No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA99-126February 7, 2000 Renton City Council Minutes Page 34 Margie Beitner,Nell Daniel and Danette Proszek Employee of the Fourth Quarter: Glenn Kost(Capital Projects) Mr. Shepherd also announced that Jerry Rerecich was chosen as the 1999 Employee of the Year for his commitment to the community and his staff over the last 30 years. Mr.Rerecich has been instrumental in developing new programs and events, such as Communities in Schools and the limited hydroplane races at Coulon Park,and he is a trusted manager, supervisor, and friend. Executive: Chief Finance&Information Services Administrator Victoria Runkle, along with Administrative Officer Community Services Administrator Jim Shepherd,Economic Development Recognition Administrator Sue Carlson,Human Resources Administrator Mike Webby, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator Gregg Zimmerman,Chief of Police Garry Anderson and Fire Chief Lee Wheeler presented a framed print of the annual "Clam Lights"event at Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park to Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington in appreciation for his exemplary leadership. On behalf of all of the department heads,Ms. Runkle said that Mr. Covington is motivated by his sense of duty and by his belief in Renton's excellence and potential. She added that although Mr. Covington's work challenges are limitless,he continually demonstrates faith in the City's employees and finds ways for them to do their jobs better. Mr.Covington said Renton is a rare community where people do things for it because they care about it and about those with whom they work. APPEAL Planning&Development Committee Chair Keolker-Wheeler presented a report Planning&Development regarding the Motorcycle Works Appeal. The Committee convened on Committee February 4, 2000,to consider the appeal by Ted Abernethy, d/b/a Motorcycle Appeal: Motorcycle Works of Works of Renton,of the Hearing Examiner's decision dated 11/15/99. Renton, SA-99-082,A-99-126 The appellant operates and is purchasing the motorcycle shop at the intersection of S.4th Place and Rainier Ave. S. The shop is located east of and abuts the Fred Meyer parking lot. The subject project would develop an approximately 8,850-square foot building on a site located just south of appellant's business. The subject site is located immediately north of a railroad trestle and embankment on which the railroad is located,and on the west side of Rainier Ave. S. The proposed building would be a retail building and would include 39 parking stalls. The ERC issued a DNS-Mitigated for the project. Appellant Abernethy appealed on four issues, focusing on trip generation and traffic on that portion of the Fred Meyer property which lies between the appellant's parcel and the subject site and is a driveway from Rainier Ave. S.to the Fred Meyer parking lot. The Committee did not find an error or fact or law. Therefore,the Committee recommended that Council affirm the decision of the Hearing Examiner. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY SCHLITZER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. ADMINISTRATIVE Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington reviewed a written administrative REPORT report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2000 and beyond. Items noted included: APPROVED BY 1 CITY COUNCIL I Date a'7-" PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT February 7, 2000 Motorcycle Works Appeal; File No. LUA-99-082, SA-A,ECF and File No. LUA-99-126 Referred December 13, 1999) The Planning and Development Committee convened on February 4, 2000, to consider the appeal by Ted Abernathy, d/b/a Motorcycle Works of Renton of the Hearing Examiner's Decision dated 11/15/99. The Appellant operates and is purchasing the motorcycle shop at the intersection of 4th Place and Rainier Avenue South. The shop is located east of and abuts the Fred Meyer parking lot. The subject project would develop an approximately 8,850-sq. foot building on a site located just south of the appellant's business. The subject site is located immediately north of a railroad trestle and embankment on which the railroad is located, and on the west side of Rainier Avenue South. The proposed building would be a retail building and would include 39 parking stalls. The ERC issued a DNS-Mitigated for the project. Appellant Abernathy appealed on four issues, focusing on trip generation and traffic on that portion of the Fred Meyer property which lies between the Appellant's parcel and the subject site and is a driveway from Rainier Avenue South to the Fred Meyer parking lot. The Committee did not find an error of fact or law. Therefore, the Committee recommends that the Council affirm the decision of the Hearing Examiner. 5,6-d(Atdhz Kathy lker-Wheeler, Chair a Tim Schlitzer, i -Chair be401414,41‘ 46$44441' mod a4t6/ 44- February 7, 2000 Renton City Council Minutes Page 35 City staff are working with the U.S.Census Bureau to obtain a "complete count"of Renton residents for the 2000 census. Census forms,to be mailed on March 13,must be returned by April 11 th. After gathering information about existing flaws in the Olympic Pipeline Co.'s petroleum lines in Renton,the Mayor will now send letters to federal and state representatives requesting that the company be required to hydrostatically pressure-test its entire pipeline in Washington. In conjunction with the sidewalk removal and replacement portion of the fiber optics installation,Parks maintenance crews will replace the existing Crimson King Maples on the west side of Wells Ave.between S. 2nd and S.Riverside Drive. Habitat for Humanity in South King County recently contributed$11,000 toward a home in Renton and is looking for property to be donated. Regional Issues: County-wide Mayor Tanner added that another information item of note is the plan by King Water Demands and Supply County Executive Ron Sims and Seattle Mayor Paul Schell to conduct a Assessment coordinated county-wide assessment of the area's water demands and supplies. Mayor Tanner reported that he has agreed to have Renton participate in this activity,if only to keep apprised of developments as they occur. He assured Council that he will keep it informed in the event that the City must make any formal decisions on this issue. Public Works: Olympic MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL JOIN THE Pipeline Hydrostatic Testing ADMINISTRATION IN LOBBYING STATE AND FEDERAL OFFICIALS TO REQUIRE THAT OLYMPIC PIPELINE CO. CONDUCT HYDROSTATIC TESTING OF ITS FACILITIES IN WASHINGTON TO DETERMINE THEIR SAFETY. CARRIED. Mayor Tanner added that he was surprised to learn that the company can continue to operate its pipeline even if some sections of the pipe walls are a mere 20%of their original thickness. AUDIENCE COMMENT Marleen Mandt, 1408 N. 26th St.,Renton, 98056,commented on the proposed Citizen Comment: Mandt — changes to certain SeaTac flight paths,particularly the suggested "split east SeaTac Proposed Flight Path turn"whereby planes which now turn east over Leschi and Medina would turn Changes east earlier,over Mercer Island and Renton. Ms. Mandt said that her Kennydale.neighborhood is already subjected to airplane noise from Renton's municipal airport,where much of the activity is repeat takeoffs and landings from students of the flying instruction schools. She added that Kennydale is also affected by seaplanes from the municipal airport base, I-405 traffic noise, helicopters which travel down the freeway corridor, trains on the tracks near the lake,and personal watercraft at Gene Coulon Park. Citizen Comment: Wright — Barbara Wright, 1115 N. 33rd St.,Renton, 98056, sought the City's help in Metro Bus#105 (Use of N.getting Metro bus#105 rerouted. Ms. Wright explained that this bus uses N. 33rd St. in Kennydale as Turn- 33` d as a turn-around although this road is narrow and steep,and not at all Around)suited for this use. Saying that this route puts 26 buses per day on 33rd, she added that residents are concerned for their safety and that of their children. Ms. Wright concluded that she has spoken with both Renton staff and people at Metro,to no avail. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY SCHLITZER, COUNCIL REFER THIS MATTER TO THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Citizen Comment: Abernethy Ted Abernethy,485 Rainier Ave. S.,Renton, 98055,expressed his Motorcycle Works Appeal dissatisfaction with Council's earlier action this evening denying his appeal ofN--- cN n A February 7,2000 Renton City Council Minutes Page 36 Fred Meyer Shopping Center)• the proposed new development at the Fred Meyer shopping center on Rainier Ave. S. Mr.Abernethy was especially disappointed that he did not get a chance to address the full Council on this subject before it rendered a decision. Councilmember Keolker-Wheeler responded that Mr.Abernethy had been apprised of the law last week and the fact that Council could not consider any further testimony or new information in this matter. She suggested that he work with Fred Meyer to secure a satisfactory access to his business, saying that the City cannot address this problem since it is between two private parties. Council President Corman added that Council has, in the past,considered eliminating this type of appeal from its process because, as Ms.Keolker- Wheeler explained,the law restricts it from hearing additional testimony from its constituents. Council can only consider whether the Hearing Examiner made an error of fact or of law in rendering his decision. Mr. Abernethy announced his intention to appeal this matter to King County Superior Court,noting that while this will further delay the development,his primary concern was gaining safe and adequate access for his customers. Citizen Comment: Burgess — Key Burgess, 1800 NE 20th St.,Renton,98056,agreed with Mr. Abernethy Motorcycle Works Appeal that the access to Motorcycle Works is unsafe,and that something should be Fred Meyer Shopping Center) done about it. Mr.Corman reiterated that Council is prohibited from considering this subject except on a very narrow basis as proscribed by law. He emphasized that even though Councilmembers may have sympathetic opinions on this matter,they cannot inject these into the proceedings. Citizen Comment: Jones — Dehanna Jones, 13321 -25th Ave.NE, Seattle, 98125,concurred that the Motorcycle Works Appeal access of this business is not safe. Fred Meyer Shopping Center) Councilman Parker agreed that the driveway for this business is not appropriate; however,he felt that the subject of this appeal was only minimally related to Motorcycle Works' access issue. He suggested this problem be resolved congenially between the neighboring businesses. Citizen Comment: Schatz — Tony Schatz,485 Rainier Ave. S.,Renton, 98056,owner of Motorcycle Works Motorcycle Works Appeal since 1967,said according to the law,the driveway for this business is too close Fred Meyer Shopping Center) to the stoplight. Adding that part of the walkway is on his property,he said Fred Meyer had promised to rectify the access issue when it developed its shopping center,but this promise was broken. He encouraged Councilmembers to personally look at this situation themselves. Council President Corman suggested that if Motorcycle Works used a second driveway for many years before Fred Meyer bought the property and closed this access,the business may have a prescriptive easement for continued use of this property. He encouraged Mr. Schatz and Mr.Abernethy to investigate this question,emphasizing that it is a civil matter. Assistant City Attorney David Dean added that State law allows a private property owner to condemn a private way of necessity on someone else's property,under certain conditions. Mayor Tanner agreed to have staff look into this matter,but warned Mr. Schatz that if what he says is true and the remaining driveway is too close to the stoplight,he might be required to close it altogether. Councilmember Keolker-Wheeler suggested that staff investigate whether S.4 th Pl. could be made into a public street,which might help Motorcyle Works accomplish its goal of safe access. 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 15th day of November ,1999, 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. Signature: M qv\ k . z.d) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this /64 day of 1L 411.11`1999. otary Publi in and for the State of Washington, residing at 11.pA1; `YL therein. Application, Petition, or Case No.: Appeal of RPI Building LUA99-1 26,AAD The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record. CITE- OF RENTON City Clerk Jesse Tanner,Mayor Marilyn J.Petersen February 9, 2000 Mr. Ted Abernethy 485 Rainier Avenue S. Renton, WA 98055 Re: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision; RPI Building; LUA-99-126, AAD; Motorcycle Works Dear Mr. Abernethy: At,the regular Council meeting of February 7, 2000, the Renton City Council approved the Planning and Development Committee report recommending that the Council affirm the decision of the Hearing Examiner on the referenced appeal since the Committee did not find an error of fact or law. If I can provide additional information or assistance regarding this matter, please feel free to call. Sincerely, s-r) arilyn t rsen City Clerk/Cable Manager cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner Council President Randy Corman Leslie Nishihira, Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)430-6510 /FAX(425)430-6516 This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer APPROVED BY _I CITY COUNCIL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Date COMMITTEE REPORT February 7, 2000 Motorcycle Works Appeal; File No. LUA-99-082, SA-A, ECF and File No. LUA-99-126 Referred December 13, 1999) The Planning and Development Committee convened on February 4, 2000, to consider the appeal by Ted Abernathy, d/b/a Motorcycle Works of Renton of the Hearing Examiner's Decision dated 11/15/99. The Appellant operates and is purchasing the motorcycle shop at the intersection of 4th Place and Rainier Avenue South. The shop is located east of and abuts the Fred Meyer parking lot. The subject project would develop an approximately 8,850-sq. foot building on a site located just south of the appellant's business. The subject site is located immediately north of a railroad trestle and embankment on which the railroad is located, and on the west side of Rainier Avenue South. The proposed building would be a retail building and would include 39 parking stalls. The ERC issued a DNS-Mitigated for the project. Appellant Abernathy appealed on four issues, focusing on trip generation and traffic on that portion of the Fred Meyer property which lies between the Appellant's parcel and the subject site and is a driveway from Rainier Avenue South to the Fred Meyer parking lot. The Committee did not find an error of fact or law. Therefore,the Committee recommends that the Council affirm the decision of the Hearing Examiner. td Kathy lker-Wheeler, Chair Tim Schlitzer, i -Chair December 13, 1999 Renton City Council Minutes ) - Page 439 Councilman Edwards added that while Renton had already pledged to revisit this subject next year,in the meantime I-695 was approved which has greatly complicated matters. He noted that the question remains as to which population of voters would vote on a proposed increase in ISD impact fees which would affect only a small portion of Renton residents. City Attorney Lawrence J.Warren concurred that the answer to this question is yet to be determined. Citizen Comment: Wilcock— Everett Wilcock, 11831 — 164th Ave. SE,Renton, said that Renton should not Issaquah School District be able to allow growth without ensuring that the necessary infrastructure is Impact Fees financially provided for. He said the impact fee adopted by Renton is not sufficient to meet ISD's six-year capital facilities plan, although Renton adopted this plan by reference in its own Comprehensive Plan. City Attorney Warren explained that although this is true,according to the Growth Management Act the only program which requires concurrency between jurisdictions is transportation planning. He added that the subject of school capital needs and how these are planned for could be taken up as an inter-governmental rather than a concurrency issue. Cot. lman Schlitzer spoke to the problem of boundary conflicts between the Issaquah and Renton school districts,which differs from the boundary between the cities of Renton and Issaquah. Saying that Renton School District has indicated that it does not cost$18,000 to ensure school capacity for each single family dwelling,he emphasized that Renton is able to handle its growth without imposing any school impact fees at all. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. At Councilman Edwards'request, item 7.d.was removed for separate consideration. Appeal: RPI Retail Building at City Clerk reported appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision affirming the Renton Center,Ted Abernethy ERC's approval of the site plan for the RPI retail building at Renton Center; SA-99-082 appeal filed on 11/29/99 by Matthew D. O'Conner,representing Ted Abernethy SA-99-082). Refer to Planning&Development Committee. Appeal: Renton High School City Clerk reported appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision regarding the site Modernization(Site Plan and plan and variance application for the modernization of Renton High School; Variance),Renton School appeal filed on 12/02/99 by Richard E.McCann and Wayt T. Watterson, District(SA-99-120)representing Renton School District(SA-99-120). Refer to Planning& Development Committee. City Clerk: 1999 General City Clerk submitted the 1999 General Election canvass results from King Election Canvass Results County Records&Elections, as follows: Mayor, Jesse Tanner(8,340- elected); Council Position No. 3,Kathy Keolker-Wheeler(7,875 -elected); Council Position No.4,King Parker(8,175 -elected); Council Position No. 5, Toni Nelson(5,287-elected)and Heidi Carlson(4,567); Council Position No. 7,Dan Clawson(4,403)and Don Persson(5,289-elected). Information. CAG: 99-068, SW 27th St Surface Water Utility Division submitted CAG-99-068, SW 27th St. Culvert Culvert Replacement, Replacement; and recommended approval of the project,authorization for final Scoccolo Const pay estimate in the amount of$4,817.40, commencement of 60-day lien period, and release of retained amount of$29,593.20 to Scoccolo Construction,Inc., contractor,if all required releases are obtained. Council concur. Comprehensive Plan: Transportation Systems Division recommended review of updates to the Transportation Element Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Refer to Transportation Updates Committee. CITY or RENTON COUNCIL AGEND,. .3ILL AI#: ri.0. • SUBMITTING DATA: FOR AGENDA OF: 12/13/99 Dept/DivBoard....City Clerk Staff Contact Marilyn Petersen AGENDA STATUS: Consent XX SUBJECT:Public Hearing Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision affirming ERC Ordinance 8/17/99 approval of site plan for RPI Retail Building at Resolution Renton Center(File SA-99-082&AAD-99-126) Old Business EXHIBITS: New Business A. City Clerk's letter Study Session B. Appeal(11/29/99) Other C. Hearing Examiner's Report&Decision(11/15/99) RECOMMENDED ACTION: APPROVALS: Refer to Planning and Development Committee. I Legal Dept Finance Dept Other FISCAL IMPACT: N/A Expenditure Required Transfer/Amendment.... Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated SUMMARY OF ACTION: Appeal filed by Matthew D.O'Conner,Attorney at Law,representing Ted Abernethy of Motorcycle Works of Renton, accompanied by required$75 fee received on 11/29/99. RCITI )F RENTON siL City Clerk Jesse Tanner,Mayor Marilyn J. Petersen December 1, 1999 APPEAL FILED BY: Ted Abernethy, Motorcycle Works of Renton Representative: Matthew D. O'Conner, Attorney at Law RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 11/15/99 affirming the Environmental Review and Land Use Action Report&Decision dated 8/17/99 approving the site plan for the RPI Retail Building at Renton Center, subject to conditions. (File No. LUA-99-082, SA-A, ECF and File No. LUA-99-126, AAD) To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8,Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the hearing examiner's decision on the Real Property Investors, LLC request for site approval has been filed with the City Clerk. In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110F,within five days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten 10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the appeal. The deadline for submission of additional letters is December 10, 1999. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeals and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee. The Council secretary will notify all parties of record of the date and time of the Planning and Development Committee meeting. If you are not listed in local telephone directories and wish to attend the meeting,please call the Council secretary at 425 430-6501 for information. The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for consideration by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting. Attached is a copy of the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeals of Hearing Examiner decisions or recommendations. Please note that the City Council will be considering the merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. Unless a showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available at the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, no further evidence or testimony on this matter will be accepted by the City Council. For additional information or assistance,please feel free to call me at 425 430-6502. Sincerely, Manlyn sen City Clerk/ le Manager Attachments 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)430-6510/FAX(425)430-6516 L: This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer Ted Abernethy Zanetta Fontes Leslie Nishihira 485 Rainier Ave. S. Renton City Attorney Office Renton Development Services Div. Renton, WA 98055 Anton Schatz Geri Reinart Paul Lumbert 17801 SE 146th 1319 Dexter Ave. N., #270 Renton, WA 98059 Seattle, WA 98109 Renton Development Services Div. Tom Lee James Hamm Matthew D. O'Conner, Attorney 4000 E. Madison, #290 1420 Fifth Avenue, #2200 8011 Greenwood Ave. N. Seattle, WA 98112 Seattle, WA 98101-2333 Seattle, WA 98103 City of Renton Municipal e; Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110 - Al is 4-8-110C3 Any appeal shall be filed in writing. The written notice of appeal shall fully, clearly and thoroughly specify the substantial error(s) in fact or law which exist in the record of the proceedings from which the appellant seeks relief. (Ord. 4353, 6-1-92) 4-8-110C4 The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170, the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-110E8 Unless an ordinance providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Clerk upon a form furnished by the City Clerk, within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-110F: Appeals to City Council - Procedures: 1. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. 2. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. 3. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report, the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required, the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the appellant. In the absence of any entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 4389, 1-25- 93) 5. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. 6. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to Section RMC 4-1-050F1 and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the preceding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. 7. Council Action: If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to Section RMC 4-1-050F2 and F3, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified, the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application. 8. Decision Documentation: In any event,the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 9. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejectinat decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames under subsection G5 of this Section. (Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997) 11/29i1999 16:29 7830233 CARPENTER R F'AVt b I iO"-7:a-199'? 1 a a" REI ITOt I CITY CLERK OFC CITY OF RENTON P•02/03 APPEAL HEARINO EXAMINER NOV 2 9 1999 WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATIr J.C' UNTON CITY COU\ FILE NO. ix ,p-j) CITY CLERK'S OFFICE APPLICATION NAME: ft pa.( to C.t cvAc; The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Ap al from the decision or recommendation of the Land t, Hearing Examiner, dated AJ o JeMber 1 5 19 gel . 1. IDENTIFICATION 0J PARTY APPELLANT: REPRESENTATIVE (IF ) .NY): Name: -Tett P rot/ / lUo1-rxryeit tool i'as-FO/1 Name: _I11 Ie D. DC 4ner Address: ytc35 i ec ittirS • Address: nwoocS tiffrE &L Rok ot', C.L>4_ So55 e, w t elp3 Telephone No vas - aa6- a Telephone No. Citd. . 