr",.`_���� ,s.. . _ ..# ,� ,, w.r,...'�P! �! �� . . �4r�� • .j a ;(e , � .,yr � . 1t ; .. `�" `��' �W. ,_ r ._ , u , . . � _ .l � �3t�'�- �+la ! '+: �.�w�;' . t� � ;�;��r. s.� '» �.d. . . .. 1i.' ,i,. �C., i �.i'��+i, y�r" �� .: - . '' .� � . � � :a ��'� - �.. � ���.;u� :n` � r' n7 �n � �.. 'r `sd� f, ��� 3� r�i r•y s;at ' .� �� � r z.s � . �. � � . ; �Y Y �; �<a t _ ,�.. .�* . . � � ti, � ,,ir,.,t.�..+'u # � • , �, � , .,��.: -� ;.- .= N J '' • ��� �' : �'.��' t � S�rv+��� ' ��� ��i��L:� 'r _ �7',��3 "�� :�-`n� �i'� :;4, �' r �1i �*n � , �n' w, �. �, �, • / :�a '� n �• '�t,. � � �" ' R i '♦ ♦ �� �' ''F.' r� F wY'.�i� ,} �r .,,.� WK4 �r'. `r i _ . � ' � 1. . ��C. ;�,�1..- . � , . �+ � � � +.�:, . "{.rf' ;� =t. . �r�i ;:..y� J� ...a�s �*,,r� .:M� ���-�r ti�-„� .'! �Y Y . i. � � 1.4 1 . .^�'; ... . .'• �E�Y����y�� , l5.. ^,'�. � Rt '�.��, y �w •.i�l �^L' • .�y .. ' . �' � �f'. � • *� ��;. � .F�� , y" . � F,�, l.._ +r '*�� ''y'�ry�'��""�'�;,�•ti � � ��� �� 4 f. Mi'�� � � .._ tr,E . �' '`' ."°� r y. .�. � -.d ��ra aM�ns '"W _ h,..b t. '�"'�„' � +w `.. : .. c +� ` .. s1. . . `" ; � ,,,;...� .�,' 6 ��'.[.� r 4 t�-' • .s,. �� '�� �, .,,,'. . <. � `�,,_� �� ''• �� . .. �'�' y - . ... , yµrii+.x i."ya. '� �� ' �I�.� . . ' �3 tiKy, C�'s? . !t! .rj. R;1.. _-� n � t"'., _„�„yi ,.�+,,:, �_ . - � : ,N , t�k y.s,��� ...' .._. � �. �.-s.4,. ., ., fi -�:� 'rf�}. ��.`�.._�'*F . eAl hkt'.1GL'i4+Y- .-.�''+\. yi ��o � (i r t � i 1 �Ft{ .,� t�.�,� t .. n!.'1rt. T. ti:�v* � g :?s +� , �� ` F,��.w'r�. � � 4Q1 i t .�1 . ij. t j 4 i ?- �.'�i. R'4 J� t Y , Y y: ' v�� M ..r�.... bi ,._"�l„!t �,.'K�'"r. 4,�, �x 't t�..�r�_ , �, ,� . �t'� yr '� \) �,�� ..� :. �. ,y,;�� .y y. . , � } t , , . . �r r• � r`� � � � � - . ..�� y -c '\ } t t � � `-{ �.+,wr''��4��y � �, 4 � � ti„ a � �`�` j �' � i �a•t��,iri-i 3 � "`a t. � ,�� . �. . . - ', , �. �,. J�. `� ♦ ��,'1 .1R', 'v *n �.,t4 ; t ��i}w'.Fa; . '1;;t2 r .# w.�.:. � t�`,�1 .r �1+� . � �� �4!{t YUJ .i♦ � , • �� :�..• '� ��. t�ti.ww� ,. �' , . ' . . . ,�rsn♦ K1v ? #'7"� ' . `1.-., . � . . ..a-•'� 1 Y � R lr ..k }t .� * __'c. +yr�; J ' «-. .�f� �; f1.'�� �('� ..'�""f �^: �'Y Y ti J ,, Y «�� +i'"�k �� .Jl M �.. '.�' J ..._ - . . . �'t s" . �;�'�q�' .. , '��xt+t^»�ri j. �i p � . ' �'�,.. ;�.+ �-" i��t "1�,y�, �. -'� �.� �"- ;y�� �i1(f? � .�+rp. . "r�� .. _i'. ..�"L'.""„��;'!r� ,�'�T�`.� ,'� C� ,. � � ��. � 11 /' . �i�� , • t . t ' _/ �K�,,,. . � 4�..._ .. ��` � iL � , , . :{� �1-1J,t' Ir'�ji ,� �/l,. liMY�'Y ' . 'y }Y ) • .,«��� . tt }�'� i ��74. � � � .�1 �r�i � � �� � '7��r'F � .v � 1.T�, Jt^ , '' y , t �31 �:� z�<. �� ' " ...�' `� }. . ' � 'd�,* ' , � :.k '�r, "�'.'. t �� _ s � � t ' " "�Y���'i'a' • ��', �"" � � s ` �La -• �� » � ��. . �,� . . ,',,,.�.. ., . 'ri 7��'tt''� } . _ .. !,�`�, . ' i o � - c.. y t ��1y� ♦ � N S�.+ +.� � r.. .. � .- - " � , , ��'� ..w� � � 11� !4 y`�: �1 �r..�.\. i , ��i��� '�!, t;*`� Y` ',.i�Y �11. ..,. �'� jrl�t�,,.J� ����+�� t '�� � .�� �i l�t�r '+tt �.,',:.1... 4 V ��. ` ..` �Y . Y .... . '� �r.,, �.;t rt '-_ \ .t � , t. ��,:i; n� � ..� ��� , . .. � . ..., ��� ,�..w t�r�. +�I �+;\. l�/[ � d[�������.'r +�.} �-f t }� , . ,_ ..� �Y�,,,;.... "� I� } .. . .. . . . - � �-- . �� '�' ��+t , .. `�'�+ . ' "M.�s�*,� � 1� -�,3: . �i; � 4. j, ��i}� � - � Mr' �.-�.`�!y� ;.;�5 ��' �' �'' . .a t .�'> l. ,;;.�� . r nt�a,,. `�. a ,� - tt�1�"� ,�� , nF � ' q'� ' . '�. �1, . ._ . � . . h� . i�' • { . 'r . i. . t 1�: .� ,�� � ../�' �G � , . . . 4N r � �..�`:it..�,i^:� _ . • � ,� ., . . . __ . •� ,� .r .y� -n _ ... � r� ,��' ^� � • �,* r�, '�N►,�s ' { i `�_� 1T .� ' -1 �[*,.s� i► +`y Fa ry� "�{v}��, �`�� 11 �2C �W�^! Yi., . . . . . . .�'it , \. t� SisYlitl '{�" • .YSA.I.f �i. � � ,[ik.'q'rJ\ ""i� .. x..Yl� Ll*ts � . �"TY*' . , `�'� �r't� �{„w# �, :�• xM ; . .�I.��, v - }+�t � T.R�1 _ i'�� ' `I �t +. � . y�`-'�, i ri� : �� - . ` � _ 4`i�j�, � 4, t :# `' ^' n,-J��� �� ��: '* M.'"4 :� ,t�`,.l w•`.�;, ,l`�: .i:...Z(4�AJ y:,J������+ J�',�.�U�fi. ��'�,y' t t .a .� , M,:.�t x �'� ' ... �. . �l I�k � 31 0. .l` ,r .. _i r P - • •..r,^. 11 ,.-� x . r, ,x z:r � j�'�� k."" :'S�► , !t:t wt,'1 MYk M)Ri., s - � �� r{ t� �`1 ��•Y J' / f �+�;' �1'�a * � i a1 1{ tVM iV }t �1r+'�r.Myt t ,i 4 . 1 -7�h''t��.Y� i" . '� '_ .*� �•:n.� ,iGt ���••k , F'yr i. « x � t .y;.n 1 r���� . . ' 'tcra. Hcx7St� c^tx� '�'r cz . T � _ �t-�� _ t' � -� -_ � s ,'i ' �� ,�„r �,n. ��1"'t� �' .j 4a .»-r �+'� � 3:! � ._. �«1y _ . 4�� i� ' � .� «iv'^� f ��t •,,�ti �.j -`A P .' f�P�,�t�� }� .r.�� 1 J� . �� . }•+ '`!T,� -�.'., r1 '� .pmaLi � ..:.a�iv a ... 3FF tar'���k. -�, :r�,.�,�s y� . �, nr �� • w t. , � • � �x1� w►} , �.�.;,H r+r.:,.,ta ..�r rr . �2T y� �� .� . ' u,�, ` + . ) ��.��`�. . t,t,+ � . �. ;� �� �y ,. � .. , s* '{ � � �"'j,� �::r'� ►� i�'�, + � '. 1J`�_...�:^ . .:k����.�,� N��.� » t' ; �_Az� Leo. �'-i�, �_ �...� �+1 ,, i��•h 1 1^�It�� [ T'�,. ';,�,t n � 4 { , "'t+ .i•.��v .J ;� �s: +i*RI' f�kr Mfti..M �'� .v.• ,.S , .r�*�y'�'� +,. l �tT 79b.��xiq�,�.�`ryi 1"r(i•opet�a'2 z .. �+C• ,7 ► ,f .1�y y�r r ._ 2.. , � t. _,� . .hit. M, , `'Y�, i'9, �.� G4 �'.' t � � Yl ,�,�j � �� .t t� 'y,�,,� a_ �.r� 4it�- -�]*�' ��.. 'FI�' 1. a i�l^ � R r �%I' w., ��, ,. ! �'�.S"* 7. ,�n�!*}.i� t � ys`'r.,�.•�, r� ��4•+a�-/ u'fifC. . a� .��.�,.F ,...."".1t.,...:;M+-'.'� 1c:.r� , a'.-,t• • v 11 ' ' � . � .... � Y +y.YA�i� _ R,.'+ik�yw{itrl� �:i.}.M.'t t1 `y., iy +.t t4t3 ,_ . 7 .� 1 ,�i�i-a,�, .�w,�L�'7 n'}�--:�,i,y . . � ;r ��t�� i .'�h,sn+a7h-.Hn .Y F�1 '*���+ '.�.._ `t� -}�{� y . � - �i., .X...r. 4JG'. . `{ . ����,�J;,�iya" .xf'�1II�:H-� Y. ,raltlt. �..Y{`i�: y ;l y .w��['�• 7� i" May Creek — Fawcett Site Map :�. ��� t�s. � 3 :�. �::� � �� � ���1 �y F�� .�_, �.� ,f,, Y ��'x�� N:: ��,^�;,, , ��� �Pra��►get� #,,�.; . . .. p�e�uisi�i`� � (5.73 Ac���`a �. . .�. 7%... „ �� �.� - ��" , � ' y+ r.e,', �. �_. . , . . V.� �"�" � �'h`., . . _�.� ;��:.' ."a,� ^ _$ w;.�,f � y,i,�:�� m';� � 'aU, a�t..�� ;. ,%:�, ���� 'f�M�+�i 'Tra��: '��,��� � -�.r ,�. C�ii� ���� '��`�"��� � .