HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA98-092raI
SE 5th St tit*
It
iili%
IIleeip,„SE 1,1it,
P ne.)04°'
Se ewkek it c
cv r \- •44 PG,-,-(sia.
a S,
pt t ' ,
o4 . .
ix It • • • \ \
0' ""
11 14. r6/8,j, ed
A7.
k . ' 4
isr69a
0 o
Nc • O11/0, .
0 t150' 301 '
s
1 : 1 , 100
Study Area ( 98 -M - 4 )
otiz 0,„ Neighborhoods ScStrategic Planning
CC zone — commercial use
ED/N/SP R-8 zone - commercial use
T. Sa lepp, R. MacOnie R-8 zone - residential use
NTH$ 10 March 1998
Parcels consi:iered for redesignc
t .
1,""- ‘ 1 .. .-e A.6
4.1"'",":"4- i,', . k.,,: . . ., ,..., _, . . ,
If A.. a"gl 4. .*Pis : 'b. --
VIPP:Eaa
21474;
or
1
1
i
I
2)
Foy,9C1k,
i
chi. y
SE 5th St lit S. -
ill
ir Ili 0
P.
1,414
0
17Q o
c- * i 1:
a( 1
T kik,
69
k 0
Iliwk•
o 4+
0 AL 5 0' 10' Ati'
1 : 1 , 110
Amendment 98 - M -4
ti o , Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning
ED/N/SP
T. Schlepp, R. MacOnie Under study
o 20 July 1998 WINN EAC Land Use and CA Zoning
i=xL, 4
r
r' r4:
A:it
4 Lf?Y tA
4 1
1 pi
A • V.yr I A, 44 M i 9.
t` A' r s'y
EP if" T'• 4
FA NI El ' - !.,- L
e . , :.0 1
I I E\,,1 a ,
V- 1 OrN.....Q_ c.....cyvv\_QAT'. '''lz-3. LZ 'A - AL) Q.
0,,,,,. N..,-,„ A,,,,, _ s __...
V..s......._
r------
0,,„„„_,k. \Q.,6 ---------ca-\\A, 3. eA. -1 # [
V....._.(2_
1-‘,..
0 y...q...e...sr.):A,, pia 4.....1)....
43
it3f)AAQQL ci.4k
y., ,,
1 d!'
l'
tV. `'. i
t, r
r
11/4
A
4...
i
1
1
1
1
1 f,
1
CA. si-t ()\;- . f\k„,-.4.4_, A L).12_ sc1
I
1
4,--.. '• '
A;:
i,,,-
4i F.l'7'.
47 .4911i't fq .. 7 • `,
1, .. '
7
sr
x .$sz.ft b.._. ,
i 1, , . f...:V... '- '4-'-''•
7•vs'c''':•—...,
4;
4:
4- ';','"R7° je,-.4.4::.•:-;
y_,.*. •.' _ . t .• ',. — - I7—, , ,r „:77nt, ',,,I,....r•y 1.j14,c ;: -4,-;.,,,, ,1.
0, • - -: •• )
t *
I 1 ‘):
1•Nt":
T
44*
e7P....7 ;., • -.' . . 41.
4
4es. ,"%•*1••• ,A4ker ...
I 0 1 -, It'. --.icr.-?7' .:./*":'11:5 i7"" •,'-'4 •-
0 '
J Isr.e 1
1 f
Ire::I e
P 9
4---4"`1, -
V.* t- 1
r ..
i
i 0 JOkt...k a II
111111 II
Yv--- - V 1 rQs Li- - 1)11QAA rig\Ak 6e4AA
V E I \,\I LI- .
L \IZ_c4L \D CAjaL2/ . -I-A ct4i ---Ti r-tE
I
liDVV\& 60 Of\.N.
I
r
1
rikvil4 v4\-.. 40'
1„.
gt 4 • k.„...-----4.-4.-
k-
i
I
i‘ :
ff.:7 4141! „ ' ",' Atp.'
1:,• . IS'
s. .
40Isz'llific 4161,,, , at.
7"4144 I
Ilt t ' -• ,' ‘11'1,; . -
ft").
1s
j. 1 A,o
i
op:
e •
et1P '.'
t,..-'
1.14-' •1 4 , ._„mc.,:, ,
1,•• ...-• ,..,: -.7
4 : ,
r,. . ;'4.,.i.. ,•th 1„Itil% , ;8,
I
194L,
i
4-- .