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORSSAttach_additional sheets, if necessary) Sec forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: FINDING OF FACT. (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's report) No. Error: CAtea Correction: CONCLUSIONS: No. Error: Joe `mod`t cid Correction. OTHER: No. Error: R el Correction: 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: Attach explanation, if desired) Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: OUMum The D/US - odify the decision or recommendation as follows: R-mand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: O er OVe11 q 99 Appella t/Rcpresent:ttvc Signature are NOTE: Pleace refer to Tide 1V. Ctupter 8. of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8-110F, tor specific procedures. 11/29/1999 1b: 29 7E330233 LAKKLNILK K taut e. MATTHEW D. O'CONNER ATTORNEY AT LAW 8011 GREENWOOD AVENUE NORTH • SEATTLE,WASHINGTON, 98103-4228 USA TELEPHONE:(206)782-0722 • FAX:(206)783-0233 • E-MAIL:oconnereoconnerlegal.com November 29, 1999 City of Renton City Council 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Re: Appeal by Motorcycle Works of Renton of Hearing Examiner's Decision re: RPI Building File No. LUA99-082,SA-A Appeal File No. LUA99-126,AAD SPECIFICATIONS OF ERRORS; CONCLUSION #7: Error: The City-of-Renton-estimated 345 new trips per day will be added to or blend with the fairly substantial traffic counts already experienced along Rainier but Bill have a severe impact on the number of trips experienced on(what the Examiner called) the driveway' on the west side of the intersection at Rainier Ave. South and S. 4`'' Place. The concern of M W R is not on the increased traffic on Rainier Ave. S. but onto and off of S. Place. Correction: The Hearing Examiner's basis for upholding the actions of the ERC were erroneous and should be overturned. FINDING # 20: Error: The traffic report offered by the City of Renton and which was adopted by the Hearing Examiner, stated that .... "This amount of traffic is negligible when compared to the traffic volumes on the adjacent streets."As mentioned above, this proposed use will not significantly affect the number of trips north and south on Rainier Ave. South due to its large overall traffic flows but it will have a severe impact on the number of trips both onto and off of S. 4''' Place. Correction: The Hearing Examiner's basis for his conclusions was erroneous and should be overturned. FINDING #2I Error: The City's report did not specify what percent of the trips used in calculating its figures would come from the `driveway' referred to by the Examiner. Correction: The City should be required to so state so that the Examiner could then make a fully informed decision. 11/29/1999 1b: 19 /63d133•LAKVtNItK K r:a t ev OTHER (Transcription of testimony by Anton Shatz) Error: The transcript of testimony by Anton Schatz offered by the Examiner stated that Mr. Schatz claimed that"When Fred Meyer bought its property, they put a newdrivewayinon4"' Place with a sidewalk, landscaping and curb." Actually Mr. Schatz stated that "When Fred Meyer bought its property, they promised to put a new driveway inon4Placewithasidewalk, landscaping and curb." If the Hearing Examiner based his decision on the mistaken belief that Fred Meyer actually built the driveway on 0, then that would significantly affect the factual basis for the Examiner's conclusions. The drivewayMr. Schatz mentioned does not exist—Fred Meyer never built it. Correction: Remand to Hearing Examiner for further consideration. Pursuant to RMC 4-8-1 10F(4), MWR requests the admission of additional information by MWR regarding the traffic flow onto and off of S. 4'''Avenue. The information will he supplied in the form of written expert testimony regarding the traffic flows onto and off of S. 4'Avenue. This information could not reasonably have been made available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner as it is now needed to supplement the findings of the City's expert testimony that the Examiner found to be"not clear" (Finding #2 I ) and"not convincing" (Conclusion 07). November 15, 1999 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPELLANT: Ted Abernethy Motorcycle Works of Renton Appeal of Administrative Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA99-126,AAD LOCATION: S 4th Place and Rainier Avenue S SUMMARY OF APPEAL: Appeals site plan approval of RPI Building 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 October 19, 1999 hearing. The official record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Tuesday,October 19, 1999, at 10:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. 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 LUA99-082,SA-A(by proof of posting and publication,and other reference) documentation pertinent to the appeal. Exhibit No.3: Vicinity map Exhibit No.4: Intersection diagram Exhibit No.5: Estimated Trip Traffic for PM Peak Exhibit No.6: Estimated Trip Distribution by Hours Percent and Daily Volume Exhibit No.7: Photographs(6) Parties present: Ted Abernethy,Appellant 485 Rainier Ave S Renton,WA 98055 Representing City of Renton Zanetta Fontes,City Attorney Leslie Nishihira,Assistant Planner 1055 S Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Representing Applicant RPI Tom Lee 4000 E Madison,#290 Seattle,WA 98112 Ted Abernethy Motorcycle Works of Renton Appeal of Administrative Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA99-126,AAD November 15, 1999 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 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. Mr.Abernethy, appellant herein, stated that he is in the process of purchasing Motorcycle Works of Renton, hereinafter MWR, from Anton Schatz. His argument with the City's granting the land use for the proposed retail building is that it would affect the traffic flow in the area,especially as it relates to his business. He described the traffic flow onto 4th Place from Rainier Avenue and its impact on his site at the current time. To increase the traffic flow would basically land-lock his site. He requested an easement onto 4th Place to give customers safe access to his business. He detailed the history of the buildings on the proposed site as well as his own site and the Fred Meyer complex to the west,and the traffic patterns in the area. MWR for many years had a side access onto 4th Place. When the Fred Meyer complex was completed,that side access was removed. On cross-examination from Ms. Fontes,Mr.Abernethy stated that MWR's current driveway has been in use since 1967. He also responded that he had not been in contact with Fred Meyer regarding access to his site from their property,nor had any traffic studies been conducted at his request. Based on his personal observation,he did not believe the traffic study submitted by the applicant was accurate in the number of predicted vehicle trips per day generated by the proposal. His main concern for his business was the increased likelihood of traffic accidents. Photographs were submitted of the appellant's site and the intersection of Rainier Avenue S and 4th Place. Anton Schatz, 17801 SE 146th,Renton, Washington 98059,testified on behalf of the appellant. He stated that in 1964 he bought the MWR site and at that time there was a driveway on 4th Place as well as on Rainier Avenue S. When Fred Meyer bought its property,they put a new driveway in on 4th Place with a sidewalk, landscaping and curb. A representative from Fred Meyer met with him and told him they would put the driveway back in,but they never did. At no time did he ever have a written agreement with the prior or present owners for the driveway. Leslie Nishihira,on behalf of the City,described the proposal as being an 8,850 square foot retail building to be located at the southwest corner of Rainier Avenue S and S 4th Place. It would include the creation of 39 parking stalls. She further described the City's process application,and detailed specifics of this proposal including plan review,posting of the project,and contact by the appellant. The traffic analysis which was submitted with the application was also discussed,along with other recent or current development proposals for the nearby area. Geri Reinart, 1319 Dexter Avenue N,#270, Seattle,Washington 98109,a traffic consultant for the applicant, described the process used for calculating traffic impacts to this site. The size of the previous building was compared to the size of the proposed building as a basis for calculating the net change in both the peak hour and daily traffic