� .:'�r,': :;.4: ��� - ;�� :�^;; ;&MF' �=;��,�:.. , ■ - . �, � ^ i GTY OF RENTON COUNGL AGENDA BILL � �� Subject/Title: Meeting: Interlocal Cooperative Purchasing Agreement with REGULAR COUNCIL-06 Apr 2015 Kitsap County Exhibits: Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board: A. Issue Paper Public Works B. Equipment Quote C. Interlocal Cooperative Purchasing Agreement Staff Contact: D. Draft Resolution Ron Kahler, ext. 2660 Recommended Action: Council Concur. Fiscal Impatt: Expenditure Required: $ 63,215 Transfer Amendment: $ N/A Amount Budgeted: $ 63,215 Revenue Generated: $ N/A Total Project Budget: $ 63,215 City Share Total Project: $ 63,215 SUMMARY OF ACTION: The City of Renton would like to enter into an Interlocal Cooperative Purchasing Agreement with Kitsap County in order to expedite the purchase of capital items. Interlocal cooperative purchasing has long been established and encouraged in the City of Renton Policy and Procedure 250-02. Entering into this agreement will allow the City to buy competitively using Kitsap County contracts and satisfy all of the statutory obligations for public bid. Entering into this agreement will save the City considerable time and expense by eliminating the need to conduct our bids and advertising on the purchase of specific items when the county has already completed this process. Instituting this agreement will provide quicker and more responsive delivery of materials and equipment to the City. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into an Interlocal Cooperative Purchasing Agreement with Kitsap County. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ityof - - ° �' �O� "� M E M O R A N D U M DATE: March 18, 2015 T0: Ed Prince, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: Denis Law, Mayor FROM: Gregg Zimmerman, Public Works Administrator STAFF CONTACT: Ron Kahler, Fleet Manager, Ext. 2660 SUBJECT: Interlocal Cooperative Purchasing Agreement with Kitsap County ISSUE: Should Council approve the Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into an Interlocal Cooperative Purchasing Agreement with Kitsap County? RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into an Interlocal Cooperative Purchasing Agreement with Kitsap County. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: Intergovernmental cooperative purchasing has long been established and encouraged in the City of Renton Policy and Procedure 250-02. Entering into this agreement will allow the City to make purchases using Kitsap County contracts and satisfy all of the statutory . obligations for public bid. This agreement will save the City considerable time and expense by eliminating the need to conduct our own bids and advertising on the purchase of specific items when the county has already completed this process. More specifically,the City has recently received a bid from Sonsray Machinery, LLC for purchase of a new Gilcrest Pavmaster 414, replacing the existing paver, as budgeted by the Street Maintenance Section and Equipment Repair and Replacement (Fund 501). Replacement of the paver is included in the 2015 budget approved by Council in November. Instituting this agreement will provide a quicker and more responsive delivery of the paver to be purchased in the next couple of months making it available for summer street maintenance projects and eliminate down time for repairs of aging equipment. Ed Prince,Council President � Members of the Renton City Council Page 2 of 2 March 18,2015 CONCLUSION: The Interlocal Cooperative Purchasing Agreement with Kitsap County is a highly efficient way for the City of Renton to purchase capital items. Entering into this agreement will eliminate the time needed to advertise and award bids,thereby reducing the purchasing time for capital items by a minimum of two weeks. cc: Iwen Wang,Administrative Services Administrator Mike Stenhouse,Maintenance Services Director Ron Kahler,Fleet Manager Hai Nguyen,Finance Analyst Vanessa Poorman,Maintenance Buyer H:\Deputy City Clerk\Agenda�Agenda 2015\04-April\4-6-15\Issue Paper Interlocal.doc ,. �� SONSRAY MACHINERY LLC 2702 West Valley Highway N • Auburn, WA 98001 � S O N S RAY 800-562-8261 • Fax: 253-735-3664 �'V!/�.1�M�iV�Rl� WWw.sonsraymachinery.com Branch OS I ShipTo: CITY OF RENTON 08 - AUBURN 1 3555 NE 2ND STREET Date Time Page ' RENTON WA 03/05/2015 12:19:55 (0) I 1 I Street Department 98056 Account rvo Phone No Quote 1y�2 RENTO001 4254306919 Q00230-08 I Ship Via Purchase drder I Invoice To: CITY OF RENTON Truck 414 , 3555 NE 2ND STREET Tax ID No I I RENTON WA 98056 � Salesperson I I CONTACT: Ron Kahler RONALD OLSSON 120 EQUIPMENT QUOTE / SALES ORDER I Description ** Q U O T E ** EXPIRY DATE: 04/03/2015 Amount New GILCREST 414 Tow Paver, Hard Rubber Tires, Hydraulic 57730.00 Screed Extensions, Hydraulic screed Lift, Dual 4� Hopper Gates, 3'� Crown/Invert, Propane Heated Bolt On 1/4�� Hardox 450 main and Extension Wear Plates, Back-up Hydraulic Hand Pumps, Hydraulic Tow Arm Hookup, Solvent Wash Down Tank, Back-up DC Hydraulic Pump, Hydraulic Screed depth adjustment, Ditching Plates, One Year Warranty. Subtotal: 57730.00 - WA STATE 6.5�: 3752.45 RENTON 3.0�: 1731.90 Authorization: Quote Total: 63214.35 NOTICE TO 1. Caution.Do nat s(gn this conhad before you thoroughty read both pages 1 and 2 of it a if it contains blank spaces,even ff otherwise advised. 2. You are entitled to an exact and completely filled in copy of this Sales Order when you sign it.Keep it to protect your legal rights. PURCHASER 3, Store Manager signature required for final acceptance of Sales Order. THISAGREEMENTISSUBIECTTOiNEADDRI0MALIERMSAN�CONDITIONSONTHEREYERSESIDE. CUSTOMERHASNADTNEOPPORNNIfYTORfADTBEiERMSOFTNISAGREEMENTPRIORTOSI(iNING. Purchaser's Signature Sales Consultant Date Print Name Date Accepted By Date Warranty on Equipment , Warranty coverage on the equipment covered by this order, if any, has been explained to purchaser. The + warranty coverage is outlined below and indicated by the box checked. NEW FACTORY PRODUCT WARRANTY or PURCHASED warranty, if qualified, is for the period offered � by the product manufacturer.WARRANTIES PROVIDED BY THE SELLER ON NEW PRODUCTS SHALL BE GNEN TO PURCHASER UNDER SEPARATE AGREEMENT, THE RECEIPT WHEREOF IS HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGED BY PURCHASER. aNEW-Other Manufactures warranty USED -When the equipment covered by this order is used equipment, THE PURCHASER STATES � THAT HE HAS EXAMINED THE EQUIPMENT and is buying the equipment AS IS and with NO REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTIES, unless otherwise specified UNDER SEPARATE AGREEMENT, THE RECEIPT WHEREOF IS HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGED BY PURCHASER. ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1. This is a cash transaction. If the Purchaser so requests prior to acceptance, the Cash Due on Delivery may be financed as a time sale transaction, subject to credit approval. If this transaction becomes a time sale, Purchaser agrees(i)to make payments pursuant to the Sonsray Machinery Accounts Receivable System Agreement, which is incorporated into this Purchase Order by reference, and (2) that Seller retains a security interest in the goods described herein until all obligations of Purchaser are paid in full and discharged. 2. When trede-in equipment is not to be delivered to the Seller until delivery af the equipment purchased by this order, the trade-in equipment may be reappraised at that time and such reappr•aisal value shall determine the allowance made for such trade-in equipment. When the reappraised value is less than the original trade-in allowance shown on this form, the purchaser may terminate this order; however, this right of termination must be exercised prior to delivery of the equipment by Seller and surrender of the trade-in equipment to Seller. 3. The prices which Purchaser will pay for the new equipment set forth on the reverse side hereof shall be based upon the Case dealer price in effect on date of delivery of the new equipment. In the event Case dealer's price is changed prior to delivery, the purchase price shall be adjusted accordingly. If such price change results in an increase, purchaser has the optio� of canceling the order in writing immediately on being notified thereof. 4. The Seller shall be excused if delivery is delayed or rendered impossible by differences with workmen, strikes, work stoppages, car shortages, delays in trensportation, inability to obtain labor or materials and also by any cause beyond the reaso�able control of Seller, including but not restricted to acts of God,floods,fire,storms,acts of civil and military authorities,war and insurrections. 5. Purchaser shall keep the property free of alI liens, taxes, encumbrances and seizure or levy, shall not use same illegally, shall not damage, abuse, misuse, abandon or lose said property, shall not part with possession thereof,whether voluntarily or involuntarily or trensfer any interest therein or remove same out of the county or filing district in which Purchaser resides as indicated herein without the prior written consent of Seller, shall keep said property insured in such amounts and with such insurer as may be acceptable to Seller with any loss payable to Seiler as his interest in the property may appear. 6. Time is of the essence of this contract and if purchaser fails to comply with any of the terms and conditions hereof or defaults in the payment of any installment hereunder or under any renewal or renewals hereof, or in the payment of interest or defaults in the payment of any installment due under any other indebtedness of contract held by the Seller or Assignee, or if proceedings are instituted against Purchaser under any bankruptcy or insolvency law or Purchaser makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors or if for any reason the Seller deems himself insecure and so declares all payments heretofore made by Purchaser shall be retained by the seller and all indebtedness hereunder shall become immediately due and payable, with or without notice,together with all expenses of collection by suit or otherwise, including reasonable attorney fees and Seller may, without notice or demand, take possession of the equipment set forth on the reverse hereof, or any additions to, replacements of, or any proceeds from said equipment or may render the property unusable or Selier may require Purchaser to assemble the property and make it available at a place designated by Seller.Seller may resell the retaken property at public or private Sale in accordance with the Uniform Commercial Code or applicable state or provincial law. After deducting reasonable expenses for retaking, repairing, holding, preparing for sale, other selling expenses including attorney fees and legal expenses, the remaining proceeds of Sale shall be credited upon the amount of indebtedness remaining unpaid hereunder,and Purchaser agrees to pay any deficiency upon demand by Seller, any surplus, however, shall be paid to Purchaser. Said retaking or repossession shall not be deemed rescission of the contract. Seller may exercise any other rights and remedies provided by applicable law. 7. No waivers or modifications hereof shall be valid unless written upon or attached to this contract.Waiver or conditions of any breach or default hereunder shall not constitute a waiver of any other or subsequent breach or default. Payments received by Seller are to be applied first to delinquent interest and then to principal. 8. The remedies provided for herein are not exclusive and any action to enforce payment shall not waive or affect any of the holder's rights to have recourse to the property.The trensfer of this contrect shall operate to pass a security interest in the property as security for the payment hereof. 9. Any provision of this contract prohibited by the laws of any state,the United States, any province of Canada,shall be ineffective to the extent of such prohibition without invalidating the remaining portions of the contract. 