HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-09-2021 - HEX Decision - Admin Appeal -- Short Plat -- Varma1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Short Plat Appeal - 1
CAO VARIANCE - 1
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
RE: Claudia Donnelly
Short Plat Appeal
File No. LUA-21-000139
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW AND FINAL DECISION
Overview
Ms. Donnelly’s appeal is denied except for a condition requiring that the final arborist report for
taddress impacts of loss of windbreak to the trees on adjoining property previously owned by
the Fransons. According to Ms. Donnelly, the Fransons believed that the removal of trees on
the project site could make the trees on their property unstable due to loss of windbreak. There
was no evidence presented to refute this plausible impact. It’s acknowledged that the current
owners of the Franson property may not have raised loss of windbreak as a concern, but an
abundance of caution is merited for matters of public safety.
The remaining issues raised by Ms. Donnelly are all heavily regulated by City development
standards. Those standards set what the Renton City Council has determined are acceptable
levels of impact for development projects. Ms. Donnelly has not made any compelling case that
the project will violate any of those standards. Stormwater flows originating from an off-site
retention pond will be by-passed into the City’s stormwater system as required by adopted
stormwater standards. Sidewalks and wide street shoulders provide safe walking conditions for
children walking to school bus stops and no cross walk is merited under adopted street design
standards. Finally, fifteen-year old sightings of Golden Eagles are not sufficient to overcom e
the absence of any such sightings in priority habitat and species maps prepared by the
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Testimony
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Short Plat Appeal - 2
CAO VARIANCE - 2
Exhibits
1. Donnelly September 1, 2021 Appeal.
2. Donnelly September 3, 2021 Appeal.
3. Donnelly October 6, 2021 Exhibits.
4. October 13, 2021 Email from Ms. Donnelly
5. October 18, 2021 Email from Ms. Donnelly
6. October 14, 2021 letter from Ms. Donnelly with attachments.
7. October 19, 2021 City of Renton Response and Motion to Dismiss
8. October 19, 2021 Applicant response to appeal.
9. October 22, 2021 email from Ms. Donnelly
10. August 26,2021 Varma Short Plat decision along with its 14 exhibits
11. October 25, 2021 Applicant Reply on City Motion to Dismiss
12. WDFW Priority Habitat and Species Map,
https://geodataservices.wdfw.wa.gov/hp/phs/
13. Google Street View Photograph of SE 132nd Ave.
Findings of Fact
Procedural:
1. Appellant. Claudia Donnelly, 10415 – 145th Ave SE, Renton, WA 98059.
2. Hearing. A virtual hearing on the appeal was held via the Zoom application on October 25,
2021.
3. Appeal Description. Ms. Donnelly appeals the administrative approval of the Varma Short Plat,
LUA21-000139. A summary of the Varma Short Plat and of Ms. Donnelly’s appeal is outlined in the
findings of the Ruling on City Motion to Dismiss of this case. Those findings are adopted by reference.
4. Appeal Issues. The aforementioned Ruling on City Motion to Dismiss limited Ms. Donnelly’s
appeal to four issues. Each of those four issues is addressed separately in the Findings of Fact below.
5. Tree Retention. As conditioned, the proposal will not cause any damage to neighboring trees
due to loss of “windbreak” by removal of on-site trees.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Short Plat Appeal - 3
CAO VARIANCE - 3
Ms. Donnelly alleged that tree removal would eliminate a wind break necessary to keep trees safe on
neighboring property. She asserted that adjoining property owners named Franson had told her that they
relied upon trees on the Varma property to serve as a windbreak. Ms. Donnelly did not expressly state
that the windbreak was necessary to keep the trees from falling, but that is presumably her intent.
Ms. Donnelly’s allegations of potential tree damage are based upon vague hearsay comments about
loss of windbreak protection. Ms. Donnelly provides no evidence of specific trees that could be
damaged or rendered dangerous by loss of windbreak. It is also recognized that the Fransons likely no
longer even own the adjoining property as asserted by the Applicant. Nonetheless, danger trees can
cause serious injury and property damage if not properly addressed. The City indicated during the
hearing that the short plat approval required revision of the arborist report and that impacts to adjoining
trees would have to be addressed. A condition will be added to the short plat requiring assessment of
windbreak removal danger. This is not intended to trigger an in-depth analysis by the arborist unless
site conditions suggest that removal of windbreak will create dangerous conditions on the Franson
property. The condition is also not intended to suggest that the Applicant bears any responsibility from
preventing windbreak beyond warning the owner of the Franson property. The legal obligations, if
any, of the Applicant on this issue are left to the City and Applicant to work out during permit review.
6. Stormwater. Stormwater runoff across the Applicant’s property that originates from property
owned by James Craig in unincorporated King County will be adequately addressed by the City’s
stormwater regulations.
Mr. Craig submitted a written comment noting that he has a retention pond that sometimes generates
stormwater flows that cross onto the project property. Ms. Donnelly asserts that the City has no
jurisdiction over those stormwater flows because they originate in unincorporated King County. That
is incorrect. However, her concern does raise the question of how the City addresses stormwater flows
that potentially qualify as trespassing and whether the impacts of those flows will be adequately
mitigated. Michael Sippo , civil engineer from the City’s Public Works department, identified that the
City’s stormwater code requires that flows across the Applicant’s property originating from upstream
flows are required to be bypassed into their natural discharge point. In this case the natural discharge
point is the City’s stormwater system. Water quality would also be addressed in coordination with
King County, if any contamination occurred in King County. Given these factors, it is determined that
the City will adequately mitigate any impacts created by the Craig off-site flows, as those flows will be
discharged into the City’s stormwater system and thereby not adversely affect any other properties.
7. Walking Conditions to Bus Stop. The proposal provides for safe walking conditions to and
from school bus stops.
Ms. Donnelly asserts that the plat should be denied because SE 128th and SE 156h street are unsafe.
The Ruling on City Motion to Dismiss limited the road safety issue to walking conditions for children
walking to school or school bus stops.
The evidence in the record establishes safe walking conditions for children. As noted by the Applicant,
they will be installing sidewalks on their street frontage to 156th. Students for elementary, middle and
high school will cross 156th to a wide shoulder on the west side of 156th that includes a paved portion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Short Plat Appeal - 4
CAO VARIANCE - 4
outside the fog line that is four feet wide in addition to a gravel shoulder that adds several feet more.
Students will then turn west to 132nd St., which has a 10-foot wide gravel shoulder that extends to one
of two bus stops that would be used by the students. The speed limit on 132nd is 20 mph. Public works
staff have reviewed the walking conditions for safety and found no safety problems. According to Mr.
Sippo’s testimony, the walking route does not merit a cross-walk under City street design standards.
Ms. Donnelly identified that there is a speeding problem in the area. That is an enforcement issue that
needs to be taken up with City police.
8. Golden Eagle. There is no compelling evidence of a Golden Eagle presence at the project site.
Ms. Donnelly asserts in her appeal documents that on several occasions she observed a Golden Eagle
at the project site when her mother resided there in 2004-2006. There is no evidence of any current
Golden Eagle presence or habitat on the project site. Determinative on this issue is the Washington
State Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitat and Species map, which identifies the location
of protected habitat. No protected species habitat are identified in the map for the project area. In the
absence of any more current sightings of the Golden Eagle than those of Ms. Donnelly and her mother
fifteen years ago, the WDFW map is found to be the more compelling evidence of any current habitat
or presence at the project site.
Conclusions of Law
1. Authority. RMC 4-8-080G classifies short plat decisions as Type II decisions subject to appeal
to the hearing examiner, which in turn is subject to closed record appeal to the City Council.
2. Review Standard. As noted in the Ruling on the City Motion to Dismiss, the review criteria for
short plats are governed by RCW 58.17.110(1) and RMC 4-7-070(H)(3)1, which generally require that
a short plat make appropriate provisions for public health, safety and welfare and infrastructure. As
further provided in the Ruling, RMC 4-3-050(F)(6)(b) requires the protection of Golden Eagle habitat.
Collectively, these standards govern all the issues Ms. Donnelly was authorized to present at the appeal
hearing.
For the reasons identified in Findings of Fact No. 5-8, Ms. Donnelly has not established any violation
of the development standards that govern her appeal. As detailed in Finding of Fact No. 5, the project
is conditioned to assess any impacts of loss of windbreak occasioned by tree removal, thus complying
with the public health, safety and welfare component of RCW 58.17.110(1) and RMC 4-7-070(H)(3).
As detailed in Findings of Fact No. 6 and 7 the proposal is adequately conditioned and regulated to
provide for adequate roads, school walking conditions and drainage control under the appropriate
infrastructure provisions of RCW 58.17.110(1) and RMC 4-7-070(H)(3). Finally, there is no evidence
1 The City’s critical area regulations, which includes protection of priority species such as the Golden Eagle, apply to
any “regulated activity” which includes short plat development. See RMC4-3-050B2. Protection of the City’s critical
area regulations would also be required under the public health, safety and welfare component of RCW 58.17.110(1)
and RMC 4-7-070(H)(3).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Short Plat Appeal - 5
CAO VARIANCE - 5
of current project site occupation of Golden Eagles in violation of RMC 4-3-050(F)(6)(b) as determined
in Finding of Fact No. 8.
