HomeMy WebLinkAboutThe Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat, Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeals - FinalCITY OF RENTON
JAN 0 8 2015
RECEIVED
1 CITY CLERICS OFFICE
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
10
11
RE: The Reserve at Tiffany Park
12 Preliminary Plat
FINAL DECISION
13
14
Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeals )
15
LUA13-001572, ECF,PP, CAE
16
17 I.SUMMARY
18
The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for the subdivision of 21.66 acres into single-family
19 residential lots and several critical areas tracts located at the dead end of SE 18th Street and bordered
by the Cedar River Pipeline along the southern property boundary and the Mercer Island Pipeline
20
along the eastern property boundary. The applicant is requesting a Critical Area Exemption for the
21 extension of SE 18th Street through portions of the buffer associated with Wetland E. Two appeals
of a mitigated determination of nonsignificance ("MDNS") issued under the Washington State
22 Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") were consolidated with the review of the preliminary plat. The
23 Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group ("TPWAG") filed one of the two SEPA appeals and the
applicant submitted the second appeal. The preliminary plat is approved subject to conditions. The
24 TPWAG SEPA appeal is denied. The applicant SEPA appeal is sustained, in part. The Critical Areas
25 Exemption is approved.
26 TPWAG raised numerous issues in its SEPA appeal regarding the conversion of the 21.66 acre
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 1
I subject property from a community recreational resource to a residential subdivision. The property
2 is entirely undeveloped and is covered with trails, tree forts and other similar structures that reveal
years of community use. In its SEPA appeal TPWAG argues that the loss of this long-time
3 recreational use is an environmental impact that should be subject to SEPA review. As detailed in
4 this decision, the fact that the applicant has allowed neighbors to use its property in the past (or
worse, the fact that neighbors may have trespassed in the past) does not justify the imposition of any
5 SEPA requirements because the neighbors will lose that privilege as a result of the development.
6 Similarly, the fact that the applicant has chosen to retain the trees on its land in the past and through
that choice provided neighbors with an appealing arboreal view does not put the applicant in a
7 position where it must now continue to offer that type of view to neighboring properties. With one
8 exception the applicant proposes development that is aesthetically similar and compatible with
surrounding uses. For this reason, there is no legal basis for imposing any further environmental
9 review or mitigation to address aesthetic impacts. The one exception is retaining walls. The
applicant proposes numerous retaining walls that will reach heights of up to 21 feet. Retaining walls
10
of this height are not present in the vicinity and the aesthetic impacts of these structures are not
11 similar or compatible to the structures on neighboring properties. Consequently, the MDNS
mitigation measures will require ten foot wide perimeter landscaping designed to aesthetically buffer
12 these walls from neighboring uses.
13
TPWAG alleged more technical environmental impacts related to the geotechnical studies,
14 hazardous materials, drainage, wetlands impacts, groundwater impacts, landslide hazards, seismic
15 hazards, and retaining walls. The expert testimony and reports provided by the applicant, verified by
experts from the City staff and in some cases, third party peer review, proved to be more compelling
16 than the expert testimony provided by TPWAG, especially when factoring the substantial weight that
17 must be given the SEPA responsible official's determination that the proposal will not create any
probable significant adverse environmental impacts. One issue that did require some additional
18 mitigation was hazardous waste. An appellant expert testified that the prior ownership of the
19 Property by the US Department of Defense raised a concern that the property may contain hazardous
waste. The applicant refused to grant access to the subject property for purposes of testing for
20 hazardous waste or any other site investigation. The applicant also acknowledged that it did a Phase
21 I hazardous waste environmental review when it purchased the property, but never offered the
review into evidence. Given the somewhat suspect conduct of the applicant, an MDNS condition of
22 review will require that the applicant submit its Phase I review to staff prior to development, to
23 verify that there is no hazardous waste issue with the site.
24 The applicant's SEPA appeal was more limited in scope and only challenged three of the City's
MDNS conditions, specifically Conditions 1, 3 and 6. At hearing the City and applicant agreed to
25 revised language for Conditions 1 and 3. Condition No. 6 remained the only contested issue in the
26 applicant's appeal. The condition required a 15-foot landscaping buffer around the entire perimeter
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 2
I of the development. This decision only found a ten -foot buffer necessary, limited to areas adjoining
2 proposed retaining walls to conceal the walls from neighboring view.
3 A summary of testimony is attached as Attachment A. The summary is provided as a convenience
and reference to those who would like an overview of the evidence presented at the two days of
4 hearings on this application. The testimony section should not be construed as any formal findings
5 of fact and also do not represent what was determined to be important to the final decision.
6 CONTENTS
7 I. SUMMARY......................................................................................................................... 1
8
II. TESTIMONY....................................................................................................................... 3
III. EXHIBITS............................................................................................................................ 3
9 IV. FINDINGS OF FACT.......................................................................................................... 4
V. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW................................................................................................ 24
10 SEPA APPEAL........................................................................................................... 24
PRELIMINARYPLAT.............................................................................................. 30
11 VI. DECISION39
12
13 II. TESTIMONY
14 Please see Attachment A for testimony summary.
15
III. EXHIBITS
16
Please see Attachment B for the exhibits admitted during the hearing. Exhibits admitted after the1hearingareasfollows:
18
Exhibit AS: City of Renton Preliminary Plat Condition Revision Response (December 11,
19 2014)
Exhibit AT: TPWAG Post Hearing Closing Argument (December 14, 2014)
20 Exhibit AU: TPWAG Motion—Late Filing (December 15, 2014)
21
Exhibit AV: Henley Response to TPWAG Motion—Late Filing (December 15, 2015)
Exhibit AW: Henley (Proposed) Order Denying TPWAG Motion—Late Filing (December 15,
22 2014)
Exhibit AX: Hearing Examiner Ruling—Late Filing (December 15, 2014)
23 Exhibit AY: Henley Response—TPWAG Post Hearing Closing Argument (December 19,
2014)
24 Exhibit AZ: Henley Reply—City of Renton Preliminary Plat Condition Revision Response
25
December 19, 2014)
Exhibit BB: City of Renton—TPWAG Post Hearing Closing Argument (December 22, 2014)
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 3
1 IV. FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
2
3
1. Applicant. Henley USA, LLC.
4 2.Hearing. A consolidated hearing on the preliminary plat application and SEPA appeals was
held on November 18, 2014 and continued to December 8, 2014 in the City of Renton Council City
5 Chambers. The record was left open for the appellants to provide a SEPA Closing Argument by
6 December 12, 2014. City staff was also given until December 12, 2014 to provide a SEPA Rebuttal.
City staff and the applicant had until December 19, 2014 to provide SEPA closing arguments and
7 preliminary plat comments.
8
Substantive:
9
10
3.Project Description and Appeal.
11 A. Project Description. The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for the
12 subdivision of 21.66 acres into 97 single-family residential lots. There is an alternate plat with 96
lots to allow for 30% tree retention (Exhibit 3). The property is located at the dead end of SE 18th
13 Street. It is bordered on the south by the Cedar River Pipeline and on the east by the Mercer Island
14
Pipeline. Two appeals of a mitigated determination of nonsignificance ("MDNS") issued under the
Washington State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") were consolidated with the review of the
15 preliminary plat.
16 The subject property consists of four parcels. The majority of the site is located in the R-8 zone. A
17 small portion is located in the R-4 zone. All proposed lots are located in the R-8 zone. The proposed
lots would range in size from 4,500sf to 8,456s£ The average lot size is 5,399sf. Under either the 96
18 lot or 97 lot scenarios, density would be equal to or less than 5.70 dwelling units per acre. In addition
19 to the residential lots, 13 tracts are proposed for sensitive areas, tree retention, storm drainage,
access, pedestrian connections, and open space including an existing 10 foot wide vegetated buffer
20 along the northern boundary. Access to the site would be gained from SE 18th Street with secondary
21 access extended from 124th Place SE.
22 The site is currently vacant with 1,305 significant trees. The applicant has proposed to retain or
mitigate 188 trees in order to achieve the objective of 30% tree retention requirement. Adequate tree
23
retention requires approval of the 96-lot alternative. The site slopes generally to the west/northwest
24 at an approximate average slope of 10-15% with localized slopes of 25%. The site contains three
Category 2 wetlands (Wetlands A, C, and, D) and two Category 3 wetlands (Wetlands B and E). The
25
applicant is requesting a Critical Area Exemption for the extension of SE 18th Street through
26 portions of the buffer associated with Wetland E.
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 4
1 The applicant has submitted a Wetland Report, Drainage Report, Traffic Impact Analysis,
2 Geotechnical Engineering study, Arborist Report, and Habitat Data Report. Independent secondary
studies for Transportation and Wetlands are included with the application.
3
B. SEPA Appeal. A mitigated determination of nonsignificance ("MDNS") was issued for the
4
proposal on September, 2014. Two timely appeals of the threshold determination were filed by the
5 Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group (TPWAG) and Caimcross & Hempelmann on behalf of
Henley USA, LLC.
6
7
1.Applicant SEPA Appeal. The applicant challenged three of the City's MDNS
conditions, specifically Conditions 1, 3 and 6 on the grounds that they impose unlawful
8 obligations on the applicant and restrict the applicant's ability to develop the plat.
9 a.MDNS Condition 1. The applicant argued MDNS Condition 1 should be
10 revised because the condition required earthwork to comply with an earlier, preliminary
version of the geotechnical report which has since been superseded. The applicant requested
11 the SEPA condition be revised to state the earthwork shall be consistent with the final
12 geotechnical report submitted prior to construction (Exhibit J). City staff and the applicant
then agreed upon the following language for Condition No. 1, which is found to adequately
13 address pertinent environmental impacts:
14
All earthwork performed, implemented by the applicant, shall be consistent with the
15 recommendations of the geotechnical report, prepared by Associated Earth Sciences,
Inc., dated September 28, 2012 or consistent with the recommendations of the final16
City-approved geotechnical report.
17
b.MDNS Condition 3. The applicant's concerns over MDNS Condition No. 3
18 became moot since the filing of its appeal and the City and applicant have been able to agree
19 upon a revised condition that acceptably mitigates against environmental impacts.
20 MDNS Condition 3 provides as follows,
21 The applicant shall be required to retain 30% of the significant trees on site with
22 exclusions for those trees that are considered dead, diseased, or dangerous, trees
located within proposed rights-of-way, and trees located within the critical areas
23 and their associated buffers.
24 The applicant initially argued the condition should either be struck as a SEPA condition or
modified to require compliance with the Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan, completed by25
Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. (August 27, 2014) which complies with the 30%
26 retention requirement(Appeal Exhibit A, Attachment 11).
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 5
I City staff disagreed. They argued that there are probable averse environmental impacts that
2 are being mitigated by the MDNS condition. The City argued the MDNS Condition prevents
the applicant from using mitigation under RMC 4-4-130(H)(1)(e)(i) to replace trees and
3 instead requires retention of significant trees.
4 The Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan, completed by Washington Forestry Consultants,
5 Inc. (August 27, 2014) established that overall the proposal will actually meet the City's
SEPA 30% tree retention requirement. To meet this requirement, the applicant must retain or
6 mitigate 188 on-site trees. The Washington Forestry Consultants plan proposes to save 181 of
7 these trees and mitigate the final seven trees. The applicant's tree retention plan analyzed just
the 96 lot alternative. However, Mr. Galen Wright of Washington Forestry Consultants stated
8 new field studies performed since the August 27, 2014 report have identified additional
9 significant trees on-site beyond those mapped in the original field survey. These trees will be
retained, bringing the total retention to well above the 188 required trees. Mr. Wright stated
10 he was much more confident now regarding the location of trees, their health and which
I1 might be viably preserved.
12 Since the applicant ultimately achieved the 30% retention objective, the City and applicant
13 agreed to the following tree retention language as a condition of approval,
14
15
The applicant shall provide a final Tree Retention Plan, complying with the 30% tree
retention mitigation measure while demonstrating proposed walls would not impact
16 trees proposed for retention. The Final Tree Retention Plan shall be submitted to, and
17 approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit
approval.
18
C.MDNS Condition 6. MDNS Condition No. 6 remains the only contested
19 portion of the applicant's appeal. MDNS Condition No. 6 as adopted by the SEPA
20 responsible official required a 15-foot landscape buffer around the entire perimeter of the
development. For the reasons identified in FOF No. 5, this perimeter has been reduced to ten
21 feet and must only be placed in areas to conceal proposed retaining walls from neighboring
22 view.
23 2.TPWAG SEPA Appeal. TPWAG raised several issues in its SEPA appeal, alleging
both inadequate review and probable significant adverse environmental impacts. The
24
impacts identified by TPWAG are addressed in FOF No. 5.
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 6
1 4.Surroundin2Area. The subject site is surrounding on all sides by single family residential
2 development. To the south it is bordered by the 100 foot wide Cedar River Pipeline. To the east, it is
bordered by the 60 foot wide Mercer Island Pipeline. The zoning surrounding the subject on all sides
3 is single family residential (R-8), though there is also a small portion of R-4 zoning to the east.
4 5.Adverse Impacts. The proposal does not create any probable significant adverse
5 environmental impacts. Adequate public facilities and drainage control are provided as determined
in Finding of Fact No. 6. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 5, two appeals to the threshold were filed.
6 The issues on appeal from the applicant, Henley, are discussed first. The issues on appeal for the
7 project opponent, the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group, are then discussed. Finally, other
impacts not related to either appeal but related to the preliminary plat are discussed below.
8
9
A. Applicant SEPA Issue. As identified in FOF No. 3, only one issue remains in the
Applicant's SEPA appeal, specifically the need for perimeter landscaping. It is
10 determined that only the applicant's proposed retaining walls create probable
significant environmental impacts and that these impacts can be reduced to
11
nonsignificant levels with ten foot sight obscuring landscaping limited to perimeter
12 areas in front of the retaining walls.
13 1. Proposed Development Aesthetically Compatible with Surrounding
14 Development. With the exception of retaining walls (addressed separately),
the proposed development does not create any probable significant impacts
15 because of aesthetic incompatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. A
16 site visit and aerial photographs (Ex. K.6.c) reveal that the surrounding
neighborhoods are not exceptionally wooded or treed and that the amount of
17 trees proposed for retention by the applicant would not be less than
18 surrounding development. Further, although the applicant proposes a modest
increase in density, reasonable minds would certainly differ as to whether this
19 difference in density would create a significant aesthetic impact. The
20 developed portions of the plat are all in the R-8 zone, though the proposed
residential density will be 5.7 dwelling units per acre. The minimum density
21 requirement in the zone is 4.0 dwelling units per acre. All adjacent properties
22 are zoned R-8. Proposed lot sizes would range from 4,500 square feet to 8,456
square feet with an average lot size of 5,399 square feet. While the proposed
23 lots appear to be, on average, somewhat smaller than those of the surrounding
24 developments, they are not significantly smaller and are at a density that is
lower than would otherwise be allowed within this zone. Further, because of
25 the presence of the two pipelines and the perimeter location of the critical
26 areas tracts, very few of the lots will be directly adjacent to existing residential
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 7
I lots. The pipelines do not offer much in terms of vegetated screening but they
2 do physically separate the proposed lots from existing lots. Any difference in
the size of the lots will not be aesthetically significant, especially given the
3 separation of the project from the surrounding neighborhood.
4 2.Loss of Trees Not a Probable Significant Environmental Impact. It is
5 determined that the loss of trees beyond those required to be retained by City
code does not qualify as a probable significant adverse environmental impact.
6 In its environmental review, the City suggests that the perimeter is necessary
7 to make up for the fact that a significant number of trees will be removed,
thereby adversely affecting the views currently enjoyed by neighboring
8 properties. Numerous adjoining property owners also commented on this
9 impact. It is determined that the loss of trees owned by the applicant does not
qualify as a significant adverse environmental impact. Of course, almost all
10 development of vacant parcels involves the removal of trees. As discussed in
11 COL No 5, in order to justify mitigation beyond the minimum standards set by
the City's landscaping code, the project must involve some fairly unique or
12 significant impacts that were not anticipated in the adoption of that code. The
13 existence of such a large parcel (and large number of associated trees) is
arguably unique, but that argument is undermined to a large degree by the
14 subjectivity involved in aesthetic review. Given that the applicant is retaining
15 30% of the trees, it is debatable whether the loss of the other 70% creates a
significant aesthetic view impact to neighboring property owners, especially
16 with the buffering that will be required by this decision to obscure retaining
17 walls.
18 The assessment of aesthetic impacts occasioned by the loss of trees is also
tempered by the fact that it is debatable from a legal standpoint whether the
19
applicant can be made to mitigate against the loss of a voluntary aesthetic
20 benefit it has provided to the surrounding community. The applicant has had
no obligation to retain all of the trees on its property in the past. Surrounding
21
property owners have no entitlement to this currently existing aesthetic
22 benefit. SEPA only requires mitigation and analysis of impacts created by
development. The loss of trees in excess of those required by City code is not
23 an impact created by the development, since those trees could have been
24 removed at any time prior to development. The site visit, the record and the
code do not reveal that any other properties in the vicinity have had to retain
25 perimeter landscaping or that they provide a similar aesthetic benefit to the
26 surrounding community. Given that no such need was found in the past when
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 8
1 trees were removed by other development it is at least somewhat questionable
2 why that is found necessary now in the absence of any code provision
expressly requiring such a perimeter.
3
3.Retaining Walls Create A Probable Significant Adverse Environmental
4 Impact. It is determined that the retaining walls proposed by the applicant in
5 excess of four feet create a probable significant adverse environmental impact.
As noted in the Staff Report, the applicant is proposing multiple walls on the
6 proposed project. Some of the walls will be rockeries. Some walls are
7 retaining walls which will face into the site. These are walls that allow for a
finished grade for a lot to be below the surrounding grade. Other walls will be
8 lock and load walls that allow for a finished lot grade above the surrounding
9 grade. Six foot fencing is allowed on top of both types of walls. These walls
are visible from outside the site. Staff notes the applicant has proposed lock
10 and load walls ranging in height from four feet potentially up to 21 feet high.
11 During testimony, Mr. Talkington stated revised grading plans may allow for
reduced retaining wall heights.
12
A site visit to the surrounding neighborhoods was conducted December 28,
13
2014. Though the subject is largely surrounded by pipeline easements, these
14 easements are cleared of vegetation allowing a direct line of sight into the
development and of the retaining walls. The site visit demonstrated that high
15
retaining walls are not a common feature of the surrounding development. The
16 applicant proposes solid rock or concrete walls of up to 21 feet in height.
These walls will impact the view of the property from surrounding residences,
17
especially given they are an uncommon feature in the area. As proposed, the
18 view from surrounding residences will be significantly impacted as they
change from forest canopy and surrounding homes to rock wall faces of nearly
19 two stories tall in places. The Staff Report notes several walls will be seen by
20 the public (proposed Lots 40, 41, 46, 47, 80, 82, 83-90, 93 and 94)1
21 When considering retaining wall impacts, the height of the wall affects the
22 significance of the impacts. Low retaining walls do not block sunlight and air
or obstruct views. The building codes only require building permits for
23
24 1 In any discussion of lot numbers, this decision is referring to the numbering scheme utilized in the 97-lot
alternative (Exhibit 2). The nomenclature of the 96-lot alternative is exactly one lot lower for each lot because the
25 Tree Retention Plan recommended the elimination of Lot 1 of the 97 lot alternative to maintain 30%tree retention.
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 9
I retaining walls four feet or more in height (RMC 4-5-060(E)(2)(c)(iv)). This
2
serves as a good threshold height for aesthetic impacts. Retaining walls lower
than four feet do not obstruct views for a person of average height. They also
3 tend to be more commonly found in neighborhoods since no building permit is
4
required. For these reasons, the findings in the preceding paragraph on
retaining wall aesthetic impacts are limited to retaining walls over four feet or
5 more in height. Retaining walls less than four feet in height are not found to
6 create probable significant adverse environmental impacts.
7 4.Ten Foot Perimeter Landscaping Fully Mitigates Retaining Wall Impacts.
The aesthetic impacts of the retaining walls can be fully mitigated by the by a
8 ten foot perimeter landscaping strip. The City is recommending a fifteen foot
9 buffer of trees. During testimony, the applicant's arborist stated a ten foot
wide buffer with a staggered double row of conifers would create a very dense
10 screen in 10 years. He noted a 15 foot buffer is not sufficient in width to plant
11 a third row of conifers, which would require a 30 foot buffer. The City's
arborist concluded that at least 35 feet was necessary to provide for a site-
12 obscuring buffer of trees and that ten verses fifteen feet would not make any
13 material difference in screening (Decision Attachment A, page 7). Given that
staff's 15 foot recommendation is counter to the recommendation of its own
14 arborist2
and that the applicant's arborist provides a reasonably good
15 explanation of how a ten foot buffer can effectively screen the property, it is
determined that the ten foot buffering advocated by the applicant's arborist
16 will provide a fully sight obscuring buffer to the retaining walls and as such
17
18 2 Staff also advocated for a 15 foot buffer because it would help retain some of the treed character of the project
site. See Exhibit Al,page 19. As outlined in FOF No.5.A.1,the applicant cannot be legally made to compensate for
19 the loss of trees on its property. Further, staff also based its 15 foot buffer requirement upon RMC 4-4-070(F)(4)(b).
This perimeter buffer provides for aesthetic screening between single and multi-family housing. This standard does
20 serve as a good analogous standard for retaining wall impacts. Unfortunately, the standard only requires six foot
high vegetation. A six foot high hedge set against a 21 foot high retaining wall does not accomplish a great deal of
21
aesthetic mitigation. For this reason, the RMC 4-4-070(F)(4)(b) buffer does not serve as an ideal analogous
landscaping standard. What the RMC 4-4-070(F)(4)(b) and other RMC 4-4-070 perimeter buffer requirements does
22 show is that the City Council was uncomfortable requiring more than a fifteen foot wide buffer in any situation.
Requiring more than 15 feet does in fact to place an unreasonable burden upon the applicant for something as
23 subjective as an aesthetic impact. It is for this reason likely that the City went against the findings of its arborist and
only required a fifteen foot buffer instead of a 30 foot buffer. This was an appropriate approach, but did not go far
enough since as testified by the applicant's arborist, a fifteen foot would not provide for any significant protection24beyondatenfootbuffer. Given that a 30 foot buffer would be unreasonable mitigation,the imposition of a ten foot
buffer has to be found acceptable even though there a small chance it may not provide for 100% screening as
25 concluded by the City's arborist.
