HomeMy WebLinkAboutHawks Landing Mixed Use & SEPA Appeal
September 10, 2009
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF RENTON
REPORT AND DECISION
APPELLANTS: Brad Nicholson
South End Gives Back (SEGB)
Represented by: Keith Scully
OWNER: Port Quendall Company
Attn: Steve Van Til
505 Union Station, 505 Fifth Ave S., Ste. 900
Seattle, WA 98104
APPLICANT/CONTACT: Spencer Alpert
Alpert International, LLP
10218 Richwood Ave NW
Seattle, WA 98177
Represented by: Jack McCullough
701 5t Avenue, Ste. 7220
Seattle, WA 98104
RESPONDENT: City of Renton
Ann Nielsen, Assistant City Attorney
File No.: LUA 09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H
LOCATION: 4350 Lake Washington Blvd North
SUMMARY OF APPEAL AND
LAND USE ACTION: Appeal of SEPA Determination and request for Master Site
Plan Review and Site Plan Review for a 5-story, 60-foot high,
122,000 square foot, 173-room hotel.
PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Appellant’s written request for a hearing
and examining available information on file, the Examiner
conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows:
MINUTES
The following minutes are a summary of the August 25, 2009 hearing.
The legal record is recorded on CD.
The hearing opened on Tuesday, August 25, 2009, at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of
the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner.
Parties present: Ann Nielsen, Assistant City Attorney representing City of Renton
Vanessa Dolbee, Associate Planner, Development Services
Keith Scully, Attorney representing Appellant Brad Nicholson and SEGB
Hawk’s Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H
September 10, 2009
Page 2
Jack McCullough and Jessie Clawson, Attorneys representing Alpert International, LLP
The following exhibits were entered into the record for the SEPA Appeal:
Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file, LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-
M, SA-H containing the original application, various
reports, correspondence file, SEPA documents, SEPA
Appeal and Staff analysis.
Exhibit A: Vicinity Map
Exhibit B: Site Plan Exhibit C: Ask Fred what he wrote down!
Exhibit No. 2: Notice of Appeal with Attachments A-
L
Exhibit No. 3: Notice of Supplemental Brief and
Attachments
Exhibit No. 4: Larger Overview of Vicinity Map Exhibit No. 5: Close-up of Vicinity Map
Exhibit D: Existing Condition of Site Exhibit E: Deconstruction Plan
Exhibit F: Post Deconstruction Plan Exhibit G: Site Utility Plan
Exhibit H: Grading Plan Exhibit I: Dan Mitzel Biography
Exhibit J: Sound Design Group LLC Exhibit K: TIR
The Examiner stated that today the Hawks Landing Land Use, LUA-09-060 hearing for a Master Site Plan and
Site Plan Review, and a SEPA Appeal filed by SEGB and Brad Nicholson, who are challenging the SEPA
Determination by the City would be heard. The SEPA appeal will be first followed by the Land Use.
The Examiner asked for preliminary remarks:
Ann Nielsen stated that in the submissions by the appellant in the initial notice of appeal, along with their
supplemental brief, appellants raised an issue in regards to the Master Site Plan, the City and the applicant did
respond to that issue. The Master Site Plan and the Site Plan hearing is separate and apart from the SEPA
appeal, those issues raised that pertain to the Master Site Plan and Site Plan should be stricken and barred from
the SEPA appeal hearing.
Keith Scully stated that he did not disagree with Ms. Nielsen, his document should have been titled differently in
order to separate the two hearings.
It was agreed by all parties to strike the Master Site Plan and Site Plan issues from the SEPA appeal hearing.
Vanessa Dolbee stated that the site is located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd North and is a 7.8 acre parcel,
however the project site is only 3.07 acres in the northern part of Renton in the COR zone just north of May
Creek. It is east of Lake Washington Boulevard, and south and west of I-405. The project proposes to build a
hotel on the site that would include retail space, a fitness center, a spa and a restaurant. The building would be
60-feet high and 5 stories. It would be a total of 122,000 square feet with 173 rooms and a 124 space surface
parking lot in addition to an underground parking garage. The hotel would be located in the northwestern corner
of the project.
Hawk’s Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H
September 10, 2009
Page 3
There are two wetlands associated with May Creek, both are to the north of May Creek. One wetland is 63 feet
from the property line where the development will take place. The other one is approximately 117 feet south of
the property line of the developed site. The Shoreline Master Program would have different buffers depending
on the use, the Shoreline jurisdiction is invoked if development is within 200 feet of May Creek, all the
proposed development is outside of that 200 foot area.
Keith Scully, Gendler and Mann asked to submit all the attachments to their Notice of Appeal Hearing Brief and
a Notice of Supplemental Evidence. Included within the attachments are Declarations from Dr. Massmann and
Mr. Nicholson. They do not need to repeat everything if the Examiner would be willing to accept them in lieu
of live testimony. They are present, if there should be cross examination, they would be willing to answer any
questions that there may be.
Dr. Joel Massmann, 6520 E Mercer Way, Mercer Island, WA 98040. Upon questioning by Mr. McCullough, Dr.
Massmann stated that his declaration represented his comments on this pending application. In paragraph 3 on
page 2 where it states that 85% of the impervious surface was taken out of the plans leaving the assumption that
there would be a potential for a reduction of 4 acres in impervious surface on this site. His analysis in his
declaration was based on that potential. The impervious surface over the larger site, beyond the 3.7 acres is
actually less than 85%.
The assumption was that any land that was currently impervious and it became pervious the recharge onto that
portion would become ground water. Rain Gardens would also infiltrate at a rate typical of soils in this part of
the county.
Upon questioning by Mr. Scully, Dr. Massmann stated that 4 acres of impervious surface could be deconstructed
and would then infiltrate at a rate typical of soils in this part of the county. If it would be less than 4 acres you
could simply divide that ratio by the actual amount of impervious surface. A Rain Garden is a place to collect
surface water runoff and store it to potentially infiltrate the water. There may be less infiltration in a Rain
Garden due to the plants that would transpire, they are roughly similar to simple surface water runoff, and there
would be less recharge in the Rain Gardens because of evapotranspiration.
Keith Scully stated that Mr. Nicholson was also present and his Declaration was part of the record. If there were
no questions for Mr. Nicholson, he would not be called to testify. There were no questions for Mr. Nicholson.
It is their burden to show that there are probable significant adverse environmental impacts that clearly shows
that an Environmental Impact Statement should have been ordered, rather than what did happen when the City
decided that there were no probable significant adverse environmental impacts.
The point of an EIS is to study the exact impacts. One of those is not available, they cannot tell exactly what
will happen should this project be developed. They must show that it is more likely than not that it is probable
that something bad is going to happen to the environment if this plan goes forward as designed.
On SEPA, they are resting on one point and that is the stormwater. It rains all the time in Washington, there is a
ton of water that any site must deal with. This particular site is 85% impermeable and currently there are some
old warehouses and a bunch of pavement. When you have a site like this, and you take away pavement and
permeable surface that rain water can simply go through into ground water rather than landing on and flowing
off. Usually that is an unmitigated good thing and usually fights over developments like this in that there is not
enough ground water recharge, there would be too much water flowing off the site and flowing into water
bodies like May Creek or into the drainage ditch that carries the water off the site. This site is unique and SEPA
requires looking at not just how most sites would affect the environment but how this particular site impacts the
environment.
Hawk’s Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H
September 10, 2009
Page 4
The goal of SEPA is not to make things slightly better than they used to be, but to create a document that lets the
decision maker really understand the environmental impacts of the proposal. The question is, is there going to
be a probable significant adverse environmental impact? This is not the case of sample sites described in the
Surface Water Design Manual, where more water flowing into the ground is automatically a good thing.
Because of where this site is located, there are residential and commercial properties to the south, there are
freeways close by, a residential development to the west and close to the site is the Quendall terminal which is
loaded with chemicals and toxic soils that move via groundwater to the lake. There are hot spots of
environmental contaminants in Lake Washington that have been flushed from the land.
With this project, pavement will be torn out, buildings will be deconstructed, Rain Gardens will be added, which
will absorb some of the water but not enough, there will be landscaping added and impervious surfaces will be
dug up and replaced with a different impervious surface and permeable surfaces. The rain that currently flows
on this site is channeled to a drainage ditch and on to May Creek, more of that is going to be going into the
ground than previously. With this new construction, all water will now go directly to the Quendall site and add
toxins to Lake Washington. An EIS would tell how much of an impact this new construction would have on
existing water flow and Lake Washington.
In order to begin construction on this site, they will need to dig a de-watering trench to drain the site while they
use construction equipment. This ground is already saturated, there would be more ground water flow during
the construction. They may need to add catch basins in order to flow water to May Creek without more toxins
from the surface.
The Appellant is asking for a finding of probably significant adverse environmental impact and asks that this be
remanded back for a Determination of Significance and an Environmental Impact Statement.
Ms. Nielsen waived an opening statement, the City will present their information via a presentation by the
project manager, Vanessa Dolbee. She will then join with the applicant in any specific presentation with respect
to the stormwater issues.
Vanessa Dolbee stated that the City did receive an application from Spencer Alpert of Alpert International, LLP
for a SEPA Environmental Review, Master Site Plan and Site Plan Review for the Hawk’s Landing Hotel, the
applicant did provide all documents required by Renton Code. The SEPA review returned a Determination of
Significance – Mitigated with 10 mitigation measures.
The site is vacant, but used to be the home of Pan Abode Cedar Homes. All of the buildings on the site will be
deconstructed with the exception of the one building on the south. That building does have a corner within the
200-foot shoreline. The hotel and parking will be located in the northwest corner of the site. Mitigation
measures 3 and 4 require the applicant to comply with the 2005 King County Storm Water Design Manual in
addition to providing erosion and sediment control per Department of Ecology during construction.
Upon questioning by Mr. Scully, Ms. Dolbee stated that the white space shown on Exhibit G is in general
impervious surface. It is old concrete and other buildings as well as other items left on the site.
Discussion was had regarding the materials left on the site, whether the hotel would face those leftover
materials. The Examiner inquired as to what was going to happen to the rest of the white space.