trips. From the ITE Manual,the closest land use designation to a motorcycle business would be new car sales. Ms. Reinart further explained the exhibits relating to peak hour traffic and trip distribution. On cross-examination,she stated she based the figures on the previous square footage for the same land use, not necessarily Rich's, as it has been gone for 5 years. If Rich's was open now,the new use would generate Ted Abernethy Motorcycle Works of Renton Appeal of Administrative Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA99-126,AAD November 15, 1999 Page 3 approximately 45 additional trips based on the larger square footage. Those trips would be spread throughout the various streets,not just at one location or at one point in time. Mr.Abernethy asked if the ten-fold increase in his business had been taken into consideration.Ms.Reinart stated it was not,that their assessment was for the proposed land use. Paul Lumbert,Public Works Department, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way,Renton, Washington 98055, stated that on July 14, 1999 a manual count was taken of the traffic southbound on Rainier Avenue at S 4th Place during the PM peak hour,and it was indicated at 1,816 vehicles. Normally the PM peak hour is 10 percent of the 24 hour period,or approximately 18,000 traffic trips. He further responded that the City maintains the pedestrian walkway at the Rainier and 4th intersection,even though it is a private driveway. Tom Lee,applicant representative, stated that even though Mr.Abernethy has a difficult driveway situation,the reason for the appeal was a SEPA determination on a retail building that has nothing to do with their driveway. He stated that the appellant is using the proposed development to try and gain access via Fred Meyer which the applicant cannot give him and it has nothing to do with the SEPA process. In his closing argument,Mr. Abernethy concluded that their concern was the increased traffic on S 4th Place and the existing problematic driveway. He stated that an easement onto S 4th Place and an entrance-only driveway off Rainier Avenue would be a safe resolution of the situation. In her closing argument,Ms. Fontes concluded that the purpose of the appeal was whether the City erred in its determination and should there be an EIS required for the proposal. The increase in traffic was the appellant's main concern and the traffic consultant's testimony indicated that the additional trips were insignificant to the overall traffic through this intersection on a daily basis. The real issue here is the dispute between Fred Meyer and MWR over its side access,and not the City's. The proposal has no significant adverse impact which cannot be mitigated by the traffic mitigation fees,and those are not in dispute. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this appeal. There was no one else wishing to speak. The hearing closed at 11:20 a.m. FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS&DECISION Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1.The appellant,Ted Abernethy,filed an appeal of a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated DNS-M)issued by the ERC. Mr.Abernethy,hereinafter the appellant,filed the appeal on August 30, 1999 and the appeal was filed in a timely manner. 2.The appellant operates and is buying the Motorcycle Works of Renton. That business is located at 485 Rainier Avenue South. The shop is located on the west side of Rainier Avenue immediately north of the signal light for the intersection of Rainier Avenue South and South 4th Place. Ted Abernethy Motorcycle Works of Renton Appeal of Administrative Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA99-126,AAD November 15, 1999 Page 4 3.The proposal that is the subject of the appeal would develop an approximately 8,850 square foot building on a site located just south of the appellant's business. The building would be constructed on what is called Parcel E of the larger commonly called Fred Meyer Shopping Center. Parcel E is located immediately north of a railroad trestle and the embankment on which the railroad line is located. 4.Parcel E is approximately 31,385 square feet and trapezoidal in shape. 5.While there previously had been a business located on the subject site,there has been nothing on the site for approximately five years. 6.There is currently no defined use for the proposed new building. 7.The proposed building pad is located south of a driveway that appears to form the western extension of S 4th Place where it intersects Rainier Avenue S. While it is controlled by a City owned and operated traffic signal and appears to be an extension of S 4th Place,the City indicates it is not a City right-of- way,that is it is not a public street. This driveway does have a three-lane section. The northernmost lane is westbound and allows traffic into the Fred Meyer Center either from Rainier(right turn)or through traffic from S 4th Place crossing Rainier. The middle lane permits a left turn onto northbound Rainier or through traffic to S 4th Place east of Rainier. The southernmost lane allows right turns southbound onto Rainier. Further reference to this driveway will refer to it as the "4th driveway." 8.South 4th Place east of Rainier has a similar but reversed lane configuration. It is a three-lane section. The southern lane allows eastbound right turns to S 4th from Rainier or eastbound through traffic to cross Rainier from the 4th driveway. The center lane allows through traffic to cross Rainier westbound or a left turn to southbound Rainier. The northernmost lane allows northbound right turns to Rainier. 9.Rainier northbound in this area is two lanes both north and south of this intersection. Northbound as the intersection is approached one emerges from under the railroad trestle. There is a sign at this location prohibiting left turns into the 4th driveway and the subject site. 10. The southbound lanes of Rainier north of this intersection are four lanes wide. The left lane accommodates only left turns. The two center lanes are for through southbound traffic. The right-most lane accommodates either through southbound traffic or a right turn into the 4th driveway or the appellant's driveway located immediately north of the 4th driveway. 11. The appellant's driveway and the 4th driveway are almost contiguous. The appellant's driveway accommodates both ingress and egress in the one location. The appellant's business has increased approximately ten times in the last few years and since the applicant's subject site was vacated. 12. The appellant has challenged the DNS which indicated: C]urrently,the area surrounding the subject site is developed with an existing shopping center, including associated parking areas and improvements. The proposal would not change the character or significantly increase the current use of the center. There, impacts to surrounding property and uses would be minimal." Ted Abernethy Motorcycle Works of Renton Appeal of Administrative Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA99-126,AAD November 15, 1999 Page 5 13. The appellant disputed this claiming the use"is across the street from the exit to a shopping center and would significantly change existing circulation patterns." 14. They claim the proposal would greatly impact the traffic volume on S. 4th Place. They further claim that a significant increase in traffic will harm the appellant's business. Currently, it is problematic for vehicles exiting the appellant business. The increase could lead to additional traffic making the appellant's driveway inadequate. 15. The appellant claims that comparing the past traffic from the proposed site does not appropriately consider the fact that when that site was last utilized,the appellant had three points of access. It had the current driveway. It also had a southern driveway to the 4th driveway and a western driveway to the Fred Meyer parking lot west of the appellant business. When the Fred Meyer complex was redeveloped,that developer closed off these two additional driveways. 16. The traffic report provided was based on an approximately 8,500 square foot "retail pad." It was termed a reconstruction of an existing 7,400 square foot pad for a net increase of 1,100 square feet. Access to this pad is most directly available via the center accesses along Rainier Avenue and indirectly from the access to Sunset Boulevard." (March 2, 1999 letter from David I.Hamlin& Associates) 17. The report used trip generation numbers for"Specialty Retail Center." This type of use would generate approximately 40.67 trips or approximately 346 trips for a retail pad containing the proposed 8,500 square feet. The PM Peak(afternoon rush hour)is estimated to be approximately 22 trips. Certain fast food restaurants could double some of these projections. 