10. Each maker,endorser,guarantor and surety hereon severally waives presentment,demand protest,and notice of non-payment and all defenses of want of diligence in collection and bringing suit. This contract shall be binding upon and shall insure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, personal representative, successors,and signs. il. Buyer authorizes Seller to insert the Serial and/or model numbers of the goods set forth on the reverse side hereof for the purposes of identifying said goods.The seller may correct patent errors herein. Disclosure of Regulation Applicability: When operated in Califomia, any off-road diese/vehide may be subject to tire California Air Resources Board In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehide Regu/ation. It therefore cou/d be subject to retrofit or acce%rated tumover �equirements to reduce emissions of air pollutants. For more information,please visit the California Air Resources Board websife at http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/ordiesel/ordiesel.htm. Purchaser's Initials: Page 2 of 2 5ry99Qdq�Re�1814�1� J INTERLOCAL JOINT PURCHASING AGREEMENT KC-102-15 THIS AGREEMENT is between the City of Renton, a political subdivision of the State of Washington, and the County of Kitsap, a public agency under the laws of the State of Washington. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Interlocal Cooperation Act, as amended, and codified in Chapter 39.34 of the Revised Code of Washington provided for interlocal cooperation befinreen govemmental agencies; and WHEREAS, Chapter 39.33 of the Revised Code of Washington provides for intergovemmental disposition of property; and WHEREAS, the parties desire to utilize each other's procurement agreements when it is in their mutual interest; -- NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 1. PURPOSE: The purpose of this agreement is to acknowledge the parties' mutual interest to jointly bid the acquisition of goods and services where such mutual effort can be planned in advance and to authorize the acquisition of goods and services and the purchase or acquisition of goods and services under contracts where a price is extended by either party's bidder to other govemmental agencies. 2. ADMINISTRATION: No new or separate legal or administrative entity is created to administer the provisions of this agreement. 3. SCOPE: This agreement shall allow the following activities: A. Purchase or ac uisition of oods and services b each a actin as 4 9 Y P �Y 9 agent for either or both parties when agreed to in advance, in writing; B. Purchase or acquisition of goods and services by each party where provision has been provided in contracts for other governmental agencies to avail themselves of goods and services offered under the contract and/or where either party's bidder is willing to extend prices to other governmental agencies. 4. DURATION AGREEMENT—TERMINATION: This agreement shall remain in force until cancelled by either party in writing. v 5. RIGHT TO CONTRACT INDEPENDENT ACTION PRESERVED: Each party reserves the right to contract independently for the acquisition of goods or services without notice to the other party and shall not bind or otherwise obligate the other party to participate in the activity. 6. COMPLIANCE WITH LEGAL REQUIREMENT: Each party accepts responsibility for compliance with federal, state or local laws and regulations including, in particular, bidding requirements applicable to its acquisition of goods and services. 7. FINANCING: The method of financing of payment shall be through budgeted funds or other available funds of the party for whose use the property is actually acquired or disposed. Each party accepts no responsibility for the payment of the acquisition price of any goods or services intended for use by the other party. 8. FILING: Executed copies of this agreement shall be filed as required by Section 39.34.040 of the Revised Code of Washington prior to this agreement becoming effective. 9. INTERLOCAL COOPERATION DISCLOSURE: Each party may insert in its solicitations for goods a provision disclosing that other authorized governmental agencies may also wish to procure the goods being offered to the party and allowing the bidder the option of extending its bid to other agencies at the same bid price, terms and conditions. 10. NON-DELEGATION/NON-ASSIGNMENT: Neither party may delegate the performance of any contractual obligation, to a third party, unless mutually agreed in writing. Neither party may assign this agreement without the written consent of the other party. 11. HOLD-HARMLESS: Each party shall be liable and responsible for the consequence of any negligent or wrongful act or failure to act on the part of itself and its employees. Neither party assumes responsibility to the other party for the consequences of any act or omission of any person, firm or corporation not a party to this agreement. I � 12. SEVERABILITY: Any provision of this agreement, which is prohibited or !� unenforceable, shall be ineffective to the extent of such prohibition or unenforceability, without invalidating the remaining provision or affecting the ', validity or enforcement of such provisions. I DATED_day of , 2015. DATED day of , 2015. CITY OF RENTON KITSAP COUNTY DENIS LAW, Mayor ROBERT GELDER, Chair LARRY WARREN, City Attorney EDWARD E. WOLFE, Commissioner CHARLOTTE GARRIDO, Commissioner ATTEST: ATTEST: JASON SETH, City Clerk DANA DANIELS, Clerk of the Board � CITY OF RENTON,WASHINGTON RESOLUTION N0. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO ENTER INTO AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATIVE PURCHASING AGREEMENT WITH KITSAP COUNTY. WHEREAS, Renton's Policy and Procedure 250-02, subsection 6.1.1, permits Renton to enter into Interlocal Cooperative Purchases (defined in subsection 5.9), and permits Renton to acquire non-public word goods, supplies, materials, equipment, and services without having to satisfy Renton's purchasing, bidding, and contracting requirements set forth in RPP 250-02; and WHEREAS, Kitsap County offers other jurisdictions the option of entering into a Cooperative Purchasing Agreement with Kitsap County for various equipment and supplies using Kitsap County's competitively awarded contracts; and WHEREAS, Renton will be able to purchase needed items and services competitively by entering into an Interlocal Purchasing Agreement with Kitsap County; and WHEREAS, Renton will save considerable time and expense by entering into this Interlocal Purchasing Agreement with Kitsap County; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The above recitals are found to be true and correct in all respects. SECTION II. The Mayor and City Clerk are authorized to enter into an Interlocal Cooperative Purchasing Agreement with Kitsap County. 1 RESOLUTION N0. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of . 2015. Jason A.Seth, City Cierk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2015. Denis Law, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RES.1665:3/10/15:scr 2 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL � . i J Subject/Title: Meeting: Increase of a Public Works Department REGULAR COUNCIL-06 Apr 2015 Transportation Systems Division Operations Section Civil Engineer II Position from 0.50 FTE to 1.0 FTE Exhibits: Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board: A. Issue Paper Public Works Staff Contact: Doug lacobson, extension 7242 Recommended Action: Refer to Finance Committee Fiscal Impact: '� Expenditure Required: $35,300 (2015); $56,616 Transfer Amendment: $ N/A $ (2016) ', Amount Budgeted: $ N/A Revenue Generated: $ N/A Total Project Budget: $ N/A City Share Total Project: $ N/A SUMMARY OF ACTION: ' The Public Works Department requests authorization to increase an existing Transportation I SystemsDivision Operations Section Civil Engineer II position from 0.50 FTE to 1.0 FTE, effective May 1, 2015. The estimated expenditure for this increase is $35,300 for 2015 and $56,616 for 2016.Therefore, an additional request is made to decrease the Transportation Systems Maintenance Electricity budget line item 003.000000.016.542.95.47.001 by$35,300 in 2015 and $56,616 in 2016 to accommodate the increase in FTE. The funding for this increase in FTE is available as a result in savings by converting the city-owned high-pressure sodium street lights to LED lighting, and will be included in the next quarterly budget adjustment. This position is responsible for maintaining the City's traffic signal network and is currently filled as a 0.50 FTE. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the increase of a Public Works Department Transportation Systems Operations Section Civil Engineer II position from 0.50 FTE to 1.0 FTE, and adjusting the budget line item as necessary. : PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT � o �h�f ��0� �� M E M O R A N D U M DATE: March 18, 2015 T0: Ed Prince, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: Denis Law, Mayor FROM: Gregg Zimmerman, Public Works Administrator STAFF CONTACT: Doug Jacobson, Deputy Public Works Administrator- Transportation, Ext. 7242 SUBJECT: Increase of a Public Works Department Transportation Systems Division Operations Section Civil Engineer II Position from 0.50 FTE to 1.0 FTE ISSUE: Should the Public Works Department be authorized to increase a Transportation Systems Division Operations Section Civil Engineer II position from 0.50 FTE to 1.0 FTE effective May 1, 2015? RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the increase of the Public Works Department Transportation Systems Operations Section Civil Engineer II position from 0.50 FTE to 1.0 FTE, and decrease the Transportation Systems Maintenance Electricity budget line item 003.000000.016.542.95.47.001 by$35,300 in 2015 and$56,616 in 2016 to accommodate the increase in FTE. The funding for this increase in FTE is available as a result in savings by converting the city-owned high-pressure sodium street lights to LED lighting, and will be included in the next quarterly budget adjustment. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: The Public Works Department requests authorization to increase its Transportation System Operations Civil Engineer II position from 0.50 FTE to 1.0 FTE. The estimated ' expenditure for this change is$35,300 for 2015 and $56,616 for 2016. This position is responsible for maintaining the Cit�s traffic signal network and is currently filled as a 0.50 FTE. Prior to 2010,this position was filled as a 1.0 FTE. Due to the economic downturn and decline in development throughout the city,the position was reduced as Ed Prince,Council President �' Members of the Renton City Council Page 2 of 2 March 25,2015 a cost savings in January 2010. A new surge in development and the need to improve alignment of our traffic signal system throughout the city to accommodate such new development requires the assistance of a full-time, in-house employee. The other two Transportation Operations Section engineers have other levels of expertise and experience, but neither possesses the expertise and experience to maintain the city's traffic signal system. Increasing this position would better allow the Public Works Department Transportation Systems Division to: 1. Maintain the traffic management center operations, including the traffic signal central control system, develop appropriate signal timings and update SYNCHRO models to ensure our system appropriately meets the demands of morning, midday and evening peak hours. 2. Provide more internal and external collaborative efforts working on plan review to ensure traffic signal designs and street lighting are in compliance with city code and attending meetings with staff and developers as needed. 