The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLUA88-081PLANNING DIVISION IT'(OF RPNTON King County Division of Roads and Engineering i I,n - 4rtnn Department of Public Works yU Z."1 King County Administration Bldg. 500 Fourth Avenue-Room 900 3 /. j Seattle,WA 98104-2339 CITY C AI August 4, 1992 Ms. Lenora Blauman, Senior Planner City of Renton Department of Planning, Building, Public Works . 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 RE: Consolidated Office and Repair Facility (CORF) Dear M . Blauman: The King County Department of Public Works is in the process of refining the scope of work for the architect for Phase I of the CORF project. In preliminary discussions with the architect, the subject of additional drainage work was raised. It is my understanding that all of Phase I storm drainage would be collected and transported to existing dry wells on the site. I also understand that it was agreed that the County's Phase II project at this site would be the proper .point at which to address' the issue of storm drainage for the entire site. This understanding is a result of meetings with you, Randall Parsons, and possibly Don Erickson. I am prepared to finalize the architect's scope of work during the week of August 10 and would appreciate hearing from you soon regarding your concurrence with my recollections. Thank you again for your help on this matter as well as during the conditional use process. If I can offer any additional information to help you, please call me at 296-6524. Sincerely, Bernie Thomps Special Projects Coordinator BT/bt cc: Karleen Sakumoto, Assistant Manager, Roads and Engineering Division 0,1(-- 031g-15‘ Ra jag.,,l fvptt King County U 9t Roads and Engineering Division LOp tvt Public Depart Worls f C IyOFR /y OZr\`,1Vc Yesler Building 400 Yesler Way Room 400 March 7 .1994Seattle,WA 98104-2G37 Mr. Jim'Hanson Zoning Administrator City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 RE: Parking and Surplus Equipment Storage Area Dear Mr. Hanson: The King County Roads and Engineering Division is proposing to pave an existing gravel lot at the King County Road Maintenance facility in Renton. The lot will be used for parking and storage of equipment to be surplused. The .stormwater runoff is proposed to be treated through a biofiltration swale before entering an infiltration facility. The King County Roads Renton maintenance facility is located at 155 Monroe Avenue Northeast. The gravel lot is located at the Northwest corner of the Consolidated Office and Repair Facility (CORF) site and has been utilized for these activities. since the'mid 1970's. The approved Master Plan document for this site states that drainage from the proposed area will be collected and treated. It is the County's intention to initiate compliance with the City's Aquifer Protection Ordinance'. The County now has funds available to pave and treat the stormwater runoff. from the lot. The County is ready to proceed with the work, however it needs to know what permits are required by the City of Renton. We have plans prepared .for the City's review and will forward them to the City along with the appropriate permit applications. Please contact Utility Engineer JoAnn Kosai at 296-8199 or Special . Projects Coordinator Bernie Thompson at 29676524 to let the County know what permits will be required. Thank you for your prompt consideration of this request. Sincerely,, Harold S.' Taniguchi Interim Manager Roads and Engineering. Division cc: Paul Forsander, Planner, City of Renton Bernie Thompson, Special Projects Coordinator Roderick Matsuno, Operations Manager Attn: Kathy Brown, Assistant Maintenance Operations Manager CR Haulman, Special Operations Supervisor Jon Cassidy, Supervising Engineer JoAnn Kosai , Acting Utility Engineer . 40 A CII. ' OF RENTON ail. Planning/Building/Public.Works Department Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttmann,Administrator September 17, 1992 Bernie Thompson, Special Projects Coordinator King County Department of Public Works Division of Roads and Engineering King County Administration Building 500 Fourth Avenue-Room 900 Seattle, Washington 98104-2339 RE: King County CORF, Phase 1 Water Issues Dear Bernie: I am writing you concerning the proposed storm drainage plans pursuant to King County's proposal for Phase I of the Consolidated Office and Repair Facility (CORF)., The storm drainage plans are approved pending compliance with the below mentioned surface water design issues. Phase I of the CORF facility project should be treated separately from future phases. This is consistent with Surface Water Code, and means that mitigations for Phase I only need to address impacts created by Phase I. Phase I apparently includes adding about 15,000 square feet of building roof, and a modest paved parking area. If less than 5000 square feet of impervious surface subject to vehicular traffic is being added to Phase I, then Phase I is exempt from water quality requirements (biofilters). If the post-development 100-year 3-day storm event peak rate runoff is less than 0.5 cfs higher than the pre-development peak rate runoff for the same storm event, then Phase I is exempt from peak rate runoff control requirements (detention). A storm drainage report ( TIR in King County parlance ) is required for Phase I. This needs to include such elements as temporary erosion control provisions, storm drain line sizing calculations, and a level 1 downstream analysis. This is likely to be a slim document for Phase 1. The most important element the TIR must address is adequate capacity being available in the downstream dry well(s). The TIR is required as part of the building permit application. If you have any questions or comments please feel free to contact me at 277-6178. Sincerely, Lenora Blauman Senior Planner 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 cu- 03g_Sg 17:7-\ PLANNING DIVISION i CITY OF RENTON King County Division of Roads and Engineering SEP 1 4 1992 Department of Public Works King County Administration Bldg. E i1'C d L••i''hp 500 Fourth Avenue-Room 900 T Seattle,WA 9 8 104-2 3 3 9 September 10, 1992 Ms. Lenora Blauman, Senior Planner City of Renton Department of Planning, Building, Public Works 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 RE: Consolidated Office and Repair Facility (CORF) Dear Lenora: I am writing to you to confirm my phone conversation with Greg Zimmerman, Utility Systems Director. Greg and I agreed to write to you to confirm our understanding. of what will be required of King County on Phase I of the CORF project. Basically, there are two water related concerns - water quality and water runoff. The Phase I plans we will be submitting to the city will have a net addition of less than 5000 square feet of impervious surface subject to vehicular traffic. This is below the threshold established by the City and should not trigger any additional mitigation related to water quality. I have directed our architect to have the civil engineering subcontractor perform a level one downstream analysis and to calculate the peak runoff associated with additional flows caused by Phase I construction. This information will be submitted along with or application package and should address any need for additional mitigation related to water runoff. Please let me know if this letter conforms with Greg's understanding of what is required of the County. If I can offer additional information, please call me at 296-6524. . Sincerely, ifilulx4JEg5t7_,,__Bernie Thompson Special Projects Coordinator BT/bt Louis J. Haff, County Road Engineer ATTN: Karleen Sakumoto, Assistant Manager, Roads Division John Bodoia, Finance Officer PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON SEP 1 01992 MEMORANDUM DATE: September 9, 1992 TO: Lenora Blauman FROM: Gregg Zimmerman (x-621 1) 6 E. SUBJECT: KING COUNTY CORF, PHASE 1, SURFACE WATER ISSUES Pursuant to your inquiry, I investigated surface water design issues relating to the above referenced project.- In the process of this investigation, I perused the Plan Review project file looking for any prior commitments, and I also talked to Bernie Thompson of King County (296- 6542), and to Randall Parsons. My findings/recommendations are as follow: o We agreed to treat Phase 1 of the CORF facility project separately from future phases. This is 'consistent with Surface Water Code, and means that mitigations for Phase 1 only need to address impacts created by Phase 1. Phase 1 apparently includes adding about 15,000 square feet of building roof, and a modest paved parking area. o If less than 5000 square feet of impervious surface subject to vehicular traffic is being added to Phase 1, then Phase 1 is exempt from water quality requirements (biofilters). o If the post-development 100-year 3-day storm event peak rate runoff is less than 0.5 cfs higher than the pre-development peak rate runoff for the same storm event, then Phase 1;is exempt from peak rate runoff control requirements (detention). o A storm drainage report (TIR in King County parlance) is required for Phase 1. This needs to include such elements as temporary erosion control provisions, storm drain line sizing calculations, and a level 1 downstream analysis. This is likely to be a slim document for Phase 1. The most important element the TIR must address is adequate capacity being available in the downstream dry well(s). The TIR is required as part of the building permit application. I went over these elements with Bernie Thompson, and he appeared to be satisfied. H:CORFGZ s CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER Earl Clymer,, Mayor Fred J. Kaufman August 24, 1988 Karen J. Feyerherm BETTS PATTERSON & MINES 800 Financial Center 1215 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98161 Re: City of Renton, Public Works Department Expansion of Public Works Facilities Appeal of CU-038-88 Dear Ms. Feyerherm: We have your letter of August 15, 1988 appealing the above matter. You advised this office that you would be updating and expanding this appeal, but to date we have received no further information from your office. The appeal for this matter is being scheduled for Tuesday, September 6, 1988 at 9 : 00 A.M. in the courtroom located on the second floor of the Renton Municipal Building. This office is requesting your written submittal of the expanded appeal to which you previously referred, by no later than Wednesday, August 31,' 1988 at 5: 00 P.M. Will you also provide copies of this new submittal 'to the appropriate City offices. If there are any questions, please contact this office. Sincerely,' FRED J. FMAN HEARING EXAMINER FJK/dk cc: Lawerence Warren, City Attorney Members of the ERC Committee 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2593 Law Offices John R.Allison Bruce H.Hurst Russell M.Aoki Lucia E.McDonald BETTS Frederick V.Betts S.Thomas Magnuson Jonathan G.Basham Mark M.Miller John P.Braislin Kenneth S.McEwan Martin T. Collier Kim C.Pflueger PATTERSON Tracy L.Brown Michael Mines Meredith A. Copeland Richard S.Ralston Paul D. Carey James D.Nelson Michael J.Cranston Karen M. Sutherland MINES Charles W.Davis Dale Riveland Lucy E.Eggertsen Michael B.Tierney William P.Fite James P.Solimano Paul M.Feinsod Jack R.Wallace A Professional Service Corporation Francis S.Floyd Thomas A. Sterken Karen J.Feyerherm Margaret E.Wetherald 800 Financial Center Steven Goldstein Donald L.Thoreson Joel G.Green 1215 Fourth Avenue Seattle,Washington 98161-1090 Jeffrey C. Grant Christopher W.Tompkins David L.Hennings Of Counsel Telecopier: (206)343-7053 Carl H.Hagen Livingston Wernecke Martinus L.Johnson,Jr. John C.Patterson 206) 292-9988 Ingrid W.Hansen Richard S.Lowell August 15 , 1988 RECENED Mr. Fred Kaufman Renton Hearing Examiner AUG 16 1988 3••S, 414 9 P 6th Floor, 200. Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 rear R014 HEARN, ExA RE: City of Renton -- Public Works Expansion of Public Works Facilities ECF-038-88 CU-038-88 Dear Mr. Kaufman: As you know, we represent Thomas McMahon, the owner of the property directly to the southwest of the property which is the subject of the above-referenced proposal. In accordance with your instructions given during the hearing on the proposed rezone of the subject property on August 9 , 1988 and with the Hearing Examiner Ordinance §4-3011, we wish to protect our client' s interests by amending our appeal of the mitigated Determination of Non-Significance DNS) . The original appeal of the mitigated DNS is set forth in our letter to you dated August 1 , 1988 . The grounds for this appeal include, without limitation, the lack of notice to our client of the mitigated DNS and the Environmental Review Committee' s determination that the proposal will not have significant adverse environmental impacts . An Environmental Impact Statement should be required to adequately discuss the adverse effects on traffic and transportation, storm water, drainage and recharge. Please find enclosed our check in the amount of $75 . 00 to cover the costs of filing this appeal. Ve y truly yours, bte Karen Y.4Feyerherm KJF:klm cc: Mr. Thomas J. McMahon Law Offices John R.Allison Bruce H.Hurst Russell M.Aoki Lucia E.McDonald BET['S Frederick V.Betts S.Thomas Magnuson Jonathan G.Basham Mark M.Miller C T John P.Braislin Kenneth S.McEwan Martin T.Collier Kim C.Pflueger PA11 EiWOS V Tracy L.Brown Michael Mines Meredith A.Copeland Richard S.Ralston Paul D.Carey James D.Nelson Michael J. Cranston Karen M.Sutherland MINESCharles W.Davis Dale Riveland Lucy E.Eggertsen Michael B.Tierney A Professional Service Corporation William P.Fite James P. Solimano Paul M. Feinsod Jack R.Wallace Francis S.Floyd Thomas A. Sterken Karen J. Feyerherm Margaret E.Wetherald 800 Financial Center Steven Goldstein Donald L.Thoreson Joel G.Green1215FourthAvenue Seattle,Washington 98161-1090 Jeffrey C.Grant Christopher W.Tompkins David L.Hennings Of Counsel Telecopier: (206)343-7053 Carl H.Hagens Livingston Wernecke Martinus L.Johnson,Jr. John C.Patterson 206) 292-9988 Ingrid W.Hansen Richard S.Lowell August 15 , 1988 grerEC ED Mr. Fred Kaufman 3:a 19m- Renton Hearing Examiner AUG 1G 19886thFloor, 200. Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 RE: City of Renton -- Public Works HEARING1 1N R Expansion of Public Works Facilities ECF-038-88 CU-038-88 Dear Mr. Kaufman: As you know, we represent Thomas McMahon, the owner of the property directly to the southwest of the property which is the subject of the above-referenced proposal. In accordance with your instructions given during the hearing on the proposed rezone of the subject property on August 9, 1988 and with the Hearing Examiner Ordinance §4-3011, we wish to protect our client' s interests by amending our appeal of the mitigated Determination of Non-Significance DNS) . The original appeal of the mitigated DNS is set forth in our letter to you dated August 1 , 1988 . The grounds for this appeal include, without limitation, the lack of notice to our client of the mitigated DNS and the Environmental Review Committee' s determination that the proposal will not have significant adverse environmental impacts. An Environmental Impact Statement should be required to adequately discuss the adverse effects on traffic and transportation, storm water, drainage and recharge. Please find enclosed our check in the amount of $75 . 00 to cover the costs of filing this appeal. Ve y truly yours, 4 Karen V Feyerherm KJF:klm cc: Mr. Thomas J. McMahon 1 , . J , - LITY OF RENTON N? 28256 FINANCE DEPARTMENT RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055 2 1 ‘o 019 RECEIVED OF Z Q C e )L- P) 3,;// 7,s — Received by 4911 _ etG/4 o/ TOTAL L fi/W I PLANNING DIVISION King County CITY OF RENTON Department of Public Works I DRmixaAcktxixittikxRicx9t9r0, • JAN 2 6 1989 900 King County Administration Bldg. 500 Fourth Avenue Seattle,Washington 98104 VG E C E O ty Ejj 206) 296-6500 January 25, 1989 06 1(\k-ei Donald Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator .. City of Renton Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue. South Renton, WA 98055 Attn: Mike Parness, Administrative Assistant to the Mayor RE: E.I.S. for King County Public Works Consolidated Office and Repair Facility (CORF) Dear Mr. Erickson: Thank you for meeting with us on December 15, 1988, regarding the referenced E.I.S. Pursuant to our discussion of Sepa Rules and WAC 197-11-926, "Lead Agency for Governmental Proposals," it was mutually agreed that the King County Department of Public Works would be the lead agency. This would entail preparation of a "Request .for Qualifications," (RFQ) for consulting services. The City of Renton is invited to participate in the selection process. The new project scope for (Corf) combines Phase I and II together for construction. Phase III would be included in the E.I.S. , only as future development. The King County Department,,of Public Works will coordinate the scope of work for the E.I.S. with the City of Renton. During development of the E.I.S. coordination windows will 'be incorporated into the schedule for comments by your agency. Prior to issuance of the draft E.I.S. a meeting with the legal representa- tives for both agencies will be held to comment on the draft E.I.S. For your information we have been meeting with Bob Minnott of Centron and CH2M Hill . a Donald Erickson January 25, 1989 Page Two Should you have any questions, please contact me at 296-6504. Sincerel , Q ' J. Sal arelli , Facilities Administrator OJS:pm WP: (DO)L127 cc: Paul Tanaka, Director Ann Kawasaki , Deputy Director Larry Springer, Director of Planning, City of Renton Paul Forsander, Director of Planning, Arai/Jackson Louis J. Haff, P.E. , County Road Engineer Cynthia Walker, Budget Analyst A CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER Earl Clymer, Mayor Fred J. Kaufman October 3 , 1988 Karen Feyerherm Attorney At Law Betts, Patterson and Mines 1215 - 4th Avenue 800 Financial Center Seattle, Washington 98161-1090 Kevin Raymond Attorney At Law Room E-550 King County Public Work Department 500 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 RE: City of Renton/King County Public Works Departments File No. CU-038-88 and Appeal #AAD-081-88 Dear Ms. Feyerherm/Mr. Raymond: The Examiner' s Report regarding the referenced application which was published September 16, 1988 has not been appealed within the 14-day period established by ordinance. Therefore, this matter is considered final and is being transmitted to the City Clerk this date for filing. Please feel free to contact this office if further assistance or information is required. Sincerely, Via44- FRED J. kUFMAN HEARING EXAMINER FJK:dk cc: Veity Clerk Building Division Planning Division 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2593 September 16, 1988 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION e APPLICANT: CITY OF RENTON AND„KING COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS File No.: CU-038-88 & AAD-081-88 LOCATION: South of NE 3d Street, north of Maple Valley Highway, in the vicinity of Monroe Avenue N.E. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Permit to expand existing office space and staff services; cohstiuCtion of a new storage building and expansion of existing storage space, with construction of a new materials testing laboratory. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Planning Division Recommendation: Approval, with conditions. PLANNING DIVISION REPORT: The Planning Division Report was received by the Examiner on August 30, 1988 PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Planning Division Report, examining available information on file with the application, and field checking the property and surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES the hearing was opened on September 6, 1988 at 9:00 A.M. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit #1 - Yellow File containing application, proof of posting and publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit #2 - Appeal File #AAD-081-88. Exhibit #3 - Master Plan for entire site. Exhibit #4 - Two sub-element drawings Exhibit #5 - Plan showing site in relation to current City shops. Exhibit #6 Element drawings showing Building B and it's landscaping. The Hearing Examiner noted for the record this hearing was a combination of a request for a Conditional Use Permit and an Appeal by the McMahon Estate of the determination of the ERC Committee that an Environmental Impact Statement was not required for this proposal. The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator, who noted the following elements of the request. The site complies with the goals and intent of the Comprehensive Plan with mention of permitted public uses in a G-1 zone. There are extensive public utilities to the site with the exception of the southern portion of the site; the King County Transfer Station to the west of the site is not a part of this application; the Master Site Plan was achieved in 1986 but Erickson stated to his knowledge it is not an officially adopted document by the King County Council. The five elements of the plan were reviewed consisting of Building J (Crews Building), Building B (Traffic Building); Mini Storage Building; Materials and Testing Building and the Storage Warehouse Building. The Environmental Review Committee reviewed this proposal on July 18, 1988 and Mr. Erickson noted when this application was originally considered and responded to by various City Departments, it was City of Renton/King County CU-038-88 & AAD-081-88 September 16, 1988 Page 2 submitted with a rezone application. Staff comments received at that time did not make a distinction between the Conditional Use and Rezone requests; when reviewed by the ERC a Determination of Non-Significance was issued, mitigated, with an extensive list of conditions. It is felt the proposal is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance; there is a`community need; the ERC has heavily conditioned this proposal to ensure protection of the City's'aquifer. Mr. Erickson continued stating this is Phase I of the Master Plan w4lch is a reflection of King County's current needs; it is not felt there will be adverse effects on adjacent property noting the future phases could add additional traffic and other concerns to the surrounding areas, namely 3rd and Sunset, with the addition of housing and traffic in the area. There will be 120 new parking spaces with an increase of 15 new staff members and approximately 75=100 traffic trips per day generated from the site. The circulation plan for the complete site was reviewed; there should be no noise, light or glare problems; hours of traffic do not seem to be anissue for this proposal; landscaping will be provided. Staff feels drainage for the site should be improved to the capacity of a 100 year storm due to the activities on the site; the septic system on the site will tie into sanitary sewer lines noting the King County Transfer Station restrooms are totally on a septic system at this time. It was clarified that all of the buildings involved in the application being consider.e&t&1i r will be on a sanitary sewer system. In closing Mr. Erickson reviewed the ERC conditions imposed on this request and reviewed the revised five (5) conditions recommended by.staff which included compliance to the ERC conditions; participation in improvements to utilities, roadways and public services at the time of future development; submittal of a plan for biofiltering swale and storm water run-off prior to its entry into the dry well system; traffic studies to be made prior to future development of the site; and participation in a future traffic benefit improvement district, including fees for the current proposal. Representing the applicant with his testimony was Kevin Raymond, Attorney, King County Department of Public Works,.Room E550, King County Courthouse, 500 Fourth Avenue, Seattle, 98104. Mr. Raymond noted his support for the reports presented to the Hearing Examiner by staff and indicated it is King County's position that the'DNS determination made by the ERC was appropriate under SEPA and that a Conditional Use Permit should be issued with no Environmental Impact Statement being required. He said detailed plans and specifications have been prepared and are available to the Examiner; indicated the Master Plan refers to Phase I but also shows the three projects that make up the other two Phases, but the three phases are independent projects and only Phase I should be considered today. The other twophases have not received fundingand/or approval from King County and may or may not occur in the future. He stated King County is only interested in proceeding at this time with Phase I and have not indcated their intent to go forward with the other two phases. Further testimony for the applicant was presented by O. J. Saltarelli, Facilities Administrator, Room 900, King County Building, 500 Fourth Avenue, Seattle, 98104 who addressed the parking issue stating a parking lot was included under Phase II because the existing parking lot was displaced because of the Materials Lab construction site; there should be no sound emanating from the Materials Lab; and commented on the Master Plan concept for the County. He said the process identified immediate needs, near needs and future needs; at this time they are only funded for Phase I, immediate needs. Mr. Saltarelli stated it is felt there will be no impacts to persons or surrounding properties from this Phase I project; the current facility was built in 1977; stated he does not feel King County has received preferential treatment in their request (as claimed in the Brief filed as part of the Appeal); and closed stating King County would like to proceed with Phase I, adequate funding is in place, and they will comply with the conditions set out by the City. There was no one to speak in opposition to the Conditional Use request, assuming the SEPA determination was correct. There was no one wishing to oppose the proposal on that basis. Dealing with the Appeal alleging the SEPA determination of Non-Significance was inappropriate, and feeling a Environmental Impact Statement should be required, speaking on behalf of the Appellant was Karen Feverherm, Attorney. Ms. Feyerherm represents Thomas McMahon, Executor of the Estate of Edward McMahon. The Estate owns approximately 120 acres of property adjacent to this site. She testified it was felt Mr. McMahon had an obligation to the beneficiaries of the Estate to sell the property and make distribution which he has been trying to do for several years. The McMahon property was denied a rezone and entered into an agreement with Centron Corporation. Centron received an option to purchase the property in exchange for contracting for the preparation of an environmental study and preparation of an EIS. Since 1986 Centron has paid almost $150,000. for off- site environmental studies and the EIS has not been prepared yet; CH2M Hill is preparing a traffic report and benefit study; and monies have been paid for a road, design and ground water study, all being prepared at the City's request. Additional studies and information requested by the City has assisted in the delay of the completion of the studies and the appellant feels these further requirements and costs are now threatening future development and may cause the appellant to divide the property and sell in parcels to pay the estate taxes due. She said it is not wished to prevent the City from developing the property shown on the Master Plan, but requested her client receive fair and equal treatment. The expense of the studies undertaken by her client has not been contributed to by the City or King County; her client feels the disparity of treatment between the two sides is not fair and City of Renton/King County CU-038-88 & AAD-081-88 September 16, 1988 Page 3 equitable treatment, and at this point she read from city staff comments, namely the Policy Development Department regarding the SEPA application and studies for future impacts, traffic impacts, mitigation fees and drainage. She said five of the 7 city departments that commented on the proposed Conditional Use did not approve the application. She clarified her feeling that comments by staff relating to the rezone request (which was subsequently withdrawn) and';:comments for the Conditional Use request, are not the same. Ms. Feyerherm advised the concerns expressed by staff relating to water retention, traffic and drainage have been included in a report being prepared by Centron, but this information was not completed and before the ERC for their review when the ERC s'issued its determination of non-significance, therefore prompting thi appeal of that determination. She concluded noting her concern over'.learning this date that parking areas are to be paved for 120 vehicles and believed there should be time to consider the impacts of this paving as opposed to the use of gravel as was previously understood. She requested fair and impartial treatment for her client and requested the ERC review future development of the site and include all studies requested by the City. She requested that King County be made to pay its fair share of the costs. Responding for the City of Renton was Attdrne'v\Lawrence Warren. He stated it was his feeling that this appeal may be a process used by the McMahon Estate as a bargaining tool with King County due to the amount of money expended on this site by the Estate, and said the City will take the referred to amounts into consideration at some other point in time during development and credit the Estate with that amount. He acknowledged the traffic congestion in the NE 3rd and 4th Street corridors and the need for another road to Maple Valley Highway to provide for cross-traffic, with the McMahon property being the largest in the area and unfortunately at this time being required to carry the largest portion of the financial burden. Mr. Warren read from WAC 197.11.055 (2) regarding timing of proposals - and WAC 197.11.060 (3) (b) defining proposals. He wanted to clarify his belief that even though governmental agencies set out proposals for future improvements it is not until the documents have been funded and approved that they can be considered as a part of a larger proposal. The other phases shown on the Master Plan for King County, which happens to include Phase I which is the current proposal, are not to be considered as n part of this hearing as they have not been funded or adopted by King County. He said if there is a County document that puts these projects on the "near future" complete list for funding in the 1989 budget then the projects should be considered as part of an inter-dependent proposal, but he does not believe this is the case. Mr. Warren stated his objection to the statement that the City should pay its fair share and stated the statement by Attorney Feyerherm 6that the City was to acquire 5 acres of adjoining property as a reward for rezoning and approving the conditional use is totally unsupported in any record. r4e Hearing Examiner advised he is trying to determine only if further SEPA review is desired for this site and other possible future phases, and not deal with other areas that seem to be inner-twined into this matter. Attorney Warren said the difficult cases to separate are those involving zoning, and if there is a clear project being proposed then there is a proposal to be considered, and a full environmental review should be done. The ERC review can be phased with the courts saying in the initial environmental review the mitigated DNS should do the review for that particular phase and highlight what will be done later. A non-project rezone should begin the EIS process by discussing alternatives and pinpointing that further review will be necessary when the specifics of the project come in on such things as traffic and other site-specific matters, with the first environmental review being considered a scoping document for non-project action. He stated the ERC felt with this particular phase containing only 120 traffic trips, it was not a significant impact by itself and did not prove to require a DNS. He is not convinced the Master Plan shown is anything more than a type of 'wish list' for King County, and not having been officially adopted by the County should be segregated with only the first phase as presented today to be considered independently of the other two phases. He feels the ERC acted correctly. Attorney Karen Feverherm spoke briefly reviewing some of the points by Attorney Warren, noting her disagreement with the statement that King County did not have specific plans for the entire site. This was brought forth by way of the rezone application previously submitted, and subsequently withdrawn, which set out the plans for the entire site. She feels the withdrawal of the rezone application was an attempt to circumvent SEPA procedures. She feels the complete SEPA and impact statement should be required now for the complete site. She feels King County should be required to go through the process to the point where a review of the reports that are being prepared by CH2M Hill and Centron are included so the ERC has all of the sufficient information before them; the mitigating measures, if necessary, can be established, and then a determination can be made as to a more fair and equitable monetary contribution to the studies. What is important at this time is that all information be available before a determination is made as to whether or not an EIS is necessary. Responding again was Mr._Saltarelli who tried to clarify the intent of the master plan and its meaning for the King County Council as a part of their budget process. They must identify now, near and future needs in order to obtain funding. The Council has approved and funded Phase I, but phase 2 or 3 has not and may not be funded. He again stressed that King County will strive to cooperate with adjacent property owners but may not be as cooperative as they have been in the past if they are faced with abandonment of the project and financial loss. City of Renton/King County CU-038-88 & AAD-081-88 September 16, 1988 Page 4 Closing comments were received by Mr. Erickson, Zoning Administrator who clarified there was no attempt to elude a review by the Examiner for this proposal, when in fact the proposal would still be subject to site plan review. He referred to WAC 197.11.0554;'referred to the extensive list of ERC mitigation measures; said he feels attention was given to future developmell1t on this site. r • The Examiner called for further testimony regarding tliis project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The heading,closed at 10:35 A.M. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION:. Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1.The matter under review concerns two separate but related requests. The applicant or applicants, King County and the Citj di-Renton filed an application for a Conditional Use Permit to establish and expand a variety of uses on portions of a 36 acre site in the City of Renton. In processing the conditional use application the City subjected the application to is ordinary SEPA review process. The City, in the course of and as a result of its SEPA review, issued a Declaration or Determination of Non-Significance for the project. The Declaration of Non-Significance (DNS) was conditioned by the City in what is known as a mitigation process, and became a DNS-M, the "M" alerting readers to the fact that mitigating measures were attached to the project. 2.The appellant, Thomas McMahon representing the Anna McMahon Estate, a neighboring property owner, filed a timely appeal of the DNS-M alleging that the review ignored major impacts of the proposal and related proposals. The appellant has development plans for its abutting property and is in the process of preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the development of the adjoining acreage. The proposal, while not firm, is for some form of residential development exceeding 120 acres. The appellant had initially applied for a rezone of this adjoining acreage after the issuance of a DNS-M on its proposed rezone. That request for reclassification was denied bythe Cityfor insufficient factual analysis of the impacts ofP;1, y p such development. As a result of that denial the appellant, through a development firm, has begun the preparation of the above mentioned 3.The subject site is a 36 acre parcel of property located on slopes and a plateau above and generally north of the Maple Valley Highway, east of I-405, south of the N.E. 3rd/4th Street corridor and lying both east and west of Monroe N.E., if it were extended in a southerly direction. 4.The parcel is listed as being owned by the City of Renton on the staff report, but it appears that it is jointly owned, or quite possibly completely owned by King County. The application is listed in a joint naming of both the City and the County. The actual proposal though, the conditional use application, is confined to projects entirely under King County's jurisdiction. 5.The conditional use application is for the following: a.An addition of approximately 7,800 square feet to an existing 7,860 square foot building Building J). b.An addition of approximately 300 feet for women's facilities to Building B. c.The construction of a 1,200 square foot storage building. d.Conversion of Building H back to storage use, from office use. e.The construction of an approximately 8,000 square foot Materials Testing Laboratory. f.The construction of a 120 stall parking lot. 6.The site contains existing King County facilities including the King County Solid Waste Transfer Station, shops facilities, storage buildings, parking lots and maintenance sheds. A large portion of the site is vacant. 7.Steep slopes bound the site on the south. 8.The appellant's property bounds the site on the east and south. Shop sites owned by the City of Renton are located east of the site. The King County District Court is also located east of the site. City of Renton/King County CU-038-88 & AAD-081-88 September 16, 1988 Page 5 9.Access to the site is via Monroe Avenue N.E. and N.E. 2nd Street. 10. The subject site is located within Zone 2 of the City of Renton's.A''quifer Protection Area APA) which permits the city to limit or prohibit certain types 'of•development or uses which could jeopardize the underlying aquifer rechargb, area. 11. The site is currently zoned G-1 (General; Single Family; Lot_size,„- 35,000 sq ft). Public uses such as that proposed are permitted.in G-1 zones, but only after review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit application. Normal development in a G-1 district is single family homes on,lots at least 35,000 square feet in area. Most single family zoning in Renton is confined to R-1 (Single Family; Lot size - 7,200 sq ft) zones, with G-1 zoning reserved for newly annexed property and the limited rural uses still maintained in some areas of the city. 12. In addition to the current application, the applicant had originally submitted at the same time, May 9, 1988, a request to rezone or ec)l ify the zoning on the subject site. The applicant proposed reclassifying the subject site to P-1 (Public/QuasiPublic). Renton issued a DNS for the rezone request. P-1 zoning would not require.a conditional use permit for development such as that proposed under the current application. The applicant did not seem to be aware that a similar process referred to as Site Plan approval would be required for all development in a P-1 zone. 13. The same appellant, the McMahon Estate, filed an appeal of the DNS issued for the rezone request. King County thereupon withdrew the application to rezone the subject site which had the effect of making the matter moot. The appeal filed for the rezone was dismissed. 14. - The appellant alleges that the City failed to correctly assess the full implications of the King County/City of Renton proposal for the subject site, and that the ERC has instead relied to some extent on: a.the still incomplete environmental analyses being prepared for the appellant's adjoining properties and; b.the assertion by the applicant that only,t)ie scope of work for the instant conditional use permit should be considered in the environmental analysis. 15. The appellant suggests and urges that the City should have based it determination on a Master Plan prepared for King County by Arai/Jackson Architects. This Master Plan is for the Consolidated Office and Repair Facility (CORF). The Master Plan and Executive Summary for the CORF proposal were used as justification for both the rezone and conditional use permits and submitted as part of the Environmental Checklist prepared for those projects. 16. The Master Plan apparently is a required Budgetary Procedure of King County to permit analysis of the existing needs, the near term needs and future needs when requesting funding for capital improvement projects. The Master Plan, therefore, in addition to the identification of the scope of work requested as part of the current conditional use permit, also indicated potential expansion plans for additional storage, shop space, and up to 170,000 square feet of office space, as well as a parking lot containing up to 675 employee parking spaces. 17. The plan,also envisioned expansion of City of Renton shops east of the site and the construction of a major arterial link between the site and the Maple Valley Highway. The major expenditure of funds for this arterial link, estimated to cost approximately two million dollars, was envisioned to be provided by the developer of the appellant's adjoining acreage. 18. The environmental checklist filed with the rezone answered Question 7, regarding.future plans or additions, expansions or related activity as follows: Fire training site and open storage for Renton Public Works; King County Public Works is proposing yard improvements, new material testing labs and expanded lockers/showers for women employees, and warehouse remodel." 19. Answeridg Question 11 of the checklist, the question asking for a complete description, the applicants responded as follows: The City owns 13 acres at-present which is developed as our City Shop Facility. An additional 5 acres is being purchased. It is to be used to extend the Public Works Shop Facility and provide space for a Fire Training site. These are all Public uses. .... The proposed rezone includes City of Renton/King County 0 CU-038-88 & AAD-081-88 September 16, 1988 Page 6 all parcels in Public Ownership: King Co. PW (Public Works) Shops; Solid Waste Transfer Station; King Co Dist. Ct.; King Co. Parks; King Co. Health Dept.; and City Shops site. The rezone includes the vacant King Co. properties to the South." 20. In responding to Question 4 of Part D, the Supplemental Sheet for non-project actions, regarding affects on environmentally sensitiveiareas, the applicant answered: No development is proposed at this time for the steep'slopes areas except for the construction of a'future Monroe Ave. N.E. roadway extension to Maple Valley." 21. The box labeled "Proposed Use" on The Master Application filed for the subject conditional use project describes the use as follows: Public Works Maintenance Shops,&.Fire Dept. Training, for King Co. & City of Renton/District Court Transfer Station and Health Department." The box for "AREA" indicates the proposal covers 36 acres. 22. The Executive Summary prepared by Arai/Jackson contains the following statement on Page 1: Coordinate preparation of the master development site plan with the City of Renton Zoning requirements. The objective was to obtain zoning and related SEPA clearance to allow "build out" of the master plan without repeated conditional use reviews from the City of Renton." 23. The purpose of the study was listed as:- Identify existing and future space and facility requirements to support the Department of Public Works' mission. Identify site opportunities to satisfy space/facility needs and prepare a master site development plan showing: location of potential future structures'•{ location of parking circulation and access improvements" 24. The section of the Executive Summary labeled "study issues" stated the following: I. Zoning. The City of Renton has jurisdiction for SEPA, land use and building permit approval. Under the present G-1 zoning classification each capital development project must apply for a conditional use permit, typically a 4 to 6 month process. The objective of the study was to develop a Master Plan that could be used to obtain a zone change for the entire site from G-I (General) to P-1 (Public) classification. The P-1 classification would remove the conditional use requirements and greatly simplify the approval of individual projects, since SEPA review of the entire Master Plan would occur as part of the rezoning." (Emphasis supplied.) 25. It continues: The City of Renton supports the rezoning of CORF to P-1 and has agreed to handle the rezone application itself as part of the agreement to purchase a five acre portion of the site from the Department for its own Public Works Shops." 26. Rather than exhaustively quote from the Summary, in brief, it identifies areas on the site which could support approximately 170,000 square feet of office space, room for the expansion of the Roads Maintenance functions through the year 2000, suggests expansion of other facilities, notes locations for parking for 675 vehicles and even ventures to suggest that if the site is unsuitable for County development it could be leased or sold for private development. It clearly identifies the extension of a roadway connecting the site to Maple Valley as desirable, with the proviso that such extension could bisect the site, although the current plans could preclude such an option. 27. Regarding this possible Monroe Avenue extension, the summary identifies its principle contributor/builder as the appellant or the developer of the appellant's property, with King City of Renton/King County CU-038-88 & AAD-081-88 September 16, 1988 Page 7 County providing some right-of-way, although it also suggests that since Renton is desirous of building this link there might be a possible offset from Renton for King County's costs. 28. The Executive summary further identifies the congestion and confusion created by mixing public, employee, and maintenance vehicle access to the site. The confusion is apparently related to the mix of court, office/work site and maintenance facilities on the one campus. 29. Staff comments prepared for the conditional use permit phase of the project request additional information in general and suggests that the proposal should tforlie approved without additional information in such areas as groundwater protection, storm water systems, traffic analysis, and particularly the impact of the proposed connection through or around the site to the Maple Valley Highway. Although admittedly, there are such overlapping similarities to the comments prepared for the rezone as to lead one to wonder if the comments clearly distinguished the proposals, the circulation sheets and titles of the comment sheet identify the conditional use as the object of the comments from city,staff. 30. According to staff this proposal amounts to approximately 17,000 square feet of additional development spread over the Various expansions to existing buildings and outright new buildings. 31. The applicant argues that any plans identified by the Master Plan prepared for the site are merely speculative and have not been either approved or funded by the King County Council, but were necessitated by budget practices. CONCLUSIONS 1.The decision of the governmental agency acting as the responsible official is entitled to substantial weight. Therefore, the determination of the Environmental Review Committee ERC), the city's responsible official, is entitled to be maintained unless the appellant clearly demonstrates that the determination was in error. 2.The Determination of Non-Significance in this case is entitled to substantial weight and will not be reversed or modified unless it can be found that the decision is "clearly erroneous." (Hayden v. Port Townsend, 93 Wn 2nd 870, 880; 1980).;+The court in citing Norway Hill Preservation and Protection Association v. King County Council, 87 Wn 2d 267, 274; 1976, stated: "A finding is 'clearly erroneous' when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Therefore, the determination of the ERC will not be modified or reversed if it can meet the above test. For reasons enumerated below, the decision of the ERC is reversed. 3.The clearly erroneous test has generally been applied when an action results in a DNS since the test is less demanding on the appellant. The reason is that SEPA requires a thorough examination of the environmental consequences of an action. The courts have, therefore, made it easier to reverse a DNS. A second test, the "arbitrary and capricious" test is generally applied when a determination of significance (DS) is issued. In this second test an appellant would have to show that the decision clearly flies in the face of reason since a DS is more protective of the environment since it results in the preparation of a full disclosure document, an Environmental Impact Statement. 4.An action is determined to have a significant adverse impact on the quality of the environment if more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment is a reasonable probability. Norway, at 278). Since the Court spoke in Norway, WAC 197-11-794 has been adopted, it defines "significant" as follows: Significant. (1) "Significant" as used in SEPA means a reasonable likelihood of more than a moderate adverse impact on environmental quality. 2) Significance involves context and intensity ...Intensity depends on the magnitude and duration of an impact.... The severity of the impact should be weighed along with the likelihood of its occurrence. An impact may be significant if its chance of occurrence is not great, but the resulting environmental impact would be severe'if it occurred. City of Renton/King County •.,,,.V CU-038-88 & AAD-081-88 September 16, 1988 Page 8 5.Also redefined since the Norway decision was the term "probable." Probable. "Probable" means likely or reasonably-likely to occur, ... Probable is used to distinguish likely impacts from those that merely have a possibility of occurring, but are remote or speculative.f ,,(WAC 197-11- 782). e• • 6.Impacts also include reasonably related and foreseeable direct and indirect impacts including short-term and-long-term effects. (WAC 197-11-060 4 c irig- fmpacts include those effects resulting from growth caused liy:a proposal, as well as the likelihood that the present proposal will serve as precedent for future actions. (WAC 197-11-060(4)(d)). 7.The proposed locations of buildings on the site will most certainly affect any decision on the alignment or potential alignment of any extension of Monroe to the Maple Valley Highway. The expansion of shops, maintenance sheds and storage buildings could have an impact on the quality and the desirability of residential\uses constructed near the site. 8.What type of materials should appropriately be stored, transferred and handled on a site that sits in Zone 2 of the city's aquifer protection area was not explored? Mitigation measures could preclude an entire range of chemical agents, negating the effectiveness of this site for some or many of King County's purposes. Shouldn't these issues be explored before committing the site to the proposed uses? 9.The appellant is correct in arguing that the applicant's statements that this proposal is of limited scope are disingenuous. The checklist prepared for the proposal, the master application for the proposal, and the documents submitted to support the proposal, (especially the Executive Summary of the Master Plan),all demonstrate the extent of the proposal. It includes in various analyses further expansions, reliance on a possible connection to the Maple Valley Highway, possibly office buildings and parking for 675 vehicles, expansion of city shop buildings and a possible fire training site. The Court in Juanita Bay Valley Community Association v. The City of Kirkland, 9 Wn. App. 59, 72, 510 P.2d 1140, rev, denied, 83 Wn.2d 1002 (1973) expounded on the requirement for early review and particularly singled out the area of phased, or a series of related projects: O]ne of the purposes of .... SEPA, is to avoid the adverse impact upon the environment which takes place when various phases of a project, or a series of projects, are authorized by governmental agencies, in a piecemeal fashion without regard to the cumulative impact of the total development.... Appellant correctly suggests that the environmental impact of the total project, rather than that of the grading project alone, must be weighed in order to meet the requirements of SEPA. We therefore conclude SEPA requires that an environmental impact statement be prepared prior to the first governmental authorization of any part of a project or series of projects which, when considered cumulatively, constitute a major action significantly affecting the quality of the environment...' RCW 43.21C.030(c). 9 Wn. App. at 72-72." The court has repeatedly rejected arguments that merely modest steps of a longer or larger project do not require full environmental assessment. . 10. It is also clear that the rezone application was intended to trigger more extensive environmental analysis than the issuance of a DNS, even a mitigated DNS. The section of the Executive Summary labeled Study Issues closed with the following observation: "since SEPA review of the entire Master Plan would occur as part of the rezoning." (Emphasis supplied.) While the applicant attempted to preclude this more thorough review by withdrawing the rezone application, it's quite apparent that the conditional use is also part and parcel of a larger overall proposal, and merely eliminating consideration of the rezone did not eliminate the need to determine the full range of environmental impacts which would occur. Also, exploration of what limitations on future action may be imposed by moving ahead with what the applicant terms a limited implementation of a small conditional use permit is necessary. 11. While in this case the ERC did not simply issue a DNS, and imposed a series of conditions in an attempt to mitigate the proposal and issued what is called a Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated, the imposition of conditions does not help to disclose information about the site, potential impacts of the proposal and possible alternatives. The withdrawal of the rezone, the staff's negative evaluation of the.information available for the proposal, and the range of questions regarding storm water, aquifer protection, traffic projections and roadway City of Renton/King County V CU-038-88 & AAD-081-88 September 16, 1988 Page 9 construction cannot be permitted to displace full environmental disclosure. Staff actually concluded that they would rely on a traffic assessment being conducted for the appellant's EIS, a study which is still incomplete. How then can it be relied upon for the instant environmental assessment? 12. Permitting such a practice would exalt form over substance. A review of the various documents filed with this and the earlier companion rezone application reveals that the immediate proposal is a small view of a larger display. The applicant owns or controls approximately 36 acres of property. The campus includes, or is proposed to include, both county facilities and city facilities: It includes private/authorized personnel-type facilities - the shops buildings, material testing labs, etc - and open to the public facilities - the court and the transfer station. These are just the mix of uses which the Master Plan suggests create confusion and potential safety issues - the mixing of various vehicular generators with limited access potential. 13. This office will not permit the applicant to divorce the language found in the rezone documents from those found in the conditional ‘ist,•'aPplication. Even if the divorce were permitted, the conditional use permit documentation, including the applicant's own map, Exhibit 3, shows the clear implications of a proposed expansion of the campus, the connecting link, etc. Simply because some of the items are suggested as future plans should not negate the fact that they offer a range of possibilities and a concomitant limitation by chosing a certain course of action without review. 14. The appellant can be forgiven for suggesting a possible quid pro quo for the issuance of a DNS. The application is most confusing in identifying who owns what and who is the applicant. This confused ownership situation also makes it easier to decide that the permit is more than simply a request for a conditional use permit. The proposal appears to be more complex than the applicant urges since there is the ambiguous joining or actual substitution of the City of Renton in what is argued is a minor action by King County. The record reveals that along with the specific aspects of this conditional use, there is a fire training facility also included in the proposed uses (See Master Application). Then to make matters worse the Executive Summary unfortunately states: "The City of Renton supports the rezoning of CORF to P-1 and has agreed to handle the rezone application itself as part of the agreement to purchase a five acre portion of the site from the Department for its own Public Works Shops." This may merely indicate that the,purchase price took into consideration'the permit fees ordinarily required for processing, but it does look odd. 15. And again, while the applicant has attempted to limit the scope of SEPA review to the conditional use permit, SEPA does not permit arbitrarily segmenting proposals to avoid the full disclosure otherwise required under SEPA. The applicant filed jointly the rezone and the conditional use requests. Both Master Applications were filed on May 9, 1988. It also appears that an EIS was anticipated. At Page 9 of the Executive Summary is found the following quote: This process will involve SEPA review and undoubtedly an EIS will be required with special emphasis on traffic impacts." (Emphasis supplied.) 16. SEPA requires review "at the earliest possible point in the planning and decision-making process" (WAC 197-11-055(2). This review should be performed prior to irrevocable commitment of either resources or land. The proposal to construct three new buildings and expand one or two others, to construct a parking lot for 120 cars and to commit to a location which could preclude appropriate alignment for what is expected to be a four or five lane arterial seems an appropriate time for complete environmental review. What of substance can be accomplished after new buildings are constructed, others expanded, and a possible alignment of Monroe precluded? It is apparent that the SEPA determination required at this, the earliest time when a concrete proposal has been advanced, would be to require an EIS; the same anticipated EIS on Page 9 of the Master Plan and discussed in Conclusion 15, above. 17. To re-emphasize, the Executive Summary prepared by Arai/Jackson contains the following quite revealing statement on Page 1: Coordinate preparation of the master development site plan with the City Hof Renton Zoning requirements. The objective was to obtain zoning and related SEPA clearance to allow "build out" of the master plan without repeated conditional use reviews from the City of Renton." (Emphasis supplied.) City of Renton/King County CU-038-88 & AAD-081-88 September 16, 1988 Page 10 18. It's clear that the initial focus was for a consolidated SEPA review since as the Executive Summary states on Page 2: "SEPA review of the entire Master Plan would occur as part of the rezoning." It is also clear that when an appeal was filed on the DNS issued for the rezone the opportunity for consolidated review was removed. The applicant-attempted to thwart a thorough review by withdrawing the rezone application, although,petmitting the conditional use application to proceed. Such machinations cannot be permitted to stiffle full environmental review. 19. Full review would allow the city to explore alternatives. FulriView would permit the county to explore alternatives. It's clear:that a variety of options for use of the site exist. What are they? Would the potential connection with Maple Valley Highway be precluded by early dedication of portions of the site to buildings? Would the best alignment of such a roadway be better served by placing buildings as now proposed or in an alternative configuration? Would the best use of the site be for private development? Would the best use, whatever it be, be adversely affected by imposing maintenance sheds and buildings upon the site? 20. There are a number of other issues concerning the use and development of this site, merely one of which is: Is the storage of pesticides, herbicides and other hazardous materials appropriate for the site? The issue at this point should not resolve around mitigation measures or whether plans have been developed for the containment of hazardous materials and actions delineated for cleanup in the event of a spill. The question should rather be framed: Should they even be stored here on a site above the aquifer? Only a full disclosure document can answer this and the other questions posed by development of this site. 21. There are a range of issues only touched upon in the Master Plan and which deserve thorough review and analysis. The 36 acre site is no less deserving of a thoroughly thought out plan than the appellant's adjoining McMahon site. Certainly an application for actual construction carries with it more identifiable impacts than the mere rezone originally proposed by the appellant. The King County Master Plan is much more concrete than was the appellant's conceptual residential plan for the abutting McMahon site. The commitment of more than a million dollars, time, construction materials, etc. is certainly the kind of action which should trigger a thorough analysis, and is the type of action envisioned by SEPA which should trigger thepublicationofanenvironmentalimpactstatement. 22. By attempting to eliminate the full disclosure mandated by SEPA, the applicant or applicants may be foreclosing reasonable and better alternatives for the site. They may be committing to a course of action which has not been fully explored. They have definitely attempted to short circuit the SEPA process. The record reveals that a consolidated process was originally intended. A thorough review at that stage would have, or was intended to allow expeditious or even minimal review in the future of other phases by fully exploring in a Master Plan the site's potential now. SEPA demands no less. 23. The reviewing body should not substitute its judgment for that of the original body with expertise in the matter, unless the reviewing body has the firm conviction that a mistake has been made. There is no doubt that the reviewing agency erred in its determination. The proposal is one step in a series of related steps - a step which will almost certainly irrevocably commit the site to further expansion of King County facilities on the site - and is a major action which will have more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment. This proposal, coupled with the potential development, is a major action which will significantly affect the quality of the environment and could significantly affect the range of reasonable choices which themselves affect the quality of the environment. The appealing party must prevail on this appeal. A DNS, even a mitigated DNS, is inappropriate for such an action. Full disclosure is required which mandates the preparation of an EIS. 24. The determination of the Environmental Review Committee is reversed. Pursuant to Section 4- 2823(B)4) the lead agency is directed to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the subject proposal and reasonably identified, although not necessarily approved, related proposals found in the Master Plan. 25. Having reached the conclusion that an EIS is required, no purpose would be served in reviewing the proposed conditional use for the subject site. The evaluation performed by the EIS may demonstrate that the subject proposal needs modification. Therefore, the application for a conditional use permit is dismissed. City of Renton/Kingi County ..,,,r{,,;; CU-038-88 & AAD-;081-88 September 16, 1988 Page 11 DECISION A, The lead agency is directed to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the subject proposal. 1r r;""''o. ORDERED THIS 16th day of September, 1988. y ' ',,k' n..MVfIA 1,';„..z. .Ko.A.A., FRED J. KA MAN ` HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 16th day of September, 1988 to the parties of.record: Kevin Raymond Attorney At Law , Room E-550 King County Public Works Department 500 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 O. J. Saltarelli Facilities Administrator 6 Room 900 - King County Building 500 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington Karen Feyerherm Betts, Patterson & Mines 1215 - 4th Avenue mot 800 Financial Center Seattle, Washing.t94 98161-1090 Lawrence Warren City Attorney City of Renton TRANSMITTED THIS 16th day of September, 1988 to the following: Mayor Earl Clymer Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator Richard Houghton, Public Works Director Members, Renton Planning Commission Larry M. Springer, Planning Manager Glen Gordon, Fire Marshal Ronald Nelson, Building Director Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney John Adamson, Developmental Program Coordinator Gary Norris,:Traffic Engineer Renton Record-Chronicle Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 P.M. September 30, 1988. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14).days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific errors relied upon by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. Any appeal is governed by Title IV, Section 3011, which requires that such appeal be filed with the Superior Court of Washington for King County within twenty (20) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. I The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. City of Renton/King County •,,r r CU-038-88 & AAD-081-88 September 16, 1988 Page 12 All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council.i ', C'i 1 L i I 6 . • I l 11 I r I L- 1 I C pI III' 1II l 44/' t Ng.. zoo si. 1 1 rev`"• II 1 I I II 1 1 I 11 1 I 0.// 1 14410111. 11111. 11--. , Ad101°° Irll° d001°°ir All11 1 1 1 Air. A 1 S,t,.It.C1'1 \ 1 G 1 I eWrr l >' // j 1 1 , 1 I 1 , I 1% 1 1 1I y i 1 a{•,Il .11l ' • .1.c. .. ,it:iyt 5-11 ' :! a1 ,' 7 8 9 o I r`.1.:n',`;I r1n w,rs I rL tir ja? s;,;:-} .. i -.. 1,k;•.1 . J P I G.` t l - ai Ub mRE F I. _.lc.r \ \ L'J . 4. Y, , Y KING COUNTY EXPANSION OF PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES I FILE NO. CU-038-88 Kii APPL I CANT CITY OF RENTON TOTAL AREA ± 36 ACRES PRINCIPAL ACCESS N.E.: 2nd STREET EXISTING ZONING G-1, GENERAL-SINGLE FAMILY EXISTING USE KING COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES PROPOSED USE EXPANSION OF KING COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS FACILITiIES COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC & GREENBELT • COMMENTS . . I I r 0` y C KING COUNTY• t, C. t' PUBLIC WORKS i GGG.CONSOLIDATED OFFIC t. REPAIR FACILITY AO, s` Zz, 7',/ ,1 1 sss‘' ZZ '•4 i 10.4111„ OA . 11111:. 4,7 /4:045. . a‘ C • ' 44.s•,. - 0 Ck.. S..\I> i A 0 0 .7445'f3 --- - 4,,: p ,.... 1 s .- -..,-,/ e 44t 0/ ' , .• ..,,__ai 4 e 0 CI 1 BUILDING AL3D{-TiOP z__,-. : jy• . ,. . s, ,.: k1/4—. *. 4, , V,:,;2 Aldefrilt4teaili O' -\-\ .• N.r 4. ..S-BILS BUILDINIr. , _. C- 4-7- r."-r-•. 2 17:::7; r 1 •` l. r 3. MINI STORAGE 1 :/;/ i / ' rr ! i 1\ 1,,\--\-- •i• •-• n __..., I _., i\\. ' i/li.. ,..1 i /r \ I tj'/ 1•IUI^1L 1. ) BUILDING ADDITION --' ,it .. .. ARAUTACK501` r I I\ ^i i- ARCHITECTS&PLWH1=, 00 MASTER I. } '• n o DEVELOPMEN'r, r'. A Apo= ':emu i i o0o a SITE PLAN e ADDITION LOCATIONS Nip 14• V' `' Qp PHASE rNOTE AND,.NBUILDINGW Q AND.hEW BUILDING FOOTPRINTS Q ARE CONCEPTUAL ONLY. SUBSEQUENT r.• r OO i;' o. i a,PROJECTS FrISADADDITION ORAL CATIONS WILL t>j 11 n. FIX ADDIPIOK LOCATIONS AND 0 0• NEW BUILDING FLOOR PLANS- r`.-^^"- - l' i .. .__ :::•.,,',;',:;. •-:. i:•ii...:::::::;;: l'•:%. ;/ .,.. Lfc.cH. c.,,...ii. % ........ fl;'4"• ,•r„,.4;-.. !... i r...-:•7IGT0N u 1 L.basis.5.),..•• '.••••• H.A;0„,", kNINES .::::::::::::::: emenilb Itoie A,Ai:1• • . 1.•• :-:-.14 fi.",':4`3';',•.• '. 0000(Doc•c•c• 100,30. IJ 1111111, •• indmil did I 14111110 JO 0ociZI:L.k i i%no... inn'.e_TP, ••• ellilleg WINN w. 7:_..• -Ir' • • • • •• .AN.,„ky) .. III I•A i:i M•x: ___/111iinit III LIM:gi:::ii;:ii:i:ii:i:.•• . . :°00.°10.°009,•.1.r. .,... II ::::... ire 'lir 1 ..00.0.7PrIP, • i 00.943000000.0. e „ : ,.. ..;•:••••••::pi:lIgniali, .:,:ii:Mi IImi PAIN 000.3c•c• i • , si "" ise • • • • • 1 • eri) Agia7.1110 041211:t 0000,30.0. 0.. .:••••••••••••••••••••••••• '•:.\••••...:'-`... :imI s•• -•• il, I ..:i•Vitallifri I 1 'ii::..../07/16 IFAIR Ii„. ...11111111a .1is • • • • • ', Miille.k, '''•••AilliN MEME11........ . : i*i:i imin 11 III il inemigat .Elm 0 i jig , '. rim c..•r„, c(--s......1...,,:i•-•-• 11...Purg'• ‘1QeeV4.• ••••••• •••••••• • '''' .::. IL ..r lb .30.000.0.000.000.0132°. 4 • • • • • • • - •_1•_•_• •,.inj ,.."'-f 43.• 000000.00 Ii ..,' -wit sgt,,, 'cl, lolli.• d',5'o • • • • • • • e • • • III • ..,' k %go ,-,..... °0..,:•:•:••• 10, r- i::.:..is • • • • ',!•, 1 l,6 • -•• - . i*:•:•••••••••::::.:iNt141 ogiggo • i.••••••I ••• • • ••••• s•.• ''•`.;5'.• • 1.116Ill Iii::.:**::::::::•:::::.:.:::::::•:1::•;::.::::.:::::%).% :::•::... •5ggg .4 e•••••• 3 7, :11 • • .• • 4 • •:•." ‘1)11101 ill t.4 ::::•:::::::::....I :::::::::' ::::.:::::::::;:i:::::::;:::::.•.. :::::::•::::::::::::.. 219°g2.:k ck• • • ?roll . 6.°.°.!.• :• z led i:i iiii 111 •MIR Iiik; N.a::0 0.0,,, • • • ., 1 4: ....., ,Po'• •4.. Itaii.A. ggoEggooi.•.•, 10%.k.i.,,?• • . 4 I a •:.•••:0:• l/Pi. ViVill 1 iNir ..°0°....0.°: ::::::i:i*i:::iUiiiiiii**:* .00•011 111111 Ogg00°0, . 749 • 0 if 0•0 0 •:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:. a•••••R i NEggggEAV..30.4..11111111 % ''4,',,?) e',' I d00.‘•0.......... i:i*i*i:i:i*i*:::::::::::::::::::•••••••••• .......1.....g:0,D,ii:E..;tgg7 1-,--iiiiim,:--1,11.11.:: 10 el, 1....,...• .....I k ',i* i.iVi•ii•i:i::..:„..,.........,..:.:,..• . . ••••• 1!•••••••• i.._ .k., I i..::::::-::::::::- igi, •,',...:::::.: 41„..,: .::.:....• . , iiiiir7,77,7,7,;77:ro. ilmilliviiiirasi-..:.:::. iv.-mirimi:ii. goobgc,000 °•)7 fjell Eiiiillit g ::z..:.;-..77.•::::::::::am..i.14 pipr.. :ce mimIitr..... .....:..:..,,,•, ..: : : . . • :. . 0.0,..0...„...... . :::::•:„,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,.:.:..:,:,,,,,„„,::„„„„„„„„,„„:„„„„,„„„::::::: .4,, ,?y 111111,1 r 0 0 •a• ••••..,.._•.0.0.0.0000000. ::::::::. ..,,,,,, . , lrlIr•-•1I. .B2.1...ii. 11 1110111 •4,. ..-,,,... ... ,:,„„,:,„„„„„„,„„,„„„,:„, 0..,.....0:0- 0,6° .r.:. ,.,...0.000.o. Iii..,,r,,,t filill'Amilow*.- , 4 I.. k .9.009,00, . •::::.:Ni•:::Mi;• 8...c........:•.;• . ..,.... •.'..'' /11: ::::::.:::•::i:: ! c.... , 0•F,"•...,:o• • 0 1:::::::::::::::::::: • 1'; iii!,1111.iiinfill:11.1r42.firjdi '''C'.. '.'". I 1 •.'°•%°`6%746...': iiiiiiiiii '''' .. ';''-''' *.°°:*.' '.°°' . ...:'''':::::::: i.1 " ib • ,-./ •••• •r •. 0.0••• 00, 4.1.,•....Eli..., ,..4.t., s;7:.:,..,-, „.„ 4 .,, .::. ;;,;;i;i;:.;i:;;i;;;;;;;;; 11. ,...0..011 .00.0.0, . _ , .-..-4.s.,,Api:".,..--4 II. , •::::::::::::::::::::::::::1::•:::i::!:::::': . r•,.'-cc,-- ---• •••••••-•-1- :.:::::::::'•, .•-•Ins 11, 1 .11.1 1.11 1--" i•'.-i r.h. ...,..,..-.._.".. .2.-• i:....::::.::::::::1M .. i:::i:i:i:i:::iii*:i:. . •,: l.,.q:• ,1 ror- r,-.;•., •:•:.:•:.:-;•• • Tr-A...Itt Ji.'':6,3,.4 k.,...•,;(_, . .4,1 ,, •.:•:::::::::::.:- • •,..,...„.1..1.. • •,' :•:........... ...el 1146).1.41411411'211;;Ifiklilift;1111: ''inil.','..<•:., .. k e;.,•4_.5,. ,5;., ,:.•••'•ri.?,--:6,•••2...-.' .. q,.: ., ' ::::::::::::•:•:::::::-.. _Ilit tan::ihylp p s•c;.,0,:m4...., 44,Y:',..),•=?.:Nr :;,-,,•• .•:,;'-,_;'..,-.q•:14., 1, 3. ,?.,:?.??: -',,,,...%Y.'?• • •.:•• pVILI .4„,-7,111.,;:- hug! 27 . 1 '''':'..'.. ri..". ..:(1-'2„'-'rescl-(i:::C •Nh•"1/4"..r./ 2;•:';:f;;'-';,(:''''''n.r9 ef;•-',?'.';••ri. •',,,4•4 •••.'::::::::::::::: NO j.i.,..: .\.-„-rm,-. .-..,. 1::11... .,;-.. ....4.....?,,„--....,b...-;;".. ' '''r)'' ' '''. ::.: 4. • +00%..........:.:::::: 3;':c• ..zpi.•••,re•-• 'swirl I/'0- •elk ..0•4141 ; •qig 7.•:•...:. • -• C• '' .. .. •7.,-.1%ci-mii 0-.' •' ' undr s, •t3r4:n',. 07,1101 i ;IA, 1 1 14P .111!114111"" . t. . %If 414111111p 'al• (?•.(,..,'•'T '.•;,...2.',,,,-,9•••,.,1;,,,,,,ib:k, .i ..c.c.... .„ •.: * tau . ex •„. s'" '' ''- 4,1...; '.:'.••:: r•.!ii., r.;x:. t4.71-Vi,r;r;'(' • .Mi`t.'.;,"''':•.P1.•',.",•;;, 1:011.: ct,3,'',...1.• C e•;,,.6.,,...,...,, t.y r• r,- • - ,•••.,•3 •lir .eiireirilf ge•A,. ::• . . I 4 1'.44 '., -.. .••.0;l'Ne••,;.• .t.,--.' , .61.• •...; •f.0.1e •1.1'.••••,.......,..,.r, ;,„,..... ,• ,- .1 v .• 7,4}.di 0..0.110, sit 4,(.7,•,),11‘..,.;•,.1•;ig,‘,...;.0...•,.„,,,,,,,,",s.,..,:,•1.....v.i.. . . , Age; :..('`'...,:". . '11111 1-'',-,ser iiiiiiii, 1.,!......,,:‘...........',..,a.;', •*•I on... ri(A•:` n'.':' •of v,r,‘,1„n .....,. .• .•ii .iF.ci Ilillial i 0 o.o o it•;;4`.;:c.‘Pc'...'IV....di C.-..•. I.• '7'"_........ -------...'%"•.:" 4".:::,.:.;;; I:...Tcr,;;;;01:::.•;;;%Y..,''`....1,.....rif..;;(..j... :it.i,,„... 6.,.,IN,41,‘1.?,. .:;.: . c!.: C.),.... . -N., .44,,..r. es .•,,c,,•:,..,, ,,i-c.,..k A-, ••.1 :?g° 11;illus 41;:;", :.:n„`••••,-,,•si;i7.1,2,1,.:" . :1.Q...6. -AJn.!". •-• ,.. . '''...v.A,Ce 1,...,07.1:-.,,,tr,,,-,tcy-0",,C1- i•„ yin i..(....N...kr.,4.• 0.1.,,-:,..,...c.i-..;;•57:::;......„, s. N.‘..- .fiNG•••••• X'•-• ..- ..•Ini.',..•-•••,;:. .. • -0• •'.•'.• .99 .,.... • . •_e‘..,Cf.ns-.....c eir.fr. 1',.........,1.14.'24,I/making......Ill -11 t •t-T,.. e .6,,,2,.„-0.1.!:,9.6,,,"% r. c,'••••5:•11' ;',Ty„'"0.,T--tc----. ,,'„",,1•„.p, 4' 4 e,,..k...x.. 11•••11116 T''''• .• ".^••• t...1i.IV•.^:.1R;....,7'1;3:"...kno tl.)(:,:y,13.i'....,%1-,`!,!1;;;••;„'•''•,, b) 4..*Mi;1pp.7.11 crtr..0.-.w• #0,.. • ;•••,-.:M.,!.pimilli'llmml.muss 1••111•11 ..;:i:0:i]]:::::..i.'•,11'•i•tv.t.;•-;:....:;•:.••••'.'....";:.i::,•,. '1•,••••„:,:;1;1• ^"- :N•:•",`.2,:iil,-;)':',i',•::'iilo!...0.IP,•q'v.....4;.?,,•,•„••:,:i.• 0, "'" c., „,,:.• .,...- i,k,.,-- •,,-..'..,;111111116"" ' ,,..::agnia' l' '''"' . :,.‘.: 1;;(1Y:%,li•it:-...S..i'iZ".**ri.k‘ 0°0.00.0... 13- .. rV% 117. ..3- t ,7 `''. .ii.o..geb4r2(.'...,*.e‘c•-,...-: ---,. . .1,111)Lum•-• rdi:m:::.ii:i*::i:::i:x:::i* s',.,,,,..);.:R.:=?.. L ' . C %.° 0. 39"°0.° '14''' i:7, 1)...6.5'1•Vc.tis'-•,°:. i • i:i:i:**::iii:.:.:::.:iie:::•• ''';‘..?Yiii,•`:''..V:•11.ir t"(....' `''''cr f 9:41 ::::::•:•:•:•::::::::'""•:•':•• . .....-.:'... '"; ;..:''', , 0 o'n` ...: 'PaCr'n".ti..; ,;4';. z.:•:•::::::::::::::::::/b,I.,.•..., ,.,non• n.. on....- imi_eqg ,........ • ..... .,000 ,..,„N 00...16,'.,.:•••.,::•:•. iiMi:.iiiiiiii::::,...r 23 111 i ,,,, ,. ,,wr •,,,ig]::0!::.::.;igiii:!;iiiii.:.:',. ....;;F::•:.!•;(:;,..f:(1:C ;'''..i .,:r'' . . 0 rffill 1 . Ilbs,,.?•,,:,,,,...,..• NI' 0.0. 0000• 1kei 000.. 00.0....\ z) 1 0°0 .i::*:::*:.. ..'••.:: I 111111 s.4(1. 8 <o .- ---- • •il.ri.'..".."6.1... •. 0';.'•. ,...i , 0.°'1,!....9:n Cf.'el. ,...•'d..e'LT:P;.1%§;.1.1%../1".0 1.‘ oo. . 1.' il.4.A•1;11•;.,1•.:..4(. 1‘:;.:.,.,3. .•:.(:!.. 117.,:;,::;.:.;...,,,:•: c.ic,:.;,:• 16N)..11,,,,\... ,, :0• 0 0 0•Ir‘.4`.*V,' .....j.)V.f•^:VIC)?•°: •,•:•e<V.1•••ii•C:°.°: 0.: 00: 0° 00 00 o• i; C:...17::-:';::::::. .1.'1. 5.1::1::::'''.-•::::t.'.. " Tr n .'n' o o o k•••;i:i:i;i:i::. I N.P-4!qeft•i t4ii . vic< iiiii it4;t:ot 00.0, 0 Or) 1-.....:.:.::.:.. r• 0000 .::::::.:.;.:.:.... 1..• , •00000 - Al i:10.11... e.,?:. .". . i::::... z• ,, i 7,,0 .,6 1111.111111.1. 7:f.-2:1- •_: __...).".q.L,.,i'••,; ,st, c... -..740000.00.000. qi•,••(•-.;M.,,i;P.•-. >:1 0.0.0.0.0..4.... :,, sr?•:* o o o o o o o - •.?•• 000000000000 . 00 000. 00000 '•‘-... .• 0000000 1 . ir N '--- 0000•.f.a''.5 9..P.-P,P,P.4.o_00000c i ....,•• ..,opc00000. c;r... • ,.:,. I....s. o"oc'ocMon • 'c' I -1.:', 7,boo.... o. 00na. Lr. 0 0... - LAND USE ELEMENT1 hi i .-.. . •-r.e %. e 12. . 1 'la V:i•'. .1 f Pi• ID' Single Family II 1 Commercial 0: LowmuelDnsityamily Office / Office Park ' c.: 14., ti-FN. \: 71-1 1 01 .14'30 0000 0MediumDensity4. c.00, Public/QUasi-Publicam,r o!...-7.7=19rI i.::::i:i::•:.::;•.::::11111 i Iiih_ .......'.:!....:::::::::::::::•.111; 1 :gal :: ••••••••••••••.....,.„.,.„........,., Multi-Family ,,,.....0. 6.008,0000., 00.000., Povoc....- •• mill 100 T-ITT 1/ 7r..::*:...:f..:: ii*::•.10 2.1.11-11.... c):°:°:°9" o°4 :: -• '43.• r<1.,f.!.Iate High Densit Light Industrial Allc,c.c,cp. . 1--... i •-.:.:.:•: i,idt.i60.... Multi-FaMily T y 4.4;0.00.. 4,..T, ... Fn.:60.v. ......p.::i.:: .474. , ...--•,-.....,2. 4)v.0 0•0°0° : :i:i::.:, ,I:ti,.•'-q..1f 7:.1."r 6 6 • 7. o_o_o_..o_p o o o... .:::::•:: *]:. -::':r,..:'oi..,•-•-.Recreation Heavy Industrialcu.8-09,..0000. .::::::::::::: ••:.:•--,• i c.. .:.:.:..:•:•:•: ..,...,-......:-.• c,•00... ,. ..:•:•:•:•:. :.. ..0-.,..•••, !..tp0000000 '1".' •'''• ...`.,'••::,..,-.•••,:.-, c....ocp .0.0• :, ;. 3,: 7..i^ r_ .,.....• .:„.1._r=9., J. -TT- i l•o!,'e: ,. c.'•`-' Greenbelt-. ...:.s,i•r., i•!.`:'.E•C.S.r.`r Manufacturing. ----Park Multiple Option Y •' KING COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS o CONSOLIDATED OFFICE ti` yo S REPAIR FACILITY C / t`\+:, r^ mil\ City Of Renton. J t/ Public Works`.e. ,-\ r r BUILDING KEY: n r Kin•County D'suict Court, 1 Q ROADS ADmINISTRATIO 0 /y, y 1 ID TRAFFICS. SIGN STORE Fjnolovee Parking CC//'%% :C CORF Or!CE EXPANSION 43 Spaces yr" \\ J 0 SOILS:Ad r3 E CORF OFFICE Parkes r EXPANSION IALT.SITE)County B ' 30 SPacesy 1 i} r. L OF FUEL CI_v FLEET.+ALNT Roads Division r r----;. r/ Maintenance STORES Vis+cor S EmP i S. r Site Entrance r/•-\ \ Yard Entrance I EQUIPMENT " a s-ti CREW/SHOPS I f Loop Road 1 _ EQUIPMENT SHED I' Roads Division 1 L EQUIPMENT SHED K J r 1 Core Area c stoats ti EQUIP +ENT SHED Y` twao 4. Public Works Sic. t..-/-1 lll r• Stcua L, S O EQUIPENT SHED G Pedestrian F. C-` n[[r Ezpanston SDine T• c r. C..J,,, 0 MINI STORAGE J' i' f j, c• % ,: MINI STORAGE F AsAIMTIMAI.Cr' 1.• !t` r; 5 G.TE HOUSE C O L TRAILER yf/ U PUBLIC WORKS ti = ."&lbil 3 w rf .G:N J•I;' i ,. p• OFFICE BUILDING r' V POTENTIAL it z[ '' O 0 rj" W Landscape •Buffer.i:/r OFFICE EXPANSION 0 / 0. I~ , ' „ W POTENTIAL wyre Maintenance _ F. i•. 41411 R' ,-• J 4:. =` y,,`.. ! Potential Phase ill{ OFFICE EXPANSION Expansion Are 1r.CFr --L., r:',-/! I r„' 1"`C Office Building'I '.• :_' I•: I FUTURE PA tT l i 35,000•CSF i Employe`Parting i NIV*.:i- ` i 1 1 I 0.EXISTING BUILDING 384----- :)'" i U Po[endalPh:selll• r/ j / - ••i/ y Paritin 5• IF Em ential Parking,•.•/ r I+ I ErnDloYee _ g w g acel I}: I 267$Paces' r _ i i 6i 5 SP_ ..i Existing Paint Building I,' j- Y" it Potential Phase III:B i \ /••I •/ // / +* L+. KI /' \1. \ i L.i SS ,m y Ezisring King Coun y i I. i // \\ • \r Office Buildings //.,f,/ 1 I r/ / lid Waite I ii i' I J J // xo f 1 \ SO tiansiet Suoon Potential Phase III-A tii 'i n A T I N.x•. Office Building ' r j 1 \_- '-/i C> /1_`V vision 1\. r (\ bG r Roads Di B5,000 GSF ARCritT'cC5 i,?.AAINe_ZS Core Area 4 oo 0Creenbelc Public Works i i. , ; •\ \. I \ i ' s, Lr/' Pocendal Future a MASTER Pit Storage i OQ CQ1' Connection Ta \ Ofir, t DEVELOPMENT o` 1 \Ili //.. ;•'jl-_ MaD!e Valley High ay QO' '4' c; i / u- o o QQ ;': o SITE PLAN AND NEW ADDITION LOCATIONSNOTE I e> • AND NEW BUILDING FOOTPSUBS i;O • ARE CONCE?TIIAL ONLY. SIIBScQUcNT C i r7 1:3- AAL STUDIES WILL i:: 0. ARCHITECTURAL I, 7/// FIX ADDITION LOCATIONS AND NEW BUILDING FLOOR PLANS_ r CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA COMMENCING AT 9 : 00 A.M. , September 6, 1988 , COUNCIL CHAMBERS, SECOND FLOOR, RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING The applications listed are in order of application number only and not necessarily the order in which they will be heard. Items will be called for hearing at the discretion of the Hearing Examiner. CITY OF RENTON FOR KING COUNTY - KING COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS AND CONSOLIDATED OFFICE AND REPAIR FACILITY This is a conditional use application submitted to permit modification of the Consolidated Office and Repair Facility CORF) to include the following: 1) expansion of existing office space and staff services; 2) construction of a new storage building and expansion of existing storage space; and 3)I construction of a new materials testing laboratory. Property is located south of N.E. 3rd St. , north of Maple Valley Highway, in the vicinity of Monroe Ave. N.E. ECF- 038-88, CU-038-88. CITY OF RENTON FOR KING COUNTY - KING COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS AND CONSOLIDATED OFFICE AND REPAIR FACILITY This an appeal of a recommendation by the Environmental Review Committee to issue a Determination of Non- Significance-Mitigated for the Conditional Use application submitted to permit modification of the Consolidated Office and Repair Facility (CORF) to include the following: 1) expanslion of existing office space and staff services; 2) construction of a new storage building and expansion of existing storage space; and 3) construction of a new materials testing laboratory. Property is located south of N.E. 3rd Street, north of Maple Valley Highway, in the vicinity of Monroe Avenue N.E. AAD-081-88 . Law Offices John R.Allison Bruce H.Hurst Russell M.Aoki Lucia E.McDonald BErt1,.1- y Frederick V.Betts S.Thomas Magnuson Jonathan G.Basham Martin T. Collier Mark M.Miller John P.Braislin Kenneth S.McEwan Kim C.Pflueger PATTER50NTracy L. Brown Michael Mines Meredith A. Copeland Richard S.Ralston Paul D. Carey James D.Nelson Michael J.Cranston Karen M. Sutherland I ES Charles W.Davis Dale Riveland Lucy E.Eggertsen Michael B.Tierney A Professional Service Corporation William P.Fite James P. Solimano Paul M.Feinsod Jack R.Wallace Francis S.Floyd Thomas A.Sterken Karen J.Feyerherm Margaret E.Wetherald 800 Financial Center Steven Goldstein Donald L.ThoresonFourthAvenue Joel G.Green Seattle, Washington 98161-1090 Jeffrey C.Grant Christopher W.Tompkins David L.Hennings Of Counsel Telecopier: (206)343-7053 Carl H.Hagen Livingston Wernecke Martinus L.Johnson,Jr. John C.Patterson 206) 292-9988 Ingrid W.Hansen Richard S.Lowell August 31 , 1988 1 me;" E {,.t' Mr. Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner AU G 3 11988 City of Renton Sixth; Floor CITY •F RENTorkl 200 Mill Avenue S.HEARING EXAMINER. Renton, WA 98055 RE: City of Renton, Public Works Department Expansion of Public Works Facilities Appeal of CU-038-88 Dear Mr. Kaufman: Please find enclosed the original of McMahon' s Hearing Brief. in the above-referenced matter. Also enclosed are three' (3) copies of the Brief for distribution to the appropriate City offices. Very ruly yours, Karen J eyerherm KJF:clk cc: Thomas McMahon li f . • 1 AUG 3 1988 2 CITY OF RENTON 3 HEARING EXAMINER 4 5 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER 6 CITY OF RENTON 7 8 In the Matter of the Appeal of APPLICATION NO: CU-038-88 9 ' THOMAS McMAHON 10 From the Environmental Review McMAHON'S HEARING BRIEF Committee 's Determination of 11 Nonsignificance 12 13 I . INTRODUCTION 14 Thomas McMahon is the executor of the Estate of Anna G. 15 McMahon, deceased. The McMahon Estate owns . the property 16 located southwest of the property which is the subject of the 17 above-referenced conditional use application made by the City 18 of Renton ( "the City" ) on behalf of King County. 19 an accordance with Hearing Examiner Ordinance § 4-3011, I 20 McMahon appeals the_..Environmental Review Committee's ( "ERC's " ) 21 Determination of Nonsignificance ( "DNS" ) and respectfully 22 requests that an Environmental Impact Statement ( "EIS" ) be 23 preplared to disclose adequately the adverse impacts of the 24 proplosal on traffic and transportation, storm water, drainage 25 McMAIHON'S HEARING BRIEF 1 - BETTS 3534g PATTERSON MINES,P.S. 1215 Fourth Avenue Seattle. Washington 98101-1090 12061 292-0988 and ;recharge. As shown below, an EIS is required before any 2 decision can be made on the City's proposal for a conditional 3 use permit. RCW 43 . 21C. 030( 2 ) . 4 IThe City' s application for a conditional use permit was 5 filed with the City' s Building & Zoning Department on May 9 , 6 1988 , the same day that the City of Renton filed an application 7 fora rezone of the subject property from G-1 (General) to P-1 8 Public) on King County' s behalf . Apparently, the proponents 9 intended that reclassification to P-1 would obviate the 10 necessity of obtaining numerous conditional use permits to 11 expand King County's Consolidated Office and Repair Facility 12 CORF" ) on the subject property. Executive Summary of the 13 Master Development Site Plan for King County Department of 14 Public Works Consolidated Office & Repair Facility, dated 15 August 28, 1986, (hereinafter "Executive Summary" ) , at 2 . 16 In the face of an appeal of the DNS issued by the ERC with 17 respect to the rezone, the rezone application for the subject 18 property was withdrawn. 19 II . BACKGROUND 20 In order to appreciate fully McMahon's position and the 21 necessity for an EIS at this time, it is important to: 22 understand the background of the King County/City of Renton 23 property, which is the subject of the conditional use permit 24 application, and the posture of the proposed development of the 25 adjacent McMahon property. BETTS McMAHON'S HEARING BRIEF 2 - PATTERSON 3534g MINES,P.S. 1215 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101-10o0 1200)202-0988 1 . The King__County/City of Renton Property. 2 King County was the original owner of a parcel of real 3 1 property in excess of 120 acres, located south of N.E . Third 4 Street, north of the Maple Valley Highway, in the vicinity of 5 Monroe Avenue N.E . , in the City of Renton. A portion of this 6 property, consisting of approximately 36 acres, includes a 7 parcel owned by King County, which is addressed at Monroe 8 Avenue N.E . , and a parcel owned by the City of Renton, which is 9 addressed at 3505 N.W. 2nd Street. In exchange for the City's 10 support in rezoning the subject property to P-1 (Public) and 11 handling the rezone application, the County agreed to sell an 12 additional five-acre portion 3f the site to the City of Renton 13 • for ;its own Public Works ' shops . Executive Summary at 2 . 14 la.. Master Site Development Plan. 15 In March 1986 , the King County Department of Public Works 16 contracted with Arai/Jackson to prepare a Master Site 17 Development Plan for the subject property. 18 The objective of the study was to develop a 19 Master Plan that could be used to obtain a zone change for the entire site from G-1 20 General) to P-1 (Public ) classification. The P-1. classification would remove the 21 conditional use requirements and greatly simplify the approval of individual 22 projects , since SEPP review of the entire Master Plan would occur as cart of the 23 rezoning. i 24 Executive Summary at 1-2 (emphasis added) . 25 McMAHON'S HEARING BRIEF 3 -• BETTS 3534g PATTERSON MINES,P.s. 1215 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101-1000 20b)202-0988 1 The study prepared by Arai/Jackson outlined the three ( 3) 2 phases of development for the subject site . The conditional 3 use! permit now sought by the City on King County's behalf 4 represents Phase I of the development and will cost an 5 estimated $1,623, 400 . Executive Summary at 5 . Phase II will 6 include further expansion of the site and will cost 7 approximately $4 ,437 , 400 . Id. Phase III will include further 8 expansion of CORF and relocation of other King County Public 9 Works ' divisions, now located in downtown Seattle. Id. at 7 . 10 The ! estimated cost of Phase III is $9 , 289 ,200, in 1986 11 dollars . Id. 12 The Master Plan specifically addressed the traffic and 13 transportation concerns, including the future connection to the 14 Maple. Valley Corridor: 15 The study identified the desirability of 16 development of a second means of access to the site from the Maple Valley Corridor to 17 improve site accessibility and to increase the productivity of Public Works ' crews . 18 Currently, there is considerable time lost by crews due to congestion at Third Street 19 and I-405 . Extension of Monroe Avenue south through the site has serious potential 20 consequences to the Roads Division's operations because it would bisect the site. 21 The most desirable alignment of .Monroe 22 Avenue would be to swing the arterial east at N.E . 2nd along the City of Renton Public 23 Works property. The road would extend to the south and then swing westward at 24 approximately the southern boundary ( fence) of the existing Roads Division paved area to 25 McMAHON'S HEARING BRIEF 4 - BETTS 3 5 3 4 g PATTERSON MINES,P.S. 1215 Fourth Avenue Seattle. Washington 08 1 61-1000 200) 202-0988 1 form a "loop road" around the site 2 perimeter. In the future the loop road could branch to allow access down the slope 3 to Maple Valley. 4 The future Maple Valley_ Access will cost approximately $2 , 000, 000 and would have' a 5 four or five lane configuration. Development of the future access road to . 6 Maple Valley will be the responsibility of the McMahon Property developers (a site to 7 the west and south of the CORF) who are currently applying for a rezone with the 8 City of Renton. The City of Renton will require the developer to construct the road 9 and dedicate the right of way as a condition of the rezone. King County's contribution 10 to the Maple Valley connection would be the right-of-way and a po.r_tion of the Monroe 11 Avenue extension on its _property. Since the City of Renton is highly desirous of the 12 Maple Valley connection and its Public Works Department would directly benefit, a case 13 could be made that the City should share a portion of the Monroe Avenue extension cost 14 on King County property. 15 Executive Summary at 2-3 (emphasis added) . 16 b. Rezone Application. 17 On May 9 , 1988, the City, on behalf of King County, 18 submitted an application for rezone of the CORF site from G-1 19 General) to P-1 (Public ) . The rezone application detailed 20 future plans for .the site, which included: ( 1) expansion of 21 the Public Works maintenance shop.; ( 2 ) addition of .a Fire 22 Department Training area for the City of Renton and King 23 County; ( 3) location of a King County District Court; 24 4 ) ,location of a King County Transfer Station; ( 5 ) relocation 25 McMAHON'S HEARING BRIEF 5 - BETTS 3 5 3 4 g PATTERSON MINES,P.s. 1215 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 08101-1090 20n)202.0088 of King County Health Department; and ( 6 ) relocation, of King 2 County Parks Department. 3 lAn Environmental Checklist was prepared in connection with 4 theirezone application. . Despite the fact ,that the Master Plan 5 contemplated "SEPA review of the entire Master Plan . . . as 6 part of the rezoning" (Executive Summary at 2 ) , the 7 Environmental Checklist failed to provide even the most basic 8 information about the environmental effects of the proposed 9 rezone. Almost without exception, the reply to questions 10 requesting information regarding environmental effects was 11 NONE-zoning only. " Environmental Checklist at 3-11 . 12 Significantly, three ( 3) departments of the City 13 recommended that the proposed rezone not be approved because of 14 the, lack of information regarding adverse environmental 15 effects . The Traffic Department stated: "More information is 16 needed as to passible southerly extensions of Monroe Avenue 17 N.E . as a possible right-of-way. Future connection to Maple 18 Valley Highway needs to be considered and potential impact 19 on-site . " Comments by Traffic Department, dated June 2 , 1988 . 20 The, Engineering Department stated: "Storm water retention 21 identification required together with supporting calculations 22 and analysis of downstream system. " Comments by Engineering 23 Department, dated May 13, 1988 . The Policy Development 24 Department stated: "Road fees should be consistent with 25 McMAHON'S HEARING BRIEF 6 -BETTS 3534g PATTERSON MINES,P.S. 1215 Fourth Avenue . Seattle. Washington 981o1-1090 20o1 202_0v88 on-going traffic study. Drainage (on-site retention) for one 2 hundred year storm required per agreement with WSDOT re: 3 1405 . " Comments by Policy Development Department, dated 4 May31, 1988 . 5 jApparently, the ERC originally issued a DNS-mitigated and 6 then, at a meeting on July 13, 1988, issued a DNS . The 7 Committee's actions were explained in a letter from Donald 8 Erickson to Richard C. Houghton: 9 This letter is to inform you that the 10 Environmental Review Committee reconsidered their Determination of 11 Non-Significance-Mitigated issued for the above referenced [rezone] project . The 12 Committee at their meeting on July 13, 1988, issued a Determination of Non-Significance 13 for the proposal since it is a non-project action and the previous conditions can be 14 obtained through subsequent project actions anticipated on the site in the near future. 15 16 Letter from Donald K. Erickson, Zoning Administrator to 17 Richard C. Houghton, Director of Public Works Department, dated 18 July 15 , 1988 . (The record does not reveal that a Staff Report 19 was prepared by the ERC prior to the issuance of either the 20 DNS-mitigated or the DNS : ) 21 On August 1, 1988, McMahon appealed the DNS and requested 22 that an EIS be required to discuss adequately the adverse 23 traffic and transportation effects of the proposal . 24 On August 9 , 1988, a public hearing before the Hearing 25 Examiner was scheduled on the rezone application. At the McMAHON'S HEARING BRIEF 7 - BETTS1'S 3 5 3 4 g PATTERSON MINES,P.s. 1215 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington Q8161-1000 20o1 202-0Q88 1 hearing, Hearing Examiner Fred Kaufman acknowledged McMahon' s 2 appeal of the DNS and recommended that a hearing on the DNS 3 appeal and the rezone application be held on August 23, 1988, 4 in order to allow compliance with Hearing Examiner Ordinance 5 4 3011 (B) ( 3) , which requires ten ( 10) day written notice of a 6 hearing on an appeal from a final environmental determination 7 under the Renton Environmental Ordinance. 8 Within hours of the Hearing Examiner' s ruling, the City of 9 Renton indicated that it would withdraw the rezone application. 10 l c . Conditional Use Permit_ Application. 11 On May 9 , 1988, the City, on behalf of King County, 12 submitted an application for a conditional use permit to expand 13 the, existing CORF in accordance with Phase I of the Master 14 Plain. As indicated above, the conditional use permit 15 application was filed at the same time as the application for 16 rezone to - P-1 (Public) . Presumably, the conditional use permit 17 application would have been withdrawn if the subject site had 18 been reclassified to P-1 . See Executive Summary at 2 . 19 The developme`rt contemplated under. Phase I includes 20 expansion of several of the existing buildings an the CORF 21 site, construction of a storage building. and a new Materials 22 Teslting Laboratory Building, and development of a parking area 23 tolaccommodate 120 vehicles . The proposal also seeks approval 24 of .the sale of five ( 5) acres to the City, apparently in 25 McMAHON'S HEARING BRIEF 8 .- BETTS 3534g PATTERSON MINES,P.s. 1215 Fourth Avenue Seattle. Washington 98161-1090 2001 202-0088 1 1 exchange for the .C.ity's "handling" of the requisite application 2 on behalf of the County. See Executive Summary at 2 . 3 1 IIn response to the En.vir.onmental Checklist, the City Policy 4 Development Department submitted a letter to the ERC strongly 5 recommending that the rezone and conditional use applications 6 be subject to the same rigorous review as any private 7 application: "To ensure that the City is not subject to 8 charges of arbitrary and capricious decision-making, I would 9 strongly suggest that this Rezone and Conditional Use 10 application be subject to the same rigorous review as any 11 private application. " Memorandum from City of Renton Policy 12 . Development Department to City of Renton Environmental Review 13 Committee, dated May 31, 1988, at 2 . 14 The Policy Development Department also recommended an 15 expanded analysis of the environmental impacts under SEPA, 16 including evaluation of transportation impacts and mitigation 17 fees consistent with the CH2M Hill Transportation Report that 18 is being prepared by the proponents of the anticipated McMahon 19 development . The specific recomMendations of the Policy 20 Development Department were stated as follows : 21 1 The SEPA application should be expanded with 22 an analysis of land use impacts of permitting the identified uses including the 23 proposed e_uansi.ons, the groundwater impacts of the uses , evaluation of any current 24 groundwater problems, evaluation of the safety of current hazardous materials use on 25 McMAHON'S HEARING BRIEF 9 - BETTS 3534g PATTERSON MINES,P.s. 1215 Fourth Avenue, Seattle. Washington 08101-1000 200)202-0088 it 1 site, evaluation of policy questions as 2 identified in this memo, exploration of the impacts of the solid waste transfer station 3 which is not presently sewered, impacts of the development on sub-regional drainage, 4 and transportation impacts and mitigation fees . 5 The conditions which could be attached to - 6 any approvals include: 7 8 7 . On-site drainage detention for the 100-year storm event as agreed to by 9 Public Works and WSDOT as part of the I-405 understanding; 10 8 . Transportation mitigation consistent 11 with the pending CH2M Hill report for the corridor; 12 13 10 . Collection of all storm water runoff 14 and leachate from the King County Transfer Station facility to be 15 directed into the sanitary sewer. 16 Memorandum from City of Renton Policy Development Department to 17 City of Renton Environmental Review Committee, dated May 31, 18 1988, at 2 (emphasis added) . 19 Significantly, five ( 5 ) of the City Departments that 20 commented on the subject conditional use permit application did 21 not approve the application. None of .the. Departments 22 recommended approved without conditions . The Traffic 23 Department stated: "More information is needed as to possible 24 southerly extension of Monroe Ave. N.E. as a public 25 McMAHON'S HEARING BRIEF 10 - BETTS 3 5 3 4 g PATTERSON MINES,P.s. 1215 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98161-1000 20o) 292-0088 1 1 1 right-of-way. Future connection to Maple Valley Highway needs 2 to be considered and potential impact at site. " Comments by 3 Traffic Department, dated June 2 , 1988 . The Engineering 4 Department stated, "storm water retention/detention required 5 together with supporting calculation. & analysis of downstream 6 system. " Comments by Engineering Department, dated May 13, 7 1988 . The Policy Development Department stated: "Proposed 8 uses do not conform with proposed policies for Zone II of APA 9 1 and Hazmat zone designations . Drainage must include on—site 10 detention for 100 year event. Transportation mitigation should 11 conform to CH2M study recommendations . Project should 12 participate in costs. and mitigation. " Comments by the Policy 13 Development Department, dated May 31, 1988 . 14 The Staff Report prepared by the ERC recognized the 15 significant traffic impacts that will be generated by 16 implementation of the Master Plan. Staff Report, dated 17 July 13 , 1988, 1 4 ( "Full implementation of the master site 18 plan for this project will create significant traffic impacts 19 which will require mitigation. " ) . The Staff Report also 20 acknowledges that information concerning the requirements for 21_ mitigation will not be available until the CH2M Hill Transportation Report -- being prepared at the expense of the 23 proponents of the anticipated McMahon property development -- 24 is 'completed. Id. ( "Additional information concerning the 25 McMAHON'S .HEARING BRIEF 11 -• BE 1 1 S 3 5 3 4 g PATTERSON MINES,Ps. 1215 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 981o1-1090 20o)202-0088 requirements for mitigation will be available following 2 completion of the pending transportation report for the area. " ) . 3 Despite the ERC ' s own recognition of the absence of 4 information regarding traffic and transportation impacts and 5 despite of the Policy Development Department 's admonishment 6 that the ERC should subject the City's proposal to the same 7 rigorous review as any private application, the ERC issued a 8 DNS ; - mitigated on July 13 , 1988 . 9 McMahon has now appealed the DNS and respectfully requests 10 that an EIS be prepared to provide adequate disclosure and 11 consideration of the adverse effects upon traffic and 12 transportation, storm water, drainage and recharge that will 13 result from Phase I and from full development under the Master 14 Plan for the King County property. 15 2 . The McMahon Property. 16 In 1986 , McMahon applied to the City to rezone a portion of 17 the' McMahon Property from G-1 (General) to R-2 (Duplex or Low 18 Density Multiple Family) and R-3 (Medium Density Multiple 19 Family) . This proposed reclassification was consistent with 20 theiComprehensive Plan. On September 23, 1986 , the Hearing 21 Examiner issued his Report and Recommendation regarding ,the 22 proposed rezone and recommended that the City Council deny the 23 requested rezone for the reason that the information contained 24 in the application was insufficient to enable the Council to 25 McMAHON'S HEARING BRIEF 12 - 3 5 34 g PATTTTERSON MINES,P s. 1215 Fourth Avenue Seattle. Washington 98101-1090, 20o1 292-0088 J li 1 determine that the rezone would be in the. public interest. The 2 information the Hearing Examiner considered to be necessary 3 would normally be included in an EIS, and he requested that the 4 information be provided before making any decision on the 5 proposed rezone. 6 In order to address the Hearing Examiner's concerns and 7 facilitate- preparation of an EIS, McMahon entered into an 8 agreement with Centron Corporation ( "Centron" ) , pursuant to 9 which Centron would undertake the work necessary to provide the 10 information required by the Hearing Examiner. As a part of the 11 same agreement, Centron acquired the right to purchase a 12 portion of the McMahon Property. As an experienced, qualified 13 developer, it was anticipated that Centron would be in a better 14 position than the McMahon Estate to provide the additional 15 information, including a Master Plan and EIS . 16 Since 1986 , Centron has engaged in extensive off-site 17 environmental studied . Specifically, Centron Corporation and 18 thel McMahon interests have incurred the following costs in 19 connection with the preparation of a traffic and transportation 20 report, a Traffic Benefit District ( "TBD" ) study, a design for 21 the Maple Valley access. road from N.E . 3rd Street, and the 22 preparation of a groundwater study: 23 I Traffic Report and TBD 49 , 400 . 00 24 Road Design ( including geotech•- 25 nical work, deep borings, and stability analysis ) 70, 000 . 00 BETTS McMAHON'S HEARING BRIEF 13 - PATTERSON 3534g MINES,P.S. 1215 Fourth Avenue Seattle,Washington 981n1-1090 20o1 202-0988 1 Groundwater Study 30, 000 . 00 2 Total : 149 ,400 . 00 3 4 These studies are comprehensive in scope and provide 5 , information that is as relevant to the CORF site as it is to 6 the ;McMahon Property. Despite the fact that these studies 7 provide information regarding the environmental impacts of 8 expanding the CORF site, neither the City nor the County has 9 contributed anything to the costs incurred in their 10 preparation. Moreover, the ERC issued a DNS before these 11 studies were even available for consideration in connection I 12 with the City's application for a conditional use permits, which 13 DNS, is the subject of this appeal . 14 3 . Partiality and Fairness . 15 IThe obvious disparity of treatment between the City of 16 Renton/King County proposal and the McMahon proposal raises 17 serious questions regarding the partiality of the ERC. The 18 Policy Development Department expressed its concerns in a 19 May 31, 1988 Memorandum to the ERC: "To ensure that the City 20 is not subject to charges of arbitrary and capricious 21 decision-making, I would "strongly suggest that [the City'.s] 22 Rezone and Conditional. Use application be subject to the same 23 rigorous review as any private application. " Requiring the 24 proponents of the anticipated McMahon property development to 25 MCM!AHON'S HEARING BRIEF 14 - BETTS 3 5 3 4 g PATTERSON MINES,ES. 1215 Fourth Avenue Seattle. Washington 08161-1090 200)202-0988 1 shoulder the financial burden for preparation of off-site 2 environmental studies for the direct benefit of the CORF 3 expansion is evidence that the Policy Development Department 's 4 admonishment has gone unheeded. 5 LAW AND ARGUMENT 6 7 A. The SEPA Requirements Are Expressly Designed to Ensure That Decisionmakers Consider Environmental Information 8 Before Reaching Their Decisions . 9 The State Environmental Policy Act 's ( "SEPA's " ) procedural 10 requirements are expressly designed to ensure that 11 decisionmakers consider environmental information before making 12 a decision regarding a proposal . RCW ch. 43 . 21C. In Norway 13 Hill Preservation & Protection Association v. King County_ 14 Council, 87 Wn. 2d 267 , 552 P. 2d 674 ( 1976 ) , the court explained: 15 I]t is clear that the most important aspect of SEPA is the consideration of 16 1 environmental values . 17 In essence what SEPA requires , is that the 'presently unquantified 18 environmental amenities and values will be given appropriate consideration in 19 decision making along with economic and technical considerations . ' 20 RCW 43 . 21.C. 030( 2 ) (b) . It is an attempt by the people to shape their future 21 environment by- do liberation, not default, 22 87 Wn. 2d at 272 , citing Stempel v. Department of Water 23 Resources , 82 Wn. 2d 109 , 118 , 508 P. 2d 166 ( 1973 ) (emphasis in 24 original) . 25 McMAHON'S HEARING BRIEF 15 - BETTS 3 5 3'4 g PATTERSON MINES,P S. 1215 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101-1000 20o) 292-0088 The public policy expressed in SEPA can be achieved only if 2 adverse environmental impacts are disclosed and considered. As 3 shown below, the policy of full disclosure and consideration of 4 environmental impacts mandates that an EIS be prepared before 5 any decision is made with respect to the subject proposal, or 6 at the very least that adequate information be available and 7 considered to support a DNS . 8 B. The Conditional Use Permit Application for Phase I in 9 Lieu of the Rezone Application for All Three 3) Phases Is a Thinly-Veiled Attempt to Circumvent 10 the SEPA Requirements . 11 Disclosure and consideration of environmental impacts must 12 be made at the earliest possible moment to ensure that the 13 decsionmakers will be able to take the appropriate action 14 before the environment is adversely impacted by a proposed 15 action. Regarding the timing of the SEPA process, the SEPA 16 Rules expressly state: "The lead agency shall prepare its 17 threshold determination and environmental impact statement 18 EIS) . . . at the earliest possible point in the planning and 19 decision-making process . . . . (c) Appropriate consideration of 20 environmental information shall be completed before an agency 21 commits to a particular course of action. " WAC 197-11-055 ( 2 ) 22 emphasis added) . See 197-11-070 . 1 23 RAC 197-11-070 (2 ) provides : "Until the responsible official 24 issues a final determination of nonsignificance or environmental impact statement, no action concerning the 25 proposal shall be taken by a governmental agency that would: a) Have an adverse environmental impact; or (b) Limit the choice of reasonable alternatives . BETTS McMAHON'S HEARING BRIEF 16 - PATTERSON 3534g MINES,P.S. 1215 Fourth Avenue Seattle. Washington 981o1-1090 20o)202-0988 In Juanita Bay Valley Community Association v. The City of 2 Kirkland, 9 Wn. App. 59 , 72, 510 P . 2d 1140, rev. denied, 83 3 Wn. 2d 1002 ( 1973 ) , the court explained the necessity for early 4 environmental review to consider the cumulative impacts of a 5 project or series of projects : 6 O]ne of th_e_purposes of . . SEPA, is to 7 avoid the adverse impact upon the environment which takes place when various 8 phases of a project, or a series of projects, are authorized by governmental 9 agencies, in a piecemeal fashion without regard to the cumulative impact of the total 10 development. . . . 11 12 Appellant correctly suggests that the environmental impact of the total project, 13 rather than that of the grading project alone, must be weighed in order to meet the 14 requirements of SEPA. We therefore conclude SEPA requires that an environmental impact 15 statement be prepared prior to the first government authorization of any part of a 16 project or series Of projects which„ when considered cumulatively, constitute a major 17 F action ' significant ly_affecting the quality of the environment . . ' 18 RCW 43 . 21C . 030(c) . 19 9 Wn. App. at 72-73 . (Emphasis added. ) 20 Similarly, in Eastlake Community Council v. Roanoke 21 Asslociatest_ Inc . , 82 W..2d 475, 513 P . 2d 36 ( 1973 ) , the court 22 rejected an argument that no EIS was required because the 23 proposal merely represented a "modest exercise in a long 24 process " : 25 McMAHON'S HEARING BRIEF 17 -- BETTS 3534g PATTERSON MINES,P.S. 1215 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98161-1090 200)202-0988 1 In addition, in this case, it is no answer 2 to the application of SEPA, to claim the renewal of a building permit is a modest 3 exercise in a long process . Governmental action in approving a long-term project may 4 occur at various intervals during the life of the project with various degrees of 5 significance. It is unquestionable that numerous` modest and common governmental 6 actions may be as daivaging to the environment as a single, vigorous and 7 critical action. 8 82 Wn. 2d at 493 (emphasis added) . 9 Thus, any argument by the proponents of the subject project 10 that Phase I is not a major action significantly affecting the 11 quality of the environment is without merit. The proponents of 12 an expanded CORF cannot circumvent the SEPA requirements by 13 requesting successive conditional use permits . The 14 environmental impacts of all three ( 3) phases of the CORF 15 expansion must be reviewed before any action is taken. 16 WAC 197-11-055; WAC 197-11-070 . 17 Because the adverse environmental impacts of the proposed 18 expansion of King County's CORF site have never been 19 considered, the proposal for the conditional use permit now 20 before the Hearing Examiner presents the ideal setting for an 21 early -- and thereby meaningful. -- environmental review. See 22 Loveless v. Yantis , 82 Wn. 2d 754 , 764 , 513 P . 2d 1023 ( 1973) . 23 24 25 McMAHON'S HEARING BRIEF 18 - BETTS 3534g PATTERSON MINES,P.s. 1215 Fourth Avenue Seattle. Washington 98161-1000 200)202-0088 1 C . The SEPA Rules Expressly Require That An Agency Have 2 Sufficient Information Before It Considers the Environmental Impacts of a Proposal . 3 In making the crucial threshold determination, the lead 4 agency must have -before it "information reasonably sufficient 5 to evaluate the environmental impact of a proposal .. " 6 WAC 197-11-335 . 7 In Sisley v. San Juan County, 89 Wn. 2d 78, 569 P. 2d 712 8 1977 ) , the court reversed a DNS because the governmental 9 agency could not demonstrate that it had adequately considered 10 the environmental factors . 11 When a governmental agency makes this 12 initial threshold determination, it must consider the various environmental factors 13 even if it concludes that the action does not significantly effect the environment and 14 therefore does not require an EIS . . . . The policy of the act, which is simply to 15 ensure via 'a detailed statement' the full disclosure of environmental information so 16 that environmental matters can be given proper consideration during decision making, 17 is thwarted whenever an incorrect 'threshold determination' is made. " Therefore, . . . 18 if after considering the cumulative effects of the entire project, the government agency 19 makes a determination of no significant impact under SEPA, i .e. , a "negative 20 threshold determination, " it must show "that the environmental factors were considered in 21 a manner sufficient to amount to a prima facie compliance with the procedural 22 requirements of SEPA. " 23 89 Wn. 2d at 83-84 (citations omitted) . 24 Incredulously, the ERC acknowledges that it did not have 25 sufficient information to accurately assess the traffic impacts McMAHON'S HEARING BRIEF 19 - BETTS 3 5 3 4 g PATTERSON MINES,P.s. 1215 Fourth Avenue Seattle. Washington 98101-1 090 20b1 2Q2-0Q88 1 of the proposal and the requisite mitigating measures before 2 issuing its DNS. In its July 13, 1988 Staff Report, the ERC 3 states : "Additional information concerning the• requirements 4 for mitigation will be available following completion of the 5 pending -transportation report for the area . . . . Additional 6 detailed information for this section is being obtained by 7 staff . " Staff Report, 14 . 8 The "transportation report for the area" to which the ERC 9 is referring is the traffic report and TBD study that are being 10 prepared at the expense of Centron Corporation and the McMahon 11 interests . To require a private concern to shoulder the 12 responsibility for preparing the environmental analysis for a 13 public development represents an egregious display of 14 partiality on the part of the ERC and raises serious questions 15 regarding due process . 16 More troubling is the fact that the ERC does not even have 17 the traffic report in front of it and has issued a DNS without 18 imposing any measures to mitigate the• significant traffic 19 impacts . The Staff Report acknowledges the significance of 20 those impacts : " [C]are needs to be exercised in approving 21 incremental development for this site, so that mitigation 22 measures are required of the applicant by the City before 23 individual development activities combine to cause significant 24 impacts to the site or to the City's arterial system. " Staff 25 Report, dated July 13 , .1988, 1 4 . BETTS McMAHON'S HEARING BRIEF 20 - PATTERSON 3 5 3 4 g MINES,P.S. 1215 Fourth Avenue Seattle. Washington 98161-1090 2001 292-0988 1 Significantly, five ( 5 ) of the City Departments that 2 commented on the subject conditional use permit application did 3 not approve the application. None of the Departments 4 recommended approved without .cond_it.ions . The Traffic 5 Department stated: ."More. .i.nformation is needed as to possible 6 southerly extension of Monroe Ave. N.E . as a public 7 right-of-way. Future connection to Maple Valley Highway needs 8 to be considered and potential impact at site. " Comments by 9 Traffic Department, dated June 2 , 1988 . The Engineering 10 Department stated, "warm water retention/detention required 11 together with supporting calculation & analysis of downstream 12 system. " Comments by Engineering Department, dated May 13, 13 1988 . The Policy Development Department stated: "Proposed 14 uses do not conform with proposed policies for Zone II of APA 15 and Hazmat zone designations . Drainage must include on-site 16 detention for 100 year event. Transportation mitigation should 17 conform to CH2M study recommendations . Project should 18 participate in costs and mitigation. " Comments by the Policy 19 Development Department, dated May 31, 1988 (emphasis added) . 20 Any attempt by the ERC to justify its issuance of the DNS 21 without considering the traffic report must fail . The ERC must 22 be able to show "that the environmental factors were considered 23 in a manner sufficient to amount to a prima facie compliance 24 with the procedural requirrements of SEPA. " This the ERC cannot 25 do. BETTS McMAHON'S HEARING BRIEF 2.1 - PATTERSON 3 5 3 4 g MINES,P.S. 1215 Fourth Avenue Seattle. Washington 98161-1090 20o)292-9988 D. The Only Means of Assuring_Compliance with SEPA Is to 2 Require Preparation of an EIS Prior to Issuing A Conditional Use Permit for Phase I of the CORF. 3 SEPA's requirement of full disclosure and consideration is 4 implemented by requiring all branches of local government ,to 5 i]nclude in every recommendation or report on proposals -for 6 legislation and other major actions significantly affecting the 7 quality of the environment, a detailed statement by the 8 responsible officials on: . . . (i) the environmental impact 9 of the proposed action. " RCW 43 . 21C. 030 ( 2 ) (c) ( i) . This 10 detailed statement -- the EIS -- is the mechanism through which 11 the requisite environmental consideration is accomplished. 12 Norway Hill Preservation & Protection Association v. King 13 County Council, 87 Wn. 2d 267 , 552' P. 2d 674 ( 1976 ) . See 14 Eastlake Community Council v. Roanoke Associates, Inc . , 82 15 Wn. 2d 475, 487-98, 513 P. 2d 36 ( 1973) ; Stempel v. Department of 16 Water Resources, 82 Wn. 2d 109 , 508 P. 2d 166 ( 1973) (recognizing 17 the vigorous legislative mandate to local governmental agencies 18 to evaluate fully the environmental and ecological impact of a 19 proposal . 20 The EIS should disclose and discuss, inter alia, the 21 adverse impacts of the proposal -- including all three 22 3) phases of the CORF expansion -- on transportation and 23 traffic . With respect to the disclosure and discussion of 24 traffic and transportation impacts, the EIS should also 25 McMAHON'S HEARING BRIEF 22 - BEl S 3 5 3 4 g PATTERSON MINES,P.S. 1215 Fourth Avenue Seattle. Washington 98161-1090 200)202-0088 1 incorporate the traffic report and TBD study that is being 2 prepared by CH2M Hill on behalf of Centron Corporation and the 3 McMahon interests . See WAC 197-11-600 ( 2 ) ( "An agency may use 4 environmental documents that have previously been prepared in 5 order to evaluate proposed actions , alternatives, or 6 environmental impacts . The proposals may be the same as, or 7 different than, those analyzed in the existing documents . " ) It 8 is anticipated, of course, that the proponents of the CORF 9 expansion will be required to Contribute their fair share of 10 the cost of these reports so that they may be completed and 11 incorporated into their EIS . 12 Other environmental impacts that must be disclosed, 13 discussed and substantiated by appropriate opinion and data 14 include effects on stormwater, drainage and recharge. These 15 impacts were identified by the Policy Development Department in 16 its Memorandum, dated May 31, 1988 and have not been 17 sufficiently disclosed, discussed or substantiated in either 18 the Environmental Checklist or the ERC Staff Report, dated 19 July 13 , 1988 . 20 I V. CONCLUSION 21 The City's attempt to circumvent the SEPA requirements by 22 withdrawing the rezone application and seeking piecemeal 23 approval of the expansion of the CORF site must fail . Before 24 any threshold determination can be made, the ERC must have 25 McMAHON'S HEARING BRIEF 23 — BETTS 3 5 3 4 g PATTERSON MINES,P.S. 1215 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 981o1-1090 2001 202.Q088 available and must consider sufficient information to' 2 demonstrate prima facie compliance with SEPA. This has not 3 been done. 4 An EIS should' be prepared. to discuss the environmental 5 impacts that will. result from the phased expansion of the 6 CORF. The EIS should disclose, discuss and substantiate the 7 adverse impacts of the phased expansion of the CORF on traffic 8 and transportation, stormwater, drainage and recharge. fi9 DATED this day of /dcc-- i 1988 . 10 7 c BETTS, PATTERSON & MINES, P.S . 11 John P . Braislin Karen J. Feyerherm 12 13 i GtA- rBy. 14 Attorneys _ r Thom As McMahon 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 McMAHON'S HEARING BRIEF 24 - BETTS 3 5 3 4 g PATTERSON MINES,P.s. 1215 Fourth Avenue Seattle,Washington 98101-1000 206)202-0088 i tow CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER Earl Clymer, Mayor Fred J. Kaufman October 3, 11988 Karen Feyerherm Attorney At Law Betts, Patterson and Mines 1215 - 4th Avenue 800 Financial Center Seattle, Washington 98161-1090 Kevin Raymond Attorney At Law Room E-55/0 King County Public Work Department 500 Fourth Avenue Seattle, 1Washington 98104 RE: City of Renton/King County Public Works Departments File No. CU-038-88 and Appeal #AAD-081-88 Dear Ms. ' Feyerherm/Mr. Raymond: The Examiner' s Report regarding the referenced application which was published September 16, 1988 has not been appealed within the 14-day period established by ordinance. Therefore, this matter is considered final and is being transmitted to the City Clerk this date for filing. Please feel free to contact this office if further assistance or information is required. Sincerely, FRED FMAN HEARING EXAMINER FJK:dk! cc: ty Clerk Building Division Planning Division 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2593 100 4 CITY OF RENTON BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT Earl Clymer, Mayor Ronald G. Nelson, Director MEMORANDUM OLiCY DEVELO7N EU DEFI MMEias CITY OF RENTON DATE: September 19, 1988 SEP19 1988 TO: ; Larry Springer E fl E FROM: Ron Nelson SUBJECT: CU-038-88 - AAD-081-88 We will need suggestions as to who should appeal the Hearing Examiner' s decision on King County Public Works. Should it be King County 9.ERC? RG :plp 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2540 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ss. County, of King, DOTTY KLINGMAN being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states: That on the 16th day of September 1988 affiant deposited in the mails of the United States a sealed envelope containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition. 1 1 f 2 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this / la 4- ' - day ofn 194?Ar ' , 1988 Alt iaL,AnrYN, Notary r lic in and for the State of Washington, residin. - ki Nr Cr1-ttnti -c therein. Application, Petition, or Case #: RENTON CITY AND KING COUNTY - CU-038-88 & AAD-081-88 The minutes contain a list of the parties of record.) I i September 16, 1988 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPLICANT: CITY OF RENTON AND KING COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS File No.: CU-038-88 & AAD-081-88 LOCATION: South of NE 3d Street, north of Maple Valley Highway, in the vicinity of Monroe Avenue N.E. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Permit to expand existing office space and staff services; construction of a new storage building and expansion of existing storage space, with construction of a new materials testing laboratory. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Planning Division Recommendation: Approval, with conditions. PLANNING DIVISION REPORT: The Planning Division Report was received by the Examiner on August 30, 1988 PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Planning Division Report, examining available information on file with the application, and field checking the property and surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The hearing was opened on September 6, 1988 at 9:00 A.M. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit #1 - Yellow File containing application, proof of posting and publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit #2 - Appeal File #AAD-081-88. Exhibit #3 - Master Plan for entire site. Exhibit #4 - Two sub-element drawings Exhibit #5 - Plan showing site in relation to current City shops. Exhibit #6 - Element drawings showing Building B and it's landscaping. The Hearing Examiner noted for the record this hearing was a combination of a request for a Conditional Use Permit and an Appeal by the McMahon Estate of the determination of the ERC Committee that an Environmental Impact Statement was not required for this proposal. The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator, who noted the following elements of the request. The site complies with the goals and intent of the Comprehensive Plan with mention of permitted public uses in a G-1 zone. There are extensive public utilities to the site with the exception of the southern portion of the site; the King County Transfer Station to the west of the site is not a part of this application; the Master Site Plan was achieved in 1986 but Erickson stated to his knowledge it is not an officially adopted document by the King County Council. The five elements of the plan were reviewed consisting of Building J (Crews Building), Building B (Traffic Building); Mini Storage Building; Materials and Testing Building and the Storage Warehouse Building. The Environmental Review Committee reviewed this proposal on July 18, 1988 and Mr. Erickson noted when this application was originally considered and responded to by various City Departments, it was City of Renton/King County CU-038-88 & AAD-081-88 September 16, 1988 Page 2 submitted with a rezone application. Staff comments received at that time did not make a distinction between the Conditional Use and Rezone requests; when reviewed by the ERC a Determination of Non-Significance was issued, mitigated, with an extensive list of conditions. It is felt the proposal is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance; there is a community need; the ERC has heavily conditioned this proposal to ensure protection of the City's aquifer. Mr. Erickson continued stating this is Phase I of the Master Plan which is a reflection of King County's current needs; it is not felt there will be adverse effects on adjacent property noting the future phases could add additional traffic and other concerns to the surrounding areas, namely 3rd and Sunset, with the addition of housing and traffic in the area. There will be 120 new parking spaces with an increase of 15 new staff members and approximately 75-100 traffic trips per day generated from the site. The circulation plan for the complete site was reviewed; there should be no noise, light or glare problems; hours of traffic do not seem to be an issue for this proposal; landscaping will be provided. Staff feels drainage for the site should be improved to the capacity of a 100 year storm due to the activities on the site; the septic system on the site will tie into sanitary sewer lines noting the King County Transfer Station restrooms are totally on a septic system at this time. It was clarified that all of the buildings involved in the application being considered today will be on a sanitary sewer system. In closing Mr. Erickson reviewed the ERC conditions imposed on this request and reviewed the revised five (5) conditions recommended by staff which included compliance to the ERC conditions; participation in improvements to utilities, roadways and public services at the time of future development; submittal of a plan for biofiltering swale and storm water run-off prior to its entry into the dry well system; traffic studies to be made prior to future development of the site; and participation in a future traffic benefit improvement district, including fees for the current proposal. Representing the ,applicant with his testimony was Kevin Raymond, Attorney, King County Department of Public Works, Room E550, King County Courthouse, 500 Fourth Avenue, Seattle, 98104. Mr. Raymond noted his support for the reports presented to the Hearing Examiner by staff and indicated it is King County's position that the DNS determination made by the ERC was appropriate under SEPA and that a Conditional Use Permit should be issued with no Environmental Impact Statement being required. He said detailed plans and specifications have been prepared and are available to the Examiner; indicated the Master Plan refers to Phase I but also shows the three projects that make up the, other two Phases, but the three phases are independent projects and only Phase I should be considered today. The other two phases have not received funding and/or approval from King County and may or may not occur in the future. He stated King County is only interested in proceeding at this time with Phase I and have not indicated their intent to go forward with the other two phases. Further testimony for the applicant was presented by O. J. Saltarelli, Facilities Administrator, Room 900, King County Building, 500 Fourth Avenue, Seattle, 98104 who addressed the parking issue stating a parking lot was included under Phase II because the existing parking lot was displaced because of the Materials Lab construction site; there should be no sound emanating from the Materials Lab; and commented on the Master Plan concept for the County. He said the process identified immediate needs, near needs and future needs; at this time they are only funded for Phase I, immediate needs. Mr. Saltarelli stated it is felt there will be no impacts to persons or surrounding properties from this Phase I project; the current facility was built in 1977; stated he does not feel King County has received preferential treatment in their request (as claimed in the Brief filed as part of the Appeal); and closed stating King County would like to proceed with Phase I, adequate funding is in place, and they will comply with the conditions set out by the City. There was no one to speak in opposition to the Conditional Use request, assuming the SEPA determination was correct. There was no one wishing to oppose the proposal on that basis. Dealing with the Appeal alleging the SEPA determination of Non-Significance was inappropriate, and feeling a Environmental Impact Statement should be required, speaking on behalf of the Appellant was Karen Feyerherm, Attorney. Ms. Feyerherm represents Thomas McMahon, Executor of the Estate of Edward McMahon. The Estate owns approximately 120 acres of property adjacent to this site. She testified it was felt Mr. McMahon had an obligation to the beneficiaries of the Estate to sell the property and make distribution which he has been trying to do for several years. The McMahon property was denied a rezone and entered into an agreement with Centron Corporation. Centron received an option to purchase the property in exchange for contracting for the preparation of an environmental study and preparation of an EIS. Since 1986 Centron has paid almost $150,000. for off- site environmental studies and the EIS has not been prepared yet; CH2M Hill is preparing a traffic report and benefit study; and monies have been paid for a road, design and ground water study, all being prepared at the City's request. Additional studies and information requested by the City has assisted in the delay of the completion of the studies and the appellant feels these further requirements and costs are now threatening future development and may cause the appellant to divide the property and sell in parcels to pay the estate taxes due. She said it is not wished to prevent the City from developing the property shown on the Master Plan, but requested her client receive fair and equal treatment. The expense of the studies undertaken by her client has not been contributed to by the City or King County; her client feels the disparity of treatment between the two sides is not fair and City of Renton/King County CU-038-88 & AAD-081-88 September 16, 1988 Page 3 equitable treatment, and at this point she read from city staff comments, namely the Policy Development Department regarding the SEPA application and studies for future impacts, traffic impacts, mitigation fees and drainage. She said five of the 7 city departments that commented on the proposed Conditional Use did not approve the application. She clarified her feeling that comments by staff relating to the rezone request (which was subsequently withdrawn) and comments for the Conditional Use request, are not the same. Ms. Feyerherm advised the concerns expressed by staff relating to water retention, traffic and drainage have been included in a report being prepared by Centron, but this information was not completed and before the ERC for their review when the ERC issued its determination of non-significance, therefore prompting this appeal of that determination. She concluded noting her concern over learning this date that parking areas are to be paved for 120 vehicles and believed there should be time to consider the impacts of this paving as opposed to the use of gravel as was previously understood. She requested fair and impartial treatment for her client and requested the ERC review future development of the site and include all studies requested by the City. She requested that King County be made to pay its fair share of the costs. Responding for the City of Renton was Attorney Lawrence Warren. He stated it was his feeling that this appeal may be a process used by the McMahon Estate as a bargaining tool with King County due to the amount of money expended on this site by the Estate, and said the City will take the referred to amounts into consideration at some other point in time during development and credit the Estate with that amount. He acknowledged the traffic congestion in the NE 3rd and 4th Street corridors and the need for another road to Maple Valley Highway to provide for cross-traffic, with the McMahon property being the largest in the area and unfortunately at this time being required to carry the largest portion of the financial burden. Mr. Warren read from WAC 197.11.055 (2) regarding timing of proposals - and WAC 197.11.060 (3) (b) defining proposals. He wanted to clarify his belief that even though governmental agencies set out proposals for future improvements it is not until the documents have been funded and approved that they can be considered as a part of a larger proposal. The other phases shown on the Master Plan for King County, which happens to include Phase I which is the current proposal, are not to be considered as a part of this hearing as they have not been funded or adopted by King County. He said if there is a County document that puts these projects on the "near future" complete,list for funding in the 1989 budget then the projects should be considered as part of an inter-dependent proposal, but he does not believe this is the case. Mr. Warren stated his objection to the statement that the City should pay its fair share and stated the statement by Attorney Feyerherm that the City was to acquire 5 acres of adjoining property as a reward for rezoning and approving the conditional use is totally unsupported in any record. The Hearing Examiner advised he is trying to determine only if further SEPA review is desired for this site and other possible future phases, and not deal with other areas that seem to be inner-twined into this matter. Attorney Warren said the difficult cases to separate are those involving zoning, and if there is a clear project being proposed then there is a proposal to be considered, and a full environmental review should be done. The ERC review can be phased with the ;courts saying in the initial environmental review the mitigated DNS should do the review for that particular phase and highlight what will be done later. A non-project rezone should begin the EIS process by discussing alternatives and pinpointing that further review will be necessary when the specifics of the project come in on such things as traffic and other site-specific matters, with the first environmental review being considered a scoping document for non-project action. He stated the ERC felt with this particular phase containing only 120 traffic trips, it was not a significant impact by itself and did not prove to require a DNS. He is not convinced the Master Plan shown is anything more than a type of 'wish list' for King County, and not having been officially adopted by the County should be segregated with only the first phase as presented today to be considered independently of the other two phases. He feels the ERC acted correctly. Attorney Karen' Feverherm spoke briefly reviewing some of the points by Attorney Warren, noting her disagreement with the statement that King County did not have specific plans for the entire site. This was brought forth by way of the rezone application previously submitted, and subsequently withdrawn, which set out the plans for the entire site. She feels the withdrawal of the rezone application was an attempt to circumvent SEPA procedures. She feels the complete SEPA and impact statement should be required now for the complete site. She feels King County should be required to go through the process to the point where a review of the reports that are being prepared by CH2M Hill and Centron are included so the ERC has all of the sufficient information before them; the mitigating measures, if necessary, can be established, and then a determination can be made as to a more fair and equitable monetary contribution to the studies. What is important at this time is that all information be available before a determination is made as to whether or not an EIS is necessary. Responding again was Mr. Saltarelli who tried to clarify the intent of the master plan and its meaning for the King County Council as a part of their budget process. They must identify now, near and future needs in order to obtain funding. The Council has approved and funded Phase I, but phase 2 or 3 has not and may not be funded. He again stressed that King County will strive to cooperate with adjacent property owners but may not be as cooperative as they have been in the past if they are faced with abandonment of the project and financial loss. City of Renton/King County CU-038-88 & AAD-081-88 September 16, 1988 Page 4 Closing comments were received by Mr. Erickson. Zoning Administrator who clarified there was no attempt to elude a review by the Examiner for this proposal, when in fact the proposal would still be subject to site plan review. He referred to WAC 197.11.0554; referred to the extensive list of ERC mitigation measures; said he feels attention was given to future development on this site. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 10:35 A.M. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1.The matter under review concerns two separate but related requests. The applicant or applicants, King County and the City of Renton filed an application for a Conditional Use Permit to establish and expand a variety of uses on portions of a 36 acre site in the City of Renton. In processing the conditional use application the City subjected the application to is ordinary SEPA review process. The City, in the course of and as a result of its SEPA review, issued a Declaration or Determination of Non-Significance for the project. The Declaration of Non-Significance (DNS) was conditioned by the City in what is known as a mitigation process, and became a DNS-M, the "M" alerting readers to the fact that mitigating measures were attached to the project. 2.The appellant, Thomas McMahon representing the Anna McMahon Estate, a neighboring property owner, filed a timely appeal of the DNS-M alleging that the review ignored major impacts of the proposal and related proposals. The appellant has development plans for its abutting property and is in the process of preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the development of the adjoining acreage. The proposal, while not firm, is for some form of residential development exceeding 120 acres. The appellant had initially applied for a rezone of this adjoining acreage after the issuance of a DNS-M on its proposed rezone. That request for reclassification was denied by the City for insufficient factual analysis of the impacts of such development. As a result of that denial the appellant, through a development firm, has begun the, preparation of the above mentioned EIS. 3.The subject site is a 36 acre parcel of property located on slopes and a plateau above and generally ,north of the Maple Valley Highway, east of I-405, south of the N.E. 3rd/4th Street corridor and lying both east and west of Monroe N.E., if it were extended in a southerly direction. 4.The parcel is listed as being owned by the City of Renton on the staff report, but it appears that it is jointly owned, or quite possibly completely owned by King County. The application is listed in a joint naming of both the City and the County. The actual proposal though, the conditional use application, is confined to projects entirely under King County's jurisdiction. 5.The conditional use application is for the following: a.An addition of approximately 7,800 square feet to an existing 7,860 square foot building Building J). b. An addition of approximately 300 feet for women's facilities to Building B. c.The construction of a 1,200 square foot storage building. d.Conversion of Building H back to storage use, from office use. e.The construction of an approximately 8,000 square foot Materials Testing Laboratory. f.The construction of a 120 stall parking lot. 6.The site.contains existing King County facilities including the King County Solid Waste Transfer, Station, shops facilities, storage buildings, parking lots and maintenance sheds. A large portion of the site is vacant. 7.Steep slopes bound the site on the south. 8.The appellant's property bounds the site on the east and south. Shop sites owned by the City of Renton are located east of the site. The King County District Court is also located east of the site. Cityof Renton Kin CountRenton/King Y CU-038-88 & AAD-081-88 September 16, 1988 Page 5 9.Access to the site is via Monroe Avenue N.E. and N.E. 2nd Street. 10. The subject site is located within Zone 2 of the City of Renton's Aquifer Protection Area APA) which permits the city to limit or prohibit certain types of development or uses which could jeopardize the underlying aquifer recharge area. 11. The site is currently zoned G-1 (General; Single Family; Lot size - 35,000 sq ft). Public uses such as that proposed are permitted in G-1 zones, but only after review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit application. Normal development in a G-1 district is single family homes on lots at least 35,000 square feet in area. Most single family zoning in Renton is confined to R-1 (Single Family; Lot size - 7,200 sq ft) zones, with G-1 zoning reserved for newly annexed property and the limited rural uses still maintained in some areas of the city. 12. In addition to the current application, the applicant had originally submitted at the same time, May 9, 1988, a request to rezone or reclassify the zoning on the subject site. The applicant proposed reclassifying the subject site to P-1 (Public/QuasiPublic). Renton issued a DNS for the rezone request. P-1 zoning would not require a conditional use permit for development such as that proposed under the current application. The applicant did not seem to be aware that a similar process referred to as Site Plan approval would be required for all development in a P-1 zone. 13. The same appellant, the McMahon Estate, filed an appeal of the DNS issued for the rezone request. King County thereupon withdrew the application to rezone the subject site which had the effect of making the matter moot. The appeal filed for the rezone was dismissed. 14. The appellant alleges that the City failed to correctly assess the full implications of the King County/City of Renton proposal for the subject site, and that the ERC has instead relied to some extent on: a.the still incomplete environmental analyses being prepared for the appellant's adjoining properties and; b. the assertion by the applicant that only the scope of work for the instant conditional use permit should be considered in the environmental analysis. 15. The appellant suggests and urges that the City should have based it determination on a Master Plan prepared for King County by Arai/Jackson Architects. This Master Plan is for the Consolidated Office and Repair Facility (CORF). The Master Plan and Executive Summary for the CORF proposal were used as justification for both the rezone and conditional use permits and submitted as part of the Environmental Checklist prepared for those projects. 16. The Master Plan ap parently is a required Budgetary Procedure of King County to permit analysis of the existing needs, the near term needs and future needs when requesting funding for capital improvement projects. The Master Plan, therefore, in addition to the identification of the scope of work requested as part of the current conditional use permit, also indicated potential expansion plans for additional storage, shop space, and up to 170,000 square feet of office space, as well as a parking lot containing up to 675 employee parking spaces. 17. The plan also envisioned expansion of City of Renton shops east of the site and the construction of a major arterial link between the site and the Maple Valley Highway. The major expenditure of funds for this arterial link, estimated to cost approximately two million dollars, was envisioned to be provided by the developer of the appellant's adjoining acreage. 18. The environmental checklist filed with the rezone answered Question 7, regarding future plans or additions, expansions or related activity as follows: Fire training site and open storage for Renton Public Works; King County Public Works is proposing yard improvements, new material testing labs and expanded lockers/showers for women employees, and warehouse remodel." 19. Answering Question 11 of the checklist, the question asking for a complete description, the applicant responded as follows: The City owns 13 acres at present which is developed as our City Shop Facility. An additional 5 acres is being purchased. It is to be used to extend the Public Works Shop Facility and provide space for a Fire Training site. These are all Public uses. .... The proposed rezone includes City of Renton/King County CU-038-88 & AAD-081-88 September 16, 1988 Page 6 all parcels in Public Ownership: King Co. PW (Public Works) Shops; Solid Waste Transfer Station; King Co Dist. Ct.; King Co. Parks; King Co. Health Dept.; and City Shops site. The rezone includes the vacant King Co. 1properties to the South." 20. In responding to Question 4 of Part D, the Supplemental Sheet for non-project actions, regarding affects on environmentally sensitive areas, the applicant answered: No development is proposed at this time for the steep slopes areas except for the construction of a future Monroe Ave. N.E. roadway extension to Maple Valley." 21. The box labeled "Proposed Use" on The Master Application filed for the subject conditional use project describes the use as follows: Public Works Maintenance Shops & Fire Dept. Training, for King Co. & City of Renton/District Court Transfer Station and Health Department." The box for "AREA" indicates the proposal covers 36 acres. 22. The Executive Summary prepared by Arai/Jackson contains the following statement on Page 1: Coordinate preparation of the master development site plan with the City of Renton Zoning requirements. The objective was to obtain zoning and related SEPA clearance to allow "build out" of the master plan without repeated conditional use reviews from the City of Renton." 23. The purpose of the study was listed as: Identify existing and future space and facility requirements to support the Department of Public Works' mission. Identify site opportunities to satisfy space/facility needs and prepare a master site development plan showing: location of potential future structures location of parking circulation and access improvements" 24. The section of the Executive Summary labeled "study issues" stated the following: 1.; Zoning. The City of Renton has jurisdiction for SEPA, land use and building permit approval. Under the present G-1 zoning classification each capital development project must apply for a conditional use permit, typically a 4 to 6 month process. The objective of then study was to develop a Master Plan that could be used to obtain a zone change for the entire site from G-1 (General) to P-1 (Public) classification. The P-1 classification would remove the conditional use requirements and greatly simplify the approval of individual projects, since SEPA review of the entire Master Plan would occur as part of the rezoning." (Emphasis supplied.) 25. It continues: The City of Renton supports the rezoning of CORF to P-1 and has agreed to handle the rezone application itself as part of the agreement to purchase a five acre portion of the site from the Department for its own Public Works Shops." 26. Rather than exhaustively quote from the Summary, in brief, it identifies areas on the site which could support approximately 170,000 square feet of office space, room for the expansion of the Roads Maintenance functions through the year 2000, suggests expansion of other facilities, notes locations for parking for 675 vehicles and even ventures to suggest that if the site is unsuitable for County development it could be leased or sold for private development. It clearly identifies the extension of a roadway connecting the site to Maple Valley as desirable, with the proviso that such extension could bisect the site, although the current plans could preclude such an option. 27. Regarding this possible Monroe Avenue extension, the summary identifies its principle contributor/builder as the appellant or the developer of the appellant's property, with King City of Renton/King County CU-038-88 & AAD-081-88 September 16, 1988 Page 7 County providing some right-of-way, although it also suggests that since Renton is desirous of building this link there might be a possible offset from Renton for King County's costs. 28. The Executive summary further identifies the congestion and confusion created by mixing public, employee, and maintenance vehicle access to the site. The confusion is apparently related to the mix of court, office/work site and maintenance facilities on the one campus. 29. Staff comments prepared for the conditional use permit phase of the project request additional information in general and suggests that the proposal should not be approved without additional information in such areas as ground water protection, storm water systems, traffic analysis, and particularly the impact of the proposed connection through or around the site to the Maple Valley Highway. Although admittedly, there are such overlapping similarities to the comments prepared for the rezone as to lead one to wonder if the comments clearly distinguished the proposals, the circulation sheets and titles of the comment sheet identify the conditional use as the object of the comments from city staff. 30. According to staff this proposal amounts to approximately 17,000 square feet of additional development spread over the various expansions to existing buildings and outright new buildings. 31. The applicant argues that any plans identified by the Master Plan prepared for the site are merely speculative and have not been either approved or funded by the King County Council, but were necessitated by budget practices. CONCLUSIONS 1.The decision of the governmental agency acting as the responsible official is entitled to substantial weight. Therefore, the determination of the Environmental Review Committee ERC), the;city's responsible official, is entitled to be maintained unless the appellant clearly demonstrates that the determination was in error. 2.The Determination of Non-Significance in this case is entitled to substantial weight and will not be reversed or modified unless it can be found that the decision is "clearly erroneous." (Hayden v. Port Townsend, 93 Wn 2nd 870, 880; 1980). The court in citing Norway Hill Preservation and Protection Association v. King County Council, 87 Wn 2d 267, 274; 1976, stated: "A finding is 'clearly erroneous' when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Therefore, the determination of the ERC will not be modified or reversed if it can meet the above test.. For reasons enumerated below, the decision of the ERC is reversed. 3.The clearly erroneous test has generally been applied when an action results in a DNS since the test is less demanding on the appellant. The reason is that SEPA requires a thorough examination of the environmental consequences of an action. The courts have, therefore, made it easier to reverse a DNS. A second test, the "arbitrary and capricious" test is generally applied when a determination of significance (DS) is issued. In this second test an appellant would have to show that the decision clearly flies in the face of reason since a DS is more protective of the environment since it results in the preparation of a full disclosure document, an Environmental Impact Statement. 4.An action is determined to have a significant adverse impact on the quality of the environment if more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment is a reasonable probability. Norway, at 278). Since the Court spoke in Norway, WAC 197-11-794 has been adopted, it defines "significant" as follows: Significant. (1) "Significant" as used in SEPA means a reasonable likelihood of more than a moderate adverse impact on environmental quality. 2) Significance involves context and intensity ...Intensity depends on the magnitude and duration of an impact.... The severity of the impact should be weighed along with the likelihood of its occurrence. An impact may be significant if its chance of occurrence is not great, but the resulting1. environmental impact would be severe if it occurred. City of Renton/King County CU-038-88 & AAD-08!1-88 September 16, 1988 Page 8 5.Also redefined since the Norway decision was the term "probable." Probable. "Probable" means likely or reasonably likely to occur, ... Probable is used to distinguish likely impacts from those that merely have a possibility of occurring, but are remote or speculative. (WAC 197-11- 782). 6.Impacts also include reasonably related and foreseeable direct and indirect impacts including short-term and long-term effects. (WAC 197-11-060(4)(c)). Impacts include those effects resulting from growth caused by a proposal, as well as the likelihood that the present proposal will serve as precedent for future actions. (WAC 197-11-060(4)(d)). 7.The proposed locations of buildings on the site will most certainly affect any decision on the alignment or potential alignment of any extension of Monroe to the Maple Valley Highway. The expansion of shops, maintenance sheds and storage buildings could have an impact on the quality and the desirability of residential uses constructed near the site. 8.What type 'of materials should appropriately be stored, transferred and handled on a site that sits in Zone 2 of the city's aquifer protection area was not explored? Mitigation measures could preclude an entire range of chemical agents, negating the effectiveness of this site for some or many of King County's purposes. Shouldn't these issues be explored before committing the site to the proposed uses? 9.The appellant is correct in arguing that the applicant's statements that this proposal is of limited scope are disingenuous. The checklist prepared for the proposal, the master application for the proposal, and the documents submitted to support the proposal, (especially the Executive Summary of the Master Plan), all demonstrate the extent of the proposal. It includes in various analyses further expansions, reliance on a possible connection to the Maple Valley Highway, possibly office buildings and parking for 675 vehicles, expansion of city shop buildings and a possible fire training site. The Court in Juanita Bay Valley Community Association v. The City of Kirkland, 9 Wn. App. 59, 72, 510 P.2d 1140, rev. denied, 83 Wn.2d 1002 (1973) expounded on the requirement for early review and particularly singled out the area of phased, or a series of related projects: O]ne of the purposes of .... SEPA, is to avoid the adverse impact upon the environment which takes place when various phases of a project, or a series of projects, are authorized by governmental agencies, in a piecemeal fashion without regard to the cumulative impact of the total development.... Appellant correctly suggests that the environmental impact of the total project, rather than that of the grading project alone, must be weighed in order to meet the requirements of SEPA. We therefore conclude SEPA requires that an environmental impact statement be prepared prior to the first governmental authorization of any part of a project or series of projects which, when considered cumulatively, constitute a major action significantly affecting the quality of the environment...' RCW 43.21C.030(c). 9 Wn. App. at 72-72." The court has repeatedly rejected arguments that merely modest steps of a longer or larger project do not require full environmental assessment. 10. It is also clear that the rezone application was intended to trigger more extensive environmental analysis than the issuance of a DNS, even a mitigated DNS. The section of the Executive Summary labeled Study Issues closed with the following observation: "since SEPA review of the entire Master Plan would occur as Dart of the rezoning." (Emphasis supplied.) While the applicant attempted to preclude this more thorough review by withdrawing the rezone application, it's quite apparent that the conditional use is also part and parcel of a larger overall proposal, and merely eliminating consideration of the rezone did not eliminate the need to determine the full range of environmental impacts which would occur. Also, exploration of what limitations on future action may be imposed by moving ahead with what the applicant terms a limited implementation of a small conditional use permit is necessary. 11. While in this case the ERC did not simply issue a DNS, and imposed a series of conditions in an attempt to mitigate the proposal and issued what is called a Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated, the imposition of conditions does not help to disclose information about the site, potential impacts of the proposal and possible alternatives. The withdrawal of the rezone, the staff's negative evaluation of the information available for the proposal, and the range of questions regarding storm water, aquifer protection, traffic projections and roadway City of Renton/King County CU-038-88 & AAD-081-88 September 16, 1988 Page 9 construction cannot be permitted to displace full environmental disclosure. Staff actually concluded that they would rely on a traffic assessment being conducted for the appellant's EIS, a study,which is still incomplete. How then can it be relied upon for the instant environmental assessment? 12. Permitting such a practice would exalt form over substance. A review of the various documents filed with this and the earlier companion rezone application reveals that the immediate proposal is a small view of a larger display. The applicant owns or controls approximately 36 acres of property. The campus includes, or is proposed to include, both county facilities and city facilities. It includes private/authorized personnel-type facilities - the shops buildings, material testing labs, etc - and open to the public facilities - the court and the transfer station. These are just the mix of uses which the Master Plan suggests create confusion and potential safety issues L the mixing of various vehicular generators with limited access potential. 13. This office will not permit the applicant to divorce the language found in the rezone documents from those found in the conditional use application. Even if the divorce were permitted, the conditional use permit documentation, including the applicant's own map, Exhibit 3, shows the clear implications of a proposed expansion of the campus, the connecting link, etc. Simply because some of the items are suggested as future plans should not negate the fact that they offer a!range of possibilities and a concomitant limitation by chosing a certain course of action without review. 14. The appellant can be forgiven for suggesting a possible quid pro quo for the issuance of a DNS. The application is most confusing in identifying who owns what and who is the applicant. This confused ownership situation also makes it easier to decide that the permit is more than simply a request for a conditional use permit. The proposal appears to be more complex than the applicant urges since there is the ambiguous joining or actual substitution of the City of Renton in what is argued is a minor action by King County. The record reveals that along with the specific aspects of this conditional use, there is a fire training facility also included in the proposed uses (See Master Application). Then to make matters worse the Executive Summary unfortunately states: "The City of Renton supports the rezoning of CORF to P-1 and has agreed to handle the rezone application itself as part of the agreement to purchase a five acre portion of the site from the Department for its own Public Works Shops." This may merely indicate that the purchase price took into consideration the permit fees ordinarily required for processing, but it does look odd. 15. And again, while the applicant has attempted to limit the scope of SEPA review to the conditional use permit, SEPA does not permit arbitrarily segmenting proposals to avoid the full disclosure otherwise required under SEPA: The applicant filed jointly the rezone and the conditional use requests. Both Master Applications were filed on May 9, 1988. It also appears that an,EIS was anticipated. At Page 9 of the Executive Summary is found the following quote: This process will involve SEPA review and undoubtedly an EIS will be required with special emphasis on traffic impacts." (Emphasis supplied.) 16. SEPA requires review "at the earliest possible point in the planning and decision-making process" (WAC 197-11-055(2). This review should be performed prior to irrevocable commitment of either resources or land. The proposal to construct three new buildings and expand;one or two others, to construct a parking lot for 120 cars and to commit to a location which could preclude appropriate alignment for what is expected to be a four or five lane arterial seems an appropriate time for complete environmental review. What of substance can be accomplished after new buildings are constructed, others expanded, and a possible alignment of Monroe precluded? It is apparent that the SEPA determination required at this, the earliest time when a concrete proposal has been advanced, would be to require an EIS; the same anticipated EIS on Page 9 of the Master Plan and discussed in Conclusion 15, above. 17. To re-emphasize, the Executive Summary prepared by Arai/Jackson contains the following quite revealing statement on Page 1: Coordinate preparation of the master development site plan with the City Of Renton Zoning requirements. The objective was to obtain zoning and related SEPA clearance to allow "build out" of the master plan without repeated conditional use reviews from the City of Renton." (Emphasis supplied.) City of Renton/King County CU-038-88 & AAD-081-88 September 16, 1988 Page 10 18. It's clear that the initial focus was for a consolidated SEPA review since as the Executive Summary states on Page 2: "SEPA review of the entire Master Plan would occur as part of the rezoning." It is also clear that when an appeal was filed on the DNS issued for the rezone the opportunity for consolidated review was removed. The applicant attempted to thwart a thorough review by withdrawing the rezone application, although permitting the conditional use application to proceed. Such machinations cannot be permitted to stiffle full environmental review. 19. Full review would allow the city to explore alternatives. Full review would permit the county to explore alternatives. It's clear that a variety of options for use of the site exist. What are they? Would the potential connection with Maple Valley Highway be precluded by early dedication of portions of the site to buildings? Would the best alignment of such a roadway be better served by placing buildings as now proposed or in an alternative configuration? Would the best use of the site be for private development? Would the best use, whatever it be, be adversely affected by imposing maintenance sheds and buildings upon the site? 20. There are a number of other issues concerning the use and development of this site, merely one of which is: Is the storage of pesticides, herbicides and other hazardous materials appropriate for the site? The issue at this point should not resolve around mitigation measures or whether plans have been developed for the containment of hazardous materials and actions delineated for cleanup in the event of a spill. The question should rather be framed: Should they even be stored here on a site above the aquifer? Only a full disclosure document can answer this and the other questions posed by development of this site. 21. There are a range of issues only touched upon in the Master Plan and which deserve thorough review and analysis. The 36 acre site is no less deserving of a thoroughly thought out plan than the appellant's adjoining McMahon site. Certainly an application for actual construction carries with it more identifiable impacts than the mere rezone originally proposed by the appellant. The King County Master Plan is much more concrete than was the appellant's conceptual residential plan for the abutting McMahon site. The commitment of more than a million dollars, time, construction materials, etc. is certainly the kind of action which should trigger a thorough analysis, and is the type of action envisioned by SEPA which should trigger the publication of an environmental impact statement. 22. By attempting to eliminate the full disclosure mandated by SEPA, the applicant or applicants may be foreclosing reasonable and better alternatives for the site. They may be committing to a course of action which has not been fully explored. They have definitely attempted to short circuit the SEPA process. The record reveals that a consolidated process was originally intended. A thorough review at that stage would have, or was intended to allow expeditious or even minimal review in the future of other phases by fully exploring in a Master Plan the site's potential now. SEPA demands no less. 23. The reviewing body should not substitute its judgment for that of the original body with expertise in the matter, unless the reviewing body has the firm conviction that a mistake has been made. There is no doubt that the reviewing agency erred in its determination. The proposal is one step in a series of related steps - a step which will almost certainly irrevocably commit the site to further expansion of King.County facilities on the site - and is a major action which will have more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment. This proposal, coupled with the potential development, is a major action which will significantly affect the quality of the environment and could significantly affect the range of reasonable choices which themselves affect the quality of the environment. The appealing party must prevail 'on this appeal. A DNS, even a mitigated DNS, is inappropriate for such an action. Full disclosure is required which mandates the preparation of an EIS. 24. The determination of the Environmental Review Committee is reversed. Pursuant to Section 4- 2823(B)4) the lead agency is directed to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the subject proposal and reasonably identified, although not necessarily approved, related proposals found in the Master Plan. 25. Having.reached the conclusion that an EIS is required, no purpose would be served in reviewing the proposed conditional use for the subject site. The evaluation performed by the EIS may demonstrate that the subject proposal needs modification. Therefore, the application for a conditional use permit is dismissed. City of Renton/King County CU-038-88 & AAD-081-88 September 16, 1988 Page 11 DECISION The lead agency is directed to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the subject proposal. ORDERED THIS 16th day of September, 1988. K0+4../ FRED J. KA MAN HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 16th day of September, 1988 to the parties of.record: Kevin Raymond Attorney At Law Room E-550 King County Public Works Department 500 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 O. J. Saltarelli Facilities Administrator Room 900 - King County Building 500 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington Karen Feyerherm Betts, Patterson & Mines 1215 - 4th Avenue 800 Financial Center Seattle, Washington 98161-1090 Lawrence Warren City Attorney City of Renton TRANSMITTED THIS 16th day of September, 1988 to the following: Mayor Earl Clymer Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator Richard Houghton, Public Works Director Members, Renton Planning Commission Larry M. Springer, Planning Manager Glen Gordon, Fire Marshal Ronald Nelson, Building Director Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney John Adamson, Developmental Program Coordinator Gary Norris, Traffic Engineer Renton Record-Chronicle Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 P.M. September 30, 1988. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific errors relied upon by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. Any appeal is governed by Title IV, Section 3011, which requires that such appeal be filed with the Superior Court of Washington for King County within twenty (20) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. City of Renton/King County CU-038-88 & AAD-081-88 September 16, 1988 Page 12 All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents)of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. j--Y.'‘',.:•.:•• ..::. ' 1 7.:.7. ''''.:?''-<)+, -1 : r---- j----1-- pc; :. :i::$_. i::'.!:!,;•.f:: - V:::::: . i: ' 1.--i as T-7:z,INGTON 1 ,figar,•::::: ',. 1/4t1„` ••••••• ' 0 C;;;;-, 1 A'r - 77::::. .- . .- :,-•.4--e; . mime 1. le..- 0 9.1.1t, h.,A5:);:.: . .1. III ct ‘ 1 ::::!(“elie• --- -,••• ‘.%.'iNiCann :iii:g::iii ••117.4 It••••"L ,.. .,, i11:. 1 Isee‘.0.....• , • 9....i.. ..1011 7-•• ....%.7 ii II NW. :::*" - 11.0 . •-•-::. i'f• r 17..... Ili • LIVAI 11 11•1111111 • .4 ...... 4\ ,• wi fia A ::::)nowroo.o.o.o.). r. ,i i imi I 5 in Elra. u07. 'A. - 6. alliiiig .0. NL‘... ... _____A .1 iir a..=:.• 1111 •::::::•::•::•::•::•::•::%:%:•':''gri4iii511114 • it% - ME:ggi? 00000•Lve..6,1013,. .... 00000*7- •••••••••••• *'•. ''':.1. ::••••• I: i ,i1p'il:121°- p a 0 0.00. ampapcu.4::;."'::::ii.i :-Et.e;iiai. •••.:iNg A' ANNAN tWil I r• IVArINIMEnt. idill.a 00 0 0 0 0 00 00• 0 00 000 000 0 0• Is • • • • • • • An..-;41111 . .:•:•:•:•:. OM-.....iv .......... . .,......., j. r. -":::::1?„M.;rimZiiii .: * i,k1114:11,F-A-1 NM !1 „med.:174w k0: A . .• • • • • • • .% • • " `,:e :ini::::,•04 151111'r*. ' lommml I 1:0• As • • • • • • • • • • • • . ;- ': :::::: inane•••66. J O,;•.1, • • • • • • • • • • • • • ' • :::::*:: im rat 11,„„ kg I 1.11111 1:-go:',.. • c: : .::i.ii:i:: i gogg it t •...•.. • _••• ••••••• •••• ••••• `,".. ,,.. 4mierim. 7.-2-:....--..41....,11,...4.!! ".ggg014474:61V-4, it • • • • • • ei • •• • '' ' . MN c:ctic-::; .0.0. 0..00.01IL000.00000.00000000.clo°•i.os • • • • • • •D 0/0. '.• • • • • • • • •lki.. ..41, '''• ` Leal If..t.::, : 600:11,001 , .ee .,`V, ; MEI L ir"..'; ..°0.097...:16600110ei.",3. 1. •••••re • • • ••• ' • • • w • ';". ." 1. g gnoO • II • • • 1ct11 c3 , 0 0 on-o, :6• • • • 0..... 1.... .1.;', ... I.' Ilhiuk la Egli g . ..:..... ..!:::::..........::!..:::::::.::::::i.:„..43. :::714...... .a :::::::::• :::„:.:::„...„:„::::::::::::. ::::::::::::::::::.. 0 . 1,..: . • • ,6 • •';• ttog000 °go, grimillird0 ' . •111..... M1 Ni \ ::: :. ogog gog. •• • • iNemtirgillii •••••••••• ...- 2°0°30°o°g°g•tt,A ••••• Miligialll: a,fs.s..., ,7/..). 'f' 1 ........ 13111MOW 4aStiL. 'SS6,800c.peog,'. • • • ret.:=40,1,1 r ii-i'-.-ir 001 1110 .°0Vo. ......x.x.:.:::::::::::::::.:.x.:.:. I Ili...milli&Milili lal• • • I l Allkik;PiEV,Ni' '''',v,; (;,;,;,../fallon g I• 'ql!..1") lir;,,0 ati••%. rommumagi•imum•ww•u i........:...............: oggkigg,,g2,g. .0 :,,,,ggg 7 'A.----------.4 Ili;-•-r••••••••......--- 75• e x.,::,.:. :•:•:••:::::;•:. ,......ii 11!!!"!•!!! _ ...,"•- A;::.::::::*::::i'4'go gg g,ig`ii15,0;°ge. hOillAllaililigiellA::: jr1:1 ND iii!!,..7; 8, 7•; i:i::: 4:;;, 4;7. i,::::7- :. 0.0`.U:111CFMTF075O%' 1.611.113:11111:1V*ii7v#AL__.... igig:AeigiiEgggggggF;,N ,A: D. .121111111111P.IIII. ift• g;t• kVAiNi4.:,..,%; 'iiigiiP::::'.....::::::i*:: ii gi°0:.°0°.°0°0°....°Fogi°00:0: !-7..--...111E111111 A bigi:i:i:i:i:iiiiinii:..0g.i il MB 70:" 4 .* ,:*::i:ai*i:i:i*: i. ,'',......:*::X:::::::i:::i:::' °° Vo°0°A 09390WAPAPo .ii:i:::::::::::.,.'111Ml11111 ::::i::*::::::::K:i::::::::.::*:::::::::*i:i:::::iggg Ng Aggg gg g°.hq'P IIIIIIIIIN illy(1 .F.4. :i%:*i:"'''''',..,, i' .... •''iMENE 17:.;0.° . c' c'493e I.813°.*:°:°:°° 0°:°:°: ....• ;.,lili :i::.:1N:a::::::i:::••Ii::::::i•:::•2:::Nrii::.•Aia E. „am Ali .: ---a•;••"•'',..,-.`•• V11411410 '6I0144111111111:1111ern.; ...1.i {,•,o........ ...„. ...... .,..„.. , ....:;:: .. 0. 0.00•.. 0 :.:::::::„........... .:.0. •• . 00.• ..,,... i:.:...:,3::........00.. „0......„.......„...... ...III : 0.....,0,1tt II.;4 .. 0000.0. I; •::*::i:i:N::.:m,:.0..•,..cr. v:•'-',o" c, c,:•.• .,..00' .:::•::::!::::::::::: ' MEI. 0Oo „.9o,,°o„° ' 1111111•01. %IlleAfef . (.k •1/ l; 00000 •.' ............0 . 00,0 .- •...wool'- • .... ,-• •- r:Ent?ogogogogegg, AlI cq.. ....., i • 9000 c i:. :::* 00- .. 00 - ......,.:.x....:.: r :•:•:.:•:.:•:•:•:.:••...•.:.:.." 0. 4):: ,. 0.. 0.•••%•. 00.:.. 0. 1• :::........:1:•::::::.:•:: 1 Int•.0.0.0.0.0, ft,..1••••..•••it -,:,.:., .1. •„ origiik:.;: SV"' VA::!,:i• i:, •:, : :: ::::::0,• 11.1•016-riTo-inniiidid:inni:VII ..°0.0.•••i;,,, •'• .0149,•;.1,- i'•:::1 liii:.%;:i r• "*i:::•::::::*i:i: :: ,:Cf:. S.• ....--...,..' ::•:•:.. ::::::;. I ••••UM..MigilijIMI:11 .°°°•;.;"' ... '4. ••••• ;,'.. IN Oi .. :i::ii::E ::i : .....,Ii.c.,"•.1 rAir-4.•-.-,':' :::.:':::::: •, .:: I ci l'7•I„imp:F.; 12111211!,...,;:* • ..;•••• ' --.Nen.;',•,;,,', ',;i O.} • ::i::*i*i:i:i: ::• . 't-,,cie i',%,!F. i..,..- ,..., :::::::::::::.••,.. 1 t. . _AL •P,3... alraVIIE1""1111PiliilIF i ....i.,,"'a'....,'svi::h.a. ';,'"i.:,''-',/:>'f,'',''.:(2!:''',"-. ;;':',..;?:; i9,:c. d.?=??: :'', 1.:' i''?• $.:•:::*::* ::::::::::: iw p ;. .or t.... trtilloc ligri,;!!! 6c,..,..,... •...„,,,,rr.?,,_67, 16,4„,,r.„,. .,,,, ii- .:1?.?..Y;.!9,;;13)';;?.•I., cp,=,,r-ii•I :'...,'?, , _4) 1,...,........::::::::: ii. c.,:. iiiii: - re-.8,,, 0••••, ....,•:,•,.,?.?„:Fle.:9;;;P..clq• • ',"c•r.:•;1 •••• ,.: .t.... iffit • •:*:::::::::::: o.• 11„„•5 :i:*•• ...43krop Cti,? ?,u. %.•,...•C:c,f,. '!Illum \.i.;.:;1•':;,-).. ' h,... •••2;fa,.•:•!.:. . . s,..i.i. . ini.„ :.:... s.:0*1: N. ; tr.c.. ...ff ...... J. 0- 777 , • ci,r.. ' :,.. ,...,.-„-7.',...•;•cir:Stj.e.,4g.ligiili:"*:'::::AiR iv- o•siv.„. ., ‘: la...,_ - ni• -• .,‘ ,.''iti...1§%. 1,14p ..„1• k,.(71-1,„,, .7:!›..?,:e?.(6,••,,,,•.,:,..py,.--.......,*:::ei--NI f:.,... :.,,.s.zi,,-9444 . r,e.;7,63•-• • --N 1.11-:;ckiN.drck.3,.,„..•2'.._.c •;‘,.,,,,„,,,,...•• Illik•I'u.:,.::;.*.NA5N..N5':::g vn n.irf:' • ••••01111 'Z'MiNtlft / „ir, q''',:' '::k1:•:%•'iti?: . • e',./*A11.,•••=j,e.-.. i.•..ft{.: ....ric..rilk•,:::'...;•:.3,.': '114 rAC c9 c5-gagml:?.::3i,,,4.r .....4k t5 r:'' .5 .•n ' ''. 1.•1;7.' Q,Isc> "chLOAFOMANI :Mi:i:i:Mi:::..'iN•aluid \ V.1.7.??,.„;p.,,::;:.,1,41.!.).7: „,....e,`... i;:i.,',0 j,.....-.17,., .w. 7. 4111.11.44.44447:„CrIp..c.,Vc...t...704: ;.....l• III; 0:;:;1:0:,::!;i,iiMi0,411! , k . q,:,>0.,' 1.,;;.cp;,,,..,...,:s..,,,,,.").‘,.,,5.1..,-... :. f,:/.1,-. ...- '''s--.,- . $ 1, 7:Wi.9,-(,..A.;4: ;:-.,? _,..,•• , ,oc ,Taiiiiiikliiiiii..., III.vooc,000.0. 1:,..t.,.,,,,., 4:,..;.,,,,o,,e,,,..on(3..,-,,,•. • ' 1.e:,..,,co D i •1›,Ns.,-1,....'.. 5",ejert,'.gr..'1h.. 1041#5,ti,,?,,,ii.f„;i s.s •. 0• v. i.,. i.•:.s.;.:(3.1.,50,,,,-.'-:,-..,:,!t?., • 'v-iii, . ... ,.. r.3.4-4,.42 v:,-.;. c.,,,,,,,-. 1.x.ca.--v:it,-.07.rv.00..1.,.,;(0,..0...,.. (-4,0•7• .e?),,?.,.:(.:.•,..t,q.:3 ..1.4.,1,`•. , .,... .,,,a'r. '. .vt.S..fric.:rr.:cFAT t..:;0..•:,1, .. MIMI';o-,1/....-ii• C11E91..-f. A1111 mmmmmm 111 .-.•Xl.' °.' 'lof. .C`;'•;.: . 2*.`,.P":"; 1'4'?.'''.'1.'II.'01).1 i'3'... . .• • A. ',a, ' : !.'ie.tritVr'clr_'V:r,1* 7'• ..ri'...?`2•I insulin mmmmmm ME if , ;%;.7.,., lret,..•.t,-rie., ‘ •cir,•:;"1.4::y.'i,6;":`.e. o...1.1p•frCi..;%(•o.,,It),,'. .., o:;•;;;;131 'A, T 1-#:. •:',•'•2 S•''!.. .-.1. ri•'" ..; .'''. tr iid:4 tn.'- 5'17 7(.1?''..•,7 IN.,•1• u IV.1;1,0;5.. i.•J. 51 • t!'' 9....al el.-Cr P' 41'., • 1••••••': '..-,P:1 .•::Mii:i::..... do-t,•u••,..:.•,,••••••',.,!••••-•)•• " 01:..: ..41'.^A.' 5:.•'< i)••)••• ••• '''ri,il l',••0,t,'•1,' ..q)0 I,. :,-.4,. , ec •, . ,.z.,,,.. 4.c,..y,,;lc 12.'l';•",-'-ii,",..'''••'.k.,'• It Pt.'10- - ?•••'''•:I•"z•J ''%:-.' •`,':" 's•' ; `7•'.i'1)-4°..0,,,: t P*. e." e , ti..014-icz•• --___,.. 1/X,..APNgi:iiiiillippio•P‘ :;:t Pe AY:, •g.l. 0.0.0%. IV for•ii;i.'.`.,e 1) ..?`..kjil';,•,;!,,,,f`;`,,: l.i.'-iy,...,,..E.,t30,. s 7„:;• ig!(4r;siitc.&:p, , loin ./...-,a: i..i.......i.:::::.:.;iz*::::. r...'.,i,.,;.4••......"r %%000.. .,..z.,!.. 9,4161:::iiiiiiiiiiii;i:x:i :i::: .. ,,,:.,...,... 11,‘",'!,'.';.:.-,i-.;:,.''..0.0.0. ,-. .° 0°°.°V. ''' Y",:S..:4;),i;k5;•;afr, ,6 A . .'qein;f.t.13:413iv. ,,,,,.. ,. :.„......:. ..,.,.,,,,?,. 5 .k?'.:.• o o o• 'n'. .%VG 2.ti.:4;,13'..;'.r.!!.0. sow . ougloi:::4..____.k,::.; ;;,,,. ....c....-. ..,!, i;;:.n.. ... c.:A c.. ..y.i.,. k...• t,fr., • / IIiirtiii:: ,.,:., .,..,..E '' (3,,;•'(i'0;('•'.;'• ..f": 00.0.00.000...",.. tat....5: 701.;:„. 41( ti•atajte 1.1\..„..1 7;.077. x';'d g .,. ../7;,1.,‘,5°.§.!4.';,..17'..,;:j... •.0•:;'..% mit I NI,s....21:4,:::: iii..,,,:....., Biri•4...0.. 50.. 1. ..,, t, 00..0-00-.00._...\) 3,-...:;:g-i1:-.5:.:,..;: T.:.,..,...:,.1117-.6),,i..T,c,ii.ii,:4•,;.....,,:;::.f.,,,.::).„.,,. • , :,,.. 0.0.. .c.:...,.„..0,,..4.:i. 1.1 fi•?),..011;,3•A,((•,,..thso...flet,....s11,14„,..\J:(?1: ,'••,..(3•0.;1`0.,•';•.",!, ,I.:1?), 0...04 0. ;. P kj:•', Itj'iitiltill;;,:t 1,,....,.,,...::::'," 7:::3'... c..;:•:.,: c.::::' '• f'''.C:( 1:4:..1,•".. . 9.2 ''''.'(:Po:a%Iffir 1 0°0 :.:•:•:•:,:.:.. .‘. i Nli ,-,1,-,.9,009,0 . .%44.82..,ii.'... Acv,Y.,*...c.;:,•';?,. A.3. t,I 00000.- 11111114,Vti.'io ••,.:::::::::::::::..'r ei. 5%t•• , 5A 0........0 ..::,,,..:„..:.:::,..,",".:.:•.:.:.*..,......,„ v. 7:•::'.;bilhalINMEMEMIE 6.14.5. . _. 2_7 -- --• •T.P.ci"•••0:,st o.0..0000000 c 000000• •) \ ri•vvra.P.•-,0.0%0000. ci.'7•'-'..;,••;;•",1,,ro..•:••: 000.000000. rz,... ;,, 0.00.00 . .),. 00.000. .• 0000.0 dlr.••••Cr'1.5 000.000 I ) VeaPeaP 1 444:0':...q.. .!?•'...o: 00000 cT.r.. - 000• • • .•,r 000000.5- • • • 0000000 I '''.1" 1...5 o 000000••t• le,7... 1.....E00.00.0.0o••e,. ar.5 0000-414 4.s.i A ". 5Z ti"r 1 't d. 1 A 0.,:d.,:-. ki t, II . LAND USE ELEMENT Single Family Low Density Multi-Family mmmmm, 1 Commercial W tt MOffice / Office Park k., 0.0.0. 7-••••orim imam i iM:•:iiMilif;1111 IL, x."":'''''': Medium Density 00.0000. 000.00000.0000, Public/Quasi-PublicA14iiii:::ii:iiiiiii..1•••••111:111k, :- .............Multi-Family .00,,,,00. 00....., 6ii :•••••••••••:•:•:•:.:•:::::*:*::::v.... ...., ... novaavo% t.,-.3.,..r...-..::,,, 6..ii•igirIirif 6•114Th7`rop..;Milil•REIM High Densitypoca.0009,000. ..„ •• Light Industrial 14000,:,•? ..-..... ..e. ivional60.0810. 00Le. .•:,,, . •=,•:•: -.... Multi-Family I00...A. ,.., .. 2... luau,... .....rw• . •;_voil..„,... .0...0.0...... . •• .: ....:". -,;(.:•-•.:• Z l'•;.0 0-OCO° i'i .•' •• •'''':. I I,or, iff'e. Recreation Heavy Industrial 08:6000...94,0.000.00.. •:ii:.•:i.:::::i: .....;.'2g.....;54": 0000 D 10000.000000 •::•:::•:: n.^ .... ' iPl• • 0000•00000 :•:,:,:•*: •'''''''•••••°.' 300.0.000.•00.0.000• :::.., .•.•.•:.•.• ...V i,•.......,..:.:,,,,:...:.. i7471101( f ''3:11;'61.: (43. : 11; 5;':,•:-.3.,;.',,.. II - -- - 7'..,..•,....:., 1, gc.. 0;,A0• 7• E•. 5./.•... Greenbelt.. , ..... .. -Manufacturing Park 000n Multiple Option u r i y K1NC COUNTYi `'I PUBLIC WORKS 4« cc` 'Oro i CONSOLIDATED OFFICE ti/ f _ if RE?4IR FACJLITY y,. City Of Renton: Public Works•t.' :\ Y; e King County BUILDING KE N.. '•\Di g C Court;_ ../ ROADS .+OrHINISTR/TIOn i QB TRAFFIC 3, SIGN STORES3y.",),.. Employee Parking C CORF OF-ICE d EXPANSION 3 SPaces J ti, D SOILS L.:B i3\, E CORF OFFICE County Parking i i 30 Space EXPANSION(ALT.SITE) 1. A_ a OF FUEL J Roads Division` r y FLEET MAINTENANCE STORES Visitor&EmPlogee v /, .•` S iainiena. nce Site Entrance '` r Nj`, : \ rdntrance I EQUIP.rIENT SHED t r' rCREW:SHOPS M oop Road _ EQUIP?LENT SHED Roads Division i r., r r EQUIPS+ENT SHED Cor searive r•. - CorArea r. tir Potential t MINI STORAC' c1sroe[s v r QcyOE Renton N EQUIPMENT SHED E ;Y rwEo tt Public Works Sit Pedestrian T It RE 0 EQUIPMENT SHED a[tt Expansion r` rsextac ` PAINT Spine '. '\ y O MINI STORAGE I C •/\ ' ueE 17 C. Y;' R MINI STORAGE P C inns sc`"i• -.s•r/ i r;" / S GATE HOUSE p ;:.' YAW rj???"' TRAILER rrs i O% 1r•1- A r: ,'•% v U PUBLIC WORKS r r OFFICE BUILDING D r-" [/•.1 r V POTENTIAL l. ,.•' ,r5 W Landscape Buffer, 1 / OFFlCE EXPANSION Future MaintenanceMaintenance O r C I W POTENTIAL Expansion Area i:; R /- -- Y Pocenrial Phase III C OFFICt EXP4N51 7 Office Buildings 'v' X FUTURE PAINT Employee Parking l X.\i• I Q i' 35,000•GS i 1., 0 E TING BUILDING 384 Spaces') F [ J [ U JI Patendal Phase Itl• ; i i ; i//j,r/ i i Partcin t nnrrw Efnoloyee Parking. ,/ r ,'`. r l Employee g i, I \ I i 267 SPaces / r 6i a Spaces ..i//i E ;' i/ Existing Paint Buildings i/ [^ n --t Pocenrial Phase.III-6 -'i' ., I I I /^ r /% ij .r Existing King County • mv,ya i/ j/ ,`[ i i i! / vj/ \ 72, ass,. m sa Office Building-.^//,•j I I ^` , Solid Waste S iv nife!5[aa.. 7a I ,.. `.\`. i_ Ill-A I I\ '^i J // TLa zv v Potential Phase D T T Division Office Building • f I\`/ / Li AVJACKSO Roads aCc/' 1 t Office GSF f Maintenance i l`ARCfiRE_5 b PLANNEZS Core Area Jta C),, ®• o•vw.swrnxw Greenbelt O . Public Works S. It \ ,j `l Pit Storage Lt/ Potendal Future O'o MASTER Connection To \ 9 QaI a DEVELOPMENT 73 I ;i j j!-Mapfe Valley High ay 0 p j' 'i . -vL Qn SITE PLAN ON LOCATIONS r.',-' t( / a . o NOTE: AND N BUILDING ADDDI ram: Q 11'.C3' 0: 1/4: AND NEW BUILDING FOOTPRINTS 0;/ ARE CONCEPTUAL ONLY. SUBSEQUENT C r':i; n ARCHITECTURAL STUDIES WILL j !r FIX ADDITION LOCATIONS AND j NEW BUILDING FLOOR PLANS- 47 e .1 I C.-. 0\ -X-.4- As....\ k 7/b YCY 'KING COUNTY .vV./ ' - .. •-..X ‘ e e • CP UOBNL ISCO LWI D°ARTKESD 091 a i 1 s` Zs I 11 I 110 Se REPAIR FACILITY j) e i• s -.• 14t''' 4;:::/ y" 4 - \.__. ,,. _,. • 010,...\' , 40\ 7"--/ viik:. 0 , N ,• N S';"4 ''''s. . . ' \ • \-, C ; X.,‘..\,./> ft.• \N4 0 % . .,,,..... 1/ r .z. • -Z----.-. , 0 1.11111' c.--t- li J 1 4.%,.:. .lk.. • .\/ BUILDING ,NDDITION. 1.1., ..,......' 7- 2/• • -• . \\,, 1../ • .,_ ..) . tritito:v - y 4. .54-41-L-S—Rg4LZINC, 4.\ ' I •; 1 Z .) l •s \ ' ' N't I # . i,i , i - 1.1..,. 3. MINI STORAGE •'•1 ! /,,i, ,/ i C..-) 1 r..._, ,..‘. , Il \ -- ' . /131 1 I . 1 _.-- ks-.. s.,,... i i-----'/-k,. "... •"//k 1 ' 1 . '''. ".."./ // r /i n ,. \ - 1111" 7 ZS JO 1m SO 1 i 1 1 • 7- j., \'... ' \'-')7-----.• / • ' ' .."--- "..",,i fl, r i r 2 .. :-,, BUILDING ADDITION -_, ,it ,..s. ---,.. .-- __ ...///,',ARAMACKSON I I 1 , ......-•.../............ ,, /ARCH/TECTS&PLANNERS EU••••MAMA SATII.L. Si= k. ,..........................,........ 1, A\ .1 . \• --, Ji -- ki • ... ,„. •,, — • • i-N. 1\. •.,.-._-., s, si,,c,c,..- MASTER 1 r „.--- / , ••-, -1„,. -•• -i-i c,,,, n z ,. 1:]• I . C:L. .1. 4" ( DEVELOPMENT 12, ,C1C1 SITE PLAN NOTE: BUILDING ADDrIION LOCATIONS AIID,.NEW BUILDING FOOTPRINTS k I"4 Yea . "-".-la c, a \• • ARE CONCEPTUAL ONLY. SUBSEQUENT 1. . .• 11,!.0 i -.. . Nr 0 .... C>— i' C1• 0, \ ARCHITECTURAL STUDrES WILL jo , cl<> =a.1 I r? PHASE 17 I• 0 s\ FOC ADDITION LOCATIONS AND ei. PROJECTS NEW BUILDING FLOOR PLANS- i: rw I i , .. I l•- 1 t_f 1 voloo/ i 1 , C D 111 I il >' 00Opp 1 1 1 ' A l t , C.) 1 , 1 1' 6 I ' `G 1 1 1 PRoPeR14f . 1 ,/ ' t 1 , 4. 1 1 2! a ara r? •i EiIS If I l' r L. :'s w a .7.Ij'Sft.5..i ?ss.y is _,i ''s Oh, SV./(JrQ! i 1-49:F4.74-0N.,... ,,. 40. 01 41F4KINGCOUNTYEXPANSIONOFPUBLICWORKSFACILITIES FILE NO. CU-038-88 APPLICANT CITY OF RENTON TOTAL AREA ± 36 ACRES PRINCIPAL ACCESS N.E. 2nd STREET EXISTING ZONING G-1, GENERAL-SINGLE FAMILY EXISTING USE KING COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES PROPOSED USE EXPANSION OF KING COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC & GREENBELT COMMENTS