Mr. Scully continued stating that in fact, the City does not know what is going to happen with all the stuff
remaining on the site.
Hawk’s Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H
September 10, 2009
Page 5
Ms. Dolbee stated that based on the submittal documents, she believed that the areas not marked “TBR” would
not be removed. There is no condition that requires them to leave that area impervious. There also has been no
document issued at this point by the City regulating that space outside the development area. A permit would be
required to do any type of work on the site. There is nothing in the plans that states what will happen to the soil
under the buildings that are to be removed.
Mr. McCullough stated that they would defer any opening statement and called Mr. Mitzel to testify.
Dan Mitzel, 1111 Cleveland Avenue, Mt. Vernon, WA 98273 stated that he was developing this site in
conjunction with Spencer Alpert of Alpert International. He is the developer for the hotel and has been active in
the real estate business since 1977 and active in the hotel business since 1984. About a year ago he got together
with Mr. Alpert and starting discussing possibilities of developing this site for a hotel that would work in
conjunction with the Seattle Seahawks. An agreement was entered into with the Seahawks to build a hotel that
would be considered the official hotel for the Seattle Seahawks, it was very important that they have a hotel that
was within close proximity to the VMAC Center and training center.
Upon questioning by Mr. McCullough, Mr. Mitzel stated that the plan was to remove the buildings, leave the
concrete slabs under the buildings and leave the asphalt that surrounds the buildings so that the impervious areas
are mimicking the existing conditions in the area outside of where the hotel will occur. There will not be 4 acres
of new pervious surface in the area of this new construction. The portion of the site that is impervious will
remain very similar to its present condition. There is no plan to change the existing square footage of
impervious surface in the area unrelated to the hotel development.
All buildings are sitting on concrete slabs. The hotel that will be built on this site will have some rooms looking
to the east and southeast. Those views would be essentially of asphalt and concrete, there might be a minor
amount of general cleanup that happens, the site is not a junk yard, rather a series of buildings that will be taken
down, the slabs will be left, the asphalt will be left and that will be the condition they must deal with in terms of
the view from some of the rooms, it is not perfect or ideal, but neither is looking at the freeway. They feel it is a
condition they are willing to live with and they are willing to take that risk.
Upon questioning by Mr. Scully, Mr. Mitzel stated that the entire site is under their control under a real estate
purchase and sale agreement. It is one tax parcel. They operate hotels in many different conditions. The
premium rooms will be looking at Lake Washington. At this point they have not begun to obtain their
demolition permits. There have been no specific conditions about how they leave the area that does not include
the project area. Nothing will be removed outside the project area.
Pat Severin, Sound Development Group, LLC, 15214 Avon-Allen Road, Mt. Vernon, WA 98273.
Upon questioning by Mr. McCullough, Mr. Severin identified a statement of qualifications for Sound
Development Group. He has been an engineer in the Skagit Valley for 10-12 years and been practicing
engineering since 1989 and licensed since 1995.
Mr. Severin was contacted by Mr. Mitzel to provide engineering and surveying services for the project. They
addressed storm drainage, utility designs, site layout and grading plans for the site. They worked with the
project architect to develop a site plan that was aesthetically pleasing and functions from a utility standpoint.
Exhibits E and G are true depictions of the existing conditions and post development conditions of the site.
Rain Gardens have a two-fold function, it is a point of collection for stormwater, it provides water quality
treatment and in some cases infiltration to actually dispose of stormwater runoff. This site is only using Rain
Gardens for the treatment of the water, they do not intend to infiltrate any water in the Rain Garden area. The
TIR for this project contained a diagram of the Rain Garden Treatment System. After the water was collected
Hawk’s Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H
September 10, 2009
Page 6
in the Rain Garden it flows into the drainage system and out to May Creek where it currently discharges. There
would be a collection pipe at the bottom of the Rain Garden to receive all the surface water that percolates
through the Rain Garden down to the drain rock below. The bottom of the Rain Garden would be lined. Per the
King County Manual, they are required to treat pollution generating impervious surfaces, which is primarily
asphalt and some concrete surfaces and that is what they are collecting. Roof waters are typically considered
not a pollution generating impervious surface, that water will be collected and diverted to the ditch in a separate
system.
Per the King County Manual, impervious surfaces are actually considered asphalt, concrete and typically
graveled surfaces, even if it were all to be removed, which the applicant does not intend to do, it would still be
considered impervious. Pre-development to post-development, all the water would be discharged to the ditch
much as it is today. The only difference is that they are treating the stormwater runoff and the Rain Garden will
provide some flow attenuation from stormwater. They are providing a better water quality than what is there
today.
Upon questioning by Mr. Scully, Mr. Severin stated that there was no water evaluation on the undeveloped
portion of the site other than knowing from the grades in the standpoint that the water would continue to flow
like it has done previously into the ditch. He only addressed what they currently were developing. The site
slopes more from the east to the west. The area outside of the hotel generally flows to the west and Lake
Washington Blvd. and it will continue to flow that way.
In the Water Quality Manual there are several menus, there is one that determines if it is a high or low use site,
which is generated by average daily use traffic. This site was determined to be low volume traffic therefore,
they were required to do basic water quality treatment. They chose Rain Gardens because it is a very attractive
technology that is available and is promoted by a lot of the jurisdictions. There are many ways to provide basic
treatment, the Rain Garden treatment actually qualifies for enhanced treatment and it does a better job of
cleaning the water.
Mr. McCullough stated that they have addressed the legal arguments in the briefing submitted earlier and it
remains their view that the burden that the appellants face in the SEPA appeal is a burden under the applicable
case law of actually producing evidence. That has not been seen today, the only evidence that has been
submitted is the Declaration of Dr. Massmann and he testified here that he clearly made two fundamental
assumptions to reach the conclusion that he did: 1. Four acres of the larger site would be converted from
impervious to pervious surface and 2. He assumed the Rain Garden feature would be a stormwater element that
would provide for the infiltration of stormwater.
It has been clarified in their response/presentation that both those assumptions are absolutely inaccurate. There
will be no conversion of impervious to pervious as a result of the deconstruction and the Rain Garden is a water
quality treatment feature. There is no likelihood of any increased infiltration of any material amount in this
ground. There is no evidence in support of this SEPA appeal. Any change would be subject to review and there
are no plans to change the impervious surfaces. The appellant has failed in their burden to show error and
therefore asks the Examiner to uphold the SEPA Determination.
Ann Nielsen stated that the applicant more than complied with all the necessary application materials and
documents in his request for a SEPA review to the ERC. The ERC had all the necessary information before
them that they needed to make an adequate SEPA assessment, in doing so they came to a DSN-M with specific
mitigation measures. The Appellant has done nothing to show that there was any significant adverse
environmental impact that was not contemplated or could not be mitigated by the conditions that were put upon
by the ERC committee. The City would request that the Examiner find that the appellant has failed in their
burden to show clear error and that the SEPA determination should be upheld.
Hawk’s Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H
September 10, 2009
Page 7
Mr. Scully stated that the specific evidence they have pointed out is what happens if you do remove all the
structures and impervious surfaces. They learned today on the record that they are not going to be doing that.
That is not a condition of mitigation and not a part of their application.
Contrary to what Mr. McCullough said the fact that it is in the record in front of the Examiner means nothing for
the future. The fact that they said they were not going to do it, does not bind them from proceeding with
separate projects. It does not prevent them from getting a separate permit, it also does not prevent them from
doing things that do not require a permit. There is a glaring omission on what is going to happen on the
majority of the site. At a minimum they ask that the Examiner require a mitigation condition that what is
currently impervious outside the development area should remain impervious. Today there is not enough
information as to what is going to happen to the rest of the site and an EIS should be required.
The Examiner stated that if by imposing an additional condition the parties would agree to retract their appeal
that is something that the Examiner is entitled to do. By taking the appellant’s concerns under advisement and
the applicant’s willingness at this point to say they are not going to do any of that action without permitting of
the City.
A 10 minute Break was taken
LAND USE HEARING began at 10:49 am
The following exhibits were entered into the record for the Hawk’s Landing Land Use Hearing:
Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file, LUA-09-064, ECF, SA-
M, SA-H containing the original application, various
reports, correspondence file, SEPA documents, SEPA
Appeal and Staff analysis.
Exhibit No. 2: Neighborhood Detail Map
Exhibit No. 3: Existing Conditions Exhibit No. 4: Hawk’s Landing Master Site Plan
Exhibit No. 5: Hawk’s Landing Site Plan Exhibit No. 6: Site Dimension Plan
Exhibit No. 7: Tree Inventory Plan Exhibit No. 8: Landscape Plan
Exhibit No. 9: Site Utility Plan Exhibit No. 10: Grading Plan
Exhibit No. 11: East and South Exterior Elevations Exhibit No. 12: West and North Exterior Elevations
Exhibit No. 13: S & E Elevations (graphic) Exhibit No. 14: N & W Elevations (graphic)
Exhibit No. 15: Hotel Garage Floor Plan Exhibit No. 16: First Floor Plan
Exhibit No. 17: Second Floor Plan Exhibit No. 18: Third and Fourth Floor Plans
Exhibit No. 19: Fifth Floor Plan Exhibit No. 20: Roof Plan
Exhibit No. 21: Building Sections Exhibit No. 22: Demolition Plan
Hawk’s Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H
September 10, 2009
Page 8
Exhibit No. 23: All Exhibits entered during the SEPA
Appeal for the Hawk’s Landing Hotel
Exhibit No. 24: Reinart Statement of Qualifications
Exhibit No. 25: Traffic Impact Analysis dated 5/2009 Exhibit No. 26: Pat Bunting Qualifications
Exhibit No. 27: Wetlands Report Exhibit No. 28: Mel Maertz Qualifications
Exhibit No. 29: Detail map showing hotel site to
VMAC location
Exhibit No. 30: Map showing the area around the
proposed site from WSDOT plans for I-405
The hearing continued on Tuesday, August 25, 2009, at 10:49 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh
floor of the Renton City Hall. This portion is the hearing of the Hawk’s Landing Mixed Use Master Site Plan
Review and Site Plan Review. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The Examiner did ask
for additional time in preparing his decision due to the length of the material presented.