3. Raise overall customer service levels by providing more timely responses to resident inquiries and allow time to prepare work orders that will expedite signal , work, pavement marking, signing and traffic control plans. Currently,the 0.50 FTE position permits only 2 hours per week managing the traffic management center, rather than the desired 8 hours per week, and only managing 25� of the remaining proactive tasks. The Transportation Operations Manager is performing all plan review, in addition to his other tasks. Increasing the Transportation Operations Civil Engineer II position from a 0.50 FTE to a 1.0 FTE will help improve overall safety for motorists and pedestrians and increase level of service allowing more dedication to development projects changing the face of the city such as the Downtown Circulation Project,Southport development and the Sunset Highlands Redevelopment, which all require intense traffic signal design and ongoing monitoring. The funding for this increase in FTE is available as a result in savings by converting the city-owned high-pressure sodium street lights to LED lighting, and will be included in the next quarterly budget adjustment. cc: Iwen Wang,Administrative Services Administrator Nancy Carlson,Human Resources/Risk Management Administrator Doug Jacobson,Deputy Public Works Administrator,Transportation Chris Barnes,Transportation Operations Manager Cathryn Laird,Human Resources Manager Hai Nguyen,Finance Analyst File h:\deputy city clerk\agenda\agenda 2015\04-april\4-6-15\issue paper-pwt signal engineer fte increase.doc . I CITY OF RENTON COUNGL AGENDA BILL �. k . Subject/Title: Meeting: Renton Municipal Airport Sustainability REGULAR COUNCIL-06 Apr 2015 Management Pian Exhibits: Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board: A. Issue Paper Public Works B. Sustainability Management Plan C. Draft Resolution Staff Contact: Jonathan Wilson, Airport Manager, ext. 7477 Recommended Action: Refer to Transportation/Aviation Committee. Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required: $ 0 Transfer Amendment: $ 0 Amount Budgeted: $ 0 Revenue Generated: $ 0 Tota) Project Budget: $ 0 City Share Total Project: $ 0 SUMMARY OF ACTION: In 2010 the Renton Municipal Airport was selected by the FAA to complete a Sustainability Management Plan (SMP). The SMP was completed in 2012 with help from the Renton Airport Advisory Committee and Barnard Dunkelberg and Company, Inc. Now, at the conclusion of the project, the Airport seeks Council approval of a Resolution to formally adopt the SMP. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve a Resolution adopting the Renton Municipal Airport Sustainability Management Plan. .� ' PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT p a j � � Q��00� �� M E M O R A N D U M DATE: April 6, 2015 T0: Ed Prince, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: Denis Law, Mayor FROM: Gregg Zimmerma��ublic Works Administrator STAFF CONTACT: lonathan Wilson,Airport Manager(extension 7477) SUBJECT: Renton Municipal Airport Sustainability Management Plan ISSUE: Should Council approve a Resolution adopting the Renton Municipal Airport ' Sustainability Management Plan? RECOMMENDATION: Approve a Resolution adopting the Renton Municipal Airport Sustainability Management Plan. ' BACKGROUND: The Airport was awarded a$150,000 FAA grant to complete a Sustainability Management Plan (SMP) in 2010. The grant followed a competitive selection process where Renton was one of only 10 airports natlonwide selected to develop a SMP. The objective of the SMP is to develop, balance and manage an increasingly complex set of goals and opportunities to ensure the long-te�m sustainability of the Airport. The ' SMP focuses on sustainable practices including financial and physical, in addition to energy use and greenhouse gas production. With the hetp of the Renton Ai�port Advisory Committee (RAAC)and Barnard Dunkelberg and Company, Inc.,the SMP was completed in 2012. The deliverable received included the actual plan itself and a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet tracking tool that the Airport uses to input relevant data. That data is then tracked over time to measure the Airport's pragress towa�d meeting the SMP goals. The final report for 2013 was completed and results were presented to the RAAC in February 2015. The final report for 2014 is being developed now and will be presented to the RAAC in May. Now at the conclusion of the project the Renton Municipal Airport seeks Council approval of a Resolution to formally adopt the SMP. ! cc: losef Harnden,Administrative Secretary 1 I Susan Campbell-Hehr,Secretary U ' (SUSTAINABILITY MANAGEMENT PLAN Table of Contents Table of Contents � List of Figures �; Abbreviations and Acronyms ��� a. Executive Surnmary and Overview of the Process Executive Summary q,� Overview of the Process A3 , Definitions(Vision,Sustainability,Categories,Goals,Objectives and Initiatives) A.3 Summary of Sustainabiliry Goals A.4 Implementation A.5 Calendar of Sustainability Management Plan Activities A.6 B. Sustainability for Renton Munici al Air ort P P Renton Definition of Sustainability g,� Renton Sustainability Vision g,z Sustainability Categories g,3 C. Current Conditions ' Airport Setting �,� Financial �.Z Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory C3 Energy Utilities-Emissions and Cost C.3 Water Resources C3 Airport Vehicle Fleet and Related Emissions C.4 Employees C.4 Community C.4 Noise C.4 D. Sustainability Goals and Objectives Development and Evolution of Sustainability Goals/Objectives D.2 Airport Finance Category p.Z Airport and Local Economic Vafues Category D.3 Community Outreach and Education Category D.3 Energy Consumption/Greenhouse Gases Category D.4 Noise from Aircraft Operations Category D.4 Operations,Maintenance,and Capital Improvement of Airport Facilities Category D.5 Water Quality Category D.5 �RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT i �SUSTAINABILITY MANAGEMENT PLAN E. Initiatives for Meeting Goals/Objectives Development and Evolution of Sustainability Initiatives E.2 Ai�port Financials Initiatives E.2 Airport and Local Economic Value Initiatives E.2 Community Outreach and Education Initiatives E.Z Energy Conservation/Greenhouse Gases Initiatives E3 Noise from Aircraft Operations Initiatives E.3 Operation,Maintenance,and Capital Improvement of Airport Facilities Initiatives E.3 Water Quality Initiatives E.3 Description of Initiatives E.4 F. Sustainability Management Plan Implementation (Decision Making,Implementation Steps,and Tracking Tool) Guide:Implementation of the Sustainability Management Plan F.2 Sustainability Reporting Tool F.2 Appendix 1. Definitions of Sustainability 2. Inventory of Existing Conditions 3. 