DECISION
Ms. Donnelly’s appeal is denied, except for the following added condition:
1. The revised arborist report required by the conditions of approval shall identify if there is any
danger to the trees of the adjoining property formerly owned by the Fransons due to loss of
windbreak on the project site caused by tree removal.
DATED this 9th day of November 2021.
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
RMC 4-8-080(G) subject this open-record appeal decision to closed record appeal to the City of
Renton City Council. Appeals of the hearing examiner’s decision must be filed with the Renton City
Clerk within fourteen (14) calendar days from the issuance of the decision as outlined in RMC 4-8-
110C2. All appeals must be received by the City Clerk’s Office by this deadline and be accompanied
by the applicable appeal fee.
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
Varma Hearing (Completed 10/27/21)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 1 of 35
Appendix A
October 19, 2021 Hearing Transcript
Varma Short Plat Appeal -- LUA-21-000139
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
For the record it's 9:30 AM, October 26th, 2021. We're dealing with an administrative appeal from
Claudia Donnelley under file number L UUA 21 0 0 1 3 9. As I wrote out in the pre-hearing order for this
case, Ms. Donnelley will have the opportunity to go first and present her case because she has the
burden of proof under the city's appeals procedures and all witnesses will be subject to cross
examination. Once she's done presenting her issues, then the city will have an opportunity to respond
and present their witnesses. And of course their witnesses too will be subject to cross examination.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
And then Ms. Donnelley is the appellant, gets the final word and gets to present rebuttal evidence. And I
see here we have Ms. Donnelley. Do we have Mr. Mr. Mecum on behalf of the applicant? Who is here
on behalf of the applicant?
Mr. Mecum:
Yes, I'm here.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Oh, okay, great. and then for the city, who's here for staff today?
White:
[inaudible 00:04:50] I'm representing the city.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay, great. So we have all the hearing participants. Any questions or preliminary matters before we
jump into it this morning? Let me deal with the exhibits really quick so we get that out of the way. Of
course, we all need to know exactly what documents we're considering here and I've just got to pull up
my pre-hearing order or actually the order I emailed to the parties last night identifies 11 exhibits.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Are there any objections to entry of all those documents? Those would essentially be the appeal
documents, Ms. Donnelley's exhibits that she's emailed us over the last few weeks and then the city and
applicants responses and replies to that. Is there anything else we need to add to that list at this point?
Or any objections to exhibits one through 11? Okay, I'll admit exhibits one through 11 then.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Ms. Donnelley, let me swear you in at this point, if you could just raise your right hand. Do you swear,
affirm, tell the truth and nothing but the truth, this proceeding?
Varma Hearing (Completed 10/27/21)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 2 of 35
Claudia Donnelley:
I do.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
All right. Okay, go ahead then.
Claudia Donnelley:
Now, can I start with the four items that you authorized me to talk about?
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Yeah. Mm-hmm (affirmative)
Claudia Donnelley:
Impacts of pre-removal to joining property, I represent the residents of the 158th Avenue Southeast,
from our neighbors to this proposed project. I was asked by them a couple of years ago to help them
save the property as they did not want any more housing developments in their backyard. They grew up
or some of the kids and some of the parents like having the trees around. And as Mr. Mr. Mecum stated
yesterday, yes, I am a member of the Reynolds family and I also care about the trees. I bought many of
those and I've grown up and watched them grow up themselves. So I care and that's all I'm doing is
trying to protect the property and trying to buy it so that we can make it an open space for the residents
of the property.
Claudia Donnelley:
When my parents were still alive, both of them indicated to me that they wanted to donate their
property, the two acres to a Land Trust, Conservatory something so that the neighbors could enjoy it.
And that's all I'm doing. The impacts of the tree removal on the [Franson's 00:07:39] Property, while
working the property to make sure it was protected for my mother to walk on, I met Mr. Franson and
then later I met his wife and both of them have about what half acre maybe, I don't have rough
measurements of their property and they have tall trees in the property they like to keep. And what
they have found over the years is that the trees on the environment property ride a wind break for their
trees.
Claudia Donnelley:
And as the project got going, supposedly the city of Renton sent out a mailing to all the residents saying
that Morgan, pardon me, Alex Morganroth was going to be the planner. And when I last talked to Mrs.
Franson, she told me that she was attempting to talk to him about the trees and about the people
they've talked to about protecting the trees and what will happen to the trees on their property, if the
trees on the farmer property come down. And as I know I can't talk about this, but I have seen other
developments clear cut the property, and that's what I've told the people in the neighborhood. I mean,
I've seen it. So they're concerned about keeping the trees on their property from having to be cut.
Claudia Donnelley:
And as Mrs. [Farman 00:06:45] told me, she tried to contact Mr. Morganroth, and he never got back to
her for whatever reason. And I raised a concern that they're concerned about the trees on their
property, but nobody seemed to care from the city of Renton about what happened to them because
Varma Hearing (Completed 10/27/21)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 3 of 35
there's nothing listed in the preliminary plan document. Mitigation, if any, from storm water runoff,
again, I talked to the Franson's and as I stated in... Excuse me, I'm nervous. As I stated in one of my
documents, I enclosed the map to show the location of the property. Mr. [Varma 00:06:45] Is down at
the bottom, then comes the Franson's and then comes Mr. [Craig's 00:06:45] Property. And from what
Mrs. Franson told me was that there's a detention pond on Craig's property and the water goes from his
property to the Franson's property.
Claudia Donnelley:
Mr. Craig's property is nowhere near Mr. Farman's property. Mitigation, again, I didn't see anything in
the preliminary plan that showed that the city of Renton even talked to the Varma or probably talked to
the Fransons about how is it going to impact their property. Has anybody talked to them about how
much property in their property is going to be damaged from this project? And my concern was that
again, it's in the city, it's in King County. It's nowhere near Mr. Varma's property. Mr. Varma is in the city
of Renton.
Claudia Donnelley:
Nothing was listed as mitigation. Nobody talked to the Fransons about what's going to happen to their
trees, what's going to happen to their property. As it is right now, they get storm water runoff from Mr.
Craig's property to the Franson's property. And then it goes down probably down to Mr. Varma's
property. Again, nothing was mentioned in the city of Renton's preliminary plan document that never
even talked to them.
Claudia Donnelley:
Okay, the third one is safety of walking routes to the school bus stops. I lived out there, I drove up to see
my mother every day. To me it's a dangerous road. And in order to keep the residents of the area
informed as to what I was doing in regard to this property, I would send notes out to them. So I would
make up notes and then I'd walk 156th Avenue Southeast, and I'd drop notes off to the various people
telling them this was happening, or that was happening.
Claudia Donnelley:
I did not like walking that road because cars would come up faster than the 25 or 30 miles an hour that
the speed limit is posted. It scared me to death walking on there. And I saw how my mother was
impacted. Like I said, the other day, my brother tried to put padlock on the gate and on the garage to
keep her safe. And it didn't work because he violated state law in regards to an elder abuse. And that's
one of my other passions, which has nothing to do with this in the fact that the elderly also have rights,
and some of those rights were being violated by my brother.
Claudia Donnelley:
Kids, five and six, I wouldn't let my kids walk to their bus stop down our road. Why should Renton want
to make the kindergartners, five and six year old kids walk with all the traffic that comes up there? And
as I've stated earlier, when I visited mom I took her places, especially up to see my dad in 2004, before
he passed away, I had to wait at the entrance to the driveway just to be able to get out. And when cars
were coming up from the south, it wasn't safe, I couldn't pull out.
Claudia Donnelley:
Varma Hearing (Completed 10/27/21)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 4 of 35
And then cars would be coming down from Southeast 128th. And again, they were speeding. They were
going faster than the speed limit. I protected my children. And I don't know if Ms. [White 00:06:45] is a
mother or not, but protecting your children is important. And the city of Renton knows this because on
Duval and also on Cemetery Road, down by the cemetery, they've put two types of stop sign so people
can hit the button and that flashes red lights that allows people to cross the road safely. Why can't they
do that with 156th? That road gets traffic from Kent, from Fairwood, from Maple valley, from Covington,
from Renton all over up the road. And they feel it's a shortcut instead of having to go down into Renton
and get onto 405th. And the presence of the gold Eagle on the project site has stated, I saw one, I was
sitting in my mother's dining room table and I looked out the window and the golden Eagle landed on a
Redwood tree that was out there.
Claudia Donnelley:
We watched it. I don't know if it has a nest on the site. I don't remember the date it occurred, but it did
occur. And like I said, my rebuttal, if the city of Renton wants me to take a lie detector test about this, I
will. But I've also read up on the golden Eagle and Eagle bald Eagle protection act. And it states that the
act prohibits anyone from taking bald Eagles or golden Eagles, and then taking is described to include
their parts, nests or eggs, molesting or disturbing the birds. Okay, if you cut the tree down that this
particular bird, this golden Eagle was on, that's taking it's habit as far as I'm concerned. I care about the
environment, I care about my neighborhood and that includes my neighborhood where I grew up on. So
that's the roads are dangerous and the kids are going to need help.