18. The report then compares this to the number of trips a pad of 7,500 square feet would have generated or approximately 301 trips per day. This number supposedly represents the earlier business pad that was on the site. The report does not indicate the type of prior use,nor does it indicate that the prior use was abandoned approximately five(5)years earlier. The PM Peak is estimated to be approximately 19 trips. 19. There is no projection for AM Peak traffic. This office presumes that many retail businesses are not open during the early morning rush hour. 20. The traffic report provides this conclusion: The proposed re-development of one of the retail pads at the Renton Center will have a very limited impact on the adjacent street system....This amount of traffic is negligible when compared to the traffic volumes on the adjacent streets." The numbers in this conclusion are the net change between the proposed larger pad to the prior pad or 45 daily trips and 3 peak trips. Ted Abernethy Motorcycle Works of Renton Appeal of Administrative Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA99-126,AAD November 15, 1999 Page 6 21. Charts accompanying the report show that approximately 65 percent of the trips would head south, north and eastbound, but it is not clear if these trips would enter/emerge from the 4th driveway. 22. The ERC imposed a traffic mitigation fee based on the net change from the prior 7,400 square foot footprint to the proposed 8,500 square foot footprint. Other than concluding there would be approximately 45 new trips,the ERC took no other notice of traffic or transportation issues. 23. The estimates for traffic along Rainier varied. There are no current traffic counts and the estimates varied from approximately 18,000 vehicle trips per day to approximately 25,000 trips. 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 Significance and the mitigation measures imposed by the ERC in this case are 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. 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. 6. The appellant has failed to demonstrate that the actions of the ERC were erroneous or arbitrary and capricious. There is a definite burden in overturning an administrative determination. The appellant did not present evidence that the ERC decision regarding this development should be modified. That does not mean that development will have no impacts or that legitimate safety issues may not exist. 7.While this office is not convinced that the net change in traffic from a use that closed approximately five(5)years ago to a new business accurately represents the traffic impacts of the proposed development,that in and of itself does not mean the overall ERC determination was incorrect. It still appears that the total traffic generated by the proposed business,approximately 345 trips per day,will Ted Abernethy Motorcycle Works of Renton Appeal of Administrative Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA99-126,AAD November 15, 1999 Page 7 not be significant. The 345 trips can enter or leave this larger shopping center from any of four or five driveways including driveways to the north,west and other locations along Rainier Avenue. The 345 trips will be spread out over the course of a business day. And finally,they will be added to or blend with the fairly substantial traffic counts already experienced along Rainier. In this light, it does not appear that this would be significant in terms of SEPA impacts. 8.The appeal appears to have been brought in good faith. The appellant appeared to earnestly believe that the new development adjacent to his business will have an adverse impact on that business. 9.SEPA and the impacts it analyzes are context dependent. That is,additional traffic in some locales could have a definite adverse impact,whereas in other locales the impacts would be less significant because of the high background traffic. Whether one uses only,the new traffic that the larger pad or retail business may generate over the former business or even using the total traffic of the pad(ignoring that it replaces a former business),the traffic will not greatly impact the flow along Rainier Avenue. There is already a signalized intersection which controls the flow and meters it to some extent. 10. The absence of SEPA impacts sufficient to trigger either conditions or the preparation of an EIS does not mean that there might not be a safety issue which needs to be addressed by the City. 11. If there are true hazards and the complex interplay of the applicant's roadway/driveway,the appellant's immediately adjacent driveway,Rainier's traffic and illegal turning,then the City always retains some right to preclude, limit or condition access to its public streets. If there is a safety issue the City could limit the access to the 4th driveway if it finds safety issues. The City could alter the flow or even close the access point entirely to safeguard traffic flow and public safety. The appellant might seek such review if the situation appears to warrant it. 12. Finally,there appear to be underlying legal issues between the parties that this review cannot reach. It does appear that the appellant probably needs to seek third party advice on its remedies if it was denied access to which it was legally entitled due to custom and use or other reasons. 13. 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. No such conviction results from hearing this case. This office,based on the record,will not substitute its judgment for that of the ERC. DECISION: The decision of the ERC is affirmed. ORDERED THIS 15th day of November, 1999. FRED J.KAUF HEARING EXAMINER Ted Abernethy Motorcycle Works of Renton Appeal of Administrative Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA99-126,AAD November 15, 1999 Page 8 TRANSMITTED THIS 15th day of November, 1999 to the parties of record: Ted Abernethy Zanetta Fontes Leslie Nishihira 485 Rainier Ave S 1055 S Grady Way 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 Anton Schatz Geri Reinart Paul Lumbert 17801 SE 146th 1319 Dexter Ave N,#270 1055 S Grady Way Renton,WA 98059 Seattle, WA 98109 Renton, WA 98055 Tom Lee James Hamm 4000 E Madison,#290 1420 Fifth Avenue,#2200 Seattle,WA 98112 Seattle,WA 98101-2333 TRANSMITTED THIS 15th day of November, 1999 to the following: Mayor Jesse Tanner Gregg Zimmerman,Plan/Bldg/PW Admin. Members,Renton Planning Commission Jana Hanson,Development Services Director Chuck Duffy,Fire Marshal Mike Kattermann,Technical Services Director Lawrence J. Warren,City Attorney Larry Meckling,Building Official Transportation Systems Division Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer Utilities System Division Councilperson Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Sue Carlson,Econ. Dev.Administrator Betty Nokes,Economic Development Director 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.,November 29, 1999. 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 Ted Abernethy Motorcycle Works of Renton Appeal of Administrative Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA99-126,AAD November 15, 1999 Page 9 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. December 1, 1999 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ss. COUNTY OF KING MARILYN J. PETERSEN, City Clerk/Cable Manager for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter. That on the 1st day of December, 1999, at the hour of 5:00 p.m your affiant duly mailed and placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail to all parties of record, notice of appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision filed by Matthew D. O'Conner, Attorney at Law, representative for Ted Abernethy, Motorcycle Works of Renton (File No. LUA- 99-082, SA-A, ECF and File No. LUA-99-126, AAD). d'f// rY Marilyn J. PM sen, City Clerk/Cable Manager SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 1st day of December, 1999. 