II
4,... __. • N 0. L....... \„,...„.....8, k„.... et,,,,,,, (s.,...,.... ,fe ...
41 e. g.,
r
Oft • --.
is:T) ri E c,c) se0, 110— •• .: ..r.:. ,ails••7
1...—*tr:s:'
Aie \
4111i j.4.- illy , liA071-
L._ •
141144It '
rIllt Ih,
li
1111110rP 0W.'
r. - i-\\-\-\
1 ..) \
1 • ,''''
s \ *j‘
mi—1\
x /
j
V.1.\
t .1 ' I
1 -i (77c ,.
t ( ''' t, i(7 l
j• 4
1 4111
11141
IAe"
teP
41V .,,( .i. t
iw/2 .....
o'
IP
I ' tr
a
1',,..
ti, .1.11.
011
Z.. 1 II 411, -
7 7-4 •- °.' - -- 0
4
1 i je,41
4-401., 1:11KI,4
1
1 guippomalP•1 t
0
kg
I
4'irldikl"
F.-- 0.''4...
A
7-
t-
ovvv....6....Q..... A1/4 .(2_L... \A, ri\
1_0 I a6-
1
11
es
s. - * •,..•••.- , . .
lit "
rt.::.. -.
1..,
i. j.,i , .
i i
f.:• ,... lii
11r
r ^k 1r mot.' i '' b'
r V.r. ,1 r.:,!'•;•••' ..•. .41".: N r . .... . , 43 . .
11/ 0 --6V/CC7(7.—a\A Cli"- —1)--\43-74:415-11-1) . .7...li v '11°---°r...r7(\rl "..-1:r/."3-1(113-A1) - 57S-A
F7,c5rv,91014 k\ (NA3- k,A
i . ice, - ex-
t_;,' ..‘ -4',:, '' . . Is -,-iiir,, ...
4
t.,-....n... 4..
e,”:r. i'3:
ii 11 1 , )\
may.
4
w
IV
K Srpro
c T
y b
r•:,!£•. %QP; i•s
w)
rA,-- 7,„ 7 DI,
s?\,.?
7 gc7-\, -0--vm-c)riT
7 .---
ip, ,.,?,-- )\} 0iTi-
W,
3-kivi____ c( ) ‘04,_t_ wv\i/v6rec\--n-vnTc%-z3N1 \I:N.0\53-
c 4. NI\ - - i A
y .
1 I i
1
i
I
II
1 JJ`
i1
I1I
li'
d'
rib9 -
Y3NArko '
7_
rn
1.(
r)--
CTA0 -
Z5-
310
j -
1:
5-
N,
Afy)
Trb-
4,
ss
I
Fil-
cr' ( -
Tfr ,--,
v-
I-
014A-
D-
10-
y-
c/
a-
4 -
10 .
N/;
0
cprcc- -
9ya.-- ___
i,
67\
cq----- --
o-
Nrtr---
ere-
6-
k-()'
5/:
21-- \
rr-
NCYrr4)..---
VV.)
VC5Y-4.‘
46.
4
c.... .
1:
57ft
C.'
r
C/
Dr...\..•••••••
1
I:)
W
loe-,-;
i
9..
4
a. ^`
ib!'
p• '
ray,.:
1
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
ss.
County of King
MARILYN MOSES being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes
and states:
That on the 6th day of August 1998, affiant deposited in the mail of the
United States a sealed envelope(s) containing a decision or recommendation with postage
prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition.
n1 c(4„‘Signature:
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this kV day of 1998.
19...,6\44km.k.....(144yrva,
Notary Public ' and for the State of Washington,
residing at therein.
Application, Petition, or Case No.: Appeal of ERC's Determination re Taco Time Rezone
LUA98-092,AAD
The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record.
August 6, 1998
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF RENTON
REPORT AND DECISION
APPELLANT: Nicola Robinson
Appeal of ERC's Determination of Non-Significance-
Mitigated of Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Rezone
File No.: LUA-98-092,AAD
LOCATION: Maplewood area east end of City
SUMMARY OF APPEAL: Appeal of ERC's determination on Comprehensive Plan
amendment and rezone of certain lots in Maplewood from
Residential Single Family to Commercial Arterial
PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Appellant's written request for a hearing
and examining the available information on file,the Examiner
conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows:
MINUTES
The following minutes are a summary of the July 21, 1998 hearing.
The official record is recorded on tape.