Claudia Donnelley:
If you take a look at the pictures I made on Southeast, the 132nd street, there's no sidewalk for them to
walk on. There is a development going to put a new sidewalk in for them too? And like I mentioned, I
mentioned several suggestions for that. One was put the overhead lights in, so the cars have to stop for
crossing. The second is to go to the school district and ask for a change of bus application, so it's on
156th. I saw that happen many times. I've worked for Bellevue School District. In 1972 to 73, I was a
teacher, part-time at Bellevue high school and I worked the second part of the day as a clerk up in the
bus garage. So we would always get phone calls from residents concerned about dangerous bus stops.
And so they would send a driver out to look at it and examine it and then talk about it later, so it can be
done.
Claudia Donnelley:
So I don't know. I guess I'm open to questions.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay. All right, Mr. Mr. Mecum, did you have any questions of Ms. Donnelley?
Mr. Mecum:
I did, actually. Ms. Donnelley, you mentioned that the Fransons had asked you to champion for their
trees, mm-mm (negative), when was that?
Claudia Donnelley:
I don't know. Three years ago, four years ago? I worked the property between 2004, 2006. And the first
person I met was [Van Franson 00:19:00], and he and I talked, he wanted to know who I was. So I told
him and he said, "oh yeah, we really like the trees, we like the property, we'd like to keep and protect
Varma Hearing (Completed 10/27/21)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 5 of 35
our trees." So I've met and talked to him many times. And then I met his wife. And then there's another
person on the other side of the property who I've been friends with for about the same amount of time.
He wants the same thing and the neighbors in the back.
Mr. Mecum:
So are you aware that the Fransons sold their home in May of 2020 and don't live there anymore?
Claudia Donnelley:
Pardon me?
Mr. Mecum:
According to county records, the Fransons sold their property in May of 2020. Are you aware of that?
Claudia Donnelley:
No, I was not.
Mr. Mecum:
So they don't actually live on that property anymore.
Claudia Donnelley:
That's strange because I saw Mr. Franson on the 13th of October, drive coming into the driveway. He
didn't mention anything like that to me [crosstalk 00:20:06].
Mr. Mecum:
There was a quick claim deal filed May 22nd of 2020 transferring the property from the Fransons to the
[Arabulantes 00:20:14].
Claudia Donnelley:
That's news to me.
Mr. Mecum:
Okay. And you are in support of adding sidewalk to 156th avenue?
Claudia Donnelley:
No, not of it takes out the trees.
Mr. Mecum:
But it would help protect the children.
Claudia Donnelley:
Oh no. The children would still have to cross the road. Are you talking about sidewalks on both sides or
just one side?
Mr. Mecum:
Varma Hearing (Completed 10/27/21)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 6 of 35
I was asking in general.
Claudia Donnelley:
You know, if it protects the kids, but I also like the idea of having that stop sign or stop light at the top.
Mr. Mecum:
Okay. And then in regards to Mr Craig's property, I've not been very clear on whether you are in favor of
addressing this runoff or stating that he is part of King County and shouldn't be involved at all.
Claudia Donnelley:
I don't think he should be involved at all. Why is the city of Renton so concerned about somebody who
lives in King County? I mean the water from Mr. Craig's property doesn't even flow onto the Varma's
property. Mr. and Mrs. Craig said he lives adjacent to the property. What's adjacent? Is it two houses
down? Is it right next door? The Franson's property...
Mr. Mecum:
Oh, his property and the project property share one property corner. So his Southwest corner touches
the Northeast corner of the project.
Claudia Donnelley:
Okay. I wasn't aware of that.
Mr. Mecum:
Okay. That's all the questions I have for...
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay. Thank you Mr. Mr. Mecum.
Mr. Mecum:
I assume there's time for us to respond in general.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Oh yeah, definitely. Yeah. Was laid out in the pre-hearing order. Ms. White, did you have any questions
with Ms. Donnelley?
White:
Not currently have questions for Ms. Donnelley, thank you.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay, then let's move on then to... I believe we're at the... Now's the applicant's turn. Let me look at the
format here. The applicant now. Mr. Mr. Mecum it's your turn. Let me swear you in there. Just raise
your right hand. Do you swear, affirm, tell the truth, nothing but the truth in this proceeding?
Mr. Mecum:
Varma Hearing (Completed 10/27/21)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 7 of 35
I do.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay. All right, go ahead then.
Mr. Mecum:
I believe we had set up for Mr. Varma to introduce the project?
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay. Mr. Varma you there? You might have to unmute yourself. I don't see on my list. So if you just say
something you'll pop up on the screen, probably.
Varma:
Yes.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Ah, there you are. Okay. Let me swear you in first. Just raise your right hand. Do you swear, affirm, tell
the truth, nothing but the truth in this proceeding?
Varma:
I do.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay. All right, go ahead.
Varma:
Good morning Mr. Olbrechts and thank you for your consideration of this project. I am not a full-time
developer, but enjoy taking on projects like this as a hobby and an investment. Unlike many of the
national development builders, I live in this community and care about the way development will shape
the city. I have worked with my team to design this property with parcels that have additional width and
more square footage, than what is required by code. So the houses that I plan to build wouldn't looks
too crowded. I have already extended the civil land up 156 to provide sewer to another project that is
already been constructed. I'm experienced in development of property and I'm aware of the potential
issues that need to be addressed. I'm not attempting to circumvent any of the regulations, but do expect
them to be implemented fairly as they are written as submitted in our response to the appeal.
Varma:
I purchased this property in 2007, from the rentals, the executor of the [inaudible 00:24:48], mother
state. Since then, I have been approached by Ms. Donnelley several times with offers to purchase the
property at the price we had paid original. And those have offers were not accepted while development
of land is hobby of mine, also don't willingly would like to lose large amount of money on the projects. It
is my opinion that my team has done and will continue to do a reasonable job of designing the
remaining portion of this project. Thank you.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Varma Hearing (Completed 10/27/21)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 8 of 35
All right, Ms. Ways, did you have any questions of Mr. Varma?
White:
I do not currently have any questions for Mr. Varma, thank you.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Ms. Donnelley, did you have any questions of Mr. Varma?
Claudia Donnelley:
Not really questions, but I do have some comments.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay, need to save your comments. You'll have an opportunity to make your comments at the end of
the hearing once we're done with all the other witnesses.
Claudia Donnelley:
Okay.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
All right. Okay. Let's move back to Mr. Mr. Mecum. Did you have any other witnesses to present?
Mr. Mecum:
I'm going to jump in with some general comments of my own then, after that, I'll introduce Mr. [Layton
00:26:03]
PART 1 OF 4 ENDS [00:26:04]
Mr. Mecum:
Comments on my own.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay, sure.
Mr. Mecum:
Then after that, I'll introduce Mr. Laden. So I am going to reorganize real quick though, regarding the
mitigation stormwater runoff, we have developed a full functional stormwater collection, conveyance
treatment and retention system that is in general compliance with the king county stormwater manual,
which has been adopted by the city of Renton, prior to the approval of the short plat. We actually were
not aware of the retention part or Mr. Craig's property that was actually presented with the approval
letter. Had we know about that? We probably would've addressed that in the preliminary stormwater
drainage report, but we will certainly work with Mr. Craig to talking to them what's going on out there
and make sure that any runoff does not flow on to newly developed property without an appropriate
collection system for it. I do agree that we should be protecting children as they walk to school. The
project does propose installing sidewalks on one 56 and on one 58 for the full length of the property,
Varma Hearing (Completed 10/27/21)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 9 of 35
sidewalks will be separated from the driving path by, I believe it's eight feet of landscape strip for the
protecting the children from walking close to the cars.
Claudia Donnelley:
May I ask a question here?
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Once he's done Ms. Donnell you'll have that chance. Yeah.
Claudia Donnelley:
Okay.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Let him finish up. Go ahead Mr Malcolm. And this will make him
Mr. Mecum:
Regarding the golden Eagles and the trees. I am going to defer to Bob at some point for those ones, but
just thinking, the tree retention plan has been designed in compliance with our understanding of the
own tree code, which apparently had a few clause in it. As this waste has helped me see, and we're
working toward resolving those issues to retain trees in compliance with the tree code, neighboring
trees that might be left on protected from the wind. That's something that we will need to discuss with
those neighbors. Apparently we have new neighbors to the north.
Mr. Mecum:
And so we can hopefully work that out with them. Short of retaining large areas of other people's
property to protect solar trees from wind. That's not part of why somebody buys a property. I mean, it's
a very large intrusion into somebody else's property to say, you must save your trees so that my one
tree doesn't get exposed to wind. Most of the tree retention has been focused on the south property
line to protect the trees to the south. At least under the current proposal. This what we'll take a look at
that shortly. Hopefully we've implemented a tree protection tree retention tract saved trees outside of
that tracks as part of the log density, really trying to focus the efforts on where the majority of the trees
are. I'm going to stop there.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay. I'm going to ask you a couple of questions that I'll move on to questions from Ms. Weighs and Ms.