5.1\ inkot Brenda F,:its•c-old Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing in W-4-A-Q- Ted Abernethy Zanetta Fontes Leslie Nishihira 485 Rainier Ave. S. Renton City Attorney Office Renton Development Services Div. Renton, WA 98055 Anton Schatz Geri Reinart 17801 SE 146th 1319 Dexter Ave. N.,#270 Paul Lumbert Renton, WA 98059 Seattle, WA 98109 Renton Development Services Div. Tom Lee James Hamm Matthew D. O'Conner, Attorney 4000 E. Madison, #290 1420 Fifth Avenue, #2200 8011 Greenwood Ave. N. Seattle, WA 98112 Seattle, WA 98101-2333 Seattle, WA 98103 CITY OF RENTON City Clerk Jesse Tanner,Mayor Marilyn J.Petersen December 1, 1999 APPEAL FILED BY: Ted Abernethy, Motorcycle Works of Renton Representative: Matthew D. O'Conner, Attorney at Law RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 11/15/99 affirming the Environmental Review and Land Use Action Report&Decision dated 8/17/99 approving the site plan for the RPI Retail Building at Renton Center, subject to conditions. (File No. LUA-99-082, SA-A,ECF and File No. LUA-99-126, AAD) To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8,Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the hearing examiner's decision on the Real Property Investors, LLC request for site approval has been filed with the City Clerk. In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110F,within five days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten 10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the appeal. The deadline for submission of additional letters is December 10, 1999. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeals and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee. The Council secretary will notify all parties of record of the date and time of the Planning and Development Committee meeting. If you are not listed in local telephone directories and wish to attend the meeting,please call the Council secretary at 425 430-6501 for information. The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for consideration by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting. Attached is a copy of the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeals of Hearing Examiner decisions or recommendations. Please note that the City Council will be considering the merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. Unless a showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available at the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, no further evidence or testimony on this matter will be accepted by the City Council. For additional information or assistance,please feel free to call me at 425 430-6502. Sincerely, Marilyn sen City Clerk/ le Manager Attachments 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)430-6510 / FAX(425)430-6516 This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer City of Renton Municipal de; Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110 - A als 4-8-110C3 Any appeal shall be filed in writing. The written notice of appeal shall fully, clearly and thoroughly specify the substantial error(s) in fact or law which exist in the record of the proceedings from which the appellant seeks relief. (Ord. 4353, 6-1-92) 4-8-110C4 The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170, the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-110E8 Unless an ordinance providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Clerk upon a form furnished by the City Clerk, within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-110F: Appeals to City Council - Procedures: 1. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. 2. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. 3. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report, the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required, the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the appellant. In the absence of any entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 4389, 1-25- 93) 5. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties.6. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to Section RMC 4-1-050F1 and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the preceding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. 7. Council Action: If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to Section RMC 4-1-050F2 and F3, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified, the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application. 8. Decision Documentation: In any event, the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord. 3658,9-13-82) 9. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejectina decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames under subsection G5 of this Section. (Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997) 11/29/1999 16:29 7830233 AKrLNILK K uz F i01 c-29-149'? 1•t:—" k'Et ITOt I CITY CLERK OFC CITY OF RENTON R•G12/03 APPEAL HEARING EXAMINER NOV 2 9 1999 WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATI( IC' UNTON CITY COL' FILE NO. W P -ix aki) CITY CLERK'S OFFICE APPLICATION NAME: pa.l to Ct 0,Ac; The undersigned interested party hereby i es its Notice of Appal from the decision or recommendation of the Land C Hearing Examiner, dated A/U(/e(bec /.5 19. gel 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: REPRESS]TATIVE (IF i .NY): Name: 1ett rn 1/40f -It L fl oll a,-FoA Name: fPlAl1Ps, - O( i r Address: L/S5 e7 Address:_ twQQc 'S" )J r •1 41 q / 11 Y W ak0,Ar `4Y 4 1 (255 er v- r81o3 Telephone No Lids - aa,- cr05 Telephone No. t ` 763 - (1>itdCq 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS(Attach additional sheets_if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: FINDING OF FACT. (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's report) No. Error: qiicteitiA Correction: CONCLUSIONS: No. Error: cAc Correction. OTHER: No. Error: r(el Correction: 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: Attach explanation, If desired) Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: OU&'4Jer DAJ.5 - odify the decision or recommendation as follows: R.mand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: 0 er r 9 Appclla t/Rcpresent.tive Signature' Date l NOTE: Pleacc refer to Tick IV. Crupter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8.110F, tor specific procedures. 11/Ly/1`d`J`J lb: L'J /b.ibLJJ LaKr .NItK K MATTHEW D. O'CONNER ATTORNEY AT LAW 8011 GREENWOOD AVENUE NORTH • SEATTLE,WASHINGTON, 95103-4228 USA TELEPHONE:(206)782-0722 • FAX:(206)783-0233 • E-MAIL:oconnereoconnerlegal.com November 29, 1999 City of Renton City Council 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Re: Appeal by Motorcycle Works of Renton of Hearing Examiner's Decision re: RPI Building File No. LUA99-082,SA-A Appeal File No. LUA99-126,AAD SPECIFICATIONS OF ERRORS; CONCLUSION #7: Error: The City-of-Renton-estimated 345 new trips per day will be added to or blend with the fairly substantial traffic counts already experienced along Rainier but Aill have a severe impact on the number of trips experienced on(what the Examiner called)the driveway' on the west side of the intersection at Rainier Ave. South and S. 4`'' Place. The concern of M W R is not on the increased traffic on Rainier Ave. S. but onto and off of S. 4'" Place. Correction: The Hearing Examiner's basis for upholding the actions of the ERC were erroneous and should be overturned. FINDING # 20: Error: The traffic report offered by the City of Renton and which was adopted by the Hearing Examiner, stated that .... "This amount of traffic is negligible when compared to the traffic volumes on the adjacent streets."As mentioned above, this proposed use will not significantly affect the number of trips north and south on Rainier Ave. South due to its large overall traffic flows but it will have a severe impact on the number of trips both onto and off of S. 4'' Place. Correction: The Hearing Examiner's basis for his conclusions was erroneous and should be overturned. FINDING #2I Error: The City's report did not specify what percent of the trips used in calculating its figures would come from the `driveway' referred to by the Examiner. Correction: The City should be required to so state so that the Examiner could then make a fully informed decision. ll/L7/ 177 10. 47 in-DCJL7 7 r.iv u OTHER (Transcription of testimony by Anton Shatz) Error: The transcript of testimony by Anton Schatz offered by the Examiner stated that Mr. Schatz claimed that"When Fred Meyer bought its property, they put a newdrivewayinon4thPlacewithasidewalk, landscaping and curb." Actually Mr. Schatz stated that "When Fred Meyer bought its property, they promised to put a new driveway inon4Placewithasidewalk, landscaping and curb." If the Hearing Examiner based hisdecisiononthemistakenbeliefthatFredMeyeractuallybuiltthedrivewayon4', then that would significantly affect the factual basis for the Examiner's conclusions. The drivewayMr. Schatz mentioned does not exist—Fred Meyer never built it. Correction: Remand to Hearing Examiner for further consideration. Pursuant to RMC 4-8-1 10F(4), MWR requests the admission of additional information by MWR regarding the traffic flow onto and off of S. 4'h Avenue. The information will he supplied in the form of written expert testimony regarding the traffic flows onto and off ot S. 4"Avenue. This information could not reasonably have been made available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner as it is now needed to supplement the findings of the City's expert testimony that the Examiner found to be "not clear" (Finding #21 ) and "not convincing" (Conclusion#7). December 1, 1999 APPEAL FILED BY: Ted Abernethy, Motorcycle Works of Renton Representative: Matthew D. O'Conner,Attorney at Law RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 11/15/99 affirming the Environmental Review and Land Use Action Report&Decision dated 8/17/99 approving the site plan for the RPI Retail Building at Renton Center, subject to conditions. (File No. LUA-99-082, SA-A, ECF and File No. LUA-99-126, AAD) To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8,Renton City Code of Ordinances,written appeal of the hearing examiner's decision on the Real Property Investors, LLC request for site approval has been filed with the City Clerk. In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110F,within five days of receipt of the notice of appeal,the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten 10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the appeal. The deadline for submission of additional letters is December 10, 1999. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeals and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee. The Council secretary will notify all parties of record of the date and time of the Planning and Development Committee meeting. If you are not listed in local telephone directories and wish to attend the meeting,please call the Council secretary at 425 430-6501 for information. The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for consideration by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting. Attached is a copy of the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeals of Hearing Examiner decisions or recommendations. Please note that the City Council will be considering the merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. Unless a showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available at the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner,no further evidence or testimony on this matter will be accepted by the City Council. For additional information or assistance,please feel free to call me at 425 430-6502. Sincerely, Marilyn sen City Clerk/ le Manager Attachments Ted Abernethy Zanetta Fontes Leslie Nishihira 485 Rainier Ave. S.Renton City Attorney Office Renton Development Services Div. Renton, WA 98055 Anton Schatz Geri Reinart Paul Lumbert 17801 SE 146th 1319 Dexter Ave. N., #270 Renton, WA 98059 Seattle, WA 98109 Renton Development Services Div. Tom Lee James Hamm Matthew D. O'Conner, Attorney 4000 E. Madison, #290 1420 Fifth Avenue, #2200 8011 Greenwood Ave. N. Seattle, WA 98112 Seattle, WA 98101-2333 Seattle, WA 98103 06 CIT_ OF RENTON City Clerk Jesse Tanner,Mayor Marilyn J. Petersen December 1, 1999 APPEAL FILED BY: Ted Abernethy, Motorcycle Works of Renton Representative: Matthew D. O'Conner, Attorney at Law RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 11/15/99 affirming the Environmental Review and Land Use Action Report&Decision dated 8/17/99 approving the site plan for the RPI Retail Building at Renton Center, subject to conditions. (File No. LUA-99-082, SA-A, ECF and File No. LUA-99-126, AAD) To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8,Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the hearing examiner's decision on the Real Property Investors, LLC request for site approval has been filed with the City Clerk. In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110F,within five days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten 10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the appeal. The deadline for submission of additional letters is December 10, 1999. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeals and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee. The Council secretary will notify all parties of record of the date and time of the Planning and Development Committee meeting. If you are not listed in local telephone directories and wish to attend the meeting,please call the Council secretary at 425 430-6501 for information. The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for consideration by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting. Attached is a copy of the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeals of Hearing Examiner decisions or recommendations. Please note that the City Council will be considering the merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. Unless a showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available at the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner,no further evidence or testimony on this matter will be accepted by the City Council. For additional information or assistance,please feel free to call me at 425 430-6502. L Sincerely, ft Marilyn rsen City Clerk/ le Manager Attachments 1055 South Grady Way- Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)430-6510/FAX(425)430-6516 This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer City of Renton Municipal le:Title IV, Chapter 8. Section 110 -A uls 4-8-110C3 Any appeal shall be filed in writing. The written notice of appeal shall fully, clearly and thoroughly specify the substantial error(s)in fact or law which exist in the record of the proceedings from which the appellant seeks relief. (Ord.4353, 6-1-92) 4-8-110C4 The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170, the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-110E8 Unless an ordinance providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court,any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Clerk upon a form furnished by the City Clerk, within fourteen(14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-110F: Appeals to City Council-Procedures: 1. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal,the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. 2. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10)days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. 3. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report,the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required, the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the appellant. In the absence of any entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 4389, 1-25- 93) 5. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. 6. Findings and Conclusions Required: If,upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to Section RMC 4-1-050F1 and after examination of the record,the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the preceding to Examiner for reconsideration,or modify,or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. 7. Council Action: If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to Section RMC 4-1-050F2 and F3, and after examination of the record,the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified,the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application. 8. Decision Documentation: In any event,the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord. 3658,9-13-82) 9. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejectina decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames under subsection G5 of this Section. (Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997) 11/29/1999 16:29 7830233 CARPENTER R PAGE 02 t 10't-21:'a-L 9 1.1:4" REI ITCiN CITY CLERK OFC CITY OF RENTON R. 02/03 APPEAL HEARING EXAMINER NOV 2 9 1999 WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATIC',JAgNTON CITY COLS FILE NO. P t l-ix a'1] CITY CLERK'S OFFICE APPLICATION NAME: pa.( 10 C t e c; