No preview available
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