Donnelley. The reason I brought up the Craig property issue is, is that, Ms Donnell's position on your
responsibility to deal with the impacts caused by the Craig property raises issue of if he is dumping
contaminated water on your client's property, do you view it as your responsibility to take care of that
through some measures to improve the water quality? Obviously you probably ultimately have a private
right of action against Mr. Craig to have that taken care of, but it terms of your relationship with the city
of Renton and the, the short plat review process. Ultimately, do you agree that that has to be taken care
of pursuant to city standards?
Mr. Mecum:
Varma Hearing (Completed 10/27/21)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 10 of 35
So in regards to Mr. Craig honestly, I didn't even know he existed until I read his letter to the city, which
was attached to the approval, which I see Mr. Craig is on the call today. And I sincerely appreciate him
letting us know about that pond, because we didn't know about it reviewing, the septic as it builds, the
drain field for his property is actually located on the property to the south, through an easement. So
both strain fields are actually downhill downstream of the retention pond. So as far as the water being
mixed, I have a hard time thinking that it's getting mixed, but the pipe from his house does go near the
retention pond, and so post-hearing, our approach would be to contact Mr. Craig directly, see if there's
any potential deficiency in his system and map out the flow path of the overflow when it does overflow.
Based on that, we will provide either a drainage path as wherever the water does enter the property
and directed through the property, into the public drainage system, which is what's required by the king
county circus water drainage.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay. And then the safe walking routes to the school bus stops it's as you noted in your response, you
will be putting in sidewalks I'm on 156th, but according to the staff report, one of the routes the kids will
take, I don't remember the specific number of the street. I think it was one 32nd or something when 38.
What about that? Because the pictures that Ms Donnelley showed did a reveal, there are no Sykes
shoulders or sidewalks on that street. And from my understanding is that you're not putting sidewalks in
there. So, if the kids are walking down that road, what about the safety impacts there?
Mr. Mecum:
Admittedly, I'm looking through these according to moments. I'm Not sure that the safe walk to school
path has been mentioned in this process before today. So I wasn't fully up to speed on that one for this.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Yes. He said students would turn west Southeast one 32nd street and walk on the north shoulder before
arriving to the bus stop. Hold on a second. Okay. So maybe she, that they're not, let's see. All right.
Maybe I just misunderstood the staff report. It seems to be just saying, that's the point on one 56.
There's something where they would turn. Okay.
Claudia Donnelley:
No, I think your are right Sir says here they turned on Southeast 130 second street and walk. I wish I had
the preliminary plat.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Well, I'll let you in Ms. Donnelley, like I said, you'll have a chance to respond, but the, actually Ms. Wise
can probably clarify that when we get to her.
White:
Yeah, I can certainly clarify when it's my turn.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay. Yeah. I'll reserve that question for the city staff then and okay. Ms. Waist, do you have any
questions of Mr. Ma comb
Varma Hearing (Completed 10/27/21)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 11 of 35
White:
And also Mr. Ma comb? Nope. I do not currently have any additional question
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Ms. Donnelley. Now's your turn. If you have any questions of Mr. Meekum.
Mr. Mecum:
Oh, oh,
Claudia Donnelley:
I guess I read his report yesterday that I got, and I'm just wondering why he accuses me of lying. No, it
says the fact that the city of Redmond changed planners was not part of the original appeal... And that,
but then you talked before that about the other plants that I showed, where trees that the developers
got permission or stated that quote "will save all the trees we need to, or we'll say some of the trees per
the city code". But then when reality sets in the trees are gone and you say, let's see,
Mr. Mecum:
Is there a question in there?
Claudia Donnelley:
I'll get to it. Fears of neighbors regarding their trees were mentioned. And then you say that some of the
trees or some of the property, or some of the plants that I talk about with 30 years old, there's a plant
about two miles from my house, maybe three miles from my house. So the west called forest terrorists,
that class of the trees came down in 2021. That's this year, I believe main view up in Tiffany Park area.
The plaque was flat. It was planted. The trees came down in 2017, not 30 years ago, which would be
1991.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay Ms. Donnely In my order, we're not going to be talking about the compliance issues of other cities.
Did you have any other questions or other projects I should mean to say
Claudia Donnelley:
No. I'm just wondering why he mentioned that to me saying that I didn't know what I was talking about,
but I'm sure that's as normal practice. Isn't it getting somebody who wants to appeal, protect the
environment and mentioned things and you go after them.
Mr. Mecum:
I did not go after you. We have not directly spoken at any time. I pointed out that there are projects. The
first project, one of the projects that you mentioned was from 1995, which is approximately 30 years
ago, 25 year I must apologize. So when I say as much as 30 years ago, that spans the entire period. I did
not call you a liar. I have not done anything of that nature. So I'm not sure what your question is.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay.
Varma Hearing (Completed 10/27/21)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 12 of 35
Claudia Donnelley:
Well, Forget it.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Did you have any other questions, Ms. Donnelley? Okay. All right. Let's move on.
Claudia Donnelley:
Just one, sorry. Again, are there going to be sidewalks put on Southeast 130 second street? There's none
there now. And you say you want to protect the kids. Well, how can you protect your kids? When they
have to do a ride down the middle of the road or along the shoulder that doesn't exist. I've seen cars
coming up that road and stop at the stop sign. And then, when you turn onto one 56. And you say, you
want to protect the kids well that ain't going to put sidewalks in. Are you going to do something safe to
me or Jamaican say
Mr. Mecum:
We are committed to doing our part, to making the kids safer on their walk to school. I would just
because Mr. Ron owns his property and monster development does not make him responsible for
something that is blocked down and, and took the Western his property on one 32nd. And again, I am
going to level ways. Talk about the safe talk to the school route, just because I'm not as familiar with
that as I would have been. Had I know that was going to be a topic today. If there's no further questions
for me, I do have Bob Laden who wanted to discuss the tree retention and he'll have a chance.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay, Ms. Donnelley, is that all your questions?
Claudia Donnelley:
Yes.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay. All right. Let's go on to Mr. Layton then Mr. Layton, you need to unmute yourself and then I'll
swear you in. All right. Raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth? Nothing but the
truth in this proceeding, Mr. Layton. there we go. Yeah. Now we can hear you. Great. Okay. Now we can
see it too. Okay. All right, Mr. Regan, where are you going to ask questions to Mr. Layton or did a
Mr. Mecum:
Yes. Okay. Bob, you reviewed the all in each tree on the project site, correct?
Mr. Layton:
I did. I did an arbitrary for, for the project back in July of 2020, I believe.
Mr. Mecum:
Okay. And your review of each tree went from the base of the tree to the top?
Mr. Layton:
Varma Hearing (Completed 10/27/21)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 13 of 35
Correct? I measured all the three, the bag of, [inaudible 00:40:01]
Mr. Mecum:
And did you notice any Eagles nests while you were doing that? Have you already noticed Eagle's nest
on other projects that you've worked on?
Mr. Layton:
Yes, I have there they're quite large. And they're hard to miss.
Mr. Mecum:
And you mentioned earlier the trees that are on this sites, would they really be able to support an
Eagle's nest?
Mr. Layton:
They're really not large enough to normally they would find large crowds with modern log crashes.
Mr. Mecum:
Okay. Generally speaking, I know you've, you've seen the preliminary plans for tree retention. Probably
haven't seen the ones that Ms. Weighs and Isaac have been going back. Wait, yeah, I did share that with
when his ways were and I were going back and forth a little bit on true attention. Do you feel like the,
the plans that we're discussing and comparing would meet the tree retention requirements for the city
of Renton?
Mr. Layton:
Yes. I believe that the retention requirement is 30% of the significant breeds, really close to that. I'm
working towards exceeding that I believe.
Mr. Mecum:
Okay. All right. I, that's all I've got for Bob at the moment.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay. Ms. Weighs, did you have any questions Mr. Layton?
White:
No, I do not currently have any questions for Mr. Layton. Thank you.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay. How about you, Ms. Donnelley? Any questions?
Claudia Donnelley:
Yes. I have some first off did I mention in anywhere any of the documents that I provided, that there
was a nest in the tree? Mr. Layton?
Mr. Layton:
Varma Hearing (Completed 10/27/21)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 14 of 35
Did you read
Claudia Donnelley:
Mr. Jim? Did I, did I say there was a nest? I said, Hey, I saw a tree land on one of the branches.
Mr. Mecum:
That's
Claudia Donnelley:
Different from a nest.
Mr. Mecum:
Yeah, it certainly is. I'm just establishing how much of the area is considered habitat for the Eagles
versus a treaty? That goal landed on.
Claudia Donnelley:
Well, you asked Mr. Layton about the nest, whether or not he saw an Eagle nest. I never, again, I never I
never said that. So why are you putting words in my mouth? Okay.
Mr. Mecum:
I'm not putting words in your mouth or putting out the word that, the words that did not come out of
your mouth, do you have further questions for Mr. Layton?
Claudia Donnelley:
Yes,
Mr. Mecum:
okay.
Claudia Donnelley:
I asked him whether or not he saw a nest and the trees and he said, no.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay. Any other questions miss Donnely? No. Okay. All right. Mr. Mecum any other witnesses?
Mr. Mecum:
No, sir. I must swear Mr. My house. Anything else to say? Hmm.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay. Mr. Varna, did you have any final comments?