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 10
I will prevent the retaining walls from creating probable significant adverse
2 environmental impacts.
3 Limiting the landscape perimeters to the areas where the retaining walls are
four feet or more in height should also completely obstruct them from the
4
view of neighboring property owners. For these reasons, the conditions of
5 approval will require the applicant to revise its landscaping plan to provide for
site obscuring perimeter landscaping adjacent to areas where the retaining
6 walls are four or more feet in height, specifically in the perimeter areas close
7 to Lots 40, 41, 46, 47, 80, 82, 83-90, 93 and 94.
8 B.TPWAG SEPA Issues.
9 1.Aesthetic Impact Due to Loss of Trees. The appellants argue there is a
10 significant adverse aesthetic impact due to the loss of trees. With the
exception of retaining walls (addressed separately), the proposed development
11 does not create any probable significant impacts because of aesthetic
12 incompatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. As discussed above in
Finding of Fact 5.A.1, the surrounding neighborhoods are not exceptionally
13 wooded or treed and the amount of trees proposed for retention by the
14 applicant would not be less than surrounding development. As described in
Finding of Fact 5.A.2, the is retaining 30% of the trees. The applicant has had
15 no obligation to retain all of the trees on its property in the past. Surrounding
16 property owners have no entitlement to this currently existing aesthetic
benefit. The loss of trees in excess of those required by City code is not an
17 impact created by the development, since those trees could have been
18 removed at any time prior to development. It is also at best debatable whether
the loss of the other 70% creates a significant aesthetic view impact to
19 neighboring property owners, especially with the buffering that will be
20 required by this decision to obscure retaining walls.
21 2.Potential Presence of Hazardous Materials. No impacts from hazardous
materials are anticipated. The appellants demonstrated the subject property
22
had at one time been owned by the Department of Defense. They alleged there
23 might be hazardous materials on site based on this former user. For the past 65
years, for all intents and purposes, the site has been covered by a seemingly
24
healthy forest canopy. The appellants were unable to demonstrate evidence of
25 any overt signs of contamination visible on the site that might justify
26
overturning the substantial weight due the SEPA official's determination that
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 11
1 the project site does not contain any hazardous waste necessitating further
2 environmental review. However, nor were the appellants granted access to
perform their own studies. The applicant also neglected to submit a Phase 1
3 Environmental Site Assessment it said was prepared for the proposal, even
4
after the appellants made the study an issue during the hearing. The actions of
the applicant on the hazardous waste issue create uncertainty as to whether the
5 project site is free from hazardous waste. Given that this issue remains
6 unresolved, a condition of approval will require the applicant to submit the
results of the Phase 1 ESA to City staff for confirmation that there are no
7 hazardous materials on site.
8 3.Wildlife Habitat and Connectivity. No probable significant adverse impacts to
9 wildlife habitat are anticipated and the SEPA Responsible Official had
sufficient information to adequately assess the impacts. The applicant
10 submitted a Revised Wetland Determination and Response Letter (Exhibit 5),
11 a Habitat Assessment (Exhibit 6), and two Habitat Assessment Technical
Memorandums (Exhibits 16 and 17). The City required an independent
12 secondary review of the wetlands report (Exhibit 14). As noted in Conclusion
13 of Law 3.13 below, the SEPA responsible official must make a prima facie
showing that he has based his determination upon information reasonably
14 sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal (WAC 197-11-335). These
15 multiple studies and memoranda were more than adequate to fully assess the
wildlife impacts of the proposal as the appellants have not demonstrated any
16 additional information that could have made any material difference in the
17 official's conclusions.
18 No significant adverse impacts are anticipated for wildlife or habitat
connectivity. With the exception of pileated woodpeckers and Townsend's
19
bats, the fish and wildlife habitat assessment found no listed or endangered
20 species or priority habitat on site. Though the property may function as
marginal habitat for many common species, it is geographically isolated from21
the Cedar River corridor by the Mercer Island Pipeline easement, a residential
22 street, residential lots, a steep slope and the Bonneville Power
Administration's easement. Testimony from all sides spoke to the heavy23humandisturbanceonthesiteincludingrecreationalwalkers, bikers,
24 unleashed dogs, and the presence of unpermitted structures and pits including
forts and paint ball hides. The applicant's wildlife expert, Racheal Villa of
25 Soundview Consultants testified that the formalized protection of the wetlands
26 and buffers on site would result in an improvement in habitat conditions for
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 12
I both pileated woodpeckers and Townsend's bats over the present situation due
2 to the fairly degraded condition of the habitat at present.
3 4. Seismic Hazards. The SEPA Responsible Official had adequate information to
assess the seismic hazards and no probable significant adverse impacts are
4
anticipated in regards to these hazards. As to adequacy of review, the
5 applicant provided a geotechnical report by AES (Exhibit 7) that was
reviewed, by the request of the applicant, by Earth Solutions, NW (Exhibit
6 K.2). The AES conclusion in the geotechnical report stated the site, from a
7 geotechnical engineering standpoint, is suitable for support of conventional
paving, lightly loaded structures and typical buried utilities, all typical
8 improvements in a single family residential subdivision. The AES preliminary
9 geotechnical report and subsequent peer review by Earth Solutions, NW
provide information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the environmental
10 impacts of the proposal under WAC 197-11-335.
11
The appellants note the nearest USGS mapped fault zone is 3.9 miles away,
12 though they feel additional testing should occur to determine if there are
unmapped fault zones. The appellants argued there was evidence of ground
13
movement in the form of bent trees and hummocky land which could indicate
14 several things including seismic shifting or landslide activity caused by a
shallow groundwater table. The City has mapped the site as a Low Seismic
15
Hazard area and outside of the Coal Mine Hazard areas. The applicant has
16 provided a geotechnical report by AES that was reviewed at the applicant's
request by Earth Solutions, NW, the firm hired to perform geotechnical work
17
for the applicant going forward. Mr. Coglas of Earth Solutions, NW testified
18 there are no seismic hazards on the property (Decision Attachment A, Page
21). Mr. Coglas went on to state with respect to site stability and groundwater,
19
the stability of the predominantly flat to gently sloping property is good. In his
20 opinion and based on geologic mapping and subsurface data for the site and
surrounding area, the site is very similar to the surrounding developed
21
residential area. There is nothing in the record to indicate an increased danger
22 of seismic hazard beyond that of the surrounding properties. A single-family
residential plat in this area is in no more probable seismic danger than the
23 surrounding developed properties. The proposal will not create any probable
24 significant adverse environmental impacts in regards to seismic hazards.
25 5.Landslide Hazards. The SEPA Responsible Official had adequate information
26 to assess landslide hazards. They appellants argued the soil under the plat has
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 13
I structural anomalies that require further study to determine if there are
2 landslide or other geologically hazardous conditions. The appellants point to
bent trees and uneven surfaces located on the site may indicate shallow or
3 slightly deeper ground movement which may be indications of landslide
4 activity in the past or future propensity of slides. They note they requested
access to perform their own studies but were denied. Specifically, the
5 appellants have requested expanded soils tests, percolation tests and more test
6 pits and borings to measure localized hydraulic conductivity. As noted above,
the applicant has provided a geotechnical report by AES that was reviewed by
7 Earth Solutions,NW. Mr. Coglas of Earth Solutions,NW testified there are no
8
landslide hazards on the property (Decision Attachment A, Page 20). The
City's Development Engineering Manager, Mr. Lee, testified he concurred
9 with Mr. Coglas' assessment of the landslide hazard risk. Mr. Lee is a
10
professional engineer with extensive experience in site development and civil
engineering in Washington. He noted, the steep areas are very small (15-20'
11 feet long) and do not warrant slope stability analysis. Overall on the project
site, the approximate slope is only 10% or so. There are no sensitive or
12
protected slopes on the subject property. The majorityof the subject site has
13 less than 15 percent slopes. There are a few areas with slopes of 15 percent to
35 percent. These areas are characterized as Medium Landslide Hazard areas.
I4
Mr. Lee stated the City code does not require additional slope stability
15 analysis for these areas.
16 The appellant also asserted that the number and location of test pits were
17 insufficient to evaluate slope stability. Mr. Lee testified there were sufficient
numbers of test pits to gauge impacts on ground movement from groundwater
18 on site. He would have preferred to see a few more, especially in the vault
19 area. However, as Mr. Coglas testified, the City may require extra analysis
during final engineering as the design is finalized. He stated he does not
20 typically require additional geotechnical analysis at this stage of the process.
21 Mr. Lee felt the information provided was adequate to allow for a
determination of impact on the site (See Decision Attachment A, Page 24).
22
Mr. Lee's objectivity as a staff employee and his engineering expertise are
23 determinative on the slope stability issue. He clearly reviewed the
24 geotechnical reports in detail and found no need for further investigation or
additional information. The findings of the geotechnical analysis are also
25
compelling on their own and the relatively modest slopes of the project site do
26 not raise any apparent cause for concern. For these reasons, it is concluded
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 14
I that the SEPA responsible official had reasonably adequate information to
2 assess the slope stability of the project site.
3 6.Groundwater. The SEPA Responsible Official had reasonably adequate
information to assess the groundwater impacts and there are no probable
4 significant adverse groundwater impacts associated with the proposal. The
5 appellants argued there was insufficient study of the groundwater situation on
site and the potential affect groundwater might have on development. They
6 note they requested access to perform their own studies but were denied.
7 Specifically, they appellants have requested expanded soils tests, percolation
tests and more test pits and borings to measure localized hydraulic
8
conductivity. The applicant provided a geotechnical report (Exhibit 7), a peer
9 review of the geotechnical report (Exhibit K.2), a wetlands report and a
revised wetlands report (Exhibit 5), and a drainage report (Exhibit 8). The
10 wetlands reports were independently reviewed by Otak (Exhibits 14 and 15).
11 The City's Development Engineer, Mr. Lee stated the applicant had provided
a sufficient number of test pits to gauge impacts of potential groundwater on
12 site (Decision Attachment A, page 24). Given the extensive information
13 provided and the peer review, the applicant has provided information
sufficient for the SEPA Responsible Official to issue a threshold
14 determination with respect to groundwater impacts.
15
There are no anticipated adverse impacts related to the groundwater table. The
16 appellants argue groundwater saturation levels at this site make it
undevelopable. They point to the AES geotechnical report (Exhibit 7), the
17 Shultz wetlands report (Exhibit 5), the Technical Information Report by
18 Barghausen and the Otak wetlands reviews (Exhibits 14 and 15) as all
demonstrating the groundwater table is at or within seven inches of the surface
19
in all wetland areas. Groundwater near the surface is defining feature of
20 wetlands. However, the appellants argue the water table is a flat contour
throughout the project site and, as a consequence of a high water table, water
21 intrusion will disrupt or prevent proper installation of utilities, foundation
22 drains and the stormwater vault.
23 The applicant's geotechnical engineer, Ray Coglas, testified there is perched
24 groundwater on the site, rather than a flat table, a statement Mr. Lee concurred
with during testimony (Decision Attachment A, pages 22 and 25,
25 respectively). If the site had a flat water table close to the ground surface all
26 over the site; the whole site would be underwater because of the varying
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 15
I topography, which is of course not the case. He stated perched waters trapped
2 by impervious soils are limited in area and capacity and will drain away when
cuts are made to hillsides. The water AES encountered was seepage from
3 perched water rather than the actual groundwater table (Decision Attachment
4
A, page 22). Mr. Coglas referred to the AES test pits and stated they showed
no caving or seepage which would indicate weakness in the soils or significant
5 groundwater at or near the surface outside of wetland areas. He stated though
6 there will be some groundwater seepage, he does not expect the site will
require dewatering or extensive pumping. AES found no groundwater in its
7 test pits. Mr. Coglas stated even if the appellants are correct and that
8 groundwater is at zero elevation, it could be managed without damaging the
feasibility of the project. Mr. Lee also concurred with this statement.
9
Mr. Coglas noted the soils at the subject are not unique to this subject. The
10 entire subject is surrounded by existing development at a similar intensity to
11 the proposed development on similar topography and soils. There is no
indication from the record or from the site visit to suggest the utilities;
12 infrastructure or house foundations in the surrounding neighborhoods have
13 failed due to perched groundwater or a high water table. Mr. Coglas noted the
presence of groundwater will not preclude development if best management
14 practices are followed.
15
Given Mr. Lee's concurrence in the opinion of Mr. Coglas and the substantial
16 weight required of the findings of the SEPA responsible official, it is
determined that the proposal will not create any probable significant adverse17
groundwater impacts.
18
7.Downstream Impacts. The SEPA Responsible Official has information
19 reasonably sufficient to evaluate the downstream impacts of the proposal. The
20 City required a Level 1 downstream analysis. The proposed Level 2 Flow
Control (Exhibit A, page 31) will restrict the flow of the 2-year release rate to
21 50% of the pre-developed site conditions, which will help to reduce an
22 existing drainage issue. Mr. Lee stated the City is uncertain of a segment of
the pipeline that takes the water downstream of the project site and have
23 therefore requested a Level 2 downstream analysis to be performed prior to
24 building permit approval. They want to make sure the project will not
exacerbate existing downstream flooding issues. An NPDES permit will be
25 required for the project, which will stipulate the allowable discharge into the
26
conveyance system (Decision Attachment A, Page 25). The City additionally
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 16
I established a SEPA mitigating condition requiring Level 2 downstream
2
analysis for '/4 mile from the project site. All of the requirements must be met
before a building permit or construction permits are issued. With these
3 conditions in place, the City has reasonably sufficient information at this stage
4 of review to evaluate down stream impacts.
5 8.Discharge into Wetlands. The proposed discharge of roof run-off into
wetlands will not create a probable significant adverse environmental impact.
6 The detailed local, state and federal standards applicable to stormwater run-off
7 are determinative on the existence of adverse impacts. If the proposed
drainage is compliant with applicable regulations, there are no adverse
8 impacts. The appellants assert that the proposed roof run-off into wetlands is
9 in violation of the Clean Water Act. As noted by the applicant, the King
County Surface Water Drainage Manual specifically excludes drainage from
10 roofs (except untreated metal roofs) from consideration as pollution
11 generating sources (Exhibit AF). The appellants have not provided any
citation or court opinion that roof run off discharge constitutes a violation of
12 any applicable regulation and no such violation is apparent from the reading
13 of the Clean Water Act. Mr. Talkington, in his testimony for the applicant,
noted that discharge of clean or non-point source polluted stormwater into
14 wetlands is common practice and is required to hydraulically charge the
15 wetlands. Mr. Lee stated the applicant had complied with all city, state and
federal code requirements with respect to stromwater. Mr. Lee testified the
16 codes are sufficient to address all probable stormwater impacts. He further
17 noted a National Pollution Discharge and Elimination System permit will be
required for the project, which will ensure that no stormwater pollutants are
18 released into wetlands or groundwater. The permit will include background
19 and discharge monitoring. No building permit or construction permits will be
issued until the NPDES conditions are met. Since the proposed stormwater
20 discharge is consistent with all applicable regulations, is a standard practice
21 for development and also meets the approval of staff, it is determined that the
proposed discharge to wetlands will not create any probable significant
22 adverse environmental impacts.
23 9. Air Quality. No significant adverse impacts to air quality are anticipated.
24 During the construction phase of the project, there will be exhaust from trucks
and heavy equipment. However, after the construction phase is over, the
25 subdivision will function similarly to the surrounding development with
26 respect to emissions and air quality issues. The proposed development is
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 17
1 functionally the same as the existing development pattern. Nothing in the
2 record indicates there will be significant adverse impacts with respect to air
quality.
3
4
C. Other Impacts Related to the Preliminary
5
1.Wetlands. As proposed and conditioned, the proposal will not create any
significant adverse impacts to wetlands. There are five wetlands on site. Three
6 of the wetlands are Category 2; the others are Category III. The applicant
7
submitted a Wetland Determination, prepared by C. Gary Schulz, Inc.
October 30, 2013) and a revised Wetland Determination in response to
8 revisions to the plat including the use of a drainage vault, instead of a drainage
9 detention pond, and the inclusion of a vegetated buffer along portions of the
site perimeter(February 28, 2014).
10
Based on public comments (See Exhibit 10.6), staff required an evaluation by11
an independent qualified professional regarding the applicant's wetland
12 analysis and the effectiveness of any proposed mitigating measures. On April
3, 2014 an independent secondary wetland review was provided to the City by13
Otak (Exhibit A, Attachment 14). Following the completion of
14 recommendations in the Otak memo, the applicant submitted a Revised
Wetland Determination and Response (June 3, 2014) (Exhibit A, Attachment
15
5)
16
At the hearing, members of the public expressed concern regarding the1
protection of wetlands and wildlife habitat. There was specific concern
18 regarding removal of trees and wetland hydrology. During testimony, Ms.
Villa of Soundview Consultants stated she was hired by the applicant to19
perform supplementary wetland review for fish and wildlife habitat. In her
20 study, she found no state or federally listed or protected species on the site.
She noted the habitat is fairly disturbed now with evidence of a lot of human
21
intrusion. In her opinion, protection of the wetlands and habitats with proper
22 fencing and signage would result in better protection for the habitat than exists
23
currently.
24 The Otak Supplemental Independent Secondary Review concluded water
quality, wetland hydrologic function and flood storage will be protected. The
25
applicant proposes buffer averaging provisions (RMC 4-3-050(M)(6)(f)). The
26 buffer averaging plan provides additional buffer area at ratios that range from
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 18
1 1.6:1.0 to 9.5:1.0. Wetlands A, B, C, and D would have buffer areas
2 significantly greater following the buffer averaging proposal. However, staff
are concerned the proposed adjustments will not provide adequate buffering
3 on the north and east sides of Wetlands B and C to take into account the
4
proposed "lock & load walls" in those locations. The applicant will be
required to submit a Final Mitigation Plan (RMC 4-8-120(W)) demonstrating
5 appropriate mitigation for all wetlands and buffer impacts prior to permit
6
approval.
7 The applicant has requested a critical areas exemption allowing a permanent
8
buffer impact to 14sf of the Wetland E buffer. The exemption would allow the
applicant to construct the required full street improvements at SE 18th Street
9 RMC 4-6-060). This area (219sf) has already been impacted by past
infrastructure construction. Staff recommends approval of the critical areas
10
exemption with mitigation for the impact.
11
The critical areas on site have a total area of 118,494 square feet (2.72 acres)
12 and would be located in (Tracts B, G, K, & M). The applicant is proposing to
13 increase wetland buffers which would result in a total native open space used
to preserve native forest habitat of approximately 175,199 square feet (4.02
14 acres). As conditioned, no impacts to wetland habitat are anticipated.
15
Given the extensive review of wetland impacts, staff s review and approval of
16 wetland mitigation, and the applicant's compliance with all applicable wetland
regulations, it is concluded that the proposal will not create any adverse
17 impacts to wetlands.
18 2. Tree Retention Required. The proposal provides for adequate tree retention
19 because it complies with the City's tree retention standards, RMC 4-4-130(C).
The applicant submitted two versions of the preliminary plat application. The
20 first version is a 97 lot alternative that does not achieve 30% significant tree
21 retention. The second plat alternative is a 96-lot preliminary plat that achieves
30% significant tree retention and implements the applicant's Tree Protection
22 Report (Exhibit 3). Since the 96-lot alternative implements the applicant's tree
23 retention plan and is consistent with the agreed upon SEPA mitigation
measure requiring 30% retention, this is taken as the applicant's proposal and
24 is the design approved by this decision. If the applicant was still intending to
25 pursue a 97-lot design, it should request reconsideration.
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 19
I No other significant impacts are reasonably anticipated from the evidence contained within the
2
administrative record.
3 6. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate
infrastructure and public services. Preliminary adequacy of all infrastructure facilities has been
4
reviewed by the City's Public Works Department and found to be sufficient. Specific
5 infrastructure/services are addressed as follows:
6 A. Water and Sewer Service. This site is located in the City of Renton water service
7 boundary. There is an existing 8-inch water main stubbed to the site in SE 201h Court, in
SE 19th Court and SE 181h
Court. This site is located in the 590-water pressure zone.
8 Static pressure in the area ranges from 65-82 psi. The site is located in the City of Renton
9 sewer service area. There is an 8-inch sewer main in SE 181h Street.
10 B. Police and Fire Protection. Police and Fire Prevention staffs indicate that sufficient
11 resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; subject to the provision
of Code required improvements and fees. A Fire Impact Fee, based on new single family
12 lots, will be required in order to mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to City
13 emergency services. The fee is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal
Code. Currently the fee is assessed at $479.28 per single family residence. This fee is
14 paid at time of building permit issuance.
15
C. Drainage. As conditioned, the proposal provides for adequate drainage facilities. In order
16 to address concerns raised by staff, as recommended by them a condition of approval
17 requires a Level 2 downstream analysis for 1/4 mile from the project site to determine if
the proposed project would exacerbate existing downstream capacity issues. The
18 applicant submitted a Preliminary Drainage Report prepared by Barghausen, dated
19 February 24, 2014 (Exhibit 8). Staff has determined that the preliminary plan is
consistent with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of Renton
20 Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. Full compliance with the Manual will
21 be required during engineering review.
22 D. Parks/Open Space. The proposal is consistent with adopted parks and open space
23 standards and, therefore, provides for adequate parks and open space. RMC 4-2-115,
which governs open space requirements for residential development, does not have any
24 specific requirements for open space for residential development in the R-8 district.
25 However, the applicant is proposing a total of 1.26 acres of passive and active open
space, in addition to critical areas on site, for the open space needs of the subdivision.
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 20
I The applicant will also be require to pay park impact fees prior to building permit issuace
2 to ensure that the development pays its fair share of system wide park improvements.
3 E. Streets. The proposal, as conditioned, provides for adequate streets and associated
4 infrastructure. The applicant is proposing two points of ingress and egress into the plat;
SE 18th St and 124th Place SE. The primary neighborhood streets which would serve
5 project traffic include 116th Avenue SE, 126th Avenue SE, SE 1681" Street, SE Petrovitsky
6
Road, S. Puget Drive, and
108th
Avenue SE-Benson Road S. The project site is currently
served by King County Metro Route 148 with Routes 102 and 155 also operating within
7 the vicinity of the subject site. The nearest transit stop for Route 148 is located on Lake
8
Youngs Drive SE and 123`d Avenue SE.