The hearing opened on Tuesday,July 21, 1998,at 10:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the second floor of
the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner.
The following exhibits were entered into the record:
Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the appeal,Exhibit No.2: Land Use File No. LUA98-042, CPA,
proof of posting and publication, and other R(by reference)
documentation pertinent to the appeal.
Exhibit No. 3: Vicinity map Exhibit No. 4: Ten photographs
Exhibit No. 5: Vicinity map w/red sections
Parties present: Appellant,Nicola Robinson
3110 SE 5th Street
Renton,WA 98058
Representing City of Renton
Zanetta Fontes
1044 S Grady Way
Renton,WA 98055
Nicola Robinson
Appeal of ERC's Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated of Comprehensive Plan
Amendment/Rezone
File No.: LUA-98-092,AAD
August 6, 1998
Page 2
The Examiner explained that the appeal was an administrative appeal held pursuant to Ordinance 3071 and was
the only administrative review to occur on the matter. The matter may be submitted back to the Examiner for C,
reconsideration if the parties are not satisfied with the decision. He stated that the appellant had the burden of
demonstrating that the City's action was erroneous,and would have to show clear and convincing evidence that
the City's determination was incorrect. At that point the City could respond, if they chose to do so.
Ms. Robinson,the appellant herein, statedted that it was her understanding that the Environmental Review
Committee(ERC)statement that was issued of non-significance for the proposal of Commercial Arterial(CA)
is not associated with any particular proposal for a development-- it is purely a proposal for a rezoning. So, in
terms of the environmental statement,that makes it easy to designate a non-significance because there is no
building to look at, although it does indicate limits of height,etc. There are issues that are of concern and
some of them grew out of what this proposal may allow,and the repercussions that will result from the CA
zoning, if allowed. The concern specifically is for the three small residential lots on SE 6th Street adjacent to
the existing Taco Time building on the northeast side. There are three rental homes on these lots which provide
housing. Additionally,the CA zoning is non-conforming to the community.
Ms.Robinson introduced photographs to show the current neighborhood. Future expansion could result from
the CA zoning and it could affect the environment aesthetically and be an intrusion into the residential
community in that sense. The current Taco Time building is intrusive and there has been no consideration of
buffering upon the residential lots that border it.
There is some concern about the appropriateness of the CA zone on a street that is not a main arterial, even
though Taco Time suggests that in any future development they would use their current entrance which is off of
Monroe Avenue.
Margaret Siemion,3418 SE 6th,Renton, Washington 98058,an interested party, stated that her family owned
the grocery store which is in the area of the proposed rezone. She stated her concern and confusion about the
rezone as her property was improperly rezoned to residential in 1993. The Examiner explained that that issue
was not within the scope of this particular hearing and she would need to take it up with the City. Ms. Siemion
stated that at one time the City was behind residential,keeping the growth down. The CA zone is going to be
good for business,but she did not think it is good for the neighborhood because of possibilities in the future.
The current CC zoned is designed for the neighborhood and gives a good respect for the neighborhood. She
was also concerned about the public nuisance that commercial buildings might bring to their neighborhood.
Kathleen Coulter, 3325 SE 6th,Renton, Washington 98058,,an interested party herein, stated that she lives in
the home located in the northeast corner of the proposed rezone. As far as having no environmental impact, she
stated she would be out of a home because of it. It is a small community,full of affordable housing. By
destroying three houses you are putting three families out of a home. She had just learned that Taco Time had
an option to purchase her particular property.
At this point Ms. Lisa Grueter pointed out on the exhibits the properties which were proposed for rezone,the
current zoning,and the ownership of each.
Nicola Robinson
Appeal of ERC's Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated of Comprehensive Plan
Amendment/Rezone
File No.: LUA-98-092,AAD
August 6, 1998
Page 3
Julie Downen, 3317 SE 6th,Renton,Washington 98058,an interested party herein, stated that her home is on
one of the proposed lots for rezone,and her backyard will be facing whatever is decided to be built on the Taco
Time property. She was concerned about the safety issue for her child, and felt they would be forced to move
for their child's welfare. In response to Ms. Fontes' questions regarding security, she did not feel that any
fences or barriers would be sufficient.
David Lersten, 3114 SE 5th,Renton,Washington 98058, interested party herein, stated that he has lived in this
neighborhood for 20 years and considers it a very environmentally sensitive area. He stated that the neighbors
are concerned about companies coming in and taking over. The aesthetic affect on the neighborhood would
also tend to bring the value of the existing homes down.