2010 Carbon Footprint 4. Financial Baseline and API Analysis 5. Sustainability Initiatives 6. Sustainability Initiatives Polling Results List of Figures Figure C1 Overall Operational Expense by Category,2010 C.2 Figure C2 Emissions Sources by Scope(2010) �•3 �' �RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT ii �SUSTAINABILITY MANAGEMEN7 PLAN Abbreviations and Acronyms ACI-NA Airports Council International-North America ACRP Airports Cooperative Research Program CIP CapitallmprovementProgram CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent(a measure of greenhouse gas emissions) DNL Day/Night Average Sound Level EONS "a holistic approach to managing an airport so as to ensure the integrity of the Economic viability,Operational efficiency,Natural Resource Conservation,and Social responsibility (EONS)of the airport" FAA Federal Aviation Administration GHG Greenhouse Gas GRI Global Reporting Initiative kWh Kilowatt Hour LED Light Emitting Diode MIRLs Medium Intensity Runway Lights PAPI Pretision Approach Path Indicator RAAC Renton Airport Advisory Committee REIL Runway End Identifier Lights RNP Required Navigation Performance RNT Renton Municipal Airport(abbreviated airport identifier) TRB Transportation Research Board of the National Academies �RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT iii � �SUSTAINABILITY MANAGEMENT PIAN a E" c tive -- 1 eri ofh .,,� �s .,; , _ � • MUNI �P L A�RPOR �-�, L Y� 0 T ���t , ,�, -_ . .. t°N A�R, 4 - w ' , i� • ' - ..<< , t _ + � � : : , ��0 0\a • on . Historically,the Renton Municipal Airport was run on a day-to-day, project-to-project basis. While this approach may have worked in the past, over time,the Airport has become an increasingly complex operation. These complexities strained the old model of management, and made it clearthat a new management model was needed. Recently,Airport staff began searching for a better way to manage the facility nd its co ex' es 'n a more sustainable manner. �RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT A.1 �SUSTAINABILITY MANAGEMENT PLAN At Renton Municipal Airport,"Sustainability"is the next step in the - management evolution of the facility with the purpose of: ■ Optimizing the use of the Airport's limited assets; . ■ Reducing environmental impacts of the facility;and • Earning greater support fram the community. For Renton Municipal Airport,sustainability is � the framework that can be used to address Beqrcb(e fqultable increasingly complex lnab management In EnvironmeM Eco omtc � mana in the Air ort,the Vlob e 9 9 P staff need to not only address the Economic side ofrunningthefacility Sustaina6leadionsstriveiobal n�ethe (Onerations►,but also the �nanaal/operations,natural re;ources �qu.iral Resources and (environmentaQ,andsoaalcons derations o ial characteristics. By adopting a new management approach,tenants and residents will be able to demonstrate the Airport's focus on creating balance between the Economic Social and Environmental characteristics. At Renton Municipa�Airport,for the sustainability model to have any meaning,it is critical that Airport staff track,measure,and report its progress. Data currently collected(or soon to be collected)by Airport staff will be measured using a tracking tool developed specifically for this purpo r. The tracking tool is aligned with the Airport's sustainability goals and objectives. In seeking a new management model,the Renton Municipal Airport has voluntari{y undertaken the preparation of a Sustainability Management Pla as part of the Federal Aviation Administration(FAA)Sustainability Pilot Program. In preparing this Plan,Airport Management adopted the followin sustainability policy: The Airport strives to become more financially viable,operationally efficient,while conserving natural resources,and being socially responsible. This document identifies the Airport's approa i to sustainability and the initlal actions that Airport staff will endeavor to implement. (RENTON MUNIClPAL AIRPORT A.2 �SUSTAINABILITY MANAGEMENT PLAN Overview of the Process This first chapter of the Sustainabil ity Management Plan describes ot the definitions,summary of sustainability goals,impiementation,schedule and calendar of sustainability activities through the year. Definitions (VISION,SUSTAINABtLITY,CATEGORIES,GOALS,and INITIATIVES) Throughout this document,the terms"Vision","Definition of Sustainability", "categories",'goals"and"objectives"are used. These terms capture the approach that the staff of Renton Municipal Airport have embraced relative to implementing sustainable management practices at the Airport. The'1/ision" articulates the values of the organization. The"definition of sustainability" identifies what sustainability means at Renton Municipal Airport(RN�. The Sustainabifity Management Plan then focuses on areas of interest,called Sustainability at Renton "categories"in accordance with FAA's scope G� 'S• Objec ives' �'�(�t'�V� af work for the sustainability pilot projects. � The ultimate output of the study was to identify initiatives or actions that Airport staff might take to move towards achieving its goal of being more sustainable. To help clarify and direct the effort,"goals"and"objectives" within each focus area/category were established.Goals represent the purpose that initiatives are designed to achieve,and objectives are targets or information to further emphasize/direct the initiatives. The Airport management obtained input concerning the categories for consideration in this Sustainability Management Plan as well as goals and objectives through coordination with its citizen/tenant public input committee(the Renton Alrport Advisory Committee-abbrevidted RAAC). Categories