9 Staff received comments from interested parties with respect to traffic specifically related
10 to the need for additional analysis, trip generation, lack of public transit, level of service,
sight distance, the Edmonds Avenue SE/SE 16th Street-Edmonds Way SE intersection,
II the use of speed bumps for traffic calming, stop signs, and traffic impact fees (See
12
Exhibit 10).
13 The applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by TranspoGroup,
November, 2013) as part of the original submittal. Based on public comments received,
14
staff required an evaluation by an independent qualified professional regarding the
15 applicant's transportation analysis and the effectiveness of any proposed mitigating
measures. The TIA concludes that all affected intersections will continue to operate at an
16
acceptable level of service, except the intersection of Benson Drive S/S Puget Drive,
17 which will fall to LOS E by 2018 with or without the proposed project. The addition of
AM peak hour project traffic would add approximately five seconds of average delay to18thisintersection. Staff concluded that this minor amount of delay did not justify
19 additional mitigation and the reduction in LOS will not violate the City's adopted level of
service. The applicant will be required to pay traffic impact fees prior to issuance of
20
building permits, which provides adequate mitigation against the modest traffic impacts
21 created by the proposal.
22 The TIA noted limited sight distance exists today for southbound motorists on Monroe
23 Avenue SE approaching SE 181h
Street due to the roadway geometrics and existing
obstructions (fence and on-street vehicle parking). The site distance issue was remedied
24 by an MDNS condition that requires the applicant to install a stop sign.
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 21
I Included in the Independent Secondary Review (Exhibit 13) was a recommendation for
2
sight distance analysis at the 124th Place SE and SE 158th Street intersection. The report
identifies this intersection as a possible sight distance concern. Given the provided TIA
3 does not include an analysis of the sight distance at this intersection, a SEPA mitigation
4 measure was issued requiring the applicant submit a revised TIA including an analysis of
the 124th Place SE and SE 158th Street intersection sight distance and recommend
5 appropriate mitigation if needed (Exhibit 22). Site distances at all other study
6 intersections were deemed adequate with the exception of Beacon Way SE at SE 16th
Street.
7
The vertical curve of SE 16th
Street presents a visibility concern. A crest vertical curve8
obstructs sight distance where SE 16th
Street crosses Beacon Way SE especially if car
9 speeds exceed posted speed limit signage. There are existing signs (Steep Hill, Slippery
When Wet, Advisory 15MPH Speed) at SE 16th
Street northeast of Beacon Way SE10
which help to calm existing traffic at this intersection. Approximately 60% of the
11 project's trips are anticipated to utilize this intersection. Therefore, the ERC issued a
SEPA mitigation measure requiring the applicant to install an additional warning sign for12
a CROSSROAD (W2-1 symbol) with a 15MPH advisory speed on the southwest
13 directional approach to Beacon Way SE, along the north side of SE 16th Street (east of
Beacon Way SE) (Exhibit 22). The ERC issued another SEPA mitigation condition at this
14
intersection to reduce cut thru traffic. The applicant is required to install directional
15 information signage (white letters on green background) at S. Puget Drive and
116th
Avenue SE facing west (Exhibit 22). The signs are required to read "TIFFANY PARK"
16
with a left arrow and "CASCADE" with a right arrow.
17
Several public comments requested the use of speed bumps as a traffic calming measure18
along SE 16th Street to address sight distance (including vertical), cut through traffic, and
19 spin out concerns which would be aggravated by traffic generated by the proposal. The
City does not support the use of speed bumps on public streets. Speed bumps are not
20 desired due to noise, excessive speeds between installations (so drivers can make up
21 time), and result in a reduction in response time of public safety vehicles such as fire
engines and aid cars.
22
23 Several public comments requested internal pedestrian connectivity, connections to
neighboring developments/abutting pipelines, connectivity to Tiffany Park Elementary,24
and the crossing at SE 16th St and Edmonds Way SE intersection (See Exhibit 10.22). No
25 frontage improvements are required on adjacent street frontage. The internal public
26
streets have been proposed with a right-of-way width of 53 feet which meets the City's
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 22
I complete street requirements for residential access streets. Pavement width of 26 feet, 0.5
2
foot wide curbs, 8 foot wide landscaped planters (on both sides of the street), 5 foot wide
sidewalks (on both sides of the street), drainage improvements, and street lighting are
3 required. The applicant is proposing two pedestrian connections to neighboring
4 developments and an abutting pipeline via Tracts C and E.
5 City staff evaluated the intersection of Edmonds Avenue SE/SE 16th Street-Edmonds
6 Way SE with respect to pedestrian improvements in 1996, 2005 and again in 2007 and
determined that crosswalks were not warranted at this location. The additional
7 development traffic will not exceed the threshold to warrant installation of a crosswalk at
8
this location.
9 As noted in staff testimony above, the proposal will not exceed six dwelling units per
10 acre and therefore is not required to provide alley access.
11 Several public comments dealt with construction traffic (See Exhibit 10.30). The
developer will be required to comply with the Renton Municipal Code for haul hours,12
construction hours, and noise levels. A final Traffic Control Plan complyingwith the
13 Renton Municipal Code will be required to be submitted and approved prior to
construction.
14
15 F. Parking. Sufficient area exists, on each lot, to accommodate required off street parking
16 for a minimum of two vehicles per dwelling unit as required by City code.
17 G. Schools. The Renton School District anticipates it can accommodate any additional
students generated by this proposal at the following schools: Tiffany Park Elementary180.4 miles from the subject site), Nelson Middle School (1.7 miles from the subject site)
19 and Lindberg High School (0.9 miles from the subject site). RCW 58.17.110(2) provides
that no subdivision be approved without making a written finding of adequate provisions
20 for safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from school and/or bus stops.
21 Tiffany Park Elementary and Lindberg High School are within walking distance of the
subject site while Nelson Middle School would require future students to be transported
22 to school via bus.
23
As part of the proposed project, sidewalks would be constructed along on-site roadways
24
which would connect to the existing sidewalk system providing adequate provisions for
25 safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from school and/or bus stops.
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 23
I Sidewalks would provide a route between the project site and nearby Tiffany Park
2 Elementary School, including available marked crosswalks at the Kirkland Avenue
SE/Lake Youngs Way intersection. The Kirkland Avenue SE/Lake Youngs Way
3 intersection is approximately 300 linear feet from where SE 18th St intersects Lake
4 Youngs Way. Given the number of homes proposed, it is very likely that a large influx of
students would attempt to cross Lake Youngs Way SE, at the SE 18'h Street intersection,
5 which does not currently have a marked crosswalk. In order to provide a more practical
6 safe route to Tiffany Park Elementary from the project site, a SEPA mitigation measure
was issued requiring the applicant provide a marked crosswalk at the intersection of SE
7 18`h
Street and Lake Youngs Way.
8
No current bus stops exist for this property as it is currently undeveloped. The Renton
9 School District will be making provisions for the location of bus stops for those students
10 who will be attending Nelson Middle School.
11 A School Impact Fee, based on new single-family lots, will also be required in order to
mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to Renton School District. The fee is payable to12
the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of building permit
13 application. Currently the fee is assessed at $5,455.00 per single family residence and
14 would increase to $5,541.00 on January 1, 2015.
15
V. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
16
17 1. Authority. RMC 4-7-020(C) and 4-7-050(D)(5) provide that the Hearing Examiner shall
18 hold a hearing and issue a final decision on preliminary plat applications. RMC 4-9-070(R) and
RMC 4-8-110(A)(2) grant the Examiner authority to review and make final decisions on SEPA
19 appeals.
20 2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The majority of the subject property is zoned
21 Residential 8 dwelling units per net acre (R-8). A small portion of the subject property is zoned
Residential 4 dwelling units per net acre (R-4). Only the R-8 portion of the property is proposed for
22 residential development. The comprehensive plan map land use designation is Residential Single
23 Family (RSF) and Residential Low Density (RLD).
24
SEPA APPEAL
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 24
1 3. Review Standard. There are two reasons a DNS can be overturned to overturned: (1) there are
2 unmitigated probable significant adverse environmental impacts; or (2) the SEPA responsible official
has not undertaken an adequate review of environmental factors. Each grounds for reversal will be
3 separately addressed below.
4 A. Probable Significant Adverse Environmental Impacts.
5
The primary relevant inquiry for purposes of assessing whether County staff correctly issued a DNS
6 is whether the project as proposed has a probable significant environmental impact. See WAC 197-
7
11-330(1)(b). WAC 197-I1-782 defines "probable" as follows:
8 Probable`means likely or reasonably likely to occur, as in `a reasonable probability of more
than a moderate effect on the quality of the environment' (see MVAC 197-11-794). Probable is
9 used toused likely impacts from those that merely have a possibility of occurring, but
10 are remote or speculative. This is not meant as a strict statistical probability test.
11 If such impacts are created, conditions will have to be added to the DNS to reduce impacts so there
12 are no probable significant adverse environmental impacts. In the alternative, an environmental
impact statement would be required for the project. In assessing the validity of a threshold
13 determination, the determination made by the City's SEPA responsible official shall be entitled to
substantial weight. WAC 197-11-680(3)(a)(viii). An appeal of an MDNS is judicially reviewed14
under the clearly erroneous standards. Under the clearly erroneous standard, the decision of the
15 SEPA responsible official can only be overturned if, after reviewing the entire record, the decision
maker is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. RMC 4-8-110-16 (
E)(12)(b)(v). The procedural determination by the Environmental Review Committee or City staff
17 shall carry substantial weight in any appeal proceeding. RMC 4-8-110(E)(12)(a).
18 B. Adequate Environmental Review
19
The second reason a DNS can be overturned is if the SEPA responsible official did not adequately
20 review environmental impacts in reaching his threshold determination. The SEPA responsible official
must make a prima facie showing that he has based his determination upon information reasonably21
sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal. WAC 197-11-335.
22
C. No Grounds for an EIS.
23
TPWAG has not demonstrated a need for additional SEPA mitigation, environmental review or the
24 issuance of an environmental impact statement. All of the grounds for SEPA appeal are addressed in
25 Finding of Fact No. 5. As determined in that finding, none of the impacts identified by TPWAG
26
qualify as probable significant adverse environmental impacts and TPWAG has not identified an
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 25
I impact for which the SEPA responsible official did not have sufficient information to reasonably
2
assess impacts.
3 D. Perimeter Landscaping
4 MDNS Condition No. 6 is modified to only require 10 foot perimeter landscaping along the retaining
5 walls that are over four feet in height, specifically in proximity to lots 40, 41, 46, 47, 80, 82, 83-90,
93 and 94.
6
The applicant argues that no perimeter buffering is required because the City's landscaping standards
7 do not require buffering and that those standards should be determinative in assessing the need for
8 landscaping. The applicant is correct up to a point. RCW 36.70B.030(3) and RCW 43.21C.240(2)(a)
does allow a city to use its development standards as the exclusive source of mitigation for
9 environmental impacts. However, RCW 43.21 C.240(2)(a) provides that in order to use development
10 regulations in this manner the City must make a determination in the course of permit review that the
development standards in question are adequately addressed by the development regulations. RCW
11 43.21 C.240(4) further clarifies that for development standards to be found to adequately mitigate
12 impacts, imposition of the standards must either avoid or mitigate the impacts; or the legislative body
of the city has determined that the development standard sets acceptable levels of impact.
13
Renton's landscaping standards do not adequately address all of the aesthetic impacts created by the14
proposal. As noted previously, one of the two ways that a development standard can be found to
15 adequately address impacts is if the City Council intended the standard to set acceptable levels of
impact. See RCW 43.21 C.240(4)(b).The Renton City Council expressly determined that the16
landscaping standard would not set acceptable levels of aesthetic impact, stating the purpose clause of
17 the landscaping standards that "it is not the intent of these regulations that rigid and inflexible design
18
standards be imposed, but rather that minimum standards be set."
19 The other, more difficult issue involved in ascertaining whether the landscaping standards would
adequately address aesthetic impacts is if the standards actually mitigate the impacts. Given the
20 subjectivity of aesthetic perimeter impacts, one would have to conclude that in the vast majority of
21 typical subdivisions the landscaping standards do set an adequate standard. In not imposing any
perimeter landscaping requirements between single family residential uses, the City Council must
22 have determined that for the typical subdivision, such landscaping is not necessary. However, the
23 proposed subdivision is not typical. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 6, the proposal will involve
up to 16.6 foot high retaining walls that will create a stone wall to the neighborhoods across from it,
24 which in turn can be topped with 6 foot fences. The site visit revealed that no other homes in the
25 vicinity have such retaining walls or similar edifices bordering on public roads. Consequently, the
impacts of the subdivision are not typical and likely not the type of impact the City Council
26 considered when it omitted any buffer requirements for adjoining residential uses. Additional
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 26
I mitigation through SEPA is well justified in this case to mitigate against the impact of retaining
2
walls.
3 The City's environmental report also cites that buffering is necessary to off-set the impacts of the
densities of the proposal, which are higher than adjoining densities. This does not serve as an
4 adequate justification for buffering. Setting a threshold for adverse aesthetic impacts based upon a
5 difference in density or lot sizes is a completely arbitrary action in the absence of any legislative
guidance. The difference in density between the proposal and adjoining uses is not so high that
6
reasonable minds would share the same opinion as to whether the difference is aesthetically adverse.
7 Though both the surrounding areas and the subject are zoned R-8, the developed density of the
proposal will not exceed 5.7 dwelling units per acre. Indeed, unlike the retaining walls of the project,
8 differences in residential densities are something that one would reasonably anticipate the Council
9 would have considered in adopting its landscaping standards, and it adopted no perimeter
requirements between residential zoning districts with different densities, except as between multi-
10 family and less intense residential uses. For these reasons, the comparatively higher density of the
11 proposal does not create a probable significant adverse environmental impact.
12 Another issue with respect to the SEPA's mitigation measure is to ensure that the City has adopted a
SEPA policy that requires the impact to be addressed. RCW 43.21C.060 requires that SEPA13
mitigation must be based upon policies adopted by the local government authority. Interestingly, the
14 City hasn't adopted its development standards as part of its SEPA policies, so the purpose clause of
the landscaping regulations, which promote aesthetic compatibility, can't be used. There are plenty of15
other SEPA policies that promote aesthetic compatibility.• RMC 4-2-070(M)(2)(ii)provide that one of
16 the goals of SEPA review is to assure aesthetically pleasing surroundings. The City's comprehensive
plan is another adopted SEPA policy. One of its community design goals is to "raise the aesthetic
17
quality of the city". Objective CD-M recognizes that well designed landscaping provides aesthetic
18 appeal and makes an important contribution to the health, safety, economy and general welfare of the
community. Policy CD-88 provides that street trees and landscaping should be required for new19developmenttoprovideanattractivestreetscapeinareassubjectedtoatransitionoflanduses. All of
20 these policies are served by the perimeter landscaping required by this decision, since such
landscaping will raise the aesthetic quality of the city, provide for aesthetic appeal and buffer against
21
the transition from the higher density residential development and its associated retaining walls to the
22 lower surrounding residential densities.
23 The applicants argue in their briefing that requiring perimeter landscaping would be unreasonable
24 because homes would lose yard space. In the alternative, of course, the applicant may have to lose
some lots. Given the judicial construction of"reasonable" in due process and takings cases, the loss
25 of a few lots or yard space would not be considered unreasonable.
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 27
I As a final matter, SEPA mitigation can only be used to impose mitigation against probable significant
2 adverse environmental impacts. As determined in the Finding of Fact No. 5, the solid walls created
by the higher portions of the retaining wall easily qualify. No reasonable minds could differ on the
3 opinion that high retaining walls are at odds with the general design of the community and create a
4 mass of rock or concrete wall that is aesthetically adverse. The remaining issue is how high the wall
should be to be considered adverse. Again, reference to existing codes is useful as it provides an
5 objective and consistent standard for application. Retaining walls fewer than four feet in height do
6 not require building permit review. Consequently, it can be reasonably anticipated that decorative
retaining walls under four feet may not be that uncommon, whereas property owners will only go
7 through the time and expense of building permit review for higher walls when they are necessitated
8 for stability as opposed to decorative purposes. A four feet height is also still low enough to retain the
views of surrounding trees, vistas and other natural and landscaped features. For this reason, those
9 portions of the proposal with retaining walls that exceed four feet in height shall be subject to the 15
10 foot wide perimeter landscaping requirement imposed in the MDNS.
11 E. Retaining Wall Height.
12 The six-foot retaining wall height limitation recommended by staff will not be adopted. Renton does
not have any standards imposing height limits on retaining walls outside of setback areas. There is13
nothing in the record that establishes the potential for any adverse impacts other than aesthetic, and
14 those impacts will be adequately addressed by the staff s recommended landscape perimeter.
15 The retaining wall condition presents two code interpretation issues: (1) whether the City's fence and
16 hedge regulation (RMC 10-4-040) applies to retaining walls, and (2) if RMC 10-4-040 does apply,
whether it imposes a six foot height limit on retaining walls. As to the first issue, RMC 10-4-040
17 probably does apply to retaining walls. RMC 4-4-040(A) provides that the purpose of RMC 4-4-050
18 is to regulate the material and height of"fences and hedges." "Fence" is not defined in the RMC.
However, walls are addressed throughout RMC 4-4-040. Most pertinent, RMC 4-4-040(C)(1)
19 provides in relevant part that, "In cases where a wall is used instead of a fence, height shall be
20
measured from the top surface of the wall to the ground on the high side of the wall." This sentence
strongly suggests that the wall in question can include retaining walls, since the sentence
21 acknowledges that one side of the wall can be at a higher grade than the other. Retaining walls that
22 project above the higher grade would meet this definition. The applicant argues that this reference to
wall" as well as others pertains to "European or California-style stone walls." Nothing in the
23 language of RMC 4-4-040 suggests that walls be limited to stone walls.
24
In addition to providing some clarity on the applicability of RMC 4-4-040 to retaining walls, RMC 4-
25 4-040(C)(1) also establishes that retaining walls that do not project past the higher grade have a
26
height of zero feet, which is below all the height limits set for walls by RMC 4-4-040. The sentence
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 28
I clearly states that retaining wall height is to be measured from the "high side of the wall", which
2 would be zero in the case of the retaining walls proposed by the applicant. This result makes sense in
light of the other limitation of RMC 4-4-040, that it applies only "in cases where walls are used
3 instead of a fence." If a retaining wall does not extend above the higher grade, it doesn't take the
4 place of a fence and hence is not subject to the height limit. In short, retaining walls that only serve to
retain soil, as proposed by the applicant, are not subject to the height limits of RMC 4-4-040.
5 Practically speaking, this means that RMC 4-4-040 doesn't apply to retaining walls solely used to
6 stabilize grade separations, since no other provisions in RMC 4-4-040 apply as well.
7 Since the six foot height limit is not required RMC 4-4-040, staff would have to find some other code
provision to require the fence. Plat criteria requiring conformance to the comprehensive plan, see
8 RMC 4-7-080(I)(1), include the policies addressing aesthetic impacts identified in COL No. 5.A.1.
9 As determined in Finding of Fact No.6.C, the aesthetic impacts of the retaining walls can be fully
mitigated by perimeter landscaping. Staff acknowledged as much at page 13 of the staff report.
10 Therefore, the record contains no adequate justification for a limitation on retaining wall height.
11
F. Loss of Recreational Use.
12
The appellants assert that the project site has been used as a recreational resource by the surrounding
13 community for decades and that its loss is a probable significant adverse environmental impact. The
14 loss of recreational use from the property is not an environmental impact of the proposal subject to
SEPA review and mitigation. Even if it were, that loss does not result in any violation of the City's
15 detailed park policies and regulations, compliance of which assures that development will not create
16 demand upon park facilities that exceeds legislatively adopted level of service standards.
17 As a preliminary matter, it should be noted that this decision does not address the prescriptive rights
claims made by the appellants to the project site. As ruled in Ex. AG, the Examiner has no authority18
to address the prescriptive easement claims asserted by the SEPA appellants. Practically speaking,
19 this decision will not prejudice the appellants' prescriptive rights claims if the appellants diligently
pursue those claims in superior court, the proper forum for such a claim. Should the appellants
20
actually succeed in persuading a court that the public has prescriptive rights to the public school
21 property (which appears unlikely at this juncture), they could acquire injunctive or other judicial
22
relief to prevent development of the proposal.
23 No additional SEPA review or mitigation is merited on the recreational use issue because the loss of
that use cannot be considered an impact of the proposal. In the absence of any prescriptive rights to
24 the project site, project opponents are left with the argument that the applicant should fund further
25 environmental review or provide for additional mitigation to compensate for the fact that either (1)
the applicant was benevolent enough to allow the public to use its property; or (2) the public
26 repeatedly trespassed on the applicant's property. From an equitable standpoint, such a position
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 29
1 borders on the absurd. More importantly, the applicant could prevent the public from using its
2 property at any time, with or without the proposal. For this reason, the loss of recreational use should
not be considered an impact of the proposal for purposes of environmental review.
3
Even if loss of the recreational use of the site could be legitimately considered an environmental
4 impact for purposes of SEPA, its loss would not qualify as a probable significant adverse
5 environmental impact. The City's comprehensive plan, park impact fees and open space requirements
are all designed to assure that each developer is required to provide its proportionate share
6 contribution to the park needs of the city and that the park needs of the public will be met as
7 development progresses. The applicant's proposal is consistent and compliant with all of these
requirements. In point of fact the applicant will be required to pay park impact fees at the time of
8 building permit issuance. The applicant is also providing for 1.2 acres of open space, even though no
9 open space is required for subdivisions in the R-8 zone. As would be expected, none of the City's
park policies or regulations penalizes a developer for withdrawing the ability of the public to use or
10 trespass upon its property. Since the applicant is acting fully within the requirements of the City's
11 detailed park policies and regulations, its proposal cannot be considered to create adverse impacts to
the City's (i.e. public's)parks and recreational system.
12
13 PRELIMINARY PLAT
14 6.Review Criteria. Chapter 4-7 RMC governs the criteria for preliminary review. Applicable
15 standards are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law.