Vanessa Dolbee stated that she is the project manager for the Hawk’s Landing Hotel for the City of Renton.
The applicant has requested a Master Site Plan and Site Plan Review.
The City of Renton did receive some Capital Improvement Funds during the 2009 Legislative Session; Staff is
currently working to identify how those will be expended, although it has to be approved by City Council, which
has not approved the expenditures at this time. Some of the items on the table that do have a direct relationship
to this project would be a water line extension on Lake Washington Blvd and the extension of a trail along May
Creek and some storm drainage improvements along Lake Washington Blvd that may include some impervious
sidewalk improvements. Review and permitting of this would happen at a separate time.
The site is located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd N, the former site of Pan Abode Cedar Homes, to the
northwest is VMAC, the home of The Seahawks, to the west are Barbee Mill and Quendall Terminal and to the
south is May Creek. The parcel is 7.88 acres in size and the project area is 3.07 acres. There is a small
triangular parcel of land at the far north end of the site which is currently owned by the City of Renton. A
vacation request has been made by the applicant to acquire that parcel under file #VAC-09-001. It has been
approved with some conditions associated with the approval.
The hotel is proposed to be 60-feet tall with 5 stories, 122,000 square feet with 173 rooms, with retail space,
fitness center, spa, conference space, banquet facilities and a restaurant. Access to the site would be from Lake
Washington Blvd via two locations; first is north located in the existing vacation area, which with approval
would become a part of this parcel and would be limited to right-in/right-out only, the second access is to the
center of the larger parcel and would provide access from both directions. There would be parking in an
underground garage as well as surface parking, with 231 parking stalls total, 107 in the garage and 124 surface
stalls.
This project is in compliance with the comprehensive plan, its elements, goals, objectives and policies. Lot
coverage for the COR zone is 65%, the building footprint has a 22% coverage. Setbacks for the COR zone are
determined through the site plan review, the applicant has proposed a 20-foot front setback from Lake
Washington Blvd, a 60-foot setback from the north side of the property line, a 480-foot south setback and a 129-
foot setback from the rear property line along I-405.
The COR zone requires portions of the building which exceed 50-feet in height would include upper story
setbacks at a minimum of 10-feet from the preceding story, the building should include vertical and horizontal
modulation on roof lines and facades at a minimum of two feet and an interval minimum of 40 feet. The fifth
Hawk’s Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H
September 10, 2009
Page 9
story of this hotel would be subject to these requirements. The proposed architectural design meets the intent of
the special development standard.
The landscaping is determined through site plan review, perimeter landscaping has been proposed in widths
from 6-feet to 25-feet, screening around the refuse and recycling areas, ornamental landscaping at the hotel
entrance with a Koi pond and a pedestrian bridge crossing. Street trees would be planted along Lake
Washington Blvd. This landscape plan further complies with the City’s parking regulations. There are no
specific standards for landscaping refuse and recycling for hotel developments.
This proposal would improve the character of the site, new access would be provided and street frontage
improvements provided. Landscaping would be provided that would screen the surface parking area from
surrounding properties. The scale of the structure is larger than the Barbee Mill but smaller than the VMAC.
This hotel does provide a much needed transition from the existing residential and I-405. The hotel would be
more compatible with the surrounding residential than the former industrial site and the impacts to the
surrounding properties and uses are expected to be minimal. The scale, height and bulk of the proposed
buildings are appropriate for the site and would be compatible with surrounding properties. If and when the
remainder of the site is developed, it would need to be compatible with the hotel. The proposal is expected to
increase property values in the vicinity of the site.
In addition to access and parking on the site, pedestrian connections to the public sidewalks are proposed along
the street frontage which would provide safe pedestrian access throughout the site. The applicant would be
required to provide a 12-foot sidewalk along the frontage of Lake Washington Blvd with a 10-foot landscaping
strip for safety. The single building would not have an impact on the site’s light and air circulation. There
would be minimal noise impacts from the increased traffic, although the noise would be virtually unnoticeable
because of the proximity of I-405.
The Fire and Police Departments for the City of Renton have indicated that their existing facilities are adequate
to accommodate the subject proposal. Impact fees have been required as a mitigation measure of the SEPA.
Redevelopment of this site would help prevent deterioration and blight of the neighborhood. It would actually
increase the quality of the subject site and the project is expected to contribute to the well-being of the City in
general and the neighborhood in particular.
This site is located in Design District C, which is an overlay design district and it is in compliance with most of
the requirements of the Design District, except for the following:
The west elevation of the building has some blank walls and Staff has requested that the west side be re-
designed at that portion to feature a pedestrian oriented façade.
Design District requires that all sides and top of refuse and recycling areas be enclosed. Having a top
enclosure would not function well with garbage collection, they have asked for a modification to not put
a top on the enclosure.
The proposed surface parking lot is not intended to be built into a structured parking at future phases of
potential development. This site is constrained by access off of one road and the internal circulation of
the site is vital for future potential development and this parking lot would serve as that internal
vehicular circulation.
The applicant should submit new site plans indicating the entire pedestrian pathway throughout the
parking lot as differentiating materials or texture from the adjacent paving.
Hawk’s Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H
September 10, 2009
Page 10
The applicants have proposed to provide canopies along the façade fronting Lake Washington Blvd that
exceed the minimum width standards, although they do not meet the minimum length standards they
have proposed them along 38.5% of the façade, which pertains to approximately 60 linear feet. The
hotel design also provides modulation as it fronts Lake Washington Blvd, some portions of the hotel are
set back and not immediately adjacent to the sidewalk. As such, the design requirement of the
overhangs would not be achieving their goal in some of those areas, therefore the 60-feet of linear
canopy coverage.
There are some additional requirements if the project is located in the COR zone, which this proposed
project meets.
Hearing was adjourned for lunch at 11:30 am…
Back on record at 1:00 pm
Pat Severin, 15214 Avon-Allen Road, Mt. Vernon, WA 98273 stated that they had taken a look at the site with
the existing conditions and constraints from elevations in the roadways and they came up with a grading plan
that actually would grade the entire site towards the surface areas of the Rain Gardens from the entrance road
and from all the parking areas towards the Rain Gardens. All this water would be collected in the Rain Gardens,
treated, and conveyed to the discharge point down through the bottom of the ditch. Any of the water around the
hotel would be picked up with downspouts and/or yard area drains directed to the same discharge location.
He did not believe that any flow control would be required on this site per an exemption in the King County
Manual. Some flow attenuation would happen with the Rain Garden. They do not have an approved
construction document at this time, it is only a planning document.
The next step would be to receive site plan approval and then proceed with the construction documents where
they would finalize their design depending on comments from the City Staff. The Rain Gardens have not been
approved as a design feature and in fact when the approval comes through it might not include Rain Gardens but
some other feature. There are a number of features that would provide the same level of treatment to choose
from. The final plan would need to comply with the City’s Code.
This 3.07 acre site is not within the 100 year flood plain, a portion of the south boundary just crosses the 100
year flood plain.
Geralyn Reinart, PE, 159 Denny Way #111, Seattle, WA 98109 stated she is a self employed traffic engineering
consultant specializing in the preparation of Traffic Impact Analyses. She was responsible for the preparation of
the Traffic Impact Analysis for this project. The analysis included a review of the existing conditions adjacent
to the project including the operations of three intersections along NE 44th, the northbound and southbound
ramps to I-405, along with the Seahawks Way intersection. This included a review of the number of accidents
along Lake Washington Blvd and NE 44th Street. AM and PM peak hour traffic counts completed for the
project were also used in the analysis, along with a review of the site accesses at two locations along Lake
Washington Blvd.
Looking at the site accesses, the existing Pan Abode driveway should be limited to right turns in and out due to
its close location to the ramp interchange. The main access to the site is located towards the southerly end of the
hotel portion of the property. In looking at the future volumes at that intersection left turns into the site were
recommended. Build out of the hotel could generate over 1400 daily trips, 97 during the AM peak hour and 102
during the PM peak hour per the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s Trip Generation Manual. The future trip
Hawk’s Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H
September 10, 2009
Page 11
volume projections at the intersections mentioned earlier included pipeline trips from the adjacent Barbee Mill
development that is ongoing currently plus a 2% annual growth rate in the traffic volumes, which is consistent
with prior studies that have been completed in the area. The project trips were added into the future values to
analyze the impacts from the project itself. The trip assignment for the hotel was based on prior work that was
done in the vicinity and specifically the Port Quendall analysis of the I-405/NE 44th Street interchange project
access report prepared by WSDOT. There were some adjustments made to that report since this road was going
to be serving Seahawks visitors, some of that traffic was redistributed up to the Seahawks facility. The critical
movement at the intersection of Seahawks Way and Lake Washington Blvd near the northerly access to the site
is currently moving at Level Service D during the peak hours. Future increases would drop that level of service
to E with or without the hotel. The other critical intersection operations would be the north and southbound
ramps to I-405, some of the movements are operating at Level Service F during the AM peak hour and the delay
on those movements would continue to increase over the next few years with or without the hotel project. All of
these intersections are within the WSDOT limited access area, they are also subject to review as part of this
project.
Measures to raise the level of service at these intersections was reviewed by both agencies and included the
installation of traffic signals for the ramps and then some restriping of lanes and construction involved with lane
additions. WSDOT did concur with these measures and requesting that the applicant participate in a
proportionate share of the cost of these improvements, which are being proposed by WSDOT.
Pat Bunting, 3643 Leg Road, Bow, WA 98232 stated that her firm, Graham and Bunting, is an environmental
and land use service. She was one of three on the project team that was assigned to go to the site and look for
critical areas that could possibly be anywhere from the site down to May Creek. They found two small wetlands
off site by May Creek, they are Category 2 wetlands. There was May Creek, a Class 1 stream, there is also a
ditch alongside Lake Washington Blvd which is a Class 5 stream. The hotel would be more than 200 feet from
May Creek. The small wetlands were offsite and so are not buffered, they are well out of the range of the
project site. Checking the habitat of the stream requires walking up and down the stream banks and looking for
habitat including large debris, downed logs, vegetation, ripples and pools places where fish can spawn and feed,
they looked at the classified ditch as well for that reason. May Creek is a habitat for fish.
The wetlands were so small, their habitat value was found to be over winter when there would be water, and
there might be some winter habitat. But there was not much there, the wetlands were not even wet at this time
of year. Each one is less than 500 square feet.
This project, as proposed, meets all requirements for the City of Renton.
Mel Maertz, 16921 Larch Way, Lynnwood, WA 98037 gave a brief description of his qualifications. His role in
this project was to help programming and master planning of the project. He worked on the design of the hotel.
The site plan for the hotel is oriented to Lake Washington, taking advantage of the views, they planned this hotel
so it would not affect the future development of the remainder of the site. They tried to accommodate the
pedestrians and the traffic, it was important to look at the Seahawks facility and the connectivity between the
two facilities. Parking to the back and easy access to the underground parking were very important.
The hotel was designed with a Northwest Craftsman look and incorporated materials like those used in the
Seahawks facility as well as the Barbee Mill community across the street. They are trying to create a sustainable
building that would be a leader in the community.
Vanessa Dolbee responded to an earlier question by the Examiner regarding refuse and recycling. Renton
Municipal Code requires for multi-family developments one and a half square feet per dwelling unit and three
square feet for recycling and three square feet per dwelling unit for refuse. The office analysis was based on
two square feet per 1000 gross building square feet for recycling and four square feet for refuse for 1000 gross
Hawk’s Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H
September 10, 2009
Page 12
building square feet, which results in for recycling the 244 square feet and refuse at 488 for the office
requirement. Looking at the multi-family requirements the recycling (hotel rooms as dwelling units) 259.5
square feet for recycling and 519 square feet for refuse, which is actually an increase from the office
calculations.
Keith Scully, Attorney representing Brad Nicholson 1424 4th Ave, Ste. 1015, Seattle, WA 98103 stated that they
had submitted some written comments as part of the Notice of Appeal. They learned a fair amount today and so
would modify some of those comments. There are some greater concerns but also some reduced concerns with
the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit.
A drainage plan is required under Renton Municipal Code as part of a Master Site Plan or Site Plan application.
There is an exception to that requirement which allows the City to make a determination that if the proposal will
not substantially alter the drainage pattern and/or it will not adversely affect the drainage pattern, then the City
can waive that requirement. There has been no formal request for that and no formal waiver made and based on
what they learned today that waiver is not applicable. This proposal does substantially alter the drainage
pattern. They are going to grade the entirety of the site and route it into the Rain Garden. Currently water flows
into the creek, this will adversely impact water quality because of flowing over what is undeveloped impervious
surface, and it will be flowing over an active parking lot.
The Drainage plan is a document that is reviewed by the Examiner and determines if what is proposed is
compliant with Renton’s code and with Renton’s incorporation with the King County Surface Water Design
Manual. What you have is a conceptual outline of what they might ask the City to approve as part of their
building permit. This does not comply with the King County Surface Water Design Manual. There is nothing
for the Examiner to rule on, they don’t know if they are going to be doing the Rain Garden plan or something
else. They are planning to deal with flow control and toxin removal through a Rain Garden treatment system,
although they disagree with them, however they do admit that they need to do something to control the toxins
that will come off the parking lot. A Rain Garden would be okay for this proposal, but what they have called a
Rain Garden, includes an impermeable surface layer. A Rain Garden is something that has plants in it and lets
water infiltrate the ground. There is an infiltration component to every single Rain Garden design, this
impervious liner makes this not a Rain Garden. The water that is flowing off the parking lot now flows through
a little bit of gravel into a pipe and straight to May Creek. What they are actually proposing is a thing called a
perforated pipe collection system, which is a box with some gravel in it and a pipe at the bottom. There are no
flow control credits for it, and that is because it does not work as a pollution control plan.
He disagreed with the comments made by the wetlands specialist that you don’t buffer something off site. If the
property line stops and there are no critters on your property, you are done with the evaluation. The habitat and
the impacts on the habitat should be studied, not just the impacts on your property. There are fish in the creek,
birdlife in the vegetation, and all the stuff that comes with a small conservancy designated wetland. The hotel is
far from the wetlands, but the blank space in an unknown at this point. What do they intend to do with it? It
appears that it is currently being used as overflow parking for the Seahawk’s games, is it going to be lit with the
lights shining on what may be song bird nesting habitat, what is the flow going to be like when cars are parking
on it, are they going to be putting heavy equipment on it for some later project. No one knows what is going to
happen.
They have less of a concern on the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. If any part of this one project
goes within 200 feet of May Creek, a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is needed. They have been told
today that no part of this development will be within 200 feet of May Creek. If the south building is left
untouched and no work done in that area, then they do not need a SSDP. They would ask for a special condition
to be added that no work incur in that area within 200 feet of May Creek.
Hawk’s Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H
September 10, 2009
Page 13
Kayren Kittrick, Dev Engineering Supervisor, Community and Economic Development showed a map of the
project site, she marked the site with an “X”. Directly across to the northwest is the entrance of Seahawk Way
and the VMAC building, it further showed the location of Barbee Mill development. This development has
triggered improvements to the intersections including stop lights.
The start of a LUA file is only preliminary discussions, included in those preliminary discussions is a
preliminary drainage plan, it is required. The final construction plans takes in things brought in during the
hearing, things added as conditions, best management practices plus changes they find on the site during
construction. The Rain Garden design is very interesting, it seems closer to a bioswale design and that is one of
the acceptable items. It will have to be studied to see if it works, if it does not, the applicant must find another
method that is acceptable within the King County Surface Water Design Manual. The hotel and hotel parking
could change anything that might affect the final calculations of what they have to treat and what has to be
released. The standards are not relaxed, a preliminary design is presented, and that is what we know at this
point based on specific calculations. Conditions can be made, ERC could have made a condition, plus once it
gets looked into and they find it does not meet the King County Surface Water Design conditions or standards or
doesn’t do what they think it is going to do, the City runs their own calculations and checks on everything.
Even under an EIS it is still a preliminary design subject to change.
Any soils that are removed from this site would be checked for contamination and treated as deemed necessary.
Vanessa Dolbee stated that Mr. Scully had been referring to a habitat management plan, the City code does not
specify a habitat management plan, and they have a habitat assessment and a habitat data report. The habitat
data report was waived (which is the same thing as the habitat assessment). It was waived because there was a
Fish and Wildlife habitat section within the wetland and stream study that provided sufficient information to the
City to determine that the habitat assessment report could be waived.
Keith Scully stated that he believed that Renton’s policy is to allow a preliminary drainage plan but that is
wrong and now seems like the time to fix it. RMC 4-60-030C says that persons applying for specific permits or
approvals would submit for approval a drainage plan for their application or request. Further on, drainage plan
is defined in the same section 4-60-030F stating that the drainage plan will be prepared in conformance with the
department’s construction plan drafting standards and contents and the design criteria contained in chapters 3, 4,
and 5 of the current King County Surface Water Design Manual. Nothing in the code section about the start of a
conversation or a preliminary plan, which means the final thing and they need to make a determination that it
does or doesn’t that the Hearing Examiner can then repeal.
Jack McCullough stated that the only lingering issues have to do with the drainage plan. The testimony from
Mr. Severin and the City stated that a drainage plan was submitted. The confusion here is that the comments
from Mr. Scully on behalf of his client suggest that it is the Examiner’s position in this proceeding to pass
judgment on approved drainage plan. That is not the case. Sub-section G of the Code section referenced by Mr.
Scully, Review and Approval of Plan, it indicates that the decision on the plan is reserved to the approval of the
Development Services Division. In the second sentence of sub-section G1, it says that if no action is taken by
the City after submission of the Final Drainage Plans within 45 days, then such plan is deemed approved. In
Sub-section G3 it indicates under additional information that the permit application shall be supplemented by
any plans, specifications or other information considered pertinent in the judgment of the Administrator or his
duly authorized representative. This is the process that Ms. Kittrick outlined, there is an additional submittal,
it’s not just a conversation, a report has been issued showing the process and treatment that is anticipated to take
place. At this point it is incumbent on the Examiner in review of this information only to determine that the
plan, in its current state, is feasible on the property. What has been heard from Ms. Kittrick and Mr. Severin is
that there will be comments and they have not passed judgment on the acceptability under the manual or the
City’s Code. Mr. Severin testified that there are alternates that can easily be employed that qualify under the
Hawk’s Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H
September 10, 2009
Page 14
manual. Once the process of comment is completed then you arrive at what G1 refers to as the Final Drainage
Plan. Then the Administrator has 45 days to take final action.
The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and
no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 2:07 p.m.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION ON SEPA APPEAL:
Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following:
FINDINGS:
1. The appellants, South End Gives Back (aka SEGB) and Brad Nicholson, filed an appeal of a
Determination of Non-Significance –Mitigated (DNS-M) that the City issued for the proposed Hawk’s
Landing Hotel. The appellants filed the appeal in a timely manner.
2. The applicant, Spencer Alpert, hereinafter applicant, applied for a Master Site Plan and a Site Plan
review for a hotel complex that would include a 173 room hotel, retail space, a fitness center, spa and
restaurant. The project would be developed on an approximately 3.07 acre portion of a larger 7.8 acre
site located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard. The project also includes a proposed "rain garden'
which is designed to handle stormwater collected on the subject site.
3. The subject site is located between Lake Washington Boulevard on the west and I-405 on the east and is
almost directly south of the on-ramp for I-405 at NE 44th Street.
4. Lake Washington itself is located west of the subject site separated from the subject site by Lake
Washington Boulevard, the Barbee Mill subdivision and the Quendall Terminals site. The new
Seahawk’s Training Center (Virginia Mason Athletic Center) is located a bit further north. May Creek
and associated wetlands are located south of the subject site.
5. The subject site was the location of the Pan Abode Cedar Homes manufacturing site. The site is
developed with old, now vacant warehouses and almost the entire site is covered with pavement. There
are approximately 75,214 square feet of warehouses and impervious surface covers approximately 85%
of the subject site.