Varma:
Varma Hearing (Completed 10/27/21)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 15 of 35
No. And I think as far as sidewalk goes, we, from what the plan is, I think we are providing sidewalks on a
156 and 158 and going down the whole length of on one side of the property. So I would imagine that at
some point there could be a possibility that we could have conversations with the school district. So
they would be able to probably bring the school bus right into the community and pick up kids and drop
it off and they would be lot safer, I would imagine.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay. All right.
Varma:
That's all I have to say,
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Thank you Mr. Varna. All right. Let's move on now to Ms. Weighs for city witnesses and Ms. Wise, let me
swear you in, do you swear from tell the truth? Nothing but the truth in this proceeding.
White:
I do thank you.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
All right, go ahead.
White:
Alrighty. Thank you, Mr. Examiner, one clarification I would like to make is that since this appeal hearing
is not in person, it is remote. There may be times where I need to pause, adjust so that I can
communicate with other staff members to make sure that I am able to answer any questions or convey
the facts as clearly as possible. So I just wanted to make you aware of that first.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay.
White:
Okay, Wonderful. So I'm going to share my screen and present my PowerPoint. So, and it does say host
disabled, a participant screen sharing. So I'll just wait for a moment for that to be visible.
Speaker 1:
I just put you as cohost.
White:
Okay. Well, wonderful. Thank you. Let's see.
White:
All right. So this, this presentation is regarding the Barm ah short flat administrative appeal. The file
number is 21 dash 0 0 0 1 3 9 and a once again for the record, I'm Angela Weighs associate planner with
Varma Hearing (Completed 10/27/21)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 16 of 35
the city. So just to discuss the timeline for the project, the planning division accepted the application a
forward view on April 15th, 2021. And a decision approval with conditions was issued on August 26th,
2021. The appeal period ended on September 9th, 2021. And as far as the description of this project to
the applicant requested an administrative short plat approval and a street modification to subdivide the
existing two parcels include nine months and two stormwater tracks.
White:
So this, this shows the image of the site location. The first image on top shows the zoomed out map,
showing the city area. And then the the picture on the bottom shows a closeup image of the two parcels
and the project site, which is located between one 56th avenue Southeast and one 58th avenue
Southeast. There's an error there with the numbering. Once again, the address is so one three zero one
six one 50 sixth avenue Southeasts, and the parcel numbers are three six six four five zero zero two zero
five and three six six four five zero zero one eight five. The parcels total of three point 22 acres in size.
The project is located within the residential fours zoning classification and the residential low density
comprehensive plan land use designation.
White:
The proposed lots on the site range from 9,909 square feet to 16,242 square feet. And there are two
stormwater tracks. Proposed. One is 6,681 square feet, which would, and this one would be located on
the east side of the project site. And there is also one that is a 4,265 square feet. And that is proposed
on the west side of the project site. Access to all lots are proposed via a new public residential access
street connecting one 58th avenue Southeast and one 56th avenue Southeast. There are no critical
areas identified on the project site and the applicant proposes to retain 33 of the 198 trees located on
site. And so this project was approved administratively with a subject to nine conditions of approval.
White:
And this is the site map kind of illustrating what I was describing in the previous slide. You can see the
right of way dedication and the new proposed of street connecting one 56 avenue Southeast and one
58th avenue Southeast. And this shows all nine of blocks as well as the two stormwater tracks. So just
to, to describe the appellant's comments and concerns brief on August 30th and September third, the
appellant submitted two emails and letters noting the appeals to the decision based on alleged
deficiencies and the appellant's appeal noted with one limited detail, the following areas of interest.
And just keep in mind that this presentation was created before, before your recent decision. So that's
why it includes a lot of this information here, but the areas of interest included process for developers,
revision of location for homes, a stormwater arborous report, a school district in which the proposed
development is located is misidentified. In one portion of the report, a tree retention schedule must be
followed. A surface water flow does not mean wash, meet Washington legal requirements. And lastly,
providing information regarding city compliance with environmental protection, during development
and construction projects.
White:
And in conclusion, a response regarding each of these concerns was provided in exhibit in the appeal
exhibit seal, our brief as identified on the city's witness and exhibit list, the city is supportive of clarifying
the area related to the properties location within the it's across school district. And it is not clear from
either the amended appeal or the provided exhibit. So what deficiency in factor law is being raised
regarding the vomit short plot. So therefore the city requests that the hearing examiner dismiss the
Varma Hearing (Completed 10/27/21)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 17 of 35
appeal to maintain the original administrator decision of August 26th, 2021 related to the amour short
plot.
White:
And that would that, that presentation. Although I do know that you would like a further clarification of
the school and safe walking routes to school. So I'd be happy to share my screen to include core maps
and provide some more clarification.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
okay Please do that sounds good.
White:
Great. So I'm going to share my screen again and show core maps. It has been moving a little slow, so
just for a warning. So just for clarification, I'll just treat iterate to this. This is the project site located at
13 zero one four to 13 zero one six. These are the two on parcels in question, here are the streets that,
about this project, which include one 58th avenue Southeast and one 56th avenue Southeast, just like
the applicant said street improvements are proposed along both streets.
PART 2 OF 4 ENDS [00:52:04]
White:
Street improvements are proposed along both streets. So in the report, I identify in the section
regarding safe routes to school, but there are two bus stops. Those bus stops are located in two
locations on Southeast One 32nd street, which includes this parcel here 15514, and 15418. So those are
the two locations for the bus stops for elementary, middle, and high school students. So the report
describes that students would cross the street in this location where the development is occurring. They
would cross to the west side of 158th Avenue Southeast, or One 156th Avenue Southeast. They would
walk along the shoulder, which currently has a width of four feet as well as a fog line. So they would
walk on the shore shoulder south to a One 32nd street, and where they would take a turn, and to walk
further west to those pre bus stops that I identified. For clarification, the Southeast One 32nd street is a
low vehicular volume street, and it does have a speed limit of 25 miles per hour.
White:
And then also if we zoom in a little bit, so the pictures that were provided, they do show a limited
shoulder. However, a lot of this area here is located within the unimproved right of way. And
considering the factors such as low vehicular volume, and the speed limit, and to the grassy areas, it was
concluded that the walking area would be safe and would allow children who are walking on One 32nd
street to be able to ensure that they can be out, oh, sorry. I would verify that it's 20 miles per hour, not
25 miles per hour. They would be able to walk without being in the path of vehicles. So that would be
the gist of it there. Feel free to let me know if you have any clarifying questions regarding my
description.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Yeah, I have some quick questions and then Mr. Mecum will have a chance to ask any if he has them.
And then finally miss Donnelly. On that, the Golden Eagle issue, my interpretation of the city's critical
Varma Hearing (Completed 10/27/21)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 18 of 35
regulations is that their habitat is protected. Is the habitat that's protected, is that just limited to nests,
or can it just be areas where they prey and forage or something?
White:
So for fortification, I don't know how to answer that question specifically to how you asked it. However,
I do know that for the city is required to comply with federal regulations, which is why we include as to
an exhibit, a comment on our advisory comments. And that comment states the following, "That this
permit shall comply with the Bald and Golden Eagle protection act and that the permit permitted is
responsible for adhering to the US Fish and Wildlife Service National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines
from 2007, and or your US Fish and Wildlife Service permit." So we did include this in the advisory
comments. In addition, the site is not flagged on the Washington state priority habitat species map. So it
is not flagged on that map.
White:
In addition, if a Bald Eagle was found onsite, the applicant would need to follow those federal
regulations as I described. So that is the extent, but as far as the scope of just. Oh, I'm going to pause for
just a moment. Yeah. So the priority habitat map, it's not a flag on that priority habitat map, but I would
like to clarify that as far as differentiating between, a sighting versus a nest, I don't know the details
regarding those federal regulations.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay. Because you also mentioned in your presentation that there are no critical areas at the site, which
would include a determination, there are no protected species habitat at the site. So I'm assuming that
staff came to that conclusion just by its review of the Department of Fish and Wildlife maps, is that
correct? That's how you make that preliminary determination.
White:
So we did not notice any Eagles until it was identified by Ms. Donnelley.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay. And I mean, just saying that the applicant has to comply with the law, how do you ensure that
happens then? I mean, during process review, what triggers enforcement of that law?
White:
So, we do use core maps as well as the DFW maps. And in this case, there are no critical areas mapped
on the project site based on our mapping data. So that is the information that we use that gives us
insight as to whether more information is needed from a biologist.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Yeah. And I was also kind of curious, I looked at the WDFW has that, I'm going to pull that up here. Just
give me a minute. Let's see. Yeah. The WDFW priority habitats and species list has a map of Golden
Eagle habitat. And basically that map just states that they're present in all the counties in the state of
Washington, so that's not particularly helpful. Do you have more specific maps than that, that you use to
figure out if there are Golden Eagle habitat at the project site?
Varma Hearing (Completed 10/27/21)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 19 of 35
White:
Ordinarily we use reports from people of concern, in this case we did not notice current habitat or
identifications.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay.
Patrice Kent:
Examiner Wilber, this is Patrice Kent, senior assistant city attorney, and representing the department.
There is a more detailed map available from WDFW related to specific locations. If I may share my
screen.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Oh, yes please. Yeah, that'd be great. Thanks.