16 RMC 4-7-080(B): A subdivision shall be consistent with the following principles of acceptability:
17 1. Legal Lots: Create legal building sites which comply with all provisions of the City Zoning Code.
18
2. Access: Establish access to a public roadfor each segregated parcel.
19
3. Physical Characteristics: Have suitable physical characteristics. A proposed plat may be denied20becauseofflood, inundation, or wetland conditions. Construction of protective improvements may
21 be required as a condition of approval, and such improvements shall be noted on the final plat.
22 4. Drainage: Make adequate provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water
23 supplies and sanitary wastes.
24 RMC 4-4-080(1)(7):
25 a. Benefits of Joint use driveways reduce the number of curb cuts along individual streets and
26 thereby improve safety and reduce congestion while providing for additional on-street parking
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 30
I opportunities. Joint use driveways should be encouraged when feasible and appropriate. (Ord. 4517,
2
5-8-1995)
3 b. Where Permitted: Adjoining commercial or industrial uses may utilize a joint use driveway where
such joint use driveway reduces the total number of driveways entering the street network, subject to
4 the approval of the Department of Community and Economic Development. Joint use driveways
5 must be created upon the common property line of the properties served or through the granting of a
permanent access easement when said driveway does not exist upon a common property line. Joint
6 use access to the driveway shall be assured by easement or other legal form acceptable to the City.
7
7.As to compliance with the Zoning Code, Finding I(2) of the staff report in the portions
8 related to density, lot dimensions, setbacks and building standards (Pages 12-13) are adopted by
9 reference as if set forth in full, with all associated recommended conditions of approval adopted by
this decision as well.
10
As depicted in the plat map, Staff Report Ex. 2, most of the lots will directly access a public Road
11 (Road A, SE 18th Street or 124th Place SE). As noted in Finding of Fact 6.G, shared driveways are
12 proposed for Lots 12-14, Lots 15-17, Lots 38-40 and Lots 79-81. Staff additionally suggests Lot 11
and Lots 78 take access from the shared driveway. There are no topographical or critical areas issues
13 to preclude these three lots from having shared access. The shared access would reduce the number
14 of curb cuts at the entrance of the plat at 124th Place SE and along the cul de sac at the end of the
same street. Potential vehicle and pedestrian conflicts would be lessened by consolidating driveways.
15 However, the applicant testified use of the shared driveway for Lot 11 is problematic because the
16 driveway would be at an angle to the roadway which would also change the design of the house to
allow side loading of the garage. The applicant objected to the inclusion of Lot 78 in a shared
17 driveway. There appear to be no material differences between Lots 78 and 81 in terms of orientation
18 or width. As these lots are very near to the subdivision entrance, limiting potential vehicle and
pedestrian conflicts is desirable. Though a change to the design of the house on Lot 11 is not an
19 unreasonable accommodation to allow for vehicular and pedestrian safety at the cul de sac, the
20 driveway for Lot 11 would be at an undesirable angle to the shared driveway. The cul de sac serves a
limited number of houses. In this instance, the safety effect of removing one driveway access to a cul
21 de sac does not outweigh the impact to Lot 11 caused by the creation of off kilter driveway. The
22 approval will be conditioned to require the inclusion of Lots 12-14, Lots 15-17, Lots 38-40 and Lots
78-81 in shared driveways.
23
As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5 and 6, the project is adequately designed to prevent any24
impacts to critical areas and will not cause flooding problems. As determined in Finding of Fact No.
25 6, the proposal provides for adequate public facilities.
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT- 31
I RMC 4-7-080(I)(1): ...The Hearing Examiner shall assure conformance with the general purposes
2 of the Comprehensive Plan and adopted standards...
3 8.The proposed preliminary play is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan as outlined
4
in Finding I(1) of the staff report, which is incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full.
5
RMC 4-7-120(A): No plan for the replattinK subdivision, or dedication of any areas shall be
approved by the Hearing Examiner unless the streets shown therein are connected by surfaced road
6 or street(according to City specifications) to an existing street or highway.
7 9.As shown in Staff Report Ex. 2, the internal road system connects to SE 18th Street and 124th
8 Place SE, both public roads.
9 RMC 4-7-120(B): The location of all streets shall conform to any adopted plans for streets in the
10 City.
11 10. The City's adopted street plans are not addressed in the staff report or anywhere else in the
administrative record. However, the proposed internal road system extends two existing stub roads,
12 SE 18th Street and
124th
Place SE. Both extensions will be constructed to City road standards.
13 Consequently, the criterion above is construed as satisfied by the proposal.
14 RMC 4-7-120(C): If a subdivision is located in the area of an officially designed[sic]trail,
15 provisions shall be made for reservation of the right-of-way or for easements to the City for trail
purposes.
16
11. According to the Renton Trails and Bikeways Map (Exhibit 20) a pedestrian trail is
17 designated within the Seattle Pipeline abutting the site. The applicant would be required to obtain
18 right-of-way or an access easement across the pipeline for secondary access via 124th Place SE (see
Finding 35.6, Streets). In addition, the applicant would be required to provide a safe crossing for the
19 designated trail across the extension of 124th Place SE. As a condition of approval, the applicant
20 shall submit a revised plat plan depicting a safe pedestrian crossing, across the 124th Place SE
extension, for the Seattle Waterline Pedestrian Trail.
21
RMC 4-7-130(C): A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication shall be prepared in conformance
22 with the following provisions:
23
1. Land Unsuitable for Subdivision: Land which is found to be unsuitable for subdivision includes
24 land with features likely to be harmful to the safety and general health of the future residents (such
25
as lands adversely affected by flooding, steep slopes, or rock formations). Land which the
Department or the Hearing Examiner considers inappropriate for subdivision shall not be
26 1 subdivided unless adequate safeguards are provided against these adverse conditions.
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 32
I a. Flooding/Inundation: If any portion of the land within the boundary of a preliminary plat
2 is subject to flooding or inundation, that portion of the subdivision must have the approval of
the State according to chapter 86.16 RCW before the Department and the Hearing Examiner
3 shall consider such subdivision.
4 b. Steep Slopes:A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication which would result in the
5 creation of a lot or lots that primarily have slopes forty percent (40%) or greater as
measured per RMC 4-3-050J1 a, without adequate area at lesser slopes upon which
6 development may occur, shall not be approved.
7
8
3. Land Clearing and Tree Retention: Shall comply with RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land
9 Clearing Regulations.
10
4. Streams:
11
a. Preservation: Every reasonable effort shall be made to preserve existing streams, bodies
12 of water, and wetland areas.
13
b. Method: If a stream passes through any of the subject property, a plan shall be presented
14 which indicates how the stream will be preserved. The methodologies used should include an
overflow area, and an attempt to minimize the disturbance of the natural channel and stream
15 bed.
16
c. Culverting: The piping or tunneling of water shall be discouraged and allowed only when
17 going under streets.
18
d. Clean Water: Every effort shall be made to keep all streams and bodies of water clear of
19 debris and pollutants.
20 12. The land is suitable for a subdivision. As determined in Finding of Fact 5.13, the stormwater
21 design assures that it will not contribute to flooding and all critical areas will be protected. As
determined in Finding of Fact No. 5.13, no lots with primarily 40% slopes will be created. No piping
22 or tunneling of streams is proposed. Trees will be retained as required by RMC 4-4-130 as
23 determined in Finding of Fact No. 5.A.
24 RMC 4-7-140: Approval of all subdivisions located in either single family residential or multi-
family residential zones as defined in the Zoning Code shall be contingent upon the subdivider's
25 dedication of land or providing fees in lieu of dedication to the City, all as necessary to mitigate the
26 adverse effects of development upon the existing park and recreation service levels. The
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 33
I requirements and procedures for this mitigation shall be per the City of Renton Parks Mitigation
2
Resolution.
3 13. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to building permit issuance.
See also the discussion on loss of recreational use in Conclusion of Law 3.F above.
4
5
RMC 4-7-150(A): The proposed street system shall extend and create connections between existing
streets unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. Prior to approving a street
6 system that does not extend or connect, the Reviewing Official shall find that such exception shall
meet the requirements of subsection E3 of this .Section. The roadway classifications shall be as7
defined and designated by the Department.
8
14. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 2, the proposed internal roads extend two existing stubs, SE
9 18th Street and
124th
Place SE. The internal Road A creates a loop connection between the two
10 public streets which did not exist previously.
11 RMC 4-7-150(B): All proposed street names shall be approved by the City.
12 15. As conditioned.
13
RMC 4-7-150(C): Streets intersecting with existing or proposed public highways, major or
14 secondary arterials shall be held to a minimum.
15 16. None of the proposed streets intersect with a public highway or arterial.
16
RMC 4-7-150(D): The alignment of all streets shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works
17 Department. The street standards set by RMC 4-6-060 shall apply unless otherwise approved. Street
alignment offsets of less than one hundred twentyfive feet (125) are not desirable, but may be18
approved by the Department upon a showing of need but only after provision of all necessary safety
19 measures.
20 17. As determined in Finding of Fact 6, the Public Works Department has reviewed and
21 approved the adequacy of streets, which includes compliance with applicable street standards.
22 RMC 4-7-150(E):
23 1. Grid: A grid street pattern shall be used to connect existing and new development and shall be the
24 predominant street pattern in any subdivision permitted by this Section.
25 2. Linkages: Linkages, including streets, sidewalks,pedestrian or bike paths, shall be provided
26
within and between neighborhoods when they can create a continuous and interconnected network
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 34
I of roads and pathways. Implementation of this requirement shall comply with Comprehensive Plan
2 Transportation Element Objective T-A and Policies T-9 through T-16 and Community Design
Element, Objective CD-Mand Policies CD-50 and CD-60.
3
3. Exceptions:
4
5 a. The grid pattern may be adjusted to a 'flexible grid" by reducing the number of linkages
or the alignment between roads, where the following factors are present on site:
6
7
i. Infeasible due to topographical/environmental constraints; and/or
8 ii. Substantial improvements are existing.
9 4. Connections: Prior to adoption of a complete grid street plan, reasonable connections that link
existing portions of the grid system shall be made. At a minimum, stub streets shall be required
10 within subdivisions to allow future connectivity.
11
S. Alley Access:Alley access is the preferred street pattern except for properties in the Residential
12 Low Density land use designation. The Residential Low Density land use designation includes the
RC, R-1, and R-4 zones. Prior to approval of a plat without alley access, the Reviewing Official shall13
evaluate an alley layout and determine that the use of alleys) is not feasible...
14
15
6. Alternative Configurations: Offset or loop roads are the preferred alternative configurations.
7. Cul-de-Sac Streets: Cul-de-sac streets may only be permitted by the Reviewing Official where due16
to demonstrable physical constraints no future connection to a larger street pattern is physically
17 possible.
18 18. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 2, the proposed street system contributes to the grid system by
19 creating loop access which did not previously exist. Both of the intersecting public streets are
currently stub roads. Alley access is not required because the proposed density does not meet the 6
20 dwelling unit/acre threshold. The internal roads are looped as encouraged by the criterion above.
21 The cul de sacs proposed cannot be extended to connect the road network because of the presence of
two pipeline easements. The criterion is met.
22
RMC 4-7-150(F): All adjacent rights-of-way and new rights-of-way dedicated as part of the plat,23
includingstreets, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their full width and theygf pavement and
24 sidewalks shall be constructed as specified in the street standards or deferred by the
25
Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee.
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 35
1 19. As proposed all roads will meet City street profile standards for road with and frontage
2
improvements.
3 RMC 4-7-150(G): Streets that may be extended in the event offuture adjacent platting shall be
required to be dedicated to the plat boundary line. Extensions of greater depth than an average lot
4 shall be improved with temporary turnarounds. Dedication of a full-width boundary street shall be
5 required in certain instances to facilitate future development.
6 20. As shown in Ex. 2 to the Staff Report, the proposed roads may not be extended due to the
7
presence of pipeline easements. The subject is surrounded on all sides by existing residential
development.
8
RMC 4-7-170(A): Insofar as practical, side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial
9 to curved street lines.
10
21. As depicted in Staff Report Ex. 2, the side lines are in conformance with the requirement
11 quoted above.
12 RMC 4-7-170(B): Each lot must have access to a public street or road. Access may be by private
13 access easement street per the requirements of the street standards.
14 22. As previously determined and conditioned, each lot has access to a public street.
15 RMC 4-7-170(C): The size, shape, and orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area and width
16 requirements of the applicable zoning classification and shall be appropriate for the type of
development and use contemplated. Further subdivision of lots within a plat approved through the
17 provisions of this Chapter must be consistent with the then-current applicable maximum density
18 requirement as measured within the plat as a whole.
19 23. As previously determined and as conditioned, the proposed lots comply with the zoning
20 standards of the R-8 zone, which includes area, width and density.
21 RMC 4-7-170(D): Width between side lot lines at their foremost points (i.e., the points where the
side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way line) shall not be less than eighty percent(80%) of
22 the required lot width except in the cases of(1)pipestem lots, which shall have a minimum width of
23 twenty feet (20) and(2) lots on a street curve or the turning circle of cul-de-sac (radial lots), which
shall be a minimum of thirty five feet(35).
24
24. The applicant has proposed several lots including Lots 14, 15 and 38 which do not meet the
25 minimum frontage width requirement. As discussed below in Conclusion of Law 27, each of these
26 lots must be eliminated or revised to meet the minimum frontage width requirements. Or, as
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 36
I discussed in Conclusion of Law 5 above, the applicant may also submit an alternative plat plan
2 which includes a combination of all lots fronting onto a public street meeting minimum lot widths
and those portions of the lots now proposed for shared driveway/access easements.
3
RMC 4-7-170(E): No residentially zoned lot shall have a depth-to-width ratio greater than four-to-
4 one (4:1).
5
25. As conditioned, all pipestem lots will be eliminated or revised to meet minimum lot width
6 requirements which will bring all of the lots into compliance with this criterion.
7 RMC 4-7-170(F): All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys,
8 shall have minimum radius offifteen feet (15).
9 26. As proposed all lots meet this criterion.
10 RMC 4-7-170(G): Pipestem lots may be permittedfor new plats to achieve the minimum density
11 within the Zoning Code when there is no other feasible alternative to achieving the minimum density.
12 Minimum Lot Size and Pipestem Width and Lente The pipestem shall not exceed one hundred fifty
13
feet (150) in length and not be less than twenty feet (20) in width. The portion of the lot narrower
than eighty percent(80%) of the minimum permitted width shall not be used for lot area calculations
14 or for the measurement of requiredfront yard setbacks. Land area included in private access
15
easements shall not be included in lot area calculations. Pipestem lots shall not abut one another.
16 27• The proposal exceeds the minimum density of 4.0 dwelling units per acre by 1.7 dwelling
units per acre and therefore pipestem lots are prohibited. The applicant has proposed several
17 pipestem lots including Lots 12, 14, 15, 17, 38, 40 and 79. As a condition of approval, each of these
18 lots must be eliminated or revised to meet the minimum frontage width requirements. As an
alternative, the applicant may also submit an alternative plat plan which includes a combination of
19 all lots fronting onto a public street meeting minimum lot widths and those portions of the lots now
20 proposed for shared driveway/access easements as discussed above in Conclusion of Law 5.
21 RMC 4-7-190(A): Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as
22
specified by the Department.
23
28. As conditioned.
24 RMC 4-7-190(B): Due regard shall be shown to all natural features such as large trees,
watercourses, and similar community assets. Such natural features should be preserved, thereby
25
adding attractiveness and value to the property.
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 37
1 29. Trees will be retained as required by City code as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5. There
2 are no other natural features that need preservation as contemplated in the criterion quoted above.
3 RMC 4-7-200(A): Unless septic tanks are specifically approved by the Public Works Department
and the King County Health Department, sanitary sewers shall be provided by the developer at no
4 cost to the City and designed in accordance with City standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed
5 eight feet (8) into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision
development.
6
7
30. As conditioned.
8 RMC 4-7-200(B): An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage of all
surface water. Cross drains shall be provided to accommodate all natural water flow and shall be of
9 sufficient length to permit full-width roadway and required slopes. The drainage system shall be
10 designed per the requirements of RMC 4-6-030, Drainage (Surface Water) Standards. The drainage
system shall include detention capacity for the new street areas. Residential plats shall also include
11 detention capacity for future development of the lots. Water quality features shall also be designed to
12 provide capacity for the new street paving for the plat.
13 33. The proposal provides for adequate drainage that is in conformance with applicable City
drainage standards as determined in Findings of Fact No. 5 and 6. The City's stormwater standards,14
which are incorporated into the technical information report and will be further implemented during
15 civil plan review, ensure compliance with all of the standards in the criterion quoted above.
16 RMC 4-7-200(C): The water distribution system including the locations offire hydrants shall be
17 designed and installed in accordance with City standards as defined by the Department and Fire
Department requirements.
18
19
31. Compliance with City water system design standards is assured during final plat review.
20 RMC 4-7-200(D): All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any
utilities installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the
21 planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all
22 service connections, as approved by the Department. Such installation shall be completed and
approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may be required for the
23 maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department.
24 32. All utilities including the stormwater vault are proposed to be placed underground. As
25 conditioned, utility installation will be inspected and approved prior to paving of surface materials
above the utilities.
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 38
I RMC 4-7-200(E): Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic
2 utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line
by subdivider as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley
3 improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The cost of
4 trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore required to
bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land owner. The subdivider
5 shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit ends shall be elbowed to
6 final ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to
the subdivider and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed.
7
33. As conditioned.
8
RMC 4-7-210:
9
10 A. MONUMENTS:
11 Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling corner of
the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the Department. All surveys12
shall be per the City of Renton surveying standards.
13
B. SUR VEY-
14
15 All other lot corners shall be marked per the City surveying standards.
16 C. STREET SIGNS:
17 The subdivider shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision.
18 34. As conditioned.
19
20
VI. DECISION
21 The proposed 96-lot preliminary plat as depicted in Ex. 33 to the staff report, and critical area
exemption as described in the findings of this decision, are approved subject to the following
22 conditions:
23
24
3 All references to the plat map in this decision in the findings and conclusions have been to Exhibit 2 of the staff
25 report. Those references are accurate. However, the plat approved by this decision is depicted in Exhibit 3 of the
staff report,which is the 96 lot subdivision as opposed to the 97 lot subdivision.
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 39
1 1. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination
2 of Non-Significance Mitigated, dated September 22, 2014 except as modified below:
3 a. MDNS Condition 1 shall be revised as follows:
4
All earthwork performed, implemented by the applicant, shall be consistent with the
5 recommendations of the geotechnical report, prepared by Associated Earth Sciences,
Inc., dated September 28, 2012 or consistent with the recommendations of the final
6
City-approved geotechnical report.
7
8
b. MDNS Condition 6 shall be stricken and replaced with the following:
9 The applicant shall revise its landscaping plan to provide for a 10 foot wide on-site
landscape strip for all lots and a 10 foot wide, site obscuring perimeter landscaping
10 adjacent to areas where the retaining walls are four or more feet in height, specifically
11 in the perimeter areas close to Lots 40, 41, 46, 47, 80, 82, 83-90, 93 and 94.
Landscaping at maturity must exceed the height of the adjacent retaining wall. The
12 final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current
13 Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. Such landscaping
shall include a mixture of trees, shrubs, and groundcover as approved by the
14 Department of Community and Economic Development.
15
2. The applicant shall be required to demonstrate compliance with the minimum 50-foot lot
16 width requirement for all lots with less than 50 feet in width at the foremost points (where the
17 side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way line) pursuant to RMC 4-11-120. The
average distance between the side lines connecting front and rear lot lines shall be submitted
18 to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval.
19
3. The applicant shall be required to submit a revised plat plan and landscaping plan depicting
20 curb bulb-outs where on-street parking is located. The revised plat and landscaping plans
21 shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to
construction permit approval.
22
4. The applicant shall be required to submit a revised plat and landscaping plan, which are23
elements of the City's required construction plan set, depicting curb bulbouts at street
24 intersections where on-street parking is located or calling for no curb bulbouts and
installation of "no parking" designations where street parking is prohibited at street25
intersections. The revised plat and landscaping plan shall be submitted to and approved by
26 the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval.
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 40
1 5. The applicant shall eliminate individual access directly from internal public streets for those
2 lots abutting private streets and/or shared driveway access easements, specifically Lots 12-
14, Lots 15-17, Lots 38-40 and Lots 78-81 in shared driveways. Said lots shall be required to
3 take access from the abutting private street and/or access easement and shall not exceed
4 access thresholds pursuant to RMC 4-6-0603 and K. Lot 11 may access the public street
directly. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning
5 Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. Furthermore, the access restriction for
6 such lots is required to be noted on the face of the Final Plat prior to recording.
7 6. The applicant shall revise the proposed mitigation plan to depict all retaining walls on site,
including lock & load walls on the north and east sides of Wetlands B and C. The applicant
8
shall also identify if proposed walls are anticipated to impact critical area buffers and provide
9 appropriate mitigation for such impacts. A Final Mitigation Plan, pursuant to RMC 4-8-
120.W, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior10
to construction permit approval.
11
7. The temporary buffer impacts consisting of minor intrusions or disturbance from
12
construction activities shall be restored with appropriate grading, soil amendments, and the
13 planting of native species to the satisfaction of the Current Planning Project Manager. The
revised mitigation plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project
14 Manager prior to construction permit approval.
15
8. The existing wetland mitigation plan already assures that 1,331 square feet of additional
16 wetland buffer area is being provided to mitigate for both existing buffer impacts to Wetland
17 E that are not associated with the Plat, as well as the loss of 14 square feet of the Wetland E
buffer which loss is associated with the extension of SE 18`h Street. To provide an additional
18 offset for the impacts resulting from the requested exemption associated with the fill of 14
19 square feet of buffer to extend SE 18th Street. The applicant has agreed to provide and shall
provide enhancement to the Wetland `E' buffer immediately abutting SE 18"' Street, as well
20 as enhanced plantings adjoining that buffer area within Tract M. A revised mitigation plan
21 shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to
construction permit approval.