6. The applicant will be removing pavement and warehouses, "deconstructing" in terms used by the
parties, from the north portion of the subject site, the approximately 3.07 acres that will be developed
with the hotel and associated surface parking and landscaping.
7. May Creek and Lake Washington are both shorelines of the State and are both subject to the criteria of
the Shoreline Master Program. The applicant has designed their demolition and redevelopment proposal
to avoid any work within the 200 foot threshold of the Shoreline Master Program
8. The ERC imposed ten (10) conditions. Four of those conditions related to geotechnical issues,
wetland/stream issues, in compliance with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual, and
erosion control under Department of Ecology regulations. Those four conditions are:
1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations found in the following geotechnical reports:
“Geotechnical Engineering Study” prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc. dated February 6, 1991;
Hawk’s Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H
September 10, 2009
Page 15
“Geotechnical Investigation – Draft Report” prepared by Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. dated
June 4, 2009; and “Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Study – Proposed May
Creek Office Building”, prepared by Hart Crowser & Associates, Inc., dated October 8, 1985.
2. The applicant shall be required to comply with the recommendations included in the
“Wetland/Stream Study”, prepared by Graham-Bunting Associates, dated May 12, 2009.
3. This project shall be required to comply with the requirements found in the 2005 King County
Surface Water Design Manual.
4. The applicant shall be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan
(TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology’s Erosion and Sediment Control
Requirements outlined in Volume II of the Stormwater Management Manual prior to issuance of
Construction Permits. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the
Development Services Division Plan Review Project Manager. “
9. The appellant calculates that if there is 85% impervious surface that subject site will generate storm
water in the amounts of 10 to 20 acre feet of water or between 900 and 1800 gallons per day.Based on
the applicant’s submissions the appellant calculates that there will be approximately 38,866 square feet
of landscaping. They also calculated the change in impervious surfaces. From those calculations the
appellants deduce that “a reduction in impervious surface would dramatically increase the rate of
groundwater recharge.” (Appeal page 3)
10. The appellants then explain that based on topography, measured groundwater at the site, and
hydrogeologic conditions inferred from well logs and test pits, and known lake levels that groundwater
will flow to the west, down and toward Lake Washington through the Quendall Terminals site. Since
these groundwaters are inferred to flow toward the Quendall Terminals property the appellants
anticipate that these groundwaters will pick up or increase the rate of contaminant discharge from
Quendall to Lake Washington. The appellants allege contaminants entering the lake will have a
deleterious impact on fish and people who use the lake.
11. Quendall Terminals is a Superfund site. That means it has been found to be significantly contaminated
and is listed by the Federal Government due to the levels and nature of the contaminants found at the
site. Past practices on the site released or produced dangerous hydrocarbons and toxic materials such as
arsenic as part of the creosote and tar manufacturing and pole treatments produced on the site.
12. The appellants noted that "rain gardens are 'excavated or otherwise formed depressions in the landscape
that provide storage, treatment, and infiltration of stormwater runoff. The soil in the depression is
enhanced to promote infiltration and plant growth.'" (Notice of Appeal, Page 2). Relying on the
definitions found in the 2005 King County Manual, the manual referenced by the ERC to govern
stormwater management on the subject site.
13. In summary the gist of the appellants’ arguments are that the applicant will be using the rain garden and
or other aspects of the proposal to infiltrate stormwater into the soils under the subject site. This will
recharge or supplement the groundwater which will flow toward the west and the Quendall Terminals
Superfund site. This will increase the contaminants leaching to Lake Washington from beneath the
Quendall site. The toxics in turn will affect the health and safety of the lake for both humans and fish
and animal populations.
14. The appellants base much of the appeal on the declaration of Joel Massmann in particular, the following
paragraphs:
Hawk’s Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H
September 10, 2009
Page 16
“7. A reduction in impervious surface would increase groundwater recharge at the project site.
Based on typical rates of groundwater recharge in similar hydrogeologic environments,
groundwater recharge may increase by approximately 1 to 2 acre-feet per year for each acre of
impervious surface that is deconstructed. This is equivalent to an average runoff of 900 to
1,800 gallons per day for each acre of impervious surface that is deconstructed.
8. The estimated increase in groundwater recharge at the project site as a result of the proposed
project is approximately 4 to 8 acre-feet per year (3,570 to 7,140 gallons per day). This
estimate was developed assuming 4 acres of impervious surface could be deconstructed as part
of the proposed development.
11. Increased groundwater recharge on the project site will likely increase the rate of
contaminant discharge from the Quendall Terminals site of Lake Washington. This conclusion
is based on the observed distribution of contamination beneath the Quendall Terminal site and
on the inferred groundwater flow direction from the project site.” (Declaration of Joel
Massmann)
15. The applicant’s submissions and testimony indicate that the feature called a “rain garden” will be
installed. The applicant’s “rain garden” is designed as a water collection system which captures and
treats stormwater collected on the subject site and then conveys it to the same drainage ditch that has
been conveying stormwater from the site in the past. Therefore, even if the above numbers are correct,
the fact that the applicant proposes capturing most of the stormwater and conveying it to the existing
ditch and then into May Creek, makes the numbers and probably the conclusions of the Massmann
declaration inconsequential. If much of the stormwater is captured then it will not be entering or
recharging the groundwater and will not exacerbate leaching of contaminants into the lake from the
Quendall site.
16. There was some confusion or disagreement over whether the applicant's proposed rain garden
installation would function to cleanse or treat pollutants. It may not meet the normal definitions for a
"rain garden." If a review shows the proposed design is not suitable for its intended purpose than it
should not be used. The applicant is still bound by the 2005 King County manual for detention,
retention and treatment.
The appellants also attempted to appeal the Master Site Plan as part of their original submission. There was no
Master Site Plan decision issued when the appeal was filed. As a matter of fact, one of the land use decisions
for which the SEPA appeal was filed was for a review of the Master Site Plan by the Hearing Examiner.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The decision of the governmental agency acting as the responsible official is entitled to substantial
weight. Therefore, the determination of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the city's
responsible official, is entitled to be maintained unless the appellant clearly demonstrates that the
determination was in error. The appellant has failed to demonstrate error.
2. The Determination of Non-Significance in this case is entitled to substantial weight and will not be
reversed or modified unless it can be found that the decision is "clearly erroneous." (Hayden v. Port
Townsend, 93 Wn 2nd 870, 880; 1980). The court in citing Norway Hill Preservation and Protection
Association v. King County Council, 87 Wn 2d 267, 274; 1976, stated: "A finding is 'clearly erroneous'
Hawk’s Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H
September 10, 2009
Page 17
when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the
definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed."
Therefore, the determination of the ERC will not be modified or reversed if it can meet the above test.
For reasons enumerated below, the decision of the ERC is affirmed.
3. The clearly erroneous test has generally been applied when an action results in a DNS since the test is
less demanding on the appellant. The reason is that SEPA requires a thorough examination of the
environmental consequences of an action. The courts have, therefore, made it easier to reverse a DNS.
A second test, the "arbitrary and capricious" test is generally applied when a determination of
significance (DS) is issued. In this second test an appellant would have to show that the decision clearly
flies in the face of reason since a DS is more protective of the environment since it results in the
preparation of a full disclosure document, an Environmental Impact Statement.
4. An action is determined to have a significant adverse impact on the quality of the environment if more
than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment is a reasonable probability. (Norway, at 278).
Since the Court spoke in Norway, WAC 197-11-794 has been adopted, it defines "significant" as
follows:
Significant. (1) "Significant" as used in SEPA means a reasonable likelihood
of more than a moderate adverse impact on environmental quality.
(2) Significance involves context and intensity ...Intensity depends on the
magnitude and duration of an impact.... The severity of the impact should be
weighed along with the likelihood of its occurrence. An impact may be
significant if its chance of occurrence is not great, but the resulting environmental
impact would be severe if it occurred.
5. Also redefined since the Norway decision was the term "probable."
Probable. "Probable" means likely or reasonably likely to occur, ...
Probable is used to distinguish likely impacts from those that merely
have a possibility of occurring, but are remote or speculative. (WAC 197-11-782).
6. The appellant did not provide a basis that could be used to reverse the City’s determination. The
proposal will undoubtedly create impacts to the community but they are not substantial, at least, not on
the issues the appellants have raised. The appellants have failed to demonstrate that the ERC made a
mistake. The applicant will be capturing stormwater water and conveying it in a manner similar to how
it was previously conveyed from the subject site. Water will be directed to a rain garden and then be
conveyed to the drainage ditch along the west side of the subject site. The water will be treated in the
rain garden and while the phrase "rain garden" may not have its normal meaning, infiltration will not
follow treatment. The stormwater will be collected, channeled and conveyed to the offsite drainage
ditch. It will not be left to percolate into the underlying soils. It will not travel the downhill gradient
toward and to Lake Washington. It will not exacerbate pollutants leaching from the contaminated soils
into the lake. The post development groundwater quantities suggested by the appellants' evidence is
unsupported by the facts. The ERC did not err in its review.
7. The reviewing body has to determine if this proposal would have more than a moderate impact on the
quality of the environment. This office is not left with any doubt about the reasonableness of the
underlying decision. The appellants have not provided evidence that the ERC erred. The decision
Hawk’s Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H
September 10, 2009
Page 18
below is not clearly erroneous and the decision below should be affirmed.
8. The appealing party has a burden that was not met in the instant case. The decision of the ERC must be
affirmed.
DECISION:
The decision of the ERC is affirmed.
MASTER SITE PLAN AND SITE PLAN REVIEW
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION:
Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following:
FINDINGS:
1. The applicant, Spencer Alpert, filed a request for a Master Plan Review and Site Plan Review.
2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation
and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit #1.
3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official issued a Determination of
Non-Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M).
4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter.
5. The subject site is located 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard North. The subject site is the vacated Pan
Abode factory site located on the east side of Lake Washington Boulevard. I-405 is east of the site and
its NE 44th Street access ramps are located north of the subject site.
6. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as
suitable for the development of commercial, office and residential uses, but does not mandate such
development without consideration of other policies of the Plan.
7. The subject site is currently zoned COR (Commercial, Office, Residential). In addition to being located
in the COR Zone, the subject site is governed by the Urban Design District "C" overlay regulations.
The COR requirements also require all development to undergo both Master Plan and Site Plan review.
The Master Plan review is an overview of a project to determine the overall project concept and how the
project meets the City's goals.
8. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 1804 enacted in December
1959.
9. The applicant proposes developing approximately 3.07 acres of an approximately 7.8 acre site. The
subject site is generally trapazoidal in shape. The south property line is approximately 732 feet (east to
west). The western, Lake Washington Blvd frontage is approximately 800 feet long. The eastern and
northeast property lines together are approximately 900 feet long. At the north end of what appears to
be part of the parcel is City of Renton property abutting the I-405 ramps. The applicant has requested a
vacation of this property.
Hawk’s Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H
September 10, 2009
Page 19
10. The south portion of the subject site contains regulated slopes, seismic hazards and flood hazards. The
applicant proposes an estimated 4,450 cubic yards of cut and approximately 15,000 cubic yards of fill
for construction.
11. May Creek, a Class 1 shoreline of the state, and at least two associated wetlands are located south of the
subject site. Any development within 200 feet of May Creek would be subject to the Shorelines
Substantial Development Permit and Shorelines Management regulations. The applicant's proposed
development will be outside of the 200 foot threshold and staff determined that it is not subject to those
regulations. A drainage ditch along the City right-of-way runs along the west side of the property. The
ditch is a non-regulated stream with associated non-regulated wetlands. (Wetland and Stream study for
the project).
12. The tree inventory showed 32 existing trees. The applicant proposes replacing those with 73 new trees
and other landscaping (see below).
13. The applicant will be demolishing the existing warehouse structures that cover the 3.07 acres proposed
for the hotel. The applicant will be retaining the other building on the remaining 4.73 acres. There will
be no development or demolition within 200 feet of May Creek.
14. The applicant proposes developing a 5-story hotel on the north portion or 3.07 acres of the site. The 173
room hotel building will be 60 feet tall and contain 122,000 square feet of interior space. It will have a
footprint of approximately 29,336 square feet. The complex will also contain retail space, fitness
center, spa, conference space, banquet facilities and a restaurant. There will be underground parking.
15. The hotel's footprint will be L-shaped. The long leg of the "L", oriented north to south, will face Lake
Washington Boulevard. The short leg will be oriented east to west along the north end of the parcel. A
plaza with water feature will be located in the crook of the "L". Parking will generally be located east of
the building.
16. The applicant will be using a variety of materials for the exterior of the building. It will contain stone
veneer, hardie shingles, lap siding and metal roofs. There will be "northwest" style overhangs and
trusses. The appearance is intended to complement the development of the Barbee Mill plat west of
Lake Washington Boulevard. The COR Zone and the Urban Design District require both vertical and
horizontal modulation a minimum of 2 feet at an interval of 40 feet to add interest and quality to the
project. Additionally, there is to be a building setback of 10 feet for buildings over 50 feet in height.
The plans show that the building does meet the horizontal and vertical modulations and that the top
story observes an approximately 12-foot setback for most of that story and varies from zero feet to 39.5
feet. Staff has suggested that does meet the intent and with the variety of eaves, trusses, bump-outs,
balconies and differentiated materials it more than meets the spirit of the "guidelines."
17. The entry from the east side or parking areas will be set off by the water feature that contains a Koi pond
and pedestrian bridge. The Lake Washington entry will have a canopy.
18. Landscaping in the COR zone is developed as part of the Site Plan review process but is also governed
by landscape requirements for surface parking lots. Along with the 73 new trees replacing the 32 that
would be removed, the applicant proposes approximately 39,000 square feet of landscaping. New
landscaping would be installed around the perimeter of the subject site, around the perimeter of the hotel
building and in and around the parking lot. The landscaping will be confined to the 3.07 acres that the
applicant proposes developing with the hotel. Street trees will be planted along Lake Washington
Hawk’s Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H
September 10, 2009
Page 20
Boulevard and will be spaced 30 feet on center. A large variety of other landscape plants will be used
throughout the site. The applicant did not submit the necessary irrigation plan. Parking lots with 100 or
more stalls require 35 square feet of landscaping per stall, a minimum of 5 feet in width, 1 tree per 6
stalls, 5 shrubs per100 square feet and landscaping within 50 feet of parking stalls. Staff calculated that
the submitted plans meet the minimum requirements.
19. Staff has calculated the required parking based on use as a minimum of 223 and a maximum of 235
stalls and the applicant proposes 231 stalls, meeting code. There would be 107 stalls in the parking
garage, and 124 surface stalls including 6 ADA stalls and stalls for five Neighborhood Electric
Vehicles. Staff noted that for parking lots of this size 7 ADA stalls are required. Staff noted that both
parking areas meet code for dimensions and compact stalls.
20. Lot coverage permitted in the COR zone for a building with surface parking is 65 percent. The
proposed 29,336 square foot building covers approximately 22 percent of the 3.08 acres proposed for
the hotel complex. The setback from the freeway is a required 10 feet whereas other setbacks are
determined during site plan review. The applicant proposes a 20 foot setback from Lake Washington
Boulevard, its apparent front yard, 60 feet from the north property line, 129 feet from its eastern,
freeway property line and 418 feet from the south property line (including the acreage outside of the
3.07 acres). The zone permits buildings of 125 feet or 10 stories whereas 60 feet and five stories are
proposed.
21. The applicant will provide access to the subject site via two locations. One driveway will be located
along the north boundary of the subject site. The second, main driveway will be a more formal, two-
lane gateway driveway at Lake Washington Boulevard located south of the hotel building.
22. Garbage and recycling areas are determined by use but hotels are not specifically identified. Staff
evaluated the use as an office use that would require approximately 732 square feet of space and
considered the fact that the applicant will be using a trash compactor in determining that the proposed
379.52 feet was adequate. The applicant has requested that this refuge complex not contain the roof
required by the minimum standards since it requires dumpsters be moved out for collection since the
dumpsters cannot be raised to truck level with a roof enclosure.
23. The development will increase traffic approximately 1,400 trips. There will be approximately 97 a.m.
trips and 102 p.m. trips. The City’s estimate of 1,413 trips matches the numbers predicted by the
applicant.
24. As part of the development of the subject site the applicant proposes raising the grade of the site to
match Lake Washington Boulevard. This will expose the hotel to the general public and allow the
public to enter the site from surrounding sidewalks and trails.
25. Staff in its matrix chart has identified compliance, partial compliance or failure to meet the District C
Design Guidelines minimum standards as well as suggested guidelines. That matrix is adopted by this
office and incorporated into this report by reference. Particular reference is made to lighting for safety
and not spilling off the site, facade treatment along the Lake Washington frontage lacking character
elements to break up blank or rather unadorned lengths of facade, pedestrian paths in the parking areas
and sufficient to provide both a trail link and pedestrian link around the site and connecting to the May
Creek and King County paths and trails.
26. No Planned Action Ordinance was adopted for this site.
Hawk’s Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H
September 10, 2009
Page 21
27. Stormwater will be collected and conveyed to what the applicant terms a rain garden for treatment and
then conveyed to an offsite ditch that runs along the west side of the site. The ditch conveys water to
May Creek and then Lake Washington. As discussed in the SEPA Appeal decision issued with this
project, the proposal will not be using infiltration and the stormwater will not be exacerbating any issues
with pollutants from the Quendall Terminals site discharging into Lake Washington. The applicant will
be governed by City, State and Federal regulations regarding discharges from the subject site.
28. Sewer and water are provided to the subject site by the City.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The project is subject to both Master Plan and Site Plan review as well as review under the District C
Design Guidelines and the COR special considerations. The fact that only one building is involved in
this proposal makes consideration of Master Planning for the subject site mirror the Site Plan review
standards. While the building will contain a mix of uses including a restaurant was well as the much
larger hotel, these various uses are included in the one facade scheme. It would make more sense to
invoke the Master Plan review when the remainder of the 7.8 acre site is developed to make sure it is
well coordinated with this current hotel complex.
2. The site plan ordinance provides a number of specific criteria for reviewing a site plan. Those criteria
are generally represented in part by the following enumeration:
a. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan;
b. Conformance with the Building and Zoning Codes;
c. Mitigation of impacts on surrounding properties and uses;
d. Mitigation of the impacts of the proposal on the subject site itself;
e. Conservation of property values;
f. Provision for safe and efficient vehicle and pedestrian circulation;
g. Provision of adequate light and air;
h. Adequacy of public services to accommodate the proposed use;
The proposed use satisfies these and other particulars of the ordinance.
3. The Comprehensive Plan's designation for this area is for the development of larger scale commercial,
office and residential uses befitting what are some of the larger parcels in the City. Many COR parcels
were used for industrial production that dedicated larger swaths of lands for those purposes. As some of
those industrial uses have moved away, the land is available for larger projects. The proposed hotel,
especially in conjunction with the Seahawk's training complex is such a large scale project. The hotel is
a kind of mixed use - temporary residences for patrons while a commercial operation. The hotel will
also integrate a restaurant and retail uses into the mix. The proposal is compatible with the goal of
transforming old industrial sites into high quality development.
4. The proposal in the main is compatible with the Zoning Code. It meets the height and setback
Hawk’s Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H
September 10, 2009
Page 22
requirements of the code. It provides the complement of parking required. It meets the design details
for modulation and articulation found in the Code and in the District C Design Guidelines. The top
floor does not completely abide by the suggested setbacks from lower floors but on average exceeds
those setbacks and greatly exceeds those setbacks on many of the top floor's facades. Staff found it was
an appropriate design. Similarly, staff found that the proposal meets the code requirements for garbage
and recycling and in comparison to the overall size and bulk of the facility and it appears staff is correct.
This office does have some problems with the fact that the roof required appears to conflict with actual
pickup services by garbage/recycle handlers. Staff and the City need to review these issues.
Compliance with actual Building and Fire Code provisions will be verified when appropriate detailed
permits are submitted.
5. The building will be taller than the former warehouse uses on the subject site but it certainly is more
graciously designed. It will be taller than the residential uses west of Lake Washington Boulevard but
shorter than the nearby training center. It will provide a buffer from I-405 and a transition from the
freeway interchange to the residential uses located along Lake Washington Boulevard. The State has
asked for mitigation and that is incorporated into the ERC's conditions. Turn lanes should mitigate
impacts of traffic along Lake Washington Boulevard. The nature of the trips will also be different from
the former industrial use of the site. An appeal was filed of the ERC's decision. That appeal was
directed at minimizing the potential impacts of converting a large area of impermeable surface to a new
hotel facility. There was a misunderstanding of how stormwater would be handled. The appeal was
denied but issues raised in that appeal can be further clarified in the Site Plan review. The site will still
be conveying its storm waters to May Creek and Lake Washington. Those waters should be handled
with respect and appropriately treated by whatever water retention, detention or "rain garden" feature is
used. The applicant should use best available science in treating stormwater before conveying it to the
roadside ditch. There is no reason to jeopardize May Creek and/or Lake Washington with pollutants
created or collected on this site's paved or treated landscaping areas.
6. The proposal will replace old warehouses with a modern hotel with substantial exterior appeal. The
building will use a variety of materials to break up the apparent bulk of the building and will add
appreciably to the landscaping on the site as well as along Lake Washington Boulevard. The longest
facade treatment along Lake Washington Boulevard has a number of horizontal and vertical breaks
providing an interesting appearance. Coupled with the variety of materials, wood, hardie board, veneer
treatments as well as roof trusses all add to the visual variety the building presents to the public. Staff
has noted that additional opening in what are considered blank walls will be needed along this facade to
comply with code and provide the visual interest of the building. There will be perimeter landscaping
added around the hotel and around the general site. The applicant will be providing street trees along
Lake Washington Boulevard for the extent of the development proposal. The applicant should provide
landscaping along the remainder of Lake Washington Boulevard and along the eastern and southern
perimeter of the parking areas. The Master Plan process does include "master planning" for the entire
subject site. While the applicant is trying to confine its footprint, the spare nature of the remaining site
will detract from what appears to be a quality image. Therefore, the remaining acreage should be
incorporated at least minimally. The Master Plan cannot escape that there is a much larger site that
suffers from old, deteriorating buildings that will reflect on the current proposal. This office believes
that the applicant and staff can work on a plan that accommodates additional landscaping, even
temporary landscaping in planter boxes with some larger trees to screen or breakup the view of the
background unsightly portions of the site east and west of the parking areas. Additionally, the applicant
should plant additional street trees along the remaining Lake Washington Boulevard frontage at the
same ratio and species as on the north frontage.
Hawk’s Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H
September 10, 2009
Page 23
7. The redevelopment of this now underutilized site will help increase the tax base of the City and the
removal of old warehouses should conserve if not increase property values. Obviously, there will be
more general hubbub and traffic than a vacant warehousing site produces. These were anticipated when
the Comprehensive Plan and zoning were enacted for this site and this area. Redevelopment of this site
is a vital element of the City's objectives for this area.
8. The internal circulation and the pedestrian paths seem generally appropriate. Distinctive marking to
provide visual separation of pedestrian routes from vehicular crossings may need better definition. As
indicated by staff, this site connects trails in the vicinity and the applicant should make appropriate
provisions for trail users as well as general pedestrian traffic. Staff's recommendations on path width
are appropriate.
9. While the building and bulk are larger than what is on the site, clearly the proposed 60 foot height is
substantially less than permitted in the zone. In addition, the generous setbacks provided as well as the
width of I-405 and Lake Washington Boulevard will aid in letting air and light penetrate the subject site
as well as surrounding properties.
10. As noted, there will be more comings and goings from this site than the community is used to but
development has occurred to its west and that has already introduced more urban tumult. There will be
the usual but temporary construction noise and I-405 already adds to the ambient noise levels in this
area.
11. There are available urban services including sewer and water. The applicant will be paying a Fire
Mitigation fee.
12. The redevelopment of the site will counter the neighborhood deterioration and blight that the current site
represents. The project looks very well-designed and should be an asset to the community and City as a
whole.
13. The project is also required to comply with the COR Zone special review criteria as well as the District
C Design Guidelines. As discussed above, this office has adopted staff's analysis and recommendations
regarding compliance with those numerous criteria. Some of the thematic requirements overlap the
broad review of the Site Plan criteria. Specific requirements were covered by the Staff review and are
incorporated into this report. They are attached to the end of this report.
14. The special criteria for the COR zone include:
a. The plan is consistent with a Planned Action Ordinance, if applicable.
b. The plan creates a compact, urban development that includes a compatible mix of uses that
meets the Comprehensive Plan vision and policy statements for the Commercial-Office-
Residential Comprehensive Plan designation.
c. The plan incorporates public and private open spaces to provide adequate areas for passive and
active recreation by the occupants/users of the site, and/or to protect existing natural systems.
d. The plan provides view corridors to the shoreline area and Mt. Rainier where applicable.
e. Public access is provided to water and/or shoreline areas;
Hawk’s Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H
September 10, 2009
Page 24
f. The plan provides distinctive focal points such as public area plazas, prominent architectural
features, or other items.
g. Public and/or private streets are arranged in a layout that provides reasonable access to property
and supports the land use envisioned.
h. The plan accommodates and promotes transit, pedestrian, and other alternative modes of
transportation.
15. No Planned action ordinance is involved in this review. The property does not lie along Lake
Washington. The height of the building should provide views of the lake and view corridors might exist
between the homes on the west side of the boulevard. The project will accommodate the trail as well as
retail shops and a restaurant open to the public. The Koi pond, bridge and paths as well as the
prominent entry and facade features provide a focal point. Transportation fees as well as
accommodations to the State and turning lanes will provide reasonable access to the subject site. At the
moment, public transit does not travel this route. The applicant has expressed a willingness to
accommodate such access.
16. In conclusion, the proposed use complements activity that has been occurring in this area. It is hoped
that the development of the north portion of this site will spur redevelopment of the southern portion.
DECISION:
The Site Plan is approved subject to the following conditions:
1. A detailed landscape plan and irrigation plan shall be prepared by a landscape architect registered in the
State of Washington, a certified nurseryman, or other similarly qualified professional, and be submitted
by the applicant and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of the building
permit.
2. The applicant shall provide a revised site plan that depicts 7 ADA parking spaces. The revised site plan
shall be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to
issuance of construction permit.
3. The applicant shall submit an access driveway grade cross section indicating compliance with RMC 4-
4-080.I.6.b to be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager
prior to issuance of construction permit.
4. The street vacation, file # VAC-09-001, shall be completed prior to Certificate of Final Occupancy.
5. The applicant shall redesign the west elevation to feature a pedestrian-oriented façade. The new
elevation drawings shall be submitted to the Department of Community and Economic Development
project manager for review and approval prior to building permit approval.
6. The applicant shall submit a new site plan that indicates the entire pedestrian pathways through the
parking lot as a different material or texture from the adjacent paving prior to building permit approval.
This site plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Community and Economic
Development project manager.
7. The applicant shall provide an updated site plan to the City of Renton Current Planning Project Manager
indicating 12-foot sidewalk widths and a 10-foot wide landscape strip along the frontage of the 3.07
acres of the development site, prior to construction permit approval.
8. The applicant shall be required to provide a lighting plan that adequately provides for public safety
without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties to the Current Planning Project Manager for
Hawk’s Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H
September 10, 2009
Page 25
review and approval at the time of building permit review.
9. The applicant shall use best available science in treating stormwater before conveying it to the roadside
ditch. The stormwater shall be treated by whatever means including water retention, detention or "rain
garden" feature in order to reduce pollution entering the ditch and then May Creek. The development
shall not jeopardize May Creek and/or Lake Washington with pollutants created or collected on this
site's paved or treated landscaping areas.
10. The applicant and staff shall work on a plan that accommodates additional landscaping, even temporary
landscaping in planter boxes with some larger trees to screen or breakup the view of the background
unsightly portions of the site east and west of the parking areas. Additionally, the applicant should plant
additional street trees along the remaining Lake Washington Boulevard frontage at the same ratio and
species as is planted along the north frontage.
ORDERED THIS 10th day of September 2009.
FRED J. KAUFMAN
HEARING EXAMINER
TRANSMITTED THIS 10th day of September 2009 to the following:
Mayor Denis Law Dave Pargas, Fire
Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Larry Meckling, Building Official
Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Planning Commission
Marty Wine, Assistant CAO Transpiration Division
Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Utilities Division
Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Neil Watts, Development Services
Jennifer Henning, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services
Stacy Tucker, Development Services Renton Reporter
Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100Gof the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in
writing on or before 5:00 p.m., September 24, 2009. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the
Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the
discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written
request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This
request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may,
after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper.
An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal
be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements.
Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City
Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., September 24, 2009.
Hawk’s Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H
September 10, 2009
Page 26
If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the
executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You
may contact this office for information on formatting covenants.
The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur
concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in
private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both
the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council.
All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all
interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the
evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court.
The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as
Appeals to the City Council.
! " # $ %
! " # $ % %
!"#$ $!" %&"' " '( #"( )
" )
& ' (
) ( ( )
* ! ! )
" ) & ' *
) '
+ )
% ,
)
Hawk’s Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H
September 10, 2009
Page 27
! ) - , .
! ) / '
!
' "
! " 0 & 1
! " 1
1 -
! " - (2 1 1
1
% % ( , % ,
! " 3 ! "
+ % ' ( )
" ) ) % ,
) '
)
)
)
% , % )
! ) 4 (
# ( $ ,
! % / 5(6(7889: " 1
,% + (
, - , (
! ) 4 (
(
! ) ;
( <
!
" # ! $%
" $%
" # &
'
"
( ) (
"
Hawk’s Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H
September 10, 2009
Page 28
! ) 4 (
( , ,
78 ,
! % / 5(6(7889: "
! ) 3 (
, 1
78 ,
! % / 5(6(7889: "
) 1 ,
! " +
! + , "
) =
, % $ )
" ) , %
,
! ) /
,
! ) =
! ) 1 ! "
5(7.>
! ) -
% % % , %
! ) ? % %
( ) %
% ,% % %
(
) ? %
% % % % %
- # ! )
" )
( % +
. ! $ ' )
" ) ! %
Hawk’s Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H
September 10, 2009
Page 29
% , " (
%
! ) 1 '
1
! % / 5(6(7889: "
! ) = % %
% / 5(5(8@8% 1 %
/ 5(5(8@A% 1 1 0 .B B
! ) 3 C % %
% %
(
! % / 5(6(7889: "
! "
" *
!
+ " # & "
! ) ,% %
! ) 3 % %
( % % 6 %
6
) 1 %
%
/ )
" ) )
)
% + %
! ) ,
! % / 5(6(788 9: "
! ) =
! % / 5(6(788 9: "
! ) &
- )
/ )
!
2 . ' )
"
Hawk’s Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H
September 10, 2009
Page 30
1 % C % )
- ! % % % ' ")
1 %
! "
% 0 " 1 $2 " &' $!!)
" ) % *
& ) % %
)
, % ,
)
% , , ) '
, ) ,
* ' 3 )
" ) ,
,
! ) 2 - (2 1
! " - , . %
+ ( , ; D8
(
,
! " 2 ( ,
C , ? ,
' % / 5(5(8E8% - , % B
! " 2 ( , C
! ) ,
,
) / 5(5(8E8?% - , B 1
! )
, , .
? + % ,
!7%A88F" +
!>88F"%
9+ 3 '
! % ?A 1 "
+ ,&-.. " * &
"
Hawk’s Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H
September 10, 2009
Page 31
& +
" *
&
+ " # &
"
) 3 + % ,
) 3 ,
( ,( %
<
) G ( %
, ,
% .
+ ! 3 )
" ) , % %
,
! ) - ,
! % / 5(6(788 ?A "
1 /" 0 1 "
! ) ,
! / 5(5(8E8?:% B C "
) G % , %
(
) ,
, %
) G %
'
, ! 3 )
" ) , )
, * & )
, )
, +
! ) - , 1 ? - (
2 1
! " - ,
:AH !
% / 5(6(788 ?A "
! " (
! ) - , 1 ? ; (- (2
1
Hawk’s Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H
September 10, 2009
Page 32
! " - , ( (
( , D
,
% %
, 78
! " ,
.
-
,
!7" 2 , ! ")
!>" ,)
!6" )
!5" 4 ,% % )
!A" - ( )
!D" & ( )
!:" )
!E" 2
! " ? %
&
+ , % %
% . ! %
/ 5(6(788 ?A "
) - , %
% 3 % ,
%
) - ,
) ,
'
) - ,
% % ,
) - ,
* % % .
) - ,
,
- 1 4 )
" ) % , ' %
.
. (
! ) - ,
Hawk’s Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H
September 10, 2009
Page 33
( (
! ) 1 , (
! ) - , % %
+ A88 '
$ $!# " $ 1 " ( $ #)
" ) *
& , ,
) ,
% % , %
, % % , )
(
* 4 4 4 3 ' )
" ) % ,
% ,
! ) .
,
! ) G , %
% +
7A8 ! % / 5(6(788 =5 "
+ )
" ) , ,
! )
% % ,
, ! %
/ 5(6(788 =5 "
! ) 1 ,
! ) - , ,
+
! % / 5(6(788 =5 "
!
&
" # &
!
"
Hawk’s Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H
September 10, 2009
Page 34
( )
( "
! ) 1 ,
1
! " 1 , +
788 ! "
, 7> ,
E , !
% / (5(6(788 =5 "
,.'
2' " #
& * 3 &
! 4 &
" *
! 5 &
6 4 # & 7 8 ( +
'
" 9
: & ;
5 "
& ,.'
" # &
< 8 4 ,%'
,.' =".>
& 8 "
! " % ,
! " ? % ,
78 ( 7>
% + % ,
% E
, % A I D
! ) B
B ,
! ) , (
,
Hawk’s Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H
September 10, 2009
Page 35
) ( , %
% , -
( , ( , ! %
/ 5(6(788 =5 "
) 4 %
( , D
) 4 % ( ,
7>
)
+ 8 >A
) C %
( +
75 ; + 68
C ,
)
% % % %
) / ( , ,
) % + , %
, )
" )
)
% %
! ) -
% C % %
5(7.> :A
% + 7A %
E
# &
!
"
! =?"- ! $.
" $.
@ A
" # &
" # &
$. "
! ) 1
Hawk’s Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H
September 10, 2009
Page 36
% ( (
+
! ) 1 ,
) % , % % %
) 1 % , , % %
) % (
+ (
% % %
( ! % / 5(
6(788 =5 "
' ! " 5 $ $ #"( $ !5 ( ( ( $ ! $)
" ) + )
)
% , % )
)
* ' )
" ) B )
+ )
' )
! ) ! / 5(5(8:8%
B "
! ) 1 C
%
! ) 2 ( %
? %
! % / 5(
6(788 0 6 "
! )
% %
! )
% %
! ) 1 ,
, ! / 5(5(8E8?:%
Hawk’s Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H
September 10, 2009
Page 37
B C " 1 78
, ! % / 5(6(788 0 6
! ) 68
-
6A /
! "
! ) 1 >8 C
1 7>
#
%. + "
&
"
7 ;
B 0 1"
:
& "
! ) = C
@8
! )
% %
C
! ) 1 , 75
!7" C
;
1
/ C B J
7A A8 7A C . ,
A7 @@ >A C . ,
788 6A C . ,
J B
C + ,
!>" - % % C ,
!6" - + , -
6A /
Hawk’s Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H
September 10, 2009
Page 38
!
"
!5" - 788 C
1 7D
!A" * A8
!D" 1 @8
) %
!:" , A8
! )
,
! ) * % C
# "
& &
8 8 4
"
) B ,
) B
) * % (
)
) 1 %
) G + % % , %
(
) B ,
+ ( ! )
" )
% , %
' ) % %
)
(
! ) / +
C A8 C
Hawk’s Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H
September 10, 2009
Page 39
! " % %
C
C
788
! " % ' % ( )
! " * , % % % 1
C
)
! " -
)
! " % % . %
% + % % )
! "
! ) 3 + %
C % % , %
C
! ) 3 +
C ,
( !
" % '
! % /
5(6(788 0 6 "
! ) - , % %
. C
! ) 3 + %
C
, % % C
C
! ) 68%888 C
! + , "
( ! % / 5(6(
788 0 6 "
7H K 7H L /
(
! ) C ( %
! " & ! ( "
( (
)
Hawk’s Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H
September 10, 2009
Page 40
! " - , )
! " 2 ( ( (
! " )
/ 0 1 "
"
! " ! % % "
D8 C '
! ) (
! % / 5(6(788 0 6 "
C
! " - (
(
! " 1
I
! " - (
! " -
! ) (
! " , )
! " , )
! " , )
! " )
! " 2 ! % % % "
! ) C ,
( 0 % ,
C % (
(
! )
% + % (
) +
% %
)
( (
' !
% / 5(6(788 0 6 "
Hawk’s Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H
September 10, 2009
Page 41
) ,
% % C
% +
) 3 +
% %
' , % % %
,
$ %&"' " 2 "#$ #& ' $!" )
" ) C %
%
- ;
* % 4 )
" )
) % %
! )
9+
% % % !
% / 5(6(788 3A "
! )
! " )
! " G )
! " 4 . )
! " )
! " 2
! ) 1
! % / 5(6(788 3A "
! " + ! '
+ " 58
! " 7A
! " +
( !
"
)
%
.
' % , , % %
) 4
Hawk’s Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H
September 10, 2009
Page 42
) 4 7D8
C ,
, % % %
! % / 5(
6(788 3A "
+ 6' )
" )
( )
! ) * , %
, % !
" ,
! " 3 +
% ' 7A %
% % )
! " 588 C
% %
#"%" 0
C 1 "
! ) G , C % ,
! %
/ 5(6(788 3A "
! " % %
% , )
! " )
! " % %
)
! " ,% ( % % )
! " 1
! ) ,
! ) - ( + %
%
! ) ? (
:A !
( "
.
! ) 2 C
! " 4
0 %
A8
Hawk’s Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H
September 10, 2009
Page 43
! " C %
! " G %
'
! " , % ! ( "
)
! % / 5(6(788 3A "
! " ? ?
!7" )
!>" 2 )
!6" )
!5" )
!A" - )
!D" - )
!:"
! " ?
!7" )
!>" = , )
!6" B )
!5" 2 )
!A" B
! " ?
!7" )
!>" 2 )
!6" - )
!5" 1 ! % "
) , ! % %
,% % % " (
B
"
) 9 ,
, % ' )
" )
! ) 4
! % / 5(6(
788 3A "
! " 9+ )
Hawk’s Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H
September 10, 2009
Page 44
! " ? )
! " - )
! " -
! ) B ( C
C 7A8
! ) 1
% / 5(5(8@A9% ( 9C
! ) / ( C
+ '
C
) 4
- % )
" ) C )
, )
! ) % % ,
%
% % % %
C
! ) / % %
+ % % C
! ) / % C %
! ) 4 %
, % % +
) 4 % %
+
,% % ( % % %
% ( (
) + % % (
% + %
% % ,
) , %
+ , % .
) 1
+
!5F"
7 !" $)
Hawk’s Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H
September 10, 2009
Page 45
" ) )
)
) C
* & )
! ) 1
! ) '
#
& " #
"
! ) - ! % /
5(6(788 M6 "
- )
)
4 ,( !
" 9+ 4 ,( !78"
C ,(
@ A
! ) 3 + ( %
@ A
! ) ? ( %
+ %
%
! . "
% % ,%
@ A
! ) 9
@ A
) , %
% %
% C
@ A
) ? ( % (
@ A
Hawk’s Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal
File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H
September 10, 2009
Page 46
) 4 %
% (
@ A
'" 2 #" )
" ) ) C
' % , % , % %
)
! ) B ( +
/ 5(5(8:A% B % 9+ 2 (1
& # &
+ +
!
" 8
&
! <4 D'D'.>- & )! C ' "
! ) B ( %
(
! ) - ( %
% % %
% (
) %
%
)
% ( %
%