foCused the effort on interest areas such that specific sustainability goals/objectives and subsequent initiatives(described later in this document)could be identified. "Initiatives"represent the actions or programs that could be implemented to assist with making progress on achieving the goals/objectives: �RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT A.3 �SUSTAINABILITY MANAGEMENT PLAN Summary of Sustainability Goals Because of the limited resources at smal!airports,it is important that the range of issues addressed in sustainability planning provides the most benefit possible to the facility,operations,environs,and community within those limiting factors. Through coordination with Airport management and the RAAC,sustainability goals were developed for categories identified as being most important,and including: Airport Finance category � ■ Providing an economically stable asset that contributes to the communiry;and, ■ Balance expenditures witb revenue to remain financially self-sufficient in the long-term. • Improve revenue to provide for future development opportunities. ■ Provide financial capacity that will enable the Airport to pursue sustainability initiatives inthefuture. Airport and Local Economic Values category ■ Attrect airport tenants and aircreh operatio�s that add economic value to the local economy. • Continuously improve as a tier one supplier for Boeing aircraft manufacturing. ■ Diversify tenants and aviation servites for land and sea based operetions. ■ Increase employment. Community Outreach and Education category • Continuously improve the airport's relations with the surrounding neighborhoods and with airport tenants. ■ Raise community awareness of airport services and value to regional employment. Energy Consumption /Greenhouse Gases category ■ Reduce energy consumption without adversely affecting the Airport or its tenants ■ Reduce Airport owned greenhouse gas emissions. Noise from Aircraft Operations category ■ Maintain 65 DNL noise contour on airport property. • Minimize aircreft noise over neighborhoads. Operations, Maintenance, Capital Improvements of Airport Facilities category ■ Maintain a safe airport on a daily basis. ■ Maintain airport and seaplane infrestructure in good condition. Water Quality category ■ Reduce stormwater runoff quantity. ■ Improve stormwater quality. �RENTaN MUN{CIPAL AIRPORT A.4 �SUSTAINABILITY MANAGEMENT PLAN Chapter E of this document discusses the initiaiives or actions that were identified which will assist the Airport with making progress toward achieving the goals. Implementation , The process that Airport staff will use to implement the recommendations of the Sustainability Management Plan reflects the"pian,do,check,and ad"cycle(described later in detail). To ensure that the principles of the process become part of the Airport's culture,action will be required on a regular basis. The following items identify the actions that will be overseen by the Airport Manager,and over a calendar year, the management actions to be taken: Daily Activities,as needed • Journal information about adivities and circumstances affecting conditions at the Airport. ■ Use the Sustainability Reporting Tool for review/screening of initiatives. Monthly Activities ■ Input of monthly data(electricity and fuel use,water fees/use,etc.)into the Sustainability Reporting Toof. • Review and supplement sustainability initiatives in the Sustainability Reporting Tool. Quarterly Activities ■ Meet with Renton Airport Advisory Committee(RAAC)to review sustainability initiatives reviewed by airport staff during previous quarter. Annual Activities: • Input of annual data(i.e.,annual operations,energy,financial data,etc.)by staff into the Sustainability Reporting Tool by mid-March for the prior year. ■ Produce an Annual Report before mid-year that: � Documents initiatives reviewed during the prior year and their ratings relative to the established sustainability goals. � Reports historic and current performance metriu relative to sustainabiliry categories. Biennial Activities (every two years): • Reconsider the sustainability goals and initiatives and adjust as necessary. ■ Review the SustainabiHty Report Tool and adjust as necessary. ■ Improve quarterly and annual reporting templates,if warranted. ■ Discussion with RAAC about performance and goals,and identify suggested initiatives for the upcoming year. ■ Evaluate these implementation steps,and revise as necessary. I RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT A.5 �SUSTAINABIIITY MANAGEMENT PLAN Calendar of Sustainability Mana ement Plan Activities MONTH ACTIONS TO BE UNDERTAKEN Every Month lournal airport trends and conditions Evaluate and document initiatives Input monthly utility data January February Meet with RAAC-Present 4th quarter initiatives March Input year end data for prior year into the Sustainability Reporting Tool April May Staff review/assessment af prior year performance Produce annual report for prior year June Meet with RAAC-Present prior year performance and t st quarter initiatives lufy August Meet with RAAC-Present 2nd quarter initiatives September October November Meet with RAAC-Present 3rd quarter initiatives December Through the above implementation process,the Airport management staff will track progress toward iu sustainability goals. While periodic checks will be performed,a comprehensive review of the categories/issues, goals,objectives,metrics,and reporting procedures will be conducted every two years. The purpose ofthe biennial review is to make adjustments based on experience,lessons learned,changing conditions,input from stakeholders,and changes in the needs of the categories. Chapter F provides a step-by-step process for this re- evaluation. The implementation approach reflects the belief that successful implementation of sustainability practices should be transparent and involve the"plan,do,check,act"'process. This Sustainability Management Plan itself (and the subsequent chapters)represents the first step-the"plan"