22
23
9. The applicant shall be required to establish a Native Growth Protection Easement over those
parts of the site encompassing wetlands and their associated buffers and place fencing and
24 signage along the outer buffer edge prior to Final Plat approval.
25
10. The applicant shall be required to submit a fill source statement, if fill materials are brought
26 to the site, in order to the City to ensure only clean fill is imported prior to construction.
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 41
I 11. The applicant shall provide a final Tree Retention Plan, complying with the 30% tree
2 retention SEPA mitigation measure while demonstrating proposed retaining walls would not
impact trees proposed for retention. The Final Tree Retention Plan shall be submitted to, and
3 approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval.
4
12. The applicant shall submit a revised plat plan, which is an element of the City's required
5 construction plan set, depicting a safe pedestrian crossing, across the 124th Place SE
extension, for the Seattle Waterline Pedestrian Trail. The revised plat plan, as part of the6
construction plan set, shall be submitted to, and approved by the Current Planning Project
7 Manager, Community Services Department, and the Transportation Department prior to
8
construction permit approval.
9 13. The applicant shall be required to obtain right-of-way or a public access easement through
the Cedar River Pipeline, for the extension of 124th Place SE, to the satisfaction of the Plan
10 Reviewer prior to construction permit approval.
11
14. Pedestrian lighting shall be depicted on the lighting plan at the entrances of Tracts C and E
12 from the proposed right-of-way). The lighting plan shall be submitted to, and approved by,
13 the Current Planning Project Manager and the Plan Reviewer prior to construction permit
approval.
14
15 15. The Preliminary Plat plan shall be revised so that no more than 4 lots may gain access via a
shared driveway and that at least one such lot shall meet minimum lot width requirements
16 along a street frontage pursuant to RMC 4-7-170.D (a minimum of 80% of the required lot
17 width/40 feet or 35 feet along a street curve). The lot(s) which provides physical frontage
along the street shall only be allowed vehicular access from the shared private driveway. In
18 order to provide shared access, Lots 14, 17 and 38 shall be widened to 35 feet and take
19 primary access from the shared driveway. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to and
approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval.
20
21 16. The plat plan shall be revised so that all lots have no less than a 40-foot lot width where side
lot lines intersect with the street right of way or for radial lots be a minimum of 35 feet in
22 width. Specifically, proposed Lots 14, 17, and 38 would be required to be widened to 35 feet
23 in order to comply with the condition. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to and
approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval.
24
17. The applicant shall submit a revised plat plan depicting the elimination of all pipestem lots25
lots which are less than 40 feet in width where the side lot lines intersect with the street
26 right-of-way or for radial lots are less than 35 feet) within the subdivision. Specifically,
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 42
I proposed Lots 12, 14, 15, 17, 38, 40, and 79 would be required to be eliminated or revised to
2 meet minimum frontage width requirements. The applicant may also submit an alternative
plat plan which includes a combination of all lots fronting onto a public street meeting
3 minimum lot widths and those portions of the lots now proposed for shared driveway/access
4 easements could be placed in Shared Driveway Tracts with easements placed over them
pursuant to RMC 4-6-060, Street Standards. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to and
5 approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval.
6
18. Any proposal to convert the Stormwater vault within Tract A to a Stormwater detention pond
7 be considered a Major Plat Amendment subject to the requirements outlined under RMC 4-7-
080M.2.
8
9 19. The applicant shall be required to create a homeowners' association and maintenance
agreement(s) for the shared utilities, landscape areas and maintenance and responsibilities for
10
all shared improvements of this development. A draft of the document(s) shall be submitted
11 to Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval by the City Attorney and
12
Property Services section prior to the recording of the final plat.
13 20. The applicant shall submit the results of the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment to the
City for review. Appropriate mitigation, if any, shall be completed prior to issuance of
14 building permits.
15 21. All road names shall be approved by the City.
16 22. Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the
17 Department.
18 23. Sanitary sewers shall be provided by the developer at no cost to the City and designed in
accordance with City standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet (8') into each lot
19 if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision development.
20 24. Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities are
21 installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line.
22 25. Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling
corner of the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the
23 Department. All surveys shall be per the City of Renton surveying standards. All other lot
corners shall be marked per the City surveying standards. The subdivider shall install all24
street name signs necessary in the subdivision.
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 43
1 DATED this 81h day of January, 2015.
2
M &6166 hs
4 City of Renton Hearing Examiner
5
6
APPEAL RIGHTS AND VALUATION NOTICES
7
8 RMC 4-8-080 provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to the
9 Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(14) requires appeals of the hearing examiner's decision to
be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision. A
10 request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal
11 Period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(13) and RMC 4-8-100(G)(9). A new fourteen (14) day
appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information
12 regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall — 7th
13 floor, (425) 430-6510.
14 Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
15
notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 44
ATTACHMENT A
The Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeals
LUA13-001572,ECF, PP, CAE)
TESTIMONY SUMMARY
SEPA Appeal#1 —Applicants
Applicant Testimony
Ms. Nancy Rogers, applicant's Attorney, stated the applicant had filed an appeal to the City's SEPA
MDNS based on three issues. They felt the geotechnical report should be updated to reference the
current geotechnical report. They have issues with Conditions #3 and#6. They believe it's better for
the project and environment to have Henley comply with a tree protection plan and have Henley's
arborist work with the City's arborist to assure that as many trees as possible are preserved. They
requested amendments to Condition 3. In addition, Condition 6 was imposed in the MDNS. It would
impose a 15-50 foot perimeter buffer around the entire site. This is overreaching and unduly
burdensome. The applicant is going above and beyond to provide buffering, which is not necessary
because they are proposing single family uses next to single family uses. There are two rights of
ways along substantial portions of the borders, the Mercer Island Water Pipeline and the Cedar River
Water Pipeline. One is 60 feet wide; the other is 100 feet wide. There is already substantial buffering
between existing uses and the project site.
They have an analysis responding to the City staff SEPA analysis filed last Friday (Exhibit K11).
Ms. Rogers summarized this analysis. They appealed Condition #1. Staff felt that Condition #1
would be acceptable if they amended the condition to include compliance with the revised
geotechnical report. The applicant agrees.
With respect the appeal to Conditions #3 for tree preservation and #6 for the proposed perimeter
buffer, mitigation conditions under SEPA are subject to state and federal law, statutory and case law
that establish a nexus of rough proportionality. That nexus is required to be shown by the City prior
to imposition of these mitigation conditions. Case law dealing with the imposition of buffers had
held that buffers need to be imposed when two very dissimilar uses are proposed adjacent to each
other. That is not the case here.
With respect to Condition #3, the scope of that condition has morphed from the SEPA MDNS to the
staff's current opinion. The applicant appealed this condition to require compliance with the
applicant's tree protection plan rather than the more general requirement that they comply with
relevant City codes. Staff is requiring 30% retention of trees rather than the Code requirement that
allows for replacement of trees through mitigation (RMC 4-4-130(H)(1)(e)). The condition is
overreaching and overly burdensome. The City has failed to identify an adverse significant
environmental impact related to tree preservation in the applicant's proposal. They are intending to
preserve 30% of the trees. The developer needs to be able to replace trees that might be inadvertently
damaged during construction rather than complying to a hard set retention percentage. They aren't
intending to clear cut. They plan to protect the 30% of the trees. A few extra might come down
through inadvertent damage. If so, those will be properly mitigated.
With respect to Condition#6, the perimeter buffer, as stated in the original MDNS condition it was a
minimum 15 foot buffer" which became 15-50 feet in width around the entire perimeter. There is
no significant environmental impact here and the City is not entitled to impose mitigation here.
There is no legal authority or justification by the City to require Henley to protect one use from
another when the use is the same. The neighboring property owners could plant trees in their own
yards.
As designed by Henley, the project already minimizes visual impact to neighboring uses in ways that
are not required by the code. The code does not impose a perimeter buffer of any sort on a single
family project like this. The majority of this site includes a perimeter buffer of 10-15 feet. There is
more on critical areas tracts. The average buffer width is 55 feet. In addition, they have the two
pipeline rights of ways, which are 60 feet and 100 feet wide. Adding in the pipelines, the average
buffer goes up to 100 feet between homes from this project and adjacent homes. This is well outside
of rough proportionality.
Mr. Barry Talkington is a civil engineer with Barghausen Consulting Engineers. Mr. Talkington
described his education and qualifications. He prepares designs and layouts for single family
projects. He designs roads, infrastructure, storm ponds, etc. He's prepared about 50 preliminary
plats. It is typical for him to design a preliminary plat and then start into more detailed engineering
design. They have prepared preliminary and final grading plans. Ms. Rogers presented Exhibit A-11,
the ultimate plat layout. Mr. Talkington described the exhibit, the 96-lot version of the plat. There
was an earlier version with more lots but they removed one to meet the 30% tree retention
requirement. They eliminated Lot 1 from the original submittal.
In response to Ms. Rogers, Mr. Talkington described the various perimeter buffers, ranging
including 50 feet in Tracts B and M and near Lots 13 and 14, the buffer is 15 foot wide. They have a
10 foot buffer that increase to nearly 80 feet by Lot 19 by the Mercer Island Pipeline. The minimum
proposed buffer is 10 feet. By Tract G, the buffer is 100 feet. The Mercer Island Pipeline is 60 feet
wide. The minimum setback along this area is 70 feet. Some lots do touch the property boundary,
though that is adjacent to the 100 foot wide Cedar River Pipeline. There is additional greenspace in
Tract H, G and J. In some places the buffer goes from 15 feet to 200 feet. The average buffer width
is approximately 50 feet. With the pipeline areas, the average buffer width is over 100 feet. Only six
lots touch the perimeter of the property, all along the Cedar River Pipeline. In his opinion, the
project does not result in a significant adverse aesthetic impact to the neighbors.
With respect to retaining walls, Mr. Talkington stated retaining walls are not purely cosmetic,
though they can be. The purpose is to shorten the distance needed for a grade transition. There is
grading involved in nearly all projects in the Pacific Northwest. Grading is accomplished via slopes
or retaining walls. To create a hypothetical lot, either grade more land or build a wall along the edge
and grade less. Lots with significant trees were designed with retaining walls to retain more trees. A
building permit is required for a wall of 4 feet high or greater. Mr. Talkington has prepared building
permit applications for this project and the associated grading plans which will be submitted today.
Ms. Rogers asked about Exhibit K6, related to the grading plans. Ms. Rocale Timmons asked if this
was the Erosion Control plan set. Mr. Talkington confirmed it is.
In response to Ms. Rogers, for Lots 18-21, Mr. Talkington stated the retaining walls would be
rockeries. The lot grade is below the existing grade. He noted the top and bottom of the wall
elevations. For example, Lot 19's wall is 4.5 feet. A cut wall is for when a retaining wall is retaining
the existing grade when the pad grade is below the existing grade. For a pad above the existing
grade, they would use a fill wall. These walls are constructed differently. Fill walls require extra
stabilization. In every place where there is a cut wall, the face of the wall will be to the interior of the
project. For the fill walls, the face is to the exterior of the project. Mr. Talkington addressed the staff
Report (Page 13) concern about the height and visibility of walls along the Cedar River Pipeline.
The wall at Tract A will be visible, though there will be landscaping planted between the walls and
the perimeter. For Lots 79 and 81 (Exhibit K6a, Lots 80 and 82), there is a cut rockery wall. This
wall will not be visible from outside the project. For Lot 40, there is a retaining wall. It is 4-6 feet to
prop up the access drive. This will be visible. There's another wall at 7.5 feet. Lots 45 and 46 have a
fill wall at 16 feet tall. In response to the staff Report, Mr. Talkington reviewed the heights of the
walls. They prepared an alternative design to reduce the heights of the walls. The wall will now be 6
feet tall (Exhibit K6b, the revised grading plan for Lots 44-47). The portion of Lot 46 that borders
the Cedar River Pipeline has a 2 foot wall. The wall at Lot 47 is 1.7 feet to 6 feet tall. Henley will be
willing to agree to a Plat Condition that will call for the walls to be the revised height.
Ms. Timmons asked about the relevancy of this line of questioning to the SEPA Appeal, specifically
Conditions #3 and #6. Ms. Rogers stated she understood the staff's buffer requirements to screen the
adjacent neighbors from the development, including the impact of retaining walls. Ms. Timmons
agreed to relevance.
Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Talkington to speak to the walls along Road A near Tract K. Mr. Talkington
referred to this wall as a fill wall. There is an open space tract, Wetlands B and C, which will
provide a screen for the wall. Focusing on this part of the plat, Mr. Talkington stated there was no
significant adverse environmental impact with respect to the aesthetics.
Ms. Rogers addressed staff Report (page 21) regarding retaining walls. She stated the staff felt those
retaining walls would interfere with tree retention. She asked, in general, does designing a site to
include retaining walls help or hinder tree preservation. Mr. Talkington responded it can help by
reducing grading requirements along the perimeter of the site and protect trees. When he designs a
plat, the cost of construction is considered. Retaining wall construction is more expensive than
grading. They were directed to save trees, which meant construction of retaining walls. Ms. Rogers
asked who Mr. Talkington turned to when he needed to determine the effects of his design for
retaining walls on tree preservation. Mr. Talkington said that's a question for the arborist.
Ms. Timmons asked Mr. Talkington to describe his thought process on providing the buffers he
provided and their merit. Mr. Talkington stated it started with the road network. They had two
locations to tie into for an internal road. In creating the road corridors, they tried to lay out lots that
would be evenly distributed on both sides of the road. They looked to use the property most
efficiently for the lot layout with respect to the grading. They tried to reduce the overall grading.
Ms. Timmons asked if Mr. Talkington saw merit in providing a perimeter buffer. Mr. Talkington
stated he didn't show as many buffers initially. They initially looked to retain trees in larger pockets
in other areas. As the project evolved to its current configuration, they considered saving trees as
part of the buffer.
Ms. Timmons asked as a practical matter, how would a 15 foot buffer affect plat design? Mr.
Talkington stated that he had considered it. There are many alternative scenarios. They looked at
how the buffer would impact their original design. There was a significant change in lot yield. Ms.
Timmons asked if Mr. Talkington considered aesthetics in his design. He stated he did because he
wanted the project outcome to be pleasing.
Mr. Steve Lee, Renton Development Engineering Manager, stated typically the City doesn't see as
much of a concise grading plan proposed for preliminary plat. He is glad Mr. Talkington prepared
one. He asked Mr. Talkington to describe the setback from the walls. Mr. Talkington stated that is a
question for the geotechnical engineer, however there is no need for a setback from the geo-grid.
Mr. Lee asked if construction of the geo-grid caused excavation in to natural areas. Mr. Talkington
stated it did. Also, cut walls will require a wall drain behind them. Mr. Lee asked if the walls would
need to be setback into the lots in order to reduce the impact on the natural areas. Mr. Talkington
said they design the walls to be entirely on the subject lot and not within the open space.
Mr. Lee asked if a tree is located near a drainage wall, would the tree be impacted. Mr. Talkington
stated he didn't know.
Mr. Galen Wright, of Washington Forestry Consultants, is an arborist. Mr. Wright described his
education and qualifications. He has owned his company for 21 years. Their focus is on urban
forestry consulting. He personally has 35 years of experience. He's worked on 1,400 similar projects
of many scales since 1994. He stated in general, his tree protection plans are accurate. The trees he
has designated for protection are saved. Though, occasionally, they will find an edge tree that
doesn't look as good after the project and before. In that case, they mitigate the tree. The tree
protection plan exhibits are Exhibit A4 (June) and Exhibit Al2 (August). The August plan is tied to
the most recent layout.
Ms. Rogers noted the report concludes this is a "well treed site". By that, Mr. Wright stated means
he was able to save two or three clusters to break up the clear cut look. If they supplement with lot
trees and street trees, in 10 years the property will be well treed. There is a nice low brush
community on the site that improves the buffer capacity of the vegetation. The wetlands on site are
also well treed.
Ms. Rogers stated the 30% tree retention requirement translates to preserving 188 on-site trees. The
August tree retention plan proposes to save 181 trees and relocate others. Mr. Wright stated his
understanding of the Renton code with respect to construction damage means the tree can be
replaced at a ratio of 2:1. He stated he is familiar with SEPA staff Condition #3. He said his
understating of the requirement was not to mandate a hard 30% requirement without field judgment.
The code allows them to save trees but mitigate those that can't be saved.
Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Wright how many trees would be saved. Mr. Wright replied well in excess of
188 trees would be saved. They have re-analyzed the edges and found there were more trees than
they had earlier expected before a more formal survey was undertaken.
Mr. Wright discussed the relationship between retaining walls and trees. He stated he had the
grading plan in hand when he did his follow up evaluation. They had been very hard on the edge
trees initially. Later, he was able to perform a tree by tree analysis with the grading plan in hand.
Trees respond very differently to walls based on where the majority of their roots are growing. He
did a tree by tree analysis to determine how much, if any, intrusion could be done to a tree's root
protection zone. This is usually a later stage analysis. He's very confident in his current estimation of
the number of tree that will be viably preserved. He knows exactly which trees will be impacted, and
how for each edge tree.
Mr. Wright said the next step is to have a pre-construction meeting. They always ask to be included
in that conference. At that time the clearing limits are staked. He walks those boundaries. If there is
anything different from current knowledge, then they will make field adjustments. They mapped
tons to trees. Sometimes, they'll find the survey and field location don't quite match. They adjust
clearing limits during the field observation. They'll remove hazardous trees if they find them. After
that, they put up tree protection fences. If anything changes during construction, then Mr. Wright
asks to be included in the decision of how to treat the trees.
Ms. Rogers asked if this process is described in the tree protection plan. Mr. Wright said it is. He
stated he has no doubt this project will retain more than 30% of trees even accounting for field
adjustments for hazardous trees or others that can't or shouldn't be saved.
Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Wright about the perimeter buffer. She said the City is concerned about a 50%
sight obscuring buffer. She asked about the 10 foot buffer specifically. Mr. Wright stated he
understood the buffer and the tree retention within the buffer. He stated he also is familiar with
Henley's plan to provide 6 foot fences along the backyards. With the 10 foot buffer and fences, the
50% screening requirement will be met. New trees can also be planted in any gaps. In his opinion, a
15 foot buffer would add a few more trees, but not a huge amount. Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Wright
thought there was a significant adverse environmental impact from the project. The City Attorney
objected. The Examiner stated the question limited to aesthetic impacts is allowed. Mr. Wright stated
the 6 foot fence is sight obscuring. There are trees everywhere but the stormwater facility and a few
in the pipelines. There are several layers of buffering. There will be places where you can see new
houses better than others, but there will be a fence and trees. Within a few years trees will fill the
gaps.
Ms. Rocale Timmons asked Mr. Wright if he knew how many trees exist on the site. He stated there
were 1,305 trees on-site. This is a contiguous canopy cover. The canopy is viewed by surrounding
property owners. They are proposing to keep 181 trees plus the trees in the critical areas and buffers.
There are 626 significant trees in the buildable areas. There are many other poor quality trees. They
will remove over 400 significant trees. Ms. Timmons asked how the removal of so many trees would
impact the surrounding property owners. Mr. Wright said it's aesthetic. There is no other impact.
Ms. Timmons asked about the revised tree retention plan. She asked if the new plan is approvable as
is. Mr. Wright stated it was and they will exceed the minimum 30% requirement. He stated it is a
valuable contribution to the environment.
In response to Ms. Timmons, he stated an adequate width for a natural vegetated buffer depends on
the type of trees, the age of the trees and the how they are growing. There are places on site where
the screen is dense and others that are thinner. They didn't map alders and cottonwoods. They didn't
include those in the survey. Ms. Timmons asked what buffer width is necessary to provide screening
in a natural vegetated state. Mr. Wright stated it depends on site conditions. Mr. Wright stated if they
plant in a 10 foot buffer with a double staggered row of conifers, it will create a very dense screen in
10 years. A 15 foot buffer is not adequate to add a third row that would require about 30 feet of
buffer.
City Testimony
Rocale Timmons addressed the applicant's testimony with respect to Conditions #3 and #6. The
City's mitigation measure is not intended to preclude replacement of trees damaged during
construction. The applicant is citing the wrong code. Condition#3 is solely designed to require a tree
retention plan. The applicant has provided a plan that does not meet the requirement. It is not
detailed enough to be used during construction. Staff analysis (Exhibit N) goes through the
significant adverse impact of removing such a large tree canopy. The staff feels the MDNS condition
defines a significant impact and provides appropriate mitigation.
With respect to Condition #6, Ms. Timmons stated staff has demonstrated a significant impact to
surrounding property owners with respect to aesthetics. Staff feels the mitigation measure adequately
addresses these impacts.
Mr. Terry Flatley, City of Renton Urban Forestry and Natural Resources Manager, described his
education and qualifications. He has reviewed at least 50 tree retention plans for the City. Mr.
Flatley stated he had not visited the site personally. It is a fully timbered site with 100% canopy
cover. He described the site as a large woodland area in the middle of the City in the middle of a
subdivision. This is a rare site. He believes it is necessary to protect the tree canopy. The City tries to
retain as much canopy as possible. lie believes the appropriate amount of trees to protect is a
minimum 30%.
In response to Ms. Timmons, Mr. Flatley stated a 10 foot buffer is adequate to support a natural
vegetated perimeter, depending on the type of vegetation. This strip will retain smaller vegetation,
but not large mature trees. He provided a recommendation for a perimeter buffer of 35 to 100 feet.
To his knowledge, the City requested a 15 foot buffer. In terms of accommodating trees, there are
some extra trees being protected. Five feet is a very minor increment. It would allow for more
planting. Mr. Flatley stated he felt a buffer is needed along the southern perimeter because buffers
are to moderate climate and obscure sites from view. It's an aesthetic issue for trail users and
adjacent neighbors. The buffer would provide privacy.
Mr. Flatley stated without an adequate screen there would be significant adverse aesthetic impacts to
trail users and neighbors. A 15 foot buffer would reduce the impacts.
In response to the Examiner, Mr. Flatley stated the difference between a 10 foot and a 15 foot buffer
is not significant in terms of mitigating impacts.
Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Flatley had reviewed the revised tree protection plan for the project. He
stated he had reviewed Exhibit 11 today but his review is based on the 2013 version. Ms. Rogers
asked if it was possible Mr. Wright's tree retention plan would assure protection of 30% of the trees
on the site. Mr. Flatley stated with oversight it is possible. Ms. Rogers asked if he provided that
oversight. He said he didn't.