Patrice Kent:
It's taking a while here.
White:
Sorry. I had to share Patrice. Sorry.
Patrice Kent:
That's okay. Now I've just got to outsmart. Seriously. There it is. Thank you. Hear examiner, you can see
this is a statewide map, specific to Golden Eagle habitat potential. You can see where they are just
zooming in a bit toward Renton, and you can see where the details are. I'm going to hope that I get
close, but the purple are potential habitat locations.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Oh, perfect. Okay. And for the record, what's the name of this particular map?
Patrice Kent:
The website, the HDP is geodataservices.wdfw.wa.gov/hp/regulations. If I go back to the, I've got it on
my favorite so let's see if I can pull that up. Oh, where did they go. All smarter than me. They're all
smarter than me. Let me just. Seriously. I'm sorry Mr. Examiner, I don't have that located. I did send a
link.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay. Let's make that part of the record, the link, any objections over the link for the map that's being
shown on the screen right now. All right. Hearing none, we'll admit that. I think that's exhibit 11. Let me
check my, or 12, exhibit 12. That'll be admitted as exhibit 12. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Kent.
Really helpful.
Patrice Kent:
Thank you. I'll stop sharing at this point.
Varma Hearing (Completed 10/27/21)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 20 of 35
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay. Then this was on the Craig stormwater issue, and maybe the public works staff can answer this
one. As I said, it kind of raised a legal issue, and general developers aren't required to mitigate existing
deficiencies, but the stormwater regulations require that you mitigate your storm water flows to
forested conditions. Which if applied across the board would mean that existing deficiencies, or not, you
got to fix them all and make it at the forested level. I don't know how in practice the city administers
that rule when you're dealing with some onsite flows that are essentially illegal diversions from a
neighboring property owner, or something of that nature. I mean, in this case more specifically, is the
applicant going to be required to, fully address the flows from the Craig property and make them
comply with the manual that's in terms of both stormwater flows and velocities, in addition to control
and mitigation of water quality.
White:
Thank you, Mr. Examiner, I will allow development engineering and the development engineering
reviewer for this project Michael Sippo to address this question.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay, great. Thank you.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
oh yeah, that's right. I forgot about that part. Do you swear to tell the truth, nothing but the truth in this
proceeding.
Michael Sippo:
I do.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay. All right, go ahead.
Michael Sippo:
Regarding the Craig property, the 2017 rent and service (inaudible) design manual, which has been
adopted as an addendum to the 2017 King County, for 2016 king county service squatter design manual,
and approved by state department of ecology, outlines provisions for upstream flows that enter the
property. Being made aware of the pond that exists to the Northeast of the site, we did mention in the
staff report that during the final engineering review, that those flows would need to be take an
accounted for and potentially bypass them to property. That's how the manual lays out how upstream
flows are handled. Regarding onsite flows and water quality, you are correct that the pre developed
forest and condition must be matched. That attenuates the flows in order to limit the amount of loss fee
that comes off the site. Also, with regards to the septic drain field, king county health code title 13 lays
out provisions and requirements for storm systems near the drain fields. Often times that may put
limitations on whether you can have open ditches or if the flows need to be pipe.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay. So I'm not sure I followed your response. So if the Craig flows onto the, excuse me, if the creek
stormwater flows onto the Varmour property, and that's not matching pre forested conditions, in short,
Varma Hearing (Completed 10/27/21)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 21 of 35
will the city require those flows; the applicant to mitigate those flows so that they do follow pre
developed conditions.
Michael Sippo:
No, the manual requires that the upstream flows be bypassed.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Oh, bypassed. Okay. So that would be bypassed into where, into the city stormwater system, or where
does that go then?
Michael Sippo:
To the natural discharge location, which in this case would be the city's stormwater system.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
I see. Okay. And how do you deal with the water quality? Would the applicant be required to deal with
the water quality if for whatever reason king county chooses not to enforce against Mr. Craig, or would
that water quality just be allowed to, would the city just allow that contaminated water to flow into its
stormwater system?
Michael Sippo:
You mean the water quality in relation to the septic drain field?
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Right. If the Craig property is diverting contaminated flows onto the Varmour property and King County
isn't doing anything to prevent that from happening, will the city then do something about it, or just
allow that water to be diverted into its stormwater system?
Michael Sippo:
That would be something that we would take a look at during detailed engineering review in
conjunction with King County health code. That would potentially require bringing in King County
officials into the purview of the project. It's possible that the bypass may eliminate the condition that
would have the surface flows going across the septic drain field. It would be possibly collected at the
source and then routed around.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay, great. Thank you Mr. Sippo. All right, Ms. Waze, any other final testimony, and then after that
allow both Mr. Sippo and Ms. Waze to be questioned by the other parties.
White:
Nope. Not unless other questions, or not unless you have other questions.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Varma Hearing (Completed 10/27/21)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 22 of 35
Okay. One other final question. What if the trees on the Varmour property are necessary to serve as a
windbreak to trees on other property at their removal would create a hazard on a joining property by
de-stabilizing the trees on the adjoining property. How does the city handle that particular situation?
White:
Gotcha. So in this particular case, we did the arborist report. It did evaluate to be offsite trees. However,
it did not identify that a windbreak was an issue, but we are requiring a revised arborist report, as well
as a revised tree retention plan and proposal. So as part of that revised arborist report, it would be
helpful to ensure that it evaluates those offsite trees and provides a feedback and recommendations to
ensure that they are preserved in a way that will maintain their health.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay. Great, thank you. All right, Mr. Mecum, any questions of Ms. Waze or Mr. Sippo. Mr. Mecum, are
you there? I think your.
Mr. Mecum:
Yes. Sorry. Earbuds were telling me that the battery is low for some reason. I don't have any questions
for them at this time.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Ms. Donnelley, any questions?
Claudia Donnelley:
Yes, sir. I do. Did Ms. Waze, prior to her writing her report, visit the Craig property.
White:
Me personally, no, I did not visit to the property before starting my staff report.
Claudia Donnelley:
Did you visit the site of Southeastern 32nd street before you wrote your report?
White:
Southeast a hundred? No I did not.
Claudia Donnelley:
So you have no idea what the traffic is like out there on that road or 158th?
White:
Only what is provided to me by the recommendations of development engineering, and their evaluation
of the site and traffic.
Claudia Donnelley:
Varma Hearing (Completed 10/27/21)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 23 of 35
Don't you think it's appropriate that if you're going to have kids crossing a street, whether it's a One and
32nd or One 56th, that it would be advisable to take a trip out there and see what it's actually like. What
the conditions are like.
White:
So in this particular case, like I said, that I did not personally visit the site. I do use the comments
provided by development engineering. I will take a moment to pause to make sure that, and are relying
on studies from agencies expertise that is beyond my own evaluation of site conditions. And that is what
is used to ensure that the findings in the staff report are accurate.
Claudia Donnelley:
So when I was visiting my mother when she was there, and I had problems backing out or even turning
into the driveway of the house, you wouldn't even take that into consideration, would you?
White:
Well, in this case, a backing out would not be unnecessary anymore because they are proposing to
construct a through street that would connect the two streets together, as well as each home would
have a residential driveway access off of that new proposed street.
White:
So that would actually improve the site conditions for occupants of the project.
Claudia Donnelley:
So basically, no, forget it. Another question was, did you ever talk to Mr. Craig about his property and
what he wants done?
White:
I did see the email as well as the letter that he provided for a public comment. I read the letter and I also
provided a response in the body of the staff report.
Claudia Donnelley:
But you never personally made a visit onto the site and saw firsthand what was going on?
White:
No, I did not personally. I did not have for personal conversation with him. It was assumed that to be
comments that he provided are what conveyed the message that he wanted to provide with his public
comment.
Claudia Donnelley:
So just like the street question, you didn't feel going out on a field trip to see the actual conditions
wasn't necessary?
White:
Varma Hearing (Completed 10/27/21)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 24 of 35
Going out to visit to a site. Like I said, or as you identified in previous correspondence, this project was
transferred to me. I'm going to take a moment to, the usual practice for all development would include
site visits. In this case, the project was transferred to me very shortly before the decision, and we didn't
need to make sure that the decision was issued in a timely manner to comply with requirements.
Claudia Donnelley:
Okay. Now, one of the things that was mentioned in the file of preliminary plat was the King County was
going to be asked about the permission to put sidewalks in on One 58th, et cetera, et cetera, has King
County given us permission yet?
White:
I will allow a development engineer, Michael Sippo to address that particular question.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
All right, Mr. CBO, go ahead.
Michael Sippo:
Yes. So during the normal permitting process, following the Land Use Action is when King County is
engaged for road improvements. There will be a separate permitting process through King County that
they will construct the frontage improvements along One 58th. As is normal practice, we would ask that
the county allow the developer to build to the city of Renton standards, even though it is not currently
annexed as that portion. At that time, the county will either make recommendations to build the county
standards or to the city standards.
Claudia Donnelley:
Okay. You propose to require sidewalks on One 58th, the length of the property that correct?
Michael Sippo:
Yes. That would be city of Renton standards.
Claudia Donnelley:
Okay. That's just on the West side of the road, not on the East side. Because I believe there are some
houses on the East side.
Michael Sippo:
On the west side.
Claudia Donnelley:
On the West side. Pardon me? So it's just on the west side.
Michael Sippo:
Yeah, only the half street improvements.
Claudia Donnelley:
Varma Hearing (Completed 10/27/21)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 25 of 35
Okay. Thank you. Now, I'm just wondering how close is Cedar river to the project property? I mentioned
that I saw a Golden Eagle on the property. Could the eagle have come from Cedar river after eating fly
up, riding the tree and land there? Has anybody taken the look at that?
White:
So we did take a look at the Priority Habitat Species map, and did look at the areas that have more likely
a habitat in the city of Renton, and this particular site is not located in that identified area. As far as the
proximity to the Cedar river, that is quite a significant distance. Yeah.
Claudia Donnelley:
But you don't know how far? It could have been at Cedar River and then flew up.
White:
I mean, it looks to be more than 6,000 feet, a bit based on a quick look at the map.I don't know if that
answers your question as far as the distance, but as far as the Priority Habitat Species map that was
previously identified, like I said, this particular site is not looking at it in that identified area for Bald
Eagle habitat.
Claudia Donnelley:
That's how you decide whether or not an eagle was there. You look at a map and say, well this property
is not in the zone so we can assume that it's not there.
White:
We rely on our maps and the DFW maps and reports. In addition, we have visited the site area, not me,
specifically for this particular project. But we are not wildlife experts to speculate on the presence of
Bald Eagles.
Claudia Donnelley:
Okay. So did anybody from your staff take a look, walk the property, different days, different times, to
see whether they could see an Eagle or the Golden Eagle.
White:
We were not aware of the potential presence for Eagles until you made us aware at the time of your
appeal.
Claudia Donnelley:
Okay. Now this may seem personal, but you have kids.
White:
I do not want to answer that question.
PART 3 OF 4 ENDS [01:18:04]
Claudia Donnelley:
Varma Hearing (Completed 10/27/21)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 26 of 35
Kids?
White:
I do not want to answer that question.
Claudia Donnelley:
That's fine. I'm a Mother, I have two kids and I care about how the safety of kids... are crossing streets.
And I also, as I told you, I was my Mother's sole caregiver for two years on that property. So we were
concerned about how safe it was and contrary to your traffic counts. What does the traffic count say?
Well, there's so many cars coming across the road at a particular time and it may or may not tell how
fast it was going. We didn't want her crossing the road. We didn't want her walking the road, which is
why we tried to find other alternatives for her.
Claudia Donnelley:
It's not safe and more people [crosstalk 01:18:57] are getting up in the elderly age group.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay. Ms. Donnelley, [crosstalk 01:19:02] did you have any... Ms. Donnelley? Did you have any other
questions? We're still at the questions right now.
Claudia Donnelley:
Yes, I know.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay.
Claudia Donnelley:
Let me look and see (silence). Now, did you ever talk to Mr and Mrs. Franson about what Mr. Craig
proposed to do this property?
White:
No, I did not talk to Mr and Mrs. Franson.
Claudia Donnelley:
Now isn't that that the job of planners to get all current information?
White:
We notify the surrounding property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. And they have the
opportunity for all our projects to provide public comment of per city code.
Claudia Donnelley:
Varma Hearing (Completed 10/27/21)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 27 of 35
Okay. Was that information that you sent out or the city sent out, listing you as the planner or was it Mr.
Morgan Roth?
White:
It listed Mr. Morgan Roth and Mr. Morgan Roth would include all at... during the time that he is actively
reviewing and project manager for this project. He would ensure that all public comment is filed and
ensure that it is kept per requirements. And so when I... The project was transferred to me, I had at
access to those files to ensure that I'm able to read all of those public comments and respond to them
appropriately. In which case, for this particular case, I responded to all the public comment within the
body of the staff report.
Claudia Donnelley:
Okay. Did you know if Mr. Morgan Roth ever got an email or a call or anything from the Becky Barb
Franson?
White:
So all comments are passed along to me. I did not receive any comment that... from that property
owner. And as far as whether Mr. Morgan Roth received any emails, he does his best to ensure that
emails pertaining to a project are filed away. And he did not include any emails from that property
owner.
Claudia Donnelley:
Did you ever receive any proper emails or phone calls from a person who I'll call Mr. Anonymous, on the
south side of the property?
White:
Mr. Anonymous? [crosstalk 01:21:53].
Claudia Donnelley:
Yeah.
White:
No.
Claudia Donnelley:
Okay. Because I can't make any comments, so I will later.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay. All right, are those all your questions, Ms. Donnelly?
Claudia Donnelley:
Yes.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Varma Hearing (Completed 10/27/21)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 28 of 35
Okay, All right. Ms. Ways, actually I had just one more... On the issue of school children safety could... Is
there someone from public works maybe who can weigh in as to when the city decides that a crosswalk
is necessary? And whether or not walking on one 32nd would be safe or not?
White:
Yes, that would be very helpful if Michael Cheapo could address that question [crosstalk 01:22:33] now.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay, yeah.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Oh, Mr. Cheapo you're muted still, so you'll need to unmute yourself. And why don't just start off... Kind
of tell us some of your background on traffic safety, traffic engineering.
Michael Sippo:
Yes, I've worked in the private development for approximately 15 years designing projects much like
this. And then I've worked on in the public sector for the last five years or so, first with the city of North
Bend and then for three years, and then with their public works department. And then now with the
development engineering review, here with city of rent.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay. And that includes traffic engineering and design review? That kind of thing.
Michael Sippo:
Yes.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay, great.
Claudia Donnelley:
And coordination with our public works traffic divisions.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay, perfect. Thank you.
Michael Sippo:
Yeah. So to answer your question, we analyzed based on the safe routes to school guidance. The west
shoulder of 156, and then also the shoulders of one, Southeast one 32nd. So the west shoulder 156...
While the fog line and the pavement is approximately four feet. There is also a grapple shoulder that is
much wider and the same condition also exists on one 32nd. The safe routes to school does not have
design requirements. They have design guidelines and so it does become more of a judgment call that,
based on shoulder widths, if they are too narrow we've often required that curbs be put in to put
distance between the traffic and the students. And other mitigation measures as well. For rapid flashing
beacons like Ms. Donnelley mentioned, there are warrant requirements that are studied in order to put
Varma Hearing (Completed 10/27/21)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 29 of 35
those in, because it weighs the safety of drivers and students at the same time. A project of this size
would not meet those kind of warrants to put in a flashing beacon. Though at some point in time, the
city may elect to do that based on a capital project.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay. And does that same reasoning apply installation of a crosswalk in that area?
Michael Sippo:
Yes [crosstalk 01:25:04]
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Is that a warrant issue? Okay. And what about the one 32nd having no shoulder at all? What's the... How
do you conclude that safe?
Michael Sippo:
So one 32nd does have a shoulder, it's a gravel shoulder that's approximately 10 feet wide-
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Oh, okay.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay, that's sufficient according to guidelines. Yeah, cause I thought that Ms. Donnelley and her
exhibits... I don't seem to have that up on here. But she had a photograph of one 32nd and there were
no shoulders as far as I could tell from the photographs. I can't quite tell where those photographs were
taken. I'm going to see if I can put that on my screen. Hold on a second. Okay... Just give me a minute
here (silence). Okay... Cindy, can I share my screen?
Cindy:
Yeah, you're still co-host.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Oh okay, all right. Let me get the that up. All right.
White:
So just for clarification, there is a shoulder on the north side and we can use street view if that would be
helpful.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay, Yeah. I guess... Well, I have this picture right here. So you mentioned a gravel shoulder, are we
looking at the part where the kids are going to be walking Mr. Cheapo? Or... I just want to make sure I
understand the photograph and that the photograph is depicting the correct location there.
Michael Sippo:
That is not Southeast one 32nd.
Varma Hearing (Completed 10/27/21)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 30 of 35
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Oh, okay. All right.
Claudia Donnelley:
That's the entrance to Southeast one 32nd.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Oh, I see. So my cursor here, that's the entrance to one 32nd, is that right?
Claudia Donnelley:
Yes.
White:
Yes.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay, Got it. Okay, all right. That's the source of my misunderstanding there then. Let's see... Oh, here
we go, here's one 32nd. Okay, all right. And Mr. Sippo, you're saying there's... is this the gravel shoulder
you're talking about? kind of right in this area.
Michael Sippo:
Yeah. Do you mind if I share my screen? [crosstalk 01:27:28]
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Oh sure, yeah. I'll stop my share.
Cindy:
Give me one second.
Michael Sippo:
Okay.
Cindy:
There we go, now you can. (silence).
Michael Sippo:
Okay. So what I'm providing is the street view from Google Maps [crosstalk 01:27:56]
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay.
Michael Sippo:
Varma Hearing (Completed 10/27/21)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 31 of 35
This is looking eastbound along Southeast one 32nd from approximately where the bus stop locations
are.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay, okay.
Michael Sippo:
And so you can see a very wide gravel shoulder here.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay. So let's make that exhibit [inaudible 01:28:09]. I believe we're at 13. Any objections over the
Google street view of Southeast one 32nd? All right, hearing on that submitted. Okay, glad I asked about
that. All right, anything else Mr. Cheapo?
Michael Sippo:
Nothing else.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay. Ms. Donnelley, did you have any questions of Mr. Cheapo?
Claudia Donnelley:
Just a couple, maybe just one. Did you go out and visually look at the site yourself or [crosstalk 01:28:36]
did you... pardon me?
Michael Sippo:
Yes, I've traveled to the site many times and also driven on these streets.
Claudia Donnelley:
Okay. (silence) That's all.
White:
Okay, all right. Ms. Wise I take it that's it [crosstalk 01:28:58] for the city.
Mr. Mecum:
Is it possible to ask a follow up question?
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Oh sure, of course. I'm sorry Mr. Meekum, I should have given you that chance. Go ahead.
Mr. Mecum:
Thank you, Ms. Ways in the beginning of your presentation you documented the application date for the
preliminary short plan. Can you repeat what that date was?
White:
Varma Hearing (Completed 10/27/21)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 32 of 35
Certainly. (silence) The planning division accepted the application for review on April 15th 2021.
Mr. Mecum:
2021, which according to King County sales history would be about a year after the [inaudible 01:29:43]
sold their home. So perhaps that's why you never heard from them?
White:
Potentially, the surrounding property owners within 300 feet of the project site are notified of the
project and are provided the opportunity to provide comment. So it is assumed if they lived there or if
they didn't live there, they had that opportunity to be notified of the project and they had their
opportunity to provide comment.
Mr. Mecum:
Thank you. And then regarding Mr. Craig's pond, is it typically the first step in the process for the
hearing's examiner, hearing, to be the first time that we've had a direct communication with Mr. Craig
about his pond? Or is that something that normally would happen through more casual conversation?
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Not sure who the question-
Mr. Mecum:
did you hear me? [crosstalk 01:30:47]
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Yeah. Was that for [crosstalk 01:30:47] hearing's examiner or?
Mr. Mecum:
No. For you guys, do you think it's more typical that the first communication we have directly with Mr.
Craig, about what to do with his water is at the hearing's examiner, or is that typically something where
you would expect me to have approached him separately? And told you how we did rather than...
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Yeah, that is a portion of your downstream analysis. And so that is something that is reviewed in great
detail during the civil construction permit phase.
Mr. Mecum:
Right. I just point that out because typically, Mr. Craig is upstream. We didn't know he had a retention
pond, but typically we would've approached him and said, "Hey, how can we work together handle this?
What are we dealing with?" Personally, I don't like making things a bigger deal than they have to be. But
hopefully after today, Mr. Craig is open to that conversation.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Any other questions, Mr. Meekum?
Varma Hearing (Completed 10/27/21)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 33 of 35
Mr. Mecum:
(silence) No, just-
Mr. Craig:
Guys, can I jump in here for just a moment? [crosstalk 01:32:13] go ahead.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Yeah. You're not a party to this proceeding, Mr. Craig, unless you're called as a witness. You're out of it.
Mr. Meekum, did you have any other questions? I should say that once you're done with questions, it's
your turn for applicant rebuttal. If you wanted to present any rebuttal evidence or closing comments.
Mr. Mecum:
It's all about me right now.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Yep.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Doesn't have to be, if you don't have anything to add-
Mr. Mecum:
I think we can move on to rebuttal and closing.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay, all right. That would be your turn if you want to at this point.
Mr. Mecum:
I've heard a lot of different things today about what could have been happened, what should have
happened, what should happen, what needs to happen. And a lot of this is just the design process us
that we normally go through as we negotiate with the city reviewers and making sure that we've
addressed everything that's possible. None of us want to develop a set of plans, or project in a way
that's going to create issues for people down the road, because it always comes back. Handling an
unknown stormwater from a property that is two parcels up, that's not something I've run into very
often, but we're up to the challenge. Preserving the trees. We're following the city's guidelines and
regulations on that. And doing what's... at least what's required. Safe walks to school. Getting the kids
down to one 32nd is a big deal. And if there's a deficiency, we can address that, but it seems like
there's... that's already been looked at by the city's staff. Golden eagle habitat has not been
documented on this site just because the bird flew over or landed there a few times, doesn't make it a
habitat for that bird.
Mr. Mecum:
There's no evidence of nesting, there's no prolonged visitation by the Eagles on this property that's been
documented. If we're going if... What Ms. Donnelley saw were to rise to the level of protecting that
area, there is a lot of our state that would be protected and not be able to be developed at all. In fact,
Varma Hearing (Completed 10/27/21)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 34 of 35
most of our current houses that we all live in would be suddenly protected areas. (silence) Outside of
that, I just want to restate that we are committed to working with the city to meet all the city's
regulations and the state and national regulations as required. We're not looking for any shortcuts or
anything like that. And if something comes up that we were unaware of previously, then we're open to
have that conversation. And it's just part of the design process to work through it all.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Meekum. Your comments were essentially closing so that wouldn't be subject to
cross examination. So we'll move on at this point to miss Ms. Donnelley, did you have any final rebuttal
evidence or closing comments you wanted to make?
Claudia Donnelley:
I just rely on what I saw there, what I lived there, how I treated my Mother. Yes, the property is not hers
anymore, but I have been working with the neighbors because they would like to see some open space.
They don't want to see the trees come down, which, you say I can't talk about that, but it's going to
happen. And the gold eagle, I saw it. I saw a land in the tree and I don't know if anybody else has seen it.
That's not... I don't go around the property or the neighborhoods asking if anybody has seen this
particular tree? or particular bird. I care about the environment. I care about the animals. I care about
the birds, the wildlife, Renton doesn't. And I've seen that. I've lived here 35... well, going on 35 years in
May, next year. Mr. Meekum, and I don't mean to be derogatory. He's a developer. So is Mr. Kush al.
I've dealt... I've Seen what developers do and Ms. Ways and I talked about the property above me and
that developer didn't do the right thing.
Claudia Donnelley:
I couldn't develop... I couldn't appeal that decision so I went to the state through the NPDES permit. But
I saw what I saw, and I'm telling the truth. I didn't see a nest. I didn't look for a nest. I saw a bird fly in
and I saw a neighbor or talked to a neighbor back in early October. And he was very pleased that the
more birds are inhabiting his property, because of what's next door. And I'd hate to see the trees come
down if there is a bald eagle using that property. But again, nobody else but me has seen it. But again,
federal law says, taking a bald Eagles [inaudible 01:38:35] as parts, nests, or eggs or even feathers. And
you would be ashamed if... Because of somebody's desire to make a little money, the stories... the
habitat of a bird that's protected.
Claudia Donnelley:
And as for the Mr. Craig, again, I'm not sure how he came to be. And that's fact, the fact that nobody
else had seen the property or knew about it until I brought it up. The guy lives in King County and Mr.
Farmer's partners we're talking about Renton, rather than fixing the problem. According to the
document that I gave you, and nobody has brought that up. I'm not an attorney. I was given that
document by a land use attorney in Bellevue, that has to follow a natural course.
Claudia Donnelley:
So are they going to dig out the hole and dig out the detention plan and it fix it and then send the water
a different direction? Not following the natural course? I don't know. I don't know about case law from
the Supreme court or rulings from the Supreme court. I just care about surface water management, and
where's it going to go. Is it going to go into other people's property? And then two years from now, are
they going to have problems? And like I mentioned in one of my letters, I've had problems with
Varma Hearing (Completed 10/27/21)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 35 of 35
detention ponds breaking. And granted he's going to make a vault and send the water to drainage
ditches. Is that going to compromise the drainage ditches? Are they going to start overflowing so that
other residents get stormwater run off from this property up via drainage ditch into their yard. And then
what's going to happen? Well, we can't fix it Ms. Donnelley or the city of rent will what go out and fix
the problem for them. These are things that could happen.
Claudia Donnelley:
And then the water ends up in Cedar river eventually. What's going to happen to Cedar river and with all
the fish that are in it. And the bus stop... like I mentioned the other day, we don't know what's going to
happen with the road as busy as it is. But there's a fire station close by. So that fire station could rush to
the aid of those injured kids or elderly people that like to walk along the road. I walk and I'm scared to
death of because of all the traffic that's out there, but we've got Renton, and I apologize. I've lived here
35 years and I've seen the Renton do an awful lot, so that's about it.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts:
Okay. Thank you, Ms. Donnelley, and thank you everyone for participating today. I mean... I very much
appreciate the fact that other than Miss. Kent, none of you are lawyers. And this is probably not
something that you really enjoy or look forward to doing. We had to deal with a lot of issues, a lot of
passionate concerns from Ms. Donnelley. I think we made it through in a fairly organized, efficient, and
civil manner. And I was glad to see that happen. I'll get that decision out within the next 10 days. I have a
lot of information to wait through, but my decision will address everything in a very detailed fashion. So
again, I think everyone did really good work today, and made the best case they possibly could for their
particular position. And I have the information I need. So again, thank you all for your participation
today, and we're adjourned for this morning. Have a good day. There we go.
PART 4 OF 4 ENDS [01:43:01]