The Examiner explained to the various parties that this hearing was not the final review of the matter. The
rezone still must go to the Planning Commission before proceeding to the City Council,and that public input is
welcome before the Planning Commission.
Ms. Fontes questioned Ms.Robinson about the concerns for the residential lots adjacent to Taco Time,to which
Ms. Robinson responded one of her concerns was the traffic which might use the residential streets. A further
concern is the aesthetics of large commercial buildings in a small residential community. She stated that also at
this time the neighbors have not observed a parking problem for Taco Time, so the argument for additional
parking is difficult to judge.
Jana Huerter,Plan Review Supervisor,Development Services Division,City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way,
Renton,Washington 98055,reviewed the procedures for the City regarding the SEPA process, including the
various City departments contacted for comments and area concerns. The issues that have been brought up
from the appeal were all issues that were looked at through the environmental review and the ERC met twice
before the threshold determination was made and once again for the reconsideration.
Because of the recommendation from Police regarding security,there is a requirement that there be no sight-
obscuring landscaping from the parking lot across the street from the park. Also, if the three residential lots
were developed,access would be limited to what currently exists for Taco Time property,which is off the
streets of Monroe and Maplewood Park.
Regarding the need for additional parking,Taco Time has requested this because they typically conduct
training workshops on weekends. They have been using the adjacent vacant property which is covered with
gravel,but that is not permitted under the code at this point.
Lisa Grueter,Neighborhoods& Strategic Planning Division,City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way,Renton,
Washington 98055,explained that the application for the zoning change included the Comprehensive Plan
amendment from Convenience Commercial(CC)and Residential-Single Family(R-8)to Employment Area
Commercial. The second item would be to concurrently amend the zoning map from CC and R-8 zoning to
Commercial Arterial(CA)zoning. The City is also proposing to amend the CA zone in general to clarify that a
few certain uses are allowed in terms of repair activities,accessory storage and offices. The final intent would
be to authorize a development agreement with all the property owners in the amendment area to accommodate
their existing uses and future expansions,allow a little more variety in use than CC,but significantly limit the
Nicola Robinson
Appeal of ERC's Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated of Comprehensive Plan
Amendment/Rezone
File No.: LUA-98-092,AAD
August 6, 1998
Page 4
full range of CA uses that are normally allowed elsewhere in the City. She further detailed the specific
properties involved in this rezone and the process of notification.
She explained the mitigation measures for this proposal,including limiting the height of any proposed
development to 35 feet,traffic access,requirement for site plan review regardless of size, landscaping and
separation requirements between residential and commercial. The development agreement between Taco Time
and the City was discussed.
Rebecca Lind,Neighborhoods& Strategic Planning Division,City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way,Renton,
Washington 98055,explained that she was present at an ERC meeting when they took up the issue of the appeal
letter. The letter was read and the file reviewed. Staff was asked questions of clarification, and possible
mitigation measures were discussed.
Closing arguments were given by the parties and their comments reiterated their previous statements.
The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this appeal. There was no one else wishing to speak. The
hearing closed at 12:20 p.m.
FINDINGS.CONCLUSIONS & DECISION
Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following:
FINDINGS:
1.The appellant,Nicola Robinson,filed an appeal of a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated
DNS-M)issued for a proposed concurrent Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone for a series of
parcels located north of the Maple Valley Highway in the vicinity of Maplewood Place SE. The appeal
was filed on June 1, 1998 and was filed in a timely manner. The appellant,a neighboring property
owner,alleged that the ERC's SEPA review ignored major impacts of the proposal and the
consequences of development permitted by the proposed changes in the Comprehensive Plan and
zoning. In processing the two related applications,the City subjected the application to its ordinary
SEPA review process.
2.The ERC(Environmental Review Committee),the City's responsible official, in the course of, and as a
result of its SEPA review, issued a Declaration or Determination of Non-Significance for the project. It
originally issued a straight DNS and no conditions were attached to it. Numerous comments were
received from people living in the neighborhood around the proposed complex. The issuance of a DNS
triggered comments and a Request for Reconsideration from concerned neighbors including the
appellant. The ERC reviewed those comments and issued the DNS with attached mitigation measures.
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.
i
3.The appellant objected to the determination and raised a number of issues concerning the loss of
affordable property,the impacts of additional traffic and the incompatible nature of the uses permitted
by the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments and the proposed CA zoning. The appellant did not
Nicola Robinson
Appeal of ERC's Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated of Comprehensive Plan
Amendment/Rezone
File No.: LUA-98-092,AAD
August 6, 1998
Page 5
believe that the mitigation measures adequately offset the potential consequences and that the DNS-M
was not correct.
II
4.The proposal consists of two actions. The first action would amend the Comprehensive Plan for the
area in question from a combination of Convenience Commercial and Single Family to Employment
Area Commercial. The second action would rezone the property to conform to this new
Comprehensive Plan designation. The property would be reclassified from CC(Convenience
Commercial)and R-8(Single Family Residential)to CA(Commercial Arterial).
5.The neighborhood in which the study area is located is an isolated node of developed property located
on the north side of the Maple Valley Highway(SR-169). West of this area the hillside hugs the
highway. East is the City's Maplewood Golf Course. The area is developed primarily with single
family uses,approximately 130 homes. There are a few commercial uses including the Taco Time
office building,a car repair shop,barbershop and market,and an insurance office.
6 The ERC imposed the following mitigation measures:
a.Limit the height of future development on all parcels redesignated EAC/CA to 35 feet.
b.Access for the three lots proposed for redesignation from single Family/R-8 to EAC/CA,King
County Property Identification Numbers 5126900195, 5125900200, 5125900205,to be through
the existing or future Taco Time development,not from Newport Ave SE(SE 6th Street).
c.For the Taco Time properties and adjacent three lots,and the four vacant properties east of the
market and barbershop,King County Property Identification Numbers 5126900195,
5126900200, 5126900205, 5126900211, 5126900215, 5126900324, 5126900325, 512690328,
5126900329, and 1623059017,require site plan review for any size development or
redevelopment of properties designated EAC/CA. Site plan review will be required for other
properties redesignated EAC/CA according to Renton Municipal Code thresholds.
d.Require a 6 foot wall in addition to required 10 foot landscaped setbacks where properties
redesignated EAC/CA abut residential zoned properties.
e.Require site obscuring landscaping where properties redesignated EAC/CA are adjacent to
residentially zoned properties,except adjacent to Maplewood Park where modifications to sight
obscuring landscaping should be allowed to ensure adequate visibility for purposes of public
safety.
f.For the Cedar River Market and Cedar River Barbershop properties,King County Property
Identification Numbers 5126900326 and 5126900327,proposed developments which meet
current SEPA threshold requirements are to trigger imposition of mitigation measures 4 and 5.
7.The appellant's main objection is the precedent reclassifying the site will have and what it will do to the
integrity of this neighborhood and the unknown consequences of allowing such a change in the
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning.
Nicola Robinson
Appeal of ERC's Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated of Comprehensive Plan
Amendment/Rezone
File No.: LUA-98-092,AAD
August 6, 1998
Page 6
8.The proposal could result in the conversion from R-8 to CA Zoning of three parcels containing three
3)single family homes. Those homes could remain as non-conforming uses but could be replaced.
An option for their purchase does exist by the Taco Time commercial ownership. In addition,vacant
parcels north of SE 6th Street could be converted to CA zoning, allowing the expansion of the
commercial uses represented currently by the barbershop and market. Both the market and barbershop
are currently zoned R-8,supposedly through a mapping error.
9.The CA zoning allows more intense commercial uses and would permit Taco Time to expand their
office building and use the current parcel and adjoining parcels for parking and commercial storage
associated with the commercial operation.
10. As noted above,the ERC imposed conditions and recommended an agreement that would narrow the
CA uses permitted to approach the CC uses now permitted but which would permit the Taco Time
expansion plans to be realized.
11. Administration has recommended that the parcels north of SE 6th,the Conrad properties adjacent to the
market,not be included in the rezone effort.
CONCLUSIONS:
1.There are a number of interrelated issues on this appeal which make it more complex although they
don't deal a fatal blow to resolution. It appears that due to the nature of the Growth Management Act
and acts related to streamlining land use and environmental review,the appeal could have been directed
to the Planning Commission or this office. It was decided to direct the appeal to the Hearing
Examiner's office. The reason this is relevant is that the Planning Commission would be expected to
review the requested Comprehensive Plan amendment in full detail, including holding public hearings
to determine community and landowner need and make a"policy" decision. Attempting to review the
environmental consequences prior to this thorough review seems somewhat mis-timed, if not
inappropriate. In the past in the City the SEPA documents have actually served as the Comprehensive
Planning documents. The environmental analysis and planning was almost one and the same.
2.Then the appellant has indirectly raised an issue that is confronted in many appeals of Determinations
of Non-Significance. That is whether imposing conditions on a project while mitigating impacts really
appropriately displaces the full review an environmental impact statement(EIS)would provide. In
other words,while the ERC has probably reviewed and tossed back and forth a lot of information
regarding this or any proposal,much of this dialog is not heard or seen by the general public. So while
the ERC may in good faith believe they have mitigated the adverse or unavoidable consequences of a
proposal,the public is not necessarily convinced. The public rather wants a full EIS which openly
discusses all of this information and more that was discovered during review of the proposal and
alternatives to the proposal. This would include potentially more adverse as well as less adverse
variations on the proposals and possibly no action whatsoever. This EIS provides much more
information to the public and ultimate decision-maker. Such an environmental analysis is not merely a
listing of conditions which the ERC imposed to make the proposal environmentally acceptable.
3. Now,while the public may want such information on many if not all proposals,that is not what the law
generally requires. That brings up the next issue. We finally have the issue of what types of impacts
are required to trigger the preparation of an EIS. Every proposal has some impacts. To require an EIS,
the responsible official(ERC)must decide that the proposal will have more than a moderate impact on
the quality of the environment. The impacts have to be more probable than merely possible or
Nicola Robinson
Appeal of ERC's Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated of Comprehensive Plan
Amendment/Rezone
File No.: LUA-98-092,AAD I
August 6, 1998
Page 7
conjectural. It is also an issue of context;that is,certain proposals would be expected to have more
impacts in one location as opposed to another location. Another skyscraper in downtown Seattle would
not be as "different" or"impact producing" as the first or even the second much taller building in
downtown Renton. One might expect more impacts and more substantial impacts in Renton than
Seattle. Size and scale though are not the sole determinants. Similarly, implementing a commercial
node in an entirely single family area on a local street or even an arterial might be different than
locating such a node where there is already some commercial uses and the arterial is a state highway. It
is the entire proposal and its circumstances which need analysis in order to make a proper threshold
determination about environmental impact. In addition,the appellant has the burden of demonstrating
such impacts will likely occur since the ERC's determination is entitled to substantial weight.
4.The decision of the governmental agency acting as the responsible official is entitled to substantial
weight. Therefore,the determination of the Environmental Review Committee,the City's responsible
official, is entitled to be maintained unless the appellant clearly demonstrates that the determination
was in error.
5.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 affirmed.
6.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.
7.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.
1)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.
8.Also redefined since the Norway decision was the term "probable."
Nicola Robinson
Appeal of ERC's Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated of Comprehensive Plan
Amendment/Rezone
File No.: LUA-98-092,AAD
August 6, 1998
Page 8
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).
9.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)).
10. The area under study is unique. It is characterized by its single family housing and small commercial
enclave located along the Maple Valley Highway, SR 169.
11. The proposal could result in the development of additional commercial uses in the study area. That
area includes property both along Maple Valley Highway as well as property north of that,north of SE
6th. Part of the study site is already developed with commercial uses. This would result in an
approximate doubling of the area although a portion of the site is a powerline easement which could
only be developed with parking and not any substantial structure.
11. The appellant asks that the City do a thorough analysis of the impacts from this proposal by preparing
an Environmental Impact Statement. It is clear that the appellant and neighbors were earnest in this
appeal. But it does not appear that they carried the necessary burden to overcome the presumption that
the ERC decision was clearly erroneous. Not only did the ERC impose a series of conditions to scale
back any development but they also conditioned the project to substantially screen the proposal. In
addition,there is still a public hearing by both the Planning Commission and the City Council. These
hearings could result in the proposal being rejected or further substantially conditioned. Also,the I,
Administration has already recommended that the parcels north of SE 6th,the Conrad properties
adjacent to the market,not be included in the rezone effort.
12. Clearly,there will be impacts if the proposal goes forward. But the presumption is that the ERC
appropriately did their review unless clear evidence demonstrated error. The reviewing body should
not substitute its judgment for that of the original body with expertise in the matter unless the evidence
is clear and convincing. While the decision of the ERC leaves this office somewhat uneasy, it cannot
be said that there is a"firm conviction that a mistake has been committed" by the ERC.
13. The determination of the Environmental Review Committee is affirmed.
14. This office, as it did during the hearing,urges the appellant and all other neighbors to attend the
Planning Commission sessions and the City Council meetings and present their testimony to influence
the decisions of those bodies. Just because a proposal does not have major impacts in terms of a SEPA
decision does not mean that the impacts that will occur should occur. A SEPA determination that an
EIS is not required does not necessarily mean the proposed action is appropriate. The appropriateness
of these proposed actions will be determined after a thorough review process.
DECISION:
The decision of the ERC is affirmed.
Nicola Robinson
Appeal of ERC's Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated of Comprehensive Plan
Amendment/Rezone
File No.: LUA-98-092,AAD
August 6, 1998
Page 9
ORDERED THIS 6th day of August, 1998.
FRED J.KA MAN irr\.°
HEARING E MINER
TRANSMITTED THIS 6th day of August, 1998 to the parties of record:
Nicola Robinson Zanetta Fontes Margaret Siemion
3110 SE 5th 1055 S Grady Way 3418 SE 6th
Renton, WA 98058 Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98058
Kathleen Coulter Julie Downen David Lersten
3325 SE 6th 3317 SE 6th 3114 SE 5th
Renton, WA 98058 Renton,WA 98058 Renton,WA 98058
Jana Huerter Lisa Grueter Rebecca Lind
1055 S Grady Way 1055 S Grady Way 1055 S Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055
Jeannie Sage Neal Whitney John C. Ramsey
3328 SE 6th 3532 SE 5th 3517 SE 5th
Renton, WA 98058 Renton, WA 98058 Renton,WA 98058
Troy Z.Deady Anna Marie Brunette DWJ Leist
3436 SE 5th 3301 SE 6th 3114 SE 5th
Renton,WA 98058 Renton,WA 98058 Renton,WA 98058
Joe&Pat Conrad Robert Humble Roger&Patricia Bozell
P.O. Box 6382 13112 195th Place SE 3217 6th Avenue SE
Kent,WA 98064 Issaquah,WA 98027-6408 Renton,WA 98055
Daniel Callaway John W. Dobson Debbie Sheridan,Taco Time
1633 Boylston Ave#108 6611 114th Avenue SE 3300 Maple Valley Hwy
Seattle,WA 98122 Bellevue,WA 98006 Renton,WA 98058
Wanda Burnskey
3320 SE 6th
Renton, WA 98058
Nicola Robinson
Appeal of ERC's Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated of Comprehensive Plan
Amendment/Rezone
File No.: LUA-98-092,AAD
August 6, 1998
Page 10
TRANSMITTED THIS 6th day of August, 1998 to the following:
Mayor Jesse Tanner Gregg Zimmerman,Plan/Bldg/PW Administrator
Members, Renton Planning Commission Jim Hanson,Development Services Director kk
Art Larson,Fire Marshal Mike Kattermann, Technical Services Director
Lawrence J. Warren,City Attorney James Chandler,Building Official
Transportation Systems Division Jay Covington,Mayor's Executive Assistant
Utilities System Division Councilperson Kathy Keolker-Wheeler
South County Journal
Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 15 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in
writing on or before 5:00 p.m.,August 20, 1998. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the
Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure,errors of law or fact,error in judgment, or the
discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written
request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen(14)days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This
request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant,and the Examiner may,
after review of the record,take further action as he deems proper.
An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV,Chapter 8, Section 16,which requires that such appeal
be filed with the City Clerk,accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements.
Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City
Hall.
If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants,the
executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file.
You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants.
The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte(private one-on-one)communications may
occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not
communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use
process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council.
All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all
interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the
evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court.
The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as
Appeals to the City Council.
l'
r
SE 5th St TIP
it
1 1 Plik4040 ,,,sL 4F,* 44?
e
P
a
o
4\
Q f
Q
6/8,
ED,
A i
4/
69 f
A k. 0
0 ktV
0 50' 310'
1 W
1 : 1 , 0
Amendment 98 - M-4
o Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning
ED/N SP
T. Sc lepp, R. MacOnie Under study
tO 20 July 1998
L_W EAC Land Use and CA Zoning
CITE JF RENTONc.
Hearing Examiner
Jesse Tanner,Mayor Fred J.Kaufman
June 18, 1998
Ms.Nicola Robinson
3110 SE 5th
Renton, WA 98058
Re: Appeal of ERC's Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated of
Taco Time Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Rezone
Appeal File No. LUA98-092,AAD
Dear Ms. Robinson:
The City of Renton is in the process of moving to another location. Due to this move,the above-
referenced appeal will be held on Tuesday,July 21, 1998, at 10:00 a.m. in the Council
Chambers in the old Renton City Hall located at 200 Mill Avenue South in Renton.
If you have any questions,please contact this office.
Sincerely,
Fred J. Kaufman
Hearing Examiner
FJK:mm
cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner
Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer
Larry Warren, City Attorney
Lisa Grueter, Project Manager
200 Mill AvenuArea South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)235-2593
I',
CITS )F RENTON `} ?
Hearing Examiner
Jesse Tanner,Mayor Fred J.Kaufman
June 4, 1998
Ms.Nicola Robinson
3110 SE 5th
Renton, WA 98058
Re: Appeal of ERC's Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated of
Taco Time Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Rezone
Appeal File No. LUA98-092,AAD
Dear Ms. Robinson:
Your letter of appeal in the above matter has been received and a date and time for said hearing
have now been established.
The appealppea hearing has been set for Tuesday,July 21, 1998 at 10:00 a.m. in the Council
Chambers on the seventh floor of the new Renton City Hall located at 1055 S. Grady Way.
Should you be unable to attend,would you please appoint a representative to act on your behalf.
We appreciate your cooperation, and if you have any questions,please contact this office.
Sincerely,
Fred J. Kaufman
Hearing Examiner
11;FJK:mm
cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner
Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer
Larry Warren, City Attorney
Lisa Grueter, Project Manager
200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)235-2593
This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer
1110 SE 5th St,
enton, WA 98058
May 23, 1998
Mr F Kaufmann, Hearing Examiner for the City of Renton. CITY OF RENTON
City Hall,
200 Mill Ave South, MAY 2 6 1998
Renton, WA 98055
RECEIVED '
Ref: Project No. LUA-98-042, CPA,R,ECF. Maple Valley Hwy Taco Time(§ i CLERK'S OFFI!
Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Concurrent Rezone/CA Zone
Amendments/Development Agreement(98-M-4)
Dear Mr Kaufmann,
This letter is to appeal the environmental determination of non-significance, of the above
mentioned project, and the mitigation measures recommended by the Environmental
review committee.
If the above mentioned proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan is approved, there
will be commercial development of three properties which are currently designated
Residential Single Family' (RS), and which are also classified as, `Affordable
Housing.'units. The Maplewood community is outraged by this proposal.
There will be adverse environmental impacts resulting from the above development in the
following areas: Land use, housing, aesthetics, and light.
Land use impacts will result from the demolision of three residential buildings,by:
removing affordable housing units from the market, displacing the current tenants, and by
placing non-conforming ,(CA) commercial arterial zoning, in a neighborhood which is
99%residential,this will adversely impact the quality of our environment. The property
lines of four homes on SE 6th St, border the area of proposed zoning change. These said
homes will have their view significantly obstructed, experience decreased light entering
their residences, and suffer a loss of property values. Other residences, which have full or
partial view of these three lots, will also experience overwhelming negative impacts upon
the aesthetics of their environment. The (CA)Zone allows for buildings up to 50 ft high.
The current Taco Time Office building is 28 ft high,this building is already an
obstruction to ones view, and decreases the amount of light entering adjacent residences.
The Maplewood Community finds the above proposal will result in significant adverse
impacts to the quality of our environment, this would be the beginning of a slow process
of decay of our unique residential community.
We respectfully request the Environmental Review Committee reconsider their
environmental determination, and find the adverse environmental impacts to the quality
of our environment of significance. We request an EIS be initiated on this project, and
also appeal for changes to the mitigation measures. We are asking for any building,to be
no greater in height than the single story residences that are already existence on the three
residential lots in question. Our expectation is that the residential lots will not be changed
to a commercial zoning.
Sincerely e23), 9\ix
Nicola Robinson. 3 I I O SE. Sly, LACIS135
Representatives of the Maplewood Community:
CITY OF RENTON
CITY TREASURER
REG/RCPT : 82-38798 C:05-26-1998CASHIERID : T 05:14 om A:85-27-1998
5007 APPEALS 8 WAIVERS
000.008.00.345.81.00.000003
f7•00
TOTAL DUE
RECEIVED FROM:
ROBINSON, NICOLA
CHECK
75.80
TOTAL TENDERED 75.00
CHANGE DUE 0.00