Ms. Rogers asked if the City's MDNS Condition #3 was essentially a restatement of City code. Mr.
Flatley agreed that is was. Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Flatley had provided SEPA mitigation measures
to staff and asked the staff to implement them. He stated he hadn't. Ms. Rogers asked if the
condition would be adequate to require a tree protection plan and have it approved by the City. He
stated it could.
With respect to MDNS Condition #6, the buffer requirement was for sight obscuring and was 15 feet
wide. The staff analysis (Exhibit N) increased that buffer from 15 feet to 15-50 feet. Ms. Rogers
asked if Mr. Flatley had read Exhibit N. He stated he hadn't. Ms. Rogers asked if he was familiar
with the City's Comprehensive Plan. He stated he was generally familiar with it. He stated he was
not familiar with specific policies.
Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Flatley to review a large area photo with respect to his earlier testimony
Exhibit K6c). Mr. Flatley stated he recognized the area and that there are a number of green, treed
areas around the subject. He agreed there is a large protected corridor along the Cedar River and at
Tiffany Park. He further agreed that with or without Tiffany Park, there will remain treed areas near
the project.
Mr. Flatley stated the City's landscaping code with respect to screening allows planting and fencing.
He agreed the project plan includes fences and vegetation. Mr. Flatley stated he didn't have any
knowledge of buffers on adjoining properties but didn't see any in the aerial photo.
Ms. Timmons stated that staff is standing by their analysis. For mitigation measure #3 it sounds as if
the appellant intends to meet the 30% requirement. That's all the City is requesting. The applicant is
failing to consider the City's intend is to protect the existing tree canopy. The mitigation measure is
intended to preclude replacement tree. The code is inadequate to do that without the mitigation
measure. However, a tree retention plan is amenable to the City.
For mitigation measure#6, the staff feels they have proven impact and provided adequate mitigation.
Staff feels the public are the appropriate people to provide information on impacts.
Applicant Testimony
In response to the Examiner, Mr. Talkington stated in the northern portion of the plat, the 15 foot
buffer would be preserved but clearing and a wall would be located in the lots themselves (Lots 11-
14). No additional clearing will go into the buffer area. For Lots 15-18, there will be no wall. All
other improvements would be within the lot area. There will be no additional clearing.
Ms. Rogers asked the Examiner to read the SEPA Appeal argument letter dated November 18, 2014.
As stated in that letter, the City staff and the applicant are in agreement to Revised Conditions #1
and#3. However, they would argue to keep the existing language in the condition, but add a comma
and add a statement that an updated tree protection plan and land clearing plan to be submitted and
approved prior to construction. Condition #6 deals with a perimeter buffer. No perimeter buffer is
required in this zone and none exist surrounding the subject. The requirement would be unique in
this area and they would be buffering their single family uses from surrounding single family uses.
There is no significant impact in terms of aesthetics. They have voluntarily provided 10-200 feet (50
foot average) buffers and two pipelines of 60 to 100 feet (Mercer Island Trail and Cedar River Trail
corridors, respectively). Only six lots touch a property boundary. Some have fill walls, the highest
currently proposed is 6 feet high. There is a 100 foot Cedar River Trail buffer adjacent to these
properties and between adjacent properties. The City's SEPA analysis cited Comprehensive Plan
Objective CDG and Policies 50 and 55 as justification for the perimeter buffer. Those policies do not
apply here. The City omitted the citation of the objective, which does not apply here. These uses are
not different. The proposed use and adjacent use are the same. The tree canopy is being protected.
There is no need for a perimeter buffer of 15 feet, let along 50 feet. Addition of a buffer after the fact
will invalidate the proposal and violate state law.
Public Testimony
Ms. Claudia Donnelly lived in the Renton Potential Annexation Area in Renton Highlands. Ms.
Donnelly stated she had submitted questions. In February 2014, in an article in the Renton Reporter,
Ms. Timmons stated all 1,300 trees would be coming down. How will the protected trees be
protected? This developer will clear cut all of the trees and put in replacement trees. At Ms.
Donnelly's subdivision, Windstone, and at Piper's Bluff, this same developer clear cut all of the
trees. Who will make sure the trees won't be clear cut?
Ms. Donnelly stated she was concerned about the proposed stormwater detention pond failing and
impacting the development. At Windstone, the detention pond failed three times spilling water and
mud into a wetland and Honey Creek. At Piper's Bluff, the detention pond failed and dumped yellow
water into May Creek. Renton officials do not work on the weekend; they will not protect the
wetlands. Ms. Donnelly stated Renton allowed Safeway to build on wetlands three summers ago.
They started getting water coming up through the floor and had to rope off the area.
The hours of construction ordinance must be followed. How will it be?
Renton has an ordinance keeping dirt off of the road and protecting streams during construction. The
laws are not being enforced. Renton doesn't allow working on Sundays. This developer had
contractors working on Sundays in at least Windstone and Piper's Bluff. No staff person will be
there to monitor them.
The City does not require the contractor to get the necessary NPDES permit from DOE prior to start
of work. Additionally, the City doesn't require erosion control fences near wetlands, private property
or streams before clearing starts. They don't make the contractors have the necessary permits for
clearing before building permits. In the late 1990s a builder cleared without permits and there was no
consequence.
Ms. Donnelly expressed concern about the Renton appeal process. On November 26, there was a
notice in the paper talking about the appeal timeframe for this development, yet the document itself
had not been released. She had to request it from the director. If there is no notice before the appeal
starts, how can the City be trusted? On June 14, 2012 the Renton Reporter asked if Renton's tree
preservation policy was just for show.
Ms. Donnelly presented pictures of Piper's Bluff. Forty-seven trees were supposed to be retained or
mitigated. Some of the trees were saved. Many were cleared. The trees being planted are decorative
and replacing Douglas Firs and other large trees. Some trees must be saved. She also showed
examples of construction dirt on the road in front of her house. The dirt is washing into Green Creek
and May Creek. No one at Renton cares about the street or the environment.
Ms. Barbara Smith stated considering the greenbelt surrounding the pipelines is not realistic. Those
are dirt paths without trees. Ms. Smith stated she should not have to plant trees on her yard, plus the
trees are 80-100 feet high. Replanting trees won't compensate. They are losing their quality of life.
The wildlife that's there will be removed. The school district shouldn't have sold it. They didn't
provide proper notice of sale. They were denied access to do further studies but the developer was
allowed on it. She encourages the City to put strict enforceable timelines. She found 97 reviews on
this developer online. Only 5 were positive. They are local and speaking to poor construction, leak
issues, mold in new homes and poor customer service. People wait years to have construction
defects repaired.
SEPA Appeal#2—Project Opponent TPWAG
Appellant Testimony
Mr. Daniel McMonagle is the attorney for the project opponents, the Tiffany Park Woods
Advocacy Group. The opponents have lived in this neighborhood for 34 years and have historically
used the woods.
Mr. David Beedon is a member of the TPWAG and has lived in the neighborhood since it was built
34 years ago. He lives at 1725 Pierce Avenue SE in Renton. Mr. Beedon lives directly adjacent to
the project. He can walk to the former school property in five minutes. The TPWAG is composed of
five persons who hold officer positions in a non-profit corporation formed in March 2014. The
purpose of the group is to mitigate as much as possible any environmental or other impacts coming
out of this development.
He has experience in the woods. He has been walking in these woods since 1982. He exercises there
and watches wildlife. The character of the woods has been mostly unchanged for all that time. Some
changes there were related to dirt embankments on paths to facilitate mountain biking. There are
teepee and treehouses built here. The woods have never been fenced, except along the Cedar River
Pipeline. The fence has been there at least 34 years. It has been unmaintained. The fence is along the
City of Seattle Watershed property line. It is not a school district fence. The woods property has
never been signed no trespassing.
There is an extensive trail system in the woods that were there when he moved in. There are nine
separate access points along the two pipeline rights of way and other at the end of 18th Street. These
are trailheads. The trails are a large loop with several connector trails. The outer loop is about a 15
minute walk.
Mr. Beedon has personally been pruning and trimming trails to keep them open. He believes the
school district performed maintenance there four times in the last three decades including cutting
down dangerous trees and removing trash or yard waste. He is aware of no other activity from the
school district on the property. The school district performed maintenance there in 2000, 2010, and
twice in 2011. Each of these incidents was related to a request for action to the school district by a
member of the public. Mr. Beedon spoke to the school district in 2000 about illegal activity on the
property. That prompted the 2000 maintenance and the placement of signage discouraging dumping.
In 2010, Mr. Beedon called the school district to ask why some trees had been removed. The school
district stated there were dangerous trees. In 2011 he spoke with the school district about illegal trash
and a fire pit on the property. The school district responded by cleaning up the trash and removing
the fire pit.
Mr. Beedon quoted an email sent to him by Mr. Mike Rouch of the school district. The email stated,
I got the sense this is an important asset to your neighborhood and I wanted our folks to do what we
could to restore the beauty there."
Mr. Beedon stated the school district had essentially left the property alone.
Mr. Beedon stated the trails have been used for recreational walking, running, dog walking,
bicycling, socializing, wildlife viewing, and inventorying plants. Kids build forts and tree houses.
This area is used extensively for recreation, on a daily basis there are at least a dozen people in there.
Over the years, thousands of people have used it. Use of the area has increased due to the informal
maintenance of the paths.
Aesthetically, the woods are beautiful. It's a wild area with a variety of vegetation and wetlands. The
topography is interesting. There are seasonal creeks. It reminds him of the foothills of the Cascades,
though with less dramatic topography. Mr. Beedon described wildlife he has seen on the property
including bobcat, pileated woodpecker, red headed sapsuckers, ducks, crows, other types of birds,
deer, and owls. Mr. Beedon stated there are a rich variety of plants on the property. There are also at
least two geocaches on the property.
Mr. Beedon showed pictures of stormwater accumulated on the two pipelines on the property. The
pipelines drain onto the school district property. Recently, the City of Renton cleaned out drain pipes
to improve the drainage and reduce flooding.
In response to Mr. McMonagle, Mr. Beedon stated he had hired Mr. Neugebauer in September 2014
to perform studies on the property and review the applicant's studies. The TPWAG had asked the
school district to allow them to do a third party wetland evaluation. The school district denied the
request stating it did not further the interest of the school district or the developer.
The Examiner asked Mr. McMonagle to tie the historic use of the property to a SEPA impact, noting
the public did not have a right to use this property in the first place. How is there an adverse impact
under SEPA? There could be a prescriptive use, but the Examiner does not have the authority to
adjudicate prescriptive use or adverse possession. The Examiner noted Halverson v. Bellevue, and
the limits on restrictions of Hearing Examiner authority, specifically Legune v. Clallam County, and
others. The Examiner's authority is limited to those described specifically in the City code. The
Examiner asked Mr. McMonagle to provide a brief on the issue of the authority and relevance of the
public prescriptive right to the property by November 28th with applicant and City response by
December 5th.
Mr. Steven Neugebauer of SNR Company is a licensed hydrogeologist and engineering geologist.
He presented a PowerPoint presentation highlighting the relevant issues from his report (Exhibit
M49). Mr. Neugebauer described his qualifications. He stated the biggest issue with this project is
groundwater and the engineering geology of the site. The big thing is the SEPA document is
inadequate. His scope for this project is to assess the applicant's studies and to review the
environmental impacts of the project. SEPA should produce information regarding impacts. The
SEPA checklist is not designed to gather all the impacts. There should be more intensive studies
done here because of the intensity of the development and of the surrounding development. There
are only preliminary studies, which are inadequate.
Mr. Neugebauer stated the history of the site needs to be reviewed as far back as possible. His
presentation will focus on the SEPA issues. Only four studies have been incorporated in the SEPA
checklist, there are now 22 studies. Mr. Neugebauer described the wildlife corridor link along the
greenbelt from the subject to the Cedar River. This is the only significant open area in the local
region. The moor is surrounded by development except for this narrow wildlife corridor on the
northeast corner. He showed maps dating back to 1865 to show historical water flows. In 1898 the
Black River still flowed, the Green River Valley was the White River Valley and the Duwamish
Waterway was still a river. There are wetlands shown on the map in this area as back as 1898. The
entire regional drainage system has changed since then. The title report shows in 1936 this subject
property had been cleared and was owned by the railroad and in 1945 by a Department of Defense
corporation. This is an important issue to SEPA because there might have been wartime activity here
with potential contaminants. Mr. Neugebauer states there should have been a Phase 1 ESA. Mr.
Neugebauer showed the development pattern in 1990. It has been forested since the 1940s. The
oldest trees are about 65 years old.
Mr. Neugebauer showed the geomorphology of the area. The property had been in a melt water
channel from the last ice age that became the Cedar River. Drainage goes both to the southwest and
northeast. The area has many depositional environments for soils. There are structural anomalies in
the area. There are no geological reports performed by the applicant and they couldn't perform their
own. He stated there should have been more soils tests, percolation tests, more test pits and borings.
There is neither engineering geology nor hydrogeological studies.
He showed a geologic map of the area and pointed to geologic issues from the confluence of two
seismic faults. This might influence landslide activities. The USGS maps show that the closest fault
zone is 3.9 miles, though there may be others nearby that haven't yet been mapped. Geologists look
for bend trees and uneven surfaces. There are many bent trees here. That indicates ground
movement. The ground is moving slowly and the trees are bending with it. There might be shallow
or slightly deeper ground movement. He walked the site, but didn't perform studies because the
school district wouldn't allow it.
The SEPA documents say there are no structures on the site, but there are treehouses and forts. The
site is vacant but not unused. The Opponents state there is no SEPA document, only a report from
the City's Environmental Review Committee.
Mr. Steven Neugebauer discussed the title report's historical accounts of ownership of the project
site (Page 12). There is an easement for a natural gas pipeline. There are several other easements for
various purposes. Ms. Rogers asked about the relevance of this testimony. Mr. McMonagle asked
Mr. Neugebauer to describe the relevance of this testimony in terms of SEPA. Mr. Neugebauer
stated the SEPA checklist asks about potential hazardous wastes on the property. No studies were
conducted. The title report shows potential hazardous uses in the past. A phase 1 environmental site
assessment should have been conducted. Mr. Neugebauer stated the applicant hadn't shown how
they were dealing with the City's drainage easement, which is part of the City's drainage system.
Ms. Rogers noted that the drainage easement was released.
Mr. Neugebauer stated his concern from a geologic perspective is that there were no geologic or
hydrogeologist studies performed for this site. There isn't enough information. This site could have
fault zones. Also, there is potential evidence of ground creep or slumps. His specific concern is that
these mobile soils must be dealt with, which would require further study. He also stated the SEPA
Checklist is wrong because the studies came later. He stated the Checklist was wrong because it
ignored recreational activities and recreational structures on the property.
Mr. Neugebauer stated 14 days is insufficient to review the many studies that were performed as part
of this application. He stated he had reviewed all of the documents and believes an Environmental
Impact Statement should have been required. The SEPA Checklist was the only document presented.
The SEPA document should show what the conditions are in a summary format.
Another issue is the hydrology and geology of the site. The wetland determination by Gary Shultz
and the Technical Information Report from Barghausen and the Otak report show groundwater
saturation levels that make this site undevelopable. The groundwater will be too high in the rainy
season. Mr. Neugebauer referred to the Shultz report. He stated the depth to the water table is zero
inches below ground level. Groundwater is a flat line, it is not contoured. This site needs additional
study to determine how it can be developed. An EIS should be required. Mr. Neugebauer read
definitions for various types of groundwater and hydric soils from the USGS. The applicant's report
shows so much water there that development without pumps may not be feasible. Groundwater is
also protected from pollutants. It's illegal to discharge pollutants into groundwater. Water from the
homes cannot be discharged into the wetlands.
Mr. Neugebauer stated the AES geotechnical report is not adequate to satisfy SEPA requirements. It
stated that in the report. There have not been the extensive studies that should have been prepared.
There were inadequate numbers of test pits. Though they acknowledge groundwater will be near the
surface in winter (8" from surface), but don't describe how they plan to deal with it. The report was
paid for by the school district and was inadequate in scope. The report shows the site has
geotechnical critical areas, specifically erosion, site stability and other indicators of shallow ground
creep or slumping.
The site will need deep infiltration strategies to get the stormwater down below the high water table
and into a more permeable layer. There is no capacity for stormwater infiltration on this site. This
may be why the developer has chosen a stormwater vault because a pond won't infiltrate. Anything
excavated below the surface will have groundwater issues. Drainage ditches will be full of water. If
you put a vault where groundwater is at the surface, the vault will have to be tied down to bedrock or
it will float out of the ground. There need to be much more detailed studies.
The geotechnical report says the slope angles are for areas where groundwater seepage is not present
at the face of the slope. There will need to be some sort of temporary de-watering. Mr. Neugebauer
stated the water will come back and flood basements and keep stormwater from flowing. Based on
our review, the deposits are not the type the report suggests. This soil is impermeable. The AES
report assumes the soil is permeable. The soils promote shallow ground creep and slumping.
Mr. Neugebauer reviewed the Environmental Review Committee report. He believes it is inadequate
and an EIS should have been prepared. This project was done in too many disjointed steps. On page
8 of AES, the report says the wetlands may be groundwater influenced. However, there is no further
study to determine what to do. Having groundwater within 8" of the surface is a major issue. There
is a 12" culvert discharging stormwater into the wetland. That's illegal under the Clean Water Act.
They cannot discharge to a point source. There need to be better studies.
The Environmental Review Committee report states the project will result in minimal loss of
vegetation to the site. That's impossible given the current proposal. According to the Washington
State Department of Fish and Wildlife, there is priority habitat here.
The removal of existing vegetation will remove a great deal of the evapotranspiration on this site.
The trees may remove as much as 75% of the water from the site. The ERC is more worried about
views than the more critical water issues.
Mr. Neugebauer stated the ERC is basing its opinions on studies that are too preliminary. The issue
of liquefaction isn't addressed at all. There is no study as to how the displaced groundwater will
affect neighbors.
Mr. Neugebauer's final point is that there is no cohesive and conclusive SEPA document. You can't
make a final environmental determination on a document that doesn't exist.
Ms. Timmons asked Mr. Neugebauer if he'd read the drainage report in the application packet. Mr.
Neugebauer stated he had. Ms. Timmons asked Mr. Neugebauer to relate his testimony to the
drainage report. Mr. Neugebauer stated the applicant put the cart before the horse because there are
no studies for groundwater hydrology. There isn't enough information to form a drainage report.
In response to the Examiner, Mr. Neugebauer stated he would have done test pits and boring,
piezometer studies and look for the groundwater. If the wetlands are there, the groundwater is there.
We need additional studies to determine where the water really is. If it's at the surface, the drainage
report is incorrect. The Examiner asked if they know the groundwater is, why does there need to be
additional study. Mr. Neugebauer stated the drainage plan isn't taking into account the groundwater.
A building pad cannot be placed where the groundwater at the surface. Utilities cannot be placed
within the groundwater, particularly sewer which would be continuously draining groundwater.
Ms. Rogers asked if he was familiar with the 1995 Local Project Review Act (RCW 36.70B). Mr.
Neugebauer stated he wasn't. Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Neugebauer was aware of the SEPA
provisions that provide that city regulations can be sufficient to mitigate environmental impacts. Mr.
Neugebauer stated he had looked at it and at the requirements for an EIS.
Ms. Rogers asked if he had worked with real estate developers who are speculatively buying
property. He stated he did and that developers did feasibility studies. He stated phase 1
environmental site assessments (ESA) were common. He had not seen the applicant's Phase 1 ESA
and couldn't speak to whether one existed. It is a typical procedure.
Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Neugebauer was familiar with the City's preliminary plat procedures. He
responded he was slightly familiar with them. Mr. Neugebauer stated a project of this size would
typically have an EIS. He had never seen a development of this size with this much contention
without an EIS. Ms. Rogers stated the applicant had prepared a SEPA Checklist June 2014. Mr.
Neugebauer was not aware of the newer checklist.
In response to Ms. Rogers, Mr. Neugebauer stated the test pits from Mr. Shultz's report were taken
throughout the project site, though most are in the wetland areas. He stated there are high levels of
water throughout the site because water tables are flat. He stated he was not aware of a 303D listing
for any water on the site, though all wetlands are expected to be so listed to allow discharge.
Mr. Neugebauer stated stormwater is being directed to a vault but it will not treat the stormwater for
heavy metals. Ms. Rogers referred to the 2012 AES report. The top of page 2 states the site is
suitable for buried utilities, paving and structures. Mr. Neugebauer stated they also said additional
studies would be conducted. Ms. Rogers asked if he understood that detailed construction and
engineering review and much more intensive studies will be conducted before final plat. Mr.
Neugebauer reiterated he felt the cart was being placed before the horse in that the SEPA review is
now for a reason. It allows for adequate public comment. Later phases do not.
Ms. Rogers referred to the aerial photo (Exhibit K6c) and asked Mr. Neugebauer if the project site
isn't completely surrounded by similar residential developments. He stated there is forested land
around here and existing development is less dense. He did agree there are existing houses and roads
surrounding the project. He doesn't know if there are existing geological or hydrological issues
affecting the existing homes, however he speculates that may be why the areas to the northeast and
east are not developed.
Applicant Response
Mr. Kevin Jones, Transportation Engineer, Transpo Group, prepared the traffic report for this
project. He also reviewed the public comments and will respond to them. He's responding
specifically to letters from Mr. Roenicke and Ms. Garlough. Mr. Roenicke was concerned that the
traffic counts were conducted in June 2013, a time period when the adjacent elementary school is out
for summer. Mr. Jones responded by noting that they acknowledged school was out of session. As
such, they added to their counts school traffic based on the enrollment of school at the time, which is
within eight students of the current student count. They looked at average trip rates for elementary
schools and inflated the counts by 210 AM Peak and 70 PM Peak hour trips. Ms. Garlough claimed
to have taken counts themselves and compared them to the Transpo report. Ms. Garlough stated the
traffic volume was 30% higher than Transpo's measurements. Mr. Jones agreed that traffic volumes
fluctuate day to day; however, the traffic volume in the neighborhood is low. The volumes are low
enough that you could double traffic and still have Level of Service (LOS) A or B at all of the
surrounding intersections. The intersection operation will stay high and not fall below an acceptable
LOS that would require mitigation.
Mr. Jones responded to another comment about the impact of new residential traffic on school
pedestrian traffic by stating that the overlap in traffic conditions would be in the morning. The
residence peak happens after school is out. The projected increase in volumes on Lake Youngs Way
is 10-45 +/- trips in the AM Peak hour. This increase, on average, is one vehicle or less per minute
during that time period. Traffic volumes fluctuate and there may be an extra car or two in that time
period. The school traffic tends to be concentrated in 30 minute intervals. Most of the project traffic
won't mix with school traffic volumes.
Mr. Jones spoke to potential safety issues for school pedestrian traffic. He stated there won't be
much impact because the volumes are low. Also, they are providing a pedestrian crosswalk at 18th
and Lake Youngs Way. Given the speed limits, the pedestrian crossing and relatively small increase
in volumes, there do not anticipate a safety hazard.
There is concern about visibility on 16th Street and there was a suggestion this is an accident prone
area. They review the accident logs from the City for this location. Specifically, they reviewed
collision records for SE 16th Street between Beacon Way SE and Lake Youngs Way SE. For a four
year period, there were no collisions reported in this area. There is a grade difference between
Beacon and Ferndale. They looked at the collision records and measured daily traffic volumes over a
seven day period. 16th Street serves about 3,300 vehicles per day. 4.8 million vehicles traveled along
that section in four years without a single reported collision. There was one in February of this year,
though that was related to icy conditions. Mr. Jones stated the data does not support the assertion this
location is a collision prone location. They will also add additional signage on the north side of 16th
Street indicating there is an intersection approaching. The geometrics of the road make it difficult to
see the intersection. There is a sign now recommending speed limits of 15 mph in this area. There
are sidewalks along the route to the school (Exhibit A9, Figure 1).
Mr. Jones responded to a comment from Ponderosa Estates. Residents in this subdivision are
concerned about long waits nearby intersections, specifically the intersection labelled Intersection 13
in the Transpo report. They evaluated the intersection from a delay standpoint in the AM and PM
Peak. The intersection was not originally reviewed, but was added at the City's request. The review
of this intersection was this year while school was in session. Based on the data and the stop control
of this intersection, they found this intersection has 15 seconds of average delay or less. The delay
will not significantly increase with this development looking out to 2018. It's currently 13 seconds in
both the AM and PM Peak. The LOS is B now and will stay that way. This is an acceptable delay
under the City's standards. No change in traffic control is necessary.
Another issue with respect to school traffic is whether there will need to be extra traffic control
personnel from the school. Mr. Jones stated he didn't know, but that the use of traffic crossing
guards is a typical occurrence in this area. He doesn't anticipate the school district will need to hire
traffic control personnel they don't already have.
Mr. McMonagle asked Mr. Jones about the changes from the original to the revised traffic study. Mr.
Jones stated that in both cases, there were the two proposed entrances there are right now. Mr.
McMonagle asked Mr. Jones to explain the route persons in the subdivision would use to get out to a
minor arterial. Mr. Jones stated that 60% of the Tiffany Park traffic was assumed to go to the west
and the remainder would go south. Of the westbound traffic, they assumed the majority of it would
go to SE 16th Street via some route. They would then access Edmonds Avenue. They revised the
study because there was a lot of public comment about the absence of that intersection in the study.
For the southbound traffic, they assumed the traffic would mostly go to SE 18th Street to Lake
Youngs Way. Some would go to SE 16th Street; others would go to Royal Hills. Other traffic would
go to Beacon, Ferndale or other routes to SE 16th Street and Edmonds Avenue. He stated SE 16th
Street had more grade than SE 18th Street; otherwise the roadway geometry was comparable.
Mr. McMonagle asked Mr. Jones about the development's proposed roads. Mr. Jones stated the
development will have roads designed to the current standards.
Ms. Racheal Villa, of Soundview Consultants, described her experience and qualifications. Her
company conducted the fish and wildlife habitat assessment for the property (Exhibit K, page 40).
Together, all the scientists who worked on this report have about 80 years of experience. She is a
qualified senior author for biological assessments under WSDOT, which is fairly unique.
Ms. Villa stated she had visited the project site. She was hired to perform supplementary wetlands
review for fish and wildlife habitat. They reviewed the wetlands assessment. They reviewed lists of
species from the USFW and the WA DFW for priority habitats and species offsite associated with
the Cedar River corridor. There was nothing specifically mapped on site, so they looked to see what
was on-site. In their normal critical areas assessment, they would usually incorporate wetlands and
habitat scientists. They found nothing specifically listed for priority protection. They reviewed a
wider area for noise and stormwater impacts (Exhibit A, Attachment 16). Ms. Villa noted the habitat
here is fairly disturbed on a large scale basis. There is a lot of human intrusion. It's not directly
connected to the Cedar River corridor. There are trees, but the wildlife has to cross the 60 foot wide
water easement, cross a residential road, cross residential yards, cross a 40% slope and then the
Bonneville Power Administration's easement to the Cedar River corridor. It's discontinuous,
isolated and highly disturbed. The prior testimony documents that by mentioning the extensive use
practiced here.
Ms. Villa stated they looked at all potentially regulated species on site including all state and federal
listed species and habitat. They found habitat potentially associated with pileated woodpeckers and
Townsend's bat, both Washington State listed species. Ms. Villa stated there is a great deal of
woodpecker activity. She didn't see nests, but she did see snags. Pileated woodpeckers utilize 1,480
acres, which would include the whole Cedar River corridor. It is possible the woodpeckers are
foraging on site. Woodpeckers are a residential, non-migratory species. Ms. Villa stated Townsend's
bats might use the site seasonally during the summer for foraging for insects. The DFW would
require protecting wetlands, associated buffers and large trees. Ms. Villa stated the plat will not
result in a loss of significant, protected habitat for these two listed species.
Ms. Villa stated the bobcat is not a listed species. It's a hunted species that doesn't have specific
requirements for habitat protection.
Ms. Rogers asked Ms. Villa her opinion of the impact of the proposed project. Ms. Villa stated if the
wetlands and buffers are protected and off-leash dogs and people on bikes were kept out, the
wetlands would be better protected than they are now. A typical buffer around a critical area is split
rail, which does not keep wildlife out. They function to keep humans and their pets out.
Ms. Rogers asked Ms. Villa to summarize her November 18, 2014 memo. Ms. Villa summarized the
letter by saying they reviewed for potentially regulated species and habitats in accordance with the
City of Renton's codes. They concluded the proposal will not likely cause adverse impact on listed
species or critical habitats with implementation of best management practices. Protection of
wetlands, buffers and significant trees are proposed. She also mentioned the current condition with
anthropogenic structures, unleashed pets and many other disturbances to wildlife currently occurring
on the site. With respect to non-game species, they were surveyed in the review. She reiterated this is
a highly disturbed, isolated patch.
Ms. Villa discussed the stormwater filtration system which will remove many pollutants. There is no
direct downstream connection to Ginger Creek, which is a tributary to Cedar River. The plan as
proposed will protect the downstream areas.
Mr. McMonagle stated he didn't understand the description of the critical areas fence. Ms. Villa
described what a wooden, split rail fence looks like.
Mr. Gary Schulz is a wetlands ecologist. Mr. Schultz described his education and qualifications. He
is a sole proprietor who does habitat assessments, mitigation planning, and wetland and stream
studies. He is a water and sewer district commissioner. Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Schultz if he had
visited the project site. He stated he had, many times. His work was focused on wetland delineation
and stream identification. He used the ACOE, the DOE Wetlands Manual. He put transects on the
property and walked the site in a pattern to determine the location of wetlands. He delineated the
wetlands. His delineation was reviewed by Otak, the City's peer reviewer. Mr. Schultz concluded the
wetlands are isolated and separated from downstream habitats and water. The southern pipeline
dams the site and prevents the flow of surface water off site. They are pocket depressions that are
influenced by perched groundwater on a seasonal basis. He visited the site during March and June to
view where the water was by season.
Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Schultz tracks weather patterns. He stated he used the SeaTac rainfall
record. His review was conducted in March 2014, when the rainfall was 5-6 inches above normal for
that time of year. According to the news, it was record breaking month, though he couldn't quote the
record.
Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Schultz about shallow groundwater and the data plots described by Mr.
Neugebauer. Mr. Schultz stated they were all near wetlands boundaries. Mr. Schultz reviewed these
extra data points at the request of Otak. Mr. Schultz stated Mr. Neugebauer used the term `aquake
regime'. This term means hydric soils. A lot of these plots were outside the wetland boundaries and
didn't have hydric soils. They aren't part of the wetland, though it was a wet time of year. Mr.
Schultz stated the soils on site are Alderwood, which typically overlay an impervious till layer.
Perched, seasonal high water is common. Mr. Schultz stated the areas that will be wet in the winter
will be protected. In June 2013, there was no water at all on site.
Mr. McMonagle asked Mr. Schultz whether he's a hydrogeologist. Mr. Schultz stated he wasn't. He
is a wetland ecologist. Mr. McMonagle asked if Mr. Schultz can interpret hydrology. Mr. Schultz
stated delineating wetlands requires an understanding of wetland hydrology, though he didn't
provide either a hydrology report or a geologic report.
Mr. Ray Coglas, of Earth Solutions NW, described his education and qualifications. He is a
licensed geotechnical engineer. He's been a registered geoengineer since 1998. He is the president of
Earth Solutions NW. Mr. Coglas stated he had been present for the TPWAG testimony and had
visited the project site. He submitted a letter as part of the exhibit package (Exhibit K, page 33). Ms.
Rogers asked Mr. Coglas to discuss his letter and his response to Mr. Neugebauer.
Ms. Rogers asked to discuss the soil and groundwater characteristics on the site, specifically as they
related to the ability to develop the project. Mr. Coglas stated his role was initially to review the
AES report. His portion was review of prior reports, field surveys and review of public comments.
With respect to the AES report and some of the testimony he'd heard, the AEA report is standard
practice. The site is fairly to moderately sloping site, mainly glacial till though there may be some
outwash. The level of investigation that was done as part of the AES report was similar to what his
firm would have done. A lot of time geotechnical reports are driven by the proposed use. Kurt
Merryman authored the AES report. He is reputable. The report was valid. They adequately
characterized on site conditions.
The one thing that stood out to Mr. Coglas is that AES didn't throw up any red flags. There's
nothing in the report that would suggest major problems. AES was working for the school district
and would have been required to tell the district if they thought there would be issues for
development. All sites are unique, however this is a typical glacial till site. The level of investigation
was appropriate with test pits. If it had been him, he'd done the same type of review for the intended
use. If this was proposed to be a 25 story office building with three levels of underground parking,
then far more intensive study would have been needed. The analysis that was done was appropriate
for the scale of the site and proposed type and intensity of use. In preparing his summary, he looked
at all that. He agrees with the AES conclusions. A lot of what a geotechnical engineer does is
determining the scope of analysis needed. They could have done a lot more, but the budget and type
of project didn't require it. Most of the activity will be near surface and low intensity.
Ms. Rogers asked if there would be additional geotechnical analysis to support construction and
engineering design at the permit stage. Mr. Coglas stated as far as the actual engineering of the
project when it comes to assigning actual values for designer, his firm will prepare a geotechnical
report that may or may not include more information. The final design isn't finished, so they don't
know yet where they'll need more specific information.
With respect to shallow groundwater, Mr. Coglas stated there is groundwater in the northwest. He
stated the various depths of groundwater testified to before (6", 8", or 2'), AES characterizes the
water table at 8' in depth during the summer. It fluctuates seasonally. There's nothing in the AES
report suggesting 2' in the summer. It reports 8' in depth. The thing he wants to point out is this site
is a perched groundwater condition. Glacial till is dense and cemented and does not allow vertical
penetration of surface water to depth. That's common. He is not surprised that during wetland
studies they encountered shallow or ponding water in the depressional wetland areas. To suggest the
whole site will be underwater is not consistent with a perched groundwater table. There are
recessional sands at the surface that allow water to pass through. That water then gets trapped in the
impervious layer. He deals with groundwater on all of his projects. It is not a condition that
precludes development. There's nothing unique to the plot of Tiffany Park or its surrounds
geologically speaking. The Kent Valley is a flat, deep alluvial deposit with a level groundwater table
that fluctuates evenly across the valley floor. The Kent Valley is like a deep bathtub. That's not the
case here. The till layer is shallow and undulating in Tiffany Park. The elevation change across
Tiffany Park is 40'. For example, if the groundwater table were level here, a change in 40' in
elevation across the site would cause most of it to be underwater. That's not the case. There are seep
environments that are seasonally wet, but they are localized based on the topography and glacial till
layer. Groundwater seepage is managed during construction; it doesn't preclude construction.
Mr. Rogers asked Mr. Coglas to discuss managing stromwater during construction, specifically, will
the stormwater vault float? Mr. Coglas stated that almost every single project he's on has stormwater
facilities, many of them are vaults. He's done hundreds of vaults. They look at excavation, the base,
storage capacity, stability of the side slopes, and backfill. Tiffany Park is not an environment where
he would be concerned with buoyancy of his vault structure. There might be a large seep at the
beginning of the cut because of built up water pressure. This usually attenuates over time as the
trapped water is drained. They always put a footing drain around the vault if they are concerned the
groundwater seam might create excess hydrostatic pressure on the concrete walls. They aren't
concerned about buoyancy here. He has done projects that do have buoyancy issues. In that case,
there are many best management practices to prevent the vault from being displaced.
Ms. Rogers asked to turn back to the AES report. She asked Mr. Coglas to discuss the log reports for
the test pits. Mr. Coglas stated geotechnical engineers dig test pits to evaluate soil profiles. Notes
suggesting no caving or seepage are very useful because it speaks to the strength of the soil.
Groundwater seepage is different from the groundwater table. In the Kent Valley, they would call
any water they found the groundwater table, rather than seepage. In this case, there is a difference.
Mr. Rogers noted Mr. Neugebauer asked for additional studies. Mr. Coglas described his report and
its detail of the geological hazards on site. Mr. Coglas stated there were no slopes that met the City's
criteria for sensitive or protected areas. There are some local, isolated areas that may meet the 40%
criteria, but as a geotechnical engineer, he looks at stability. The code specifies the boundaries. Mr.
Coglas stated there are no landslide hazards or high erosion hazards on the project site.
Erosion is something to be managed. They derive the characterization of erosion from the USDA
now NRCS) soil characterization. These soil types were derived for agriculture. When working
fields, it was good to know which soils had high erosion qualities. In development, the type of
erosion hazard is not significant. Tiffany Park has some slight to moderate erosion areas. However,
they control erosion through many different methodologies. The final product is stabilized. Erosion
is managed through engineering solutions.
Mr. Coglas stated there are no seismic hazards on this property. The Seattle fault is 3.7 miles north.
We live in a tectonically active environment. There might be a splay or other features under Tiffany
Park, but none are known. It's important to know that the residential building code for this area is
sufficient to offset seismic risk in this region. A more intense structure or development would
require more studies, but low density residential development does not. There is a low seismic
hazard here, according to the City.
With respect to coal mine hazards, Mr. Coglas stated they had reviewed the coal mine maps. AES
also addressed this. They are outside the boundary where further study is needed for coal mine
hazards.
Mr. Coglas stated there are no potential adverse environmental impacts in relation to geotechnical
issues.
In response to the Examiner, Mr. Coglas stated he was hired as peer review for the AES report. He
was also hired to respond to public comments. Mr. Coglas stated he disagreed with Mr.
Neugebauer's conclusions the entire site is somehow going to be underwater or flooded. The
groundwater is perched on glacial till that undulates and is uneven. Mr. Coglas said in these
environments, based on studies and his experience, it's likely there will be some groundwater
seepage when they do utility excavations or cuts/fills. This is not a site that will require dewatering
or extensive pumping. The groundwater table is perched with various, isolated seams. In the Kent
Valley, pulling water out would draw the whole water table down. This isn't the case here. The
water table will be shallow near the wetlands. The AES report, except for the narrative, doesn't
document any observed groundwater in the test pits. In exploration pit #6, they noted weak
groundwater seepage below 8 feet. It was the dry season.
The Examiner asked if Mr. Neugebauer is correct in his conclusion the groundwater level is at zero
elevation, would that cause a problem for construction. Mr. Coglas said that would be a problem, but
that is not the case. However, if it was at zero elevation, they could manage it. The stormwater
system might need to change, but it could be feasibility changed. Mr. Coglas stated the notion that
the groundwater is right at the surface everywhere on the project is absurd.
Mr. McMonagle asked Mr. Coglas about the test logs in the back of the AES report. Mr. Coglas
stated the pits were all test excavations, rather than borings. He agreed there were 12 test pits on the
22 acres dug on September 6, 2012. He agreed all of the pits were done on the same day (Exhibit
A7, Figure 2). Mr. Coglas stated he is a licensed civil engineer, not a licensed geologist or
hydrogeologist. They have them on staff. He reviews those reports and has studied these specialties.
He's familiar with the two basic groundwater environments at this site.
Mr. McMonagle referred to Page 1 of the AES report that there is a caution the report should be
reviewed and revised to support a specific development proposal. Mr. Coglas stated he was retained
in October 2014. He was hired to provide peer review of the AES report, prepare a site evaluation,
review the plat proposal and provide feedback on community comments. Mr. McMonagle asked if
Mr. Coglas had done physical investigation of the site. Mr. Coglas said he had not and was unsure of
whether he would be asked to going forward. He anticipates what he would do on a follow up report
which would include further review of plat plans. Mr. Coglas stated construction is done year round
right now. He prepares different recommendations to deal with groundwater, depending on the
season.
With respect to the vault, the physical dimension for this vault is very large, but he doesn't know
exactly how big. His role is to help the contractor to install the vault and deal with any groundwater
or geotechnical issues to ensure the vault is installed correctly and will function. The vault will
probably be 12-18' deep. They will have 100 times more bearing capacity than is needed. There will
be a soil cap. He'll look at the stability of the excavation to ensure the walls hold. Mr. Coglas
showed where the stormwater vault will be located on the plat. Mr. Coglas agreed the deepest test pit
was 105, though he's gone deeper on other projects. The shallowest test pit was 8'. He agreed the
only test pit in the vicinity of the vault was Test Pit#11, to a depth of 8.5'.
Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Coglas to clarify his role in the project going forward. He stated his firm is the
geotechnical engineer of record and will assume that role going forward.
Mr. Barry Talkington, of Barghausen Consulting Engineers, is the civil engineer for the project
and designed the plat. Mr. Talkington spoke of the drainage release on the title. A drainage release
states there is stormwater leaving a property and draining on another property. It is not an easement
with an exact location. His design of the plat addressed the release by looking at upstream drainage
basins around the property. The drainage release in the title is for the Ponderosa subdivision, at least
a half mile from the property. It is uphill, but there is no physical way water can drain from that
property on to the project property. The drainage release was executed in 1965, before much of the
present development was constructed. The drainage release described the entire section (640 acres).
It's just an historical remainder.
Mr. Talkington stated discharging clean stormwater into wetlands is a common practice. The
drainage is discharged into the buffer to recharge the hydrology of the wetland.
With respect to street widths, the streets inside the project are narrower than in the surrounding
communities, in conformance with current city code.
Mr. Talkington stated the preliminary plat process starts with city approval. The next step is
preparation of full construction plans and drainage reports. Additional information will be requested
from sub-consultants. They prepared a preliminary drainage report for the general storm drainage
design. They will do a final, more specific drainage report next. The final drainage report is usually a
fine tuning, though there may be changes that require more extensive revisions.
Mr. McMonagle asked if Barghausen Consulting is an engineering firm. Mr. McMonagle asked
whether Barghausen was paid hourly from the consultant or as a contingent fee. Mr. Talkington
stated it wasn't contingent.
Staff Response
Mr. Steve Lee, City of Renton Development Engineering Manager, described his position with the
City and his relevant work experience and qualifications. Mr. Lee he had reviewed the project files
and performed a site visit. He has experience in the Cedar River area for the last ten years. Mr. Lee
responded to Mr. Neugebauer's testimony. He stated Mr. Neugebauer's points were very general.
Most of the issues Mr. Neugebauer raises were dealt with well by Mr. Coglas. Mr. Lee stated the
Cedar River issues will always be present. The river system is young and new. There have been
sloughing issues, but they were caused by deforestation in the early 20th century, earthquakes and
other acts of nature. The Cedar River is now controlled by the US Army Corp of Engineers (ACOE).
There is a bit of control in the form of two upstream dams. Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) has the
capability of metering the flow of the Cedar River. Within the last five years, there was an 80 year
event of 10,000cfs. In the past, that would have causes landslides and flooding at Boeing. That didn't
occur because of the controls in place by the ACOE and SPU.
Mr. Lee stated Mr. Coglas has performed at least 20 projects in the City of Renton. He is correct in
his review of the geotechnical study by AES. The site is very similar to other sites in the city. The
steep areas are very small (15-20' feet long) and do not warrant slope stability analysis. Overall on
the project site, the approximate slope is 10% or so. The City does not require additional slope
stability analysis.
With respect to the number of test pits in the AES study, Mr. Lee stated there were sufficient
numbers of test pits to gauge impacts of potential groundwater on site. He would have preferred to
see a few more, especially in the vault area. However, as Mr. Coglas testified, the City may require
extra analysis. He stated he does not typically require additional geotechnical analysis at this stage of
the process. They may ask for deeper borings or excavation pits. The residential nature of this
proposal wouldn't usually require it. They will look at this again to determine if more geotechnical
information is needed for the walls, cuts, grading and the stromwater vault. Mr. Lee felt the
information provided was adequate to allow for a determination of impact on the site. The AES
didn't mention issues of groundwater on the site. Therefore, they didn't feel the need to require
secondary review. The City determined the AES report was adequate.
Mr. Lee spoke to the stormwater drainage issues. The only concern the City may have is the
placement of the vault. They may require additional and deeper test pits to determine if there is
groundwater that would have a detrimental effect on the vault structure. In that instance, they will do
a buoyancy calculation to determine the static water volume. A certain amount of water will hold the
vault down. They need to know how much water that is and when it will be in the vault.
In response to Ms. Timmons, Mr. Lee stated the storm drainage water will be pre-treated and will
prevent polluted water from running off into the wetlands. The vault will treat all PGIS run off and
discharge to a closed conveyance system. None of the pollution generating systems will discharge
into a wetland.
Mr. Lee stated the City of Renton will require a Level 2 downstream analysis to describe the
downstream conveyance after leaving the site. They are uncertain of a segment of the pipeline that
takes the water. They want to make sure there is no downstream flooding. An NPDES permit will be
required for the project. The permit stipulates allowable discharge into a conveyance system. That
will include background monitoring as well as discharge monitoring. All of the requirements must
be met before a building permit or construction permits are issued.
Mr. Lee summarized the local, state and federal code requirements. The applicant has complied with
all code requirements. He stated these codes are sufficient to address all probable stormwater
impacts. He said the Seattle pipeline is monitored by SPU. If they see even a fraction of a movement
in that hillside, they'll know. This is the drinking water in the City of Seattle.
In response to the Examiner, Mr. Lee stated the deep, static groundwater level was uniformly along
the wetland level at the project, it could affect the development. They would discover this instance
during construction. If grades are lower than the wetland level, they will require more borings and
test pits. The Examiner asked if the code regulations would allow the City to ask for more borings.
Mr. Lee stated it comes down to professional liability as defined in the RCW. The person stamping
the plans is responsible. The City is responsible for life safety only. The engineering staff can require
more borings if they think there might be an issue. If there are groundwater issues present, the
proposed vault is the best solution.
In response to Ms. Rogers, Mr. Lee stated there is a difference between the perched groundwater
table and the static, deeper groundwater level. There are no indications of the static groundwater
level above 8'. Mr. Lee agreed with Mr. Coglas' assertion that the surface groundwater could be
addressed during construction.
Mr. McMonagle asked if Mr. Lee was aware the geotechnical report was prepared for the school
district rather than the applicant. Mr. Lee stated he was. Mr. McMonagle asked if there shouldn't
have been at least one test pit per acre. Mr. Lee stated the geotechnical engineering consultant will
get a representative sampling of the site. They add more bores if they see dissimilarities in the site.
Mr. McMonagle asked if Mr. Lee was aware AES limited its number of test pits based on budgetary
constraints. Mr. Lee stated he was not aware of this. With respect to the stormwater, Mr. Lee stated
the initial design was for a pond but changed to a vault sometime this year. Mr. McMonagle asked if
the vault addition would typically trigger the need for additional review. Mr. Lee stated they would
typically ask for more information but they haven't yet requested more geotechnical information
from the applicant.
Ms. Timmons asked if the City can get the extra information in an engineering packet. Mr. Lee
stated it could.
Ms. Rocale Timmons stated the studies provided by the applicant; especially the technical studies
will be fine-tuned in detail at the time of construction permit submittal. These studies are used to
determine if there are probably adverse impacts from the development. The appellant has asserted
there hasn't been adequate time to review the proposal and the attendant studies. This project has
been in review for nine months. The file has been available. The appellant has been provided with
these studies, including the revised studies from June 2013. There were two Notices of Application
released. Ms. Timmons entered Exhibit AK. The September 2014 notice included the revised SEPA
checklist.
With respect to wetlands, the City asked for a third party study. That study was completed by Otak.
Otak provided two separate memos in response to revised studies from Mr. Schultz. Otak affirmed
the final wetland determination (Exhibit A5). Otak determined there was a wetland missed by the
applicant. The studies were revised to acknowledge the fifth wetland on-site. Otak then affirmed all
of the revisions made by Mr. Schultz. Staff agrees with the TPWAG appellant regarding tree
preservation for wildlife on site.
With respect to transportation, staff agrees with testimony provided by Mr. Jones of Transpo Group.
Perteet, the City's consultant, concurred with the Transpo study. They feel all potential impacts are
mitigated.
Staff agrees with the testimony provided by Ms. Villa with respect to critical areas and buffers.
Applicant Rebuttal
Ms. Rogers stated the applicant agrees with staff on every issue with the exception of the
requirement of a 15 foot buffer.
Appellant Rebuttal
Mr. Neugebauer stated he was concerned about the stormwater vault filter. There are no
specifications on this. He has never seen a filter that can remove dissolved metals. He is concerned
about the maintenance of the filter. Who will change it or maintain it?
Mr. Neugebauer said he's been practicing hydrogeology for 33 years. He stated perched
groundwater doesn't occur on slopes. The water drains through. The groundwater follows the
contour of the land. He stated the unsaturated zone flow is at negative pressure. Groundwater is at
atmospheric pressure. The applicant is describing an impossible scenario. They can see the
groundwater through pressure gradients. He stated the water table at an elevation is a water table. He
stated they are using the applicant's information which is incomplete. The groundwater will go with
the slope of the ground. Either the water's at the surface and there is a wetland or it's not. In the
upper 30", the bioturbation zone, the ground is unsaturated. The water flows through the pore space
and creates a vacuum behind it. There is just not enough information to really say where the
groundwater is and where it's going.
Finally, Mr. Neugebauer stated groundwater is regulated under the Clean Water Act. Point sources
cannot be wetland hydrology.
Preliminary Plat
Staff Testimony
Ms. Rocale Timmons gave a PowerPoint presentation (Exhibit AL). The site is located in the
Benson Hill community planning area in the Tiffany Park neighborhood. It is 22 acres located in the
R8 zone. It is bordered by the Cedar River Pipeline and the Mercer Island Pipeline. There are 1,300
trees on this vacant site. It is owned by the Renton School District. It is surrounded by existing single
family residences. It ties into two existing street stubs which will be extended into the site.
The applicant is requesting critical areas exemptions and preliminary plat approval. The City has
received 72 comment letters. Staff was present at a community meeting held by TPWAG and
conducted a separate meeting in September 2014. On September 22, the Environmental Review
Committee (ERC) issued a MDNS decision with 11 mitigation measures. Two appeals were filed.
The environmental determination did not include new issues related to zoning, permitted uses,
density, construction mitigation, and others.
The applicant is proposing 97 lots. There is a 96 lot proposal to allow 30% retention of trees. There
will be a 5.7 du/acre density. Average lot size is 5,400sf. The site has five wetlands (three Category
II and two Category III). The applicant is proposing buffer reductions with mitigation in the form of
buffer extensions. The applicant is asking for a critical areas exemption for the extension of SE 18th
Street to allow for a small buffer impact. Staff supports the requested exemption.
Staff relied heavily on the Comprehensive Plan. There are many significant trees, critical areas,
wildlife and an established density and use pattern that are unique. Ms. Timmons described the
Comprehensive Plan policies the staff relied on in their analysis. The staff attempted to provide
harmony and balance between existing and new neighborhoods. The proposal complies with the
Comprehensive Plan as conditioned.
The proposal meets most bulk and dimensional standards if all conditions of approval are met. The
only issue is Lot 19. This lot may not meet minimum lot width standards, but will be conditioned to
meet the standard.
The applicant has provided a landscape plan. This plan does not comply with the code, but could
with minor modifications.
Per the development standards, there are several proposed walls ranging from 4' to 21' on-site.
These walls are outside the height limit. Staff has requested a height limit on walls. Staff would be
open to terracing of walls to reduce the overall height.
With respect to critical areas, most requirements are met with conditions. The applicant has asked
for modifications to wetland buffers. There are impacts from walls that must be revised.
There were public comments related to habitat. The site provides habitat for non-listed species. The
tree preservation plan is sufficient to provide habitat. Based on the provided tree inventory,
approximately 679 trees were excluded from retention calculations. At least 188 trees must be
preserved on site or replaced at a mitigation ratio to allow 30% tree retention. The applicant
proposes to protect 181 trees and mitigate seven others.
In terms of the analysis from subdivision regulations, the proposal complies if all conditions of
approval are met. The applicant must provide a safe crossing for the trail.
In response to the Examiner, Ms. Timmons stated there is no applicable street plan in the area. There
were several comments regarding transportation issues. The proposed development would generate
1,000 weekday trips. Intersections near the project would remain at acceptable levels of service. A
SEPA mitigation measure requires a new stop sign at Monroe Avenue. Staff has included an
additional condition of approval to address sight distance concerns. Staff has also recommended
additional signage. Staff feels as conditioned, all impacts for transportation are mitigated.
With respect to residential lots, there are several pipe stem lots. Staff would like to see the applicant
revise these lots to comply with code or provide for shared driveways. Shared driveways are
preferred to reduce curb cuts.
Parks, police and fire staff indicate there are sufficient resources to support the development if all
fees are paid. Adequate provisions for safe walking conditions for students are provided. Sidewalks
will be constructed to connect to the existing sidewalk system. Staff has recommended a SEPA
mitigation measure to include a crosswalk improvement at Lake Youngs Way at SE 18th Street.
Adequate provision for water and sewer are provided. The drainage report complies with the 2009
Stormwater Manual. There will be a vault within Tract A. The applicant will need to provide a
downstream analysis for stormwater conveyance.
In response to the Examiner, Ms. Timmons stated there will be no alley access. This proposal does
not meet the threshold. There are two zones on the property.
Applicant Testimony
Ms. Rogers presented a letter describing the applicant's rationale for revised conditions of approval
along with a set of revised conditions for the plat (Exhibits AM and AN, respectively). Ms. Rogers
asked for approval of the plat subject to revised conditions. They are generally supportive of the staff
report. They have a few areas of disagreement. Ms. Rogers wanted to emphasize a point that the
client is under contract to purchase the project from the Renton School District. This is surplus land
the district cannot use.
Ms. Rogers noted they are asking for revisions to Conditions 4, 5, 6, 9, and 16-18. They are
requesting additional changes to conditions to fix typographical errors, repetition, and non-contested
issues. The City has recently changed its justification for Condition 3 for the 15 foot buffer. The City
had originally erroneously relied on incorrect Comprehensive Plan policies. They are now turning to
policies that also don't support the need for a buffer. Aesthetics are not an adequate basis to impose
a perimeter buffer. There is already an average 50 foot perimeter buffer proposed along with two
pipelines. There is no need for an additional buffer.
With respect to Condition 4, they have proposed a modification to the location of curb bulb outs.
They feel the City will agree with this revision.
Condition 5 is the biggest issue. This is the condition that City is asserting that retaining walls must
be limited to 4 feet in the front yard and 6 feet in the back yard. The City is referencing a condition
related to aesthetic dividers, not retaining walls. None of the retaining walls concepts are referenced
in this condition. Even if this particular code were to apply, the measurement of height does not
apply. The walls they have designed are essential to the design of the plat. Exhibit AM, Attachment
B, are two staff reports for current amendments to the walls and hedges section of the code. Title 4
does not have standards for retaining walls. Exhibit AM, Attachment C is a city handout that
establishes a difference between fences, hedges and walls and engineered retaining walls. Exhibit
AM, Attachment D is the pre-application memo for the original meeting Henley had with the City.
You never get a written report again until you see the Hearing Examiner. The City stated the
proposed retaining walls are not subject to the fences portion of the code. Even if the code has
recently changed, they are vested to the old code. If the retaining walls are reduced or eliminated,
we'll end up doing more grading. That will result in impact to trees and increased construction
impacts. They have submitted a grading plan with reduced retaining wall heights.
Conditions 6 and 16 are about shared private driveways. They are concerned the City is demanding
an extra lot use the shared private driveways. There is a specific instance when this will not work.
Condition 9 is the wetland mitigation associated with Wetland E, at the southeast section of the site.
The wetland mitigation plans show they have already exceeded the required buffer. They have to
extend the street. The critical areas exemption is for 14sf of impact from the required sidewalk. The
City has asked for additional buffer area. They disagree but will agree to provide enhanced
plantings.
Condition 17 is a typographical error.
Condition 18 is related to pipe stem lots which are really about the shared driveway issue.
Mr. Gary Schultz, the wetland ecologist, described the mitigation impacts the applicant is
providing. His testimony is specifically related to Condition 9. Mr. Schultz described the 1,331sf of
additional buffer the applicant is proposing.
Ms. Rogers stated Ms. Timmons agreed to the revised Conditions 1, 4, 9, 13 and 17. Ms. Timmons
stated they disagree with applicant revised Conditions 3, 5, 6, and 16. In response to the Examiner,
Ms. Vanessa Dolby, stated she would not be opposed to changing Condition 5 to allow them to
request a variance. She could not comment on whether staff would support a variance. These would
be administrative variances. Ms. Rogers stated that they did not apply for a variance because they
were told they didn't need to.
Mr. Barry Talkington spoke to the difference between cut and fill walls. A cut is needed when the
finished lot grade is below the existing grade. The wall stabilizes the grade. A fill wall includes fill
on top of existing grade. The finished lot is above existing grade. This is and engineered wall with
reinforcing fabric. Mr. Talkington stated the revised plan reduces the 21' high wall above Tract A
and the 18' high wall along the Cedar River Pipeline. That wall will come down to 6'. The height
from the high side of the walls is zero if they apply the code in effect when they submitted. In their
case, the finished grade is the top of the wall.
Mr. Talkington described the limits on site grading imposed by two entrances, ADA standards, etc.
The overall objective is to balance cut/fill on site. They are limited by the road access and ADA
standards for road slopes through intersections. They can only change grades on site so much. As the
plan is laid out there are grade differences from lot to lot that requires walls. They attempt to
maximize lot areas and reduce impacts to surrounding buffers. If they meet the City's conditions,
they will lose lots, reduce lot sizes and impact the buffers. Use of walls allows them to decrease
impacts.
For Conditions 6 and 16, Mr. Talkington spoke to a set of maps (Exhibit AO) depicting the shared
driveway plans. He prepared the plans. For lots 9-14, the shared driveway easement will be used
Lots 12-14. Lot 14 has direct access to the cul-de-sac but there will be no driveway there. The City
would also require Lot 11 to use this driveway. This is not desirable because the driveway would be
at an angle to the roadway which would also change the design of the house to allow side loading of
the garage. The City is attempting to apply the amended code to the plot rather than the code under
which the project vested. The staff Report stated Lot 14 had inadequate frontage. This has been
corrected.
For Lots 15-17, they had originally designed the shared driveway to service Lots 15 and 16. They
have now included Lot 17 on the shared easement. They have also corrected the frontage of Lot 17
to comply with code. Next to Lots 15-17, there is a pedestrian tract.
For Lots 38-40, the issue is the same as for Lots 15-17. They have revised the lots to allow Lot 38 to
comply with the width requirement and access the shared easement.
For Lots 79-81, Lot 81 was added to allow access to the shared right of way. Lot 78 will not access
the shared driveway.
With the applicant's revised condition language, they are willing to ensure access to shared
driveways for three lots rather than the City's suggested four.
Public Testimony
Ms. Jill Jones is a Renton resident. She's heard experts testifying and noted that many of these
people testifying have not walked the roads. She has lived there and walked therefor years. This is a
valuable resource. The Cedar River corridor cannot be walked by residents. There is no access here
because it is steep. The woods are fully canopied, with easy trails. Henley says because the
development is single family residences, they shouldn't have to provide a buffer. The development is
much denser than the existing neighborhoods. The trees are mature and were pre-existing 30 years
ago. The road is wide. There are many trees. Grass planting strips absorb the rain. Ms. Jones showed
an example of other Henley developments that have no trees and narrow parking strips. The homes
will be taller and larger than the existing houses on much smaller lots. There will be no stormwater
areas. Currently Tiffany Park floods in heavy storms. She has serious doubts about the ability to
provide adequate stormwater drainage. She also observed a pileated woodpecker in the woods on
April 14, 2014.
Ms. Beedon would like to ask the Examiner to walk the woods before he makes a decision. This is
important. She has listened to all of the testimony. The experts seem to care but they have shown no
concern about what they are tearing down. This piece of wood should be preserved. They are taking
away something irreplaceable. She feels this piece of property should be preserved for future
generations and all of us. She asked the Examiner to walk this area. Also, she has observed pileated
woodpecker nests in these woods. They don't migrate. This is not about not wanting development.
This is about preserving a precious piece of woods. She wouldn't care if they built a prison there is it
was cleared. This is about nature and the trees. She can't imagine all these trees being torn down. If
the citizens hadn't become active, the forest would be clear cut. They have a right as citizens to be
heard and care about the environment.
Ms. Barbara Smith stated she didn't realize she needed to submit the reviews for Henley Homes
Exhibit AQ). Ms. Rogers noted they were not a comprehensive review.
Staff Rebuttal
Ms. Timmons stated for the driveway portion of the code, please review RMC 4-4-080. This code
allows discretionary authority in the code to limit the number of driveways accessing the street. staff
does not agree with the proposed revisions to Conditions 6 and 16. They want to see Lots 11 and 78
to access abutting shared driveways.
ATTACHMENT B
The Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeals
LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAE)
EXHIBITS ADMITTED DURING HEARING
SEPA Appeal Exhibits
Exhibit A: City of Renton Environmental Analysis (Attachments 1-18 are listed as
Preliminary Plat Exhibits 1-18 below)
Exhibit B: Environmental (SEPA) Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated
Preliminary Plat Exhibit 22 below)
Exhibit C: Environmental Checklist (June 10, 2014)
Exhibit D: Comprehensive Plan (Land Use, Transportation and Community Design
Elements)
Exhibit E: Acceptance and Notice of Application Affidavit Service by Mailing (November
24, 2014)
Exhibit F: Notice of Application and Off Hold Notice Affidavit Service by Mailing (July 25,
2014)
Exhibit G: Commitment for Title Insurance
Exhibit H: TPWAG Letter to Renton School District (September 10, 2014)
Exhibit I: Renton School District Letter of Denial to TPWAG (September 16, 2014)
Exhibit J: Henley Appeal
Exhibit K: Henley SEPA Appeal Exhibits
I.a.HEX Staff Recommendation Report
b. Pre-Application Notes
C.Wetland Determination (October 30, 2013)
d. Wetland Determination (February 28, 2014)
2. Letter Report from Ray Coglas
3. RSD Resolution No. 0312/13
4.SPU Letter (November 4, 2014)
5. Drainage Release
6.Site Maps and Aerial Photos
7.Airsoft Guns Documentation
8.Revised Plans, Alternate Layouts
9.COR COW Meeting (September 9, 2013)
10. Area Water Well Logs
11. Legal Analysis and Argument (November 18, 2014)
12. Soundview Consultants Letter, Racheal Villa
13. Grete Associates Report, 2008
Exhibit L: TPWAG Appeal
Exhibit M: TWPAG SEPA Appeal Exhibits
19. TIR Report (November 12, 2013)
21. TIA Report (November 2013)
23. Tree Protection Report (November 13, 2013)
24. SEPA Checklist (November 13, 2013)
39. Miscellaneous Photographs of Surrounding Site
40. Professional Qualifications —Steven Neugebauer
41. Neugebauer Expert Report (November 17, 2014)
47. Pre-Hearing Statement regarding Prescriptive Easement (November 18,
2014)
48. TPWAG Correspondence with Renton School District
Exhibit N: Staff Appeal Analysis (November 18, 2014)
Exhibit O: Henley Pre-Hearing Order Request
Exhibit P: Hearing Examiner Order Requesting Reply to Pre-Hearing Order Request
Exhibit Q: TPWAG Response to Pre-Hearing Order Request
Exhibit R: City Response to Pre-Hearing Order Request
Exhibit S: Henley Response to Pre-Hearing Order Request
Exhibit T: Pre-Hearing Order
Exhibit U: McMonagle Notice of Appearance
Exhibit V: Flatley Resume
Exhibit X: Lee Resume
Exhibit Y: Declaration of Timmons
Exhibit Z: Not Used
Exhibit AA: Renton Reporter Article (Donnelly)
Exhibit AB: Letter to Editor(Donnelly)
Exhibit AC: 5 Photographs (Donnelly)
Exhibit AD: TPWAG Memo on HEX Authority and Halverson v. Bellevue (November 28,
2014)
Exhibit AE: City of Renton Response to TPWAG Memo of 11/28/14 (December 5, 2014)
Exhibit AF: Henley Response to TPWAG Memo of 11/28/14 (December 5, 2014)
Exhibit AG: Hearing Examiner Ruling on Examiner Authority and Halverson v. Bellevue
December 7, 2014)
Exhibit AH: Title Report/Chain of Title (TPWAG)
Exhibit Al: Roenicke TPWAG Summary Testimony
Exhibit AJ: Garlough TPWAG Summary Testimony
Exhibit AK: Timeline
Preliminary Plat Exhibits
Exhibit 1: HEX Report
Exhibit 2: Preliminary Plat Plan (July 16, 2014)
Exhibit 3: Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan (July 16, 2014)
Exhibit 4: Tree Protection Report (June 6, 2014)
Exhibit 5: Revised Wetland Determination and Response Letter (June 3, 2014)
Exhibit 6: Habitat Assessment (January 16, 2014)
Exhibit 7: Geotechnical Report (September 28, 2012)
Exhibit 8: Drainage Report (February 24, 2014)
Exhibit 9: Traffic Impact Analysis (April 23, 2014)
Exhibit 10: Public Comment Letters: '10.1-10.70
Exhibit 11: Alternative Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan (August 29, 2014)
Exhibit 12: Alternative Tree Protection Report (August 27, 2014)
Exhibit 13: Independent Secondary Review - Traffic
Exhibit 14: Independent Secondary Review—Wetland (April 3, 2014)
Exhibit 15: Supplemental Independent Secondary Review—Wetland (July 9, 2014)
Exhibit 16: Habitat Assessment Technical Memorandum (February 11, 2014)
Exhibit 17: Habitat Assessment Technical Memorandum (June 12, 2014)
Exhibit 18: Landscape Plan (July 16, 2014)
Exhibit 19: Transportation Concurrency Approval
Exhibit 20: Renton Trails and Bikeways Map
Exhibit 21: Environment Review Committee (ERC) Staff report
Exhibit 22: SEPA Determination and Mitigation Measures (September 22, 2014)
Exhibit 23: Public Meeting Notice
Exhibit 24: Notice of Application Affidavits
Exhibit AL: Staff PowerPoint Presentation
Exhibit AM: Applicant Letter of Revised Plat Conditions (December 8, 2014)
Exhibit AO: Shared Driveway
Exhibit AP: Jones, Photographs
Exhibit AQ: Henley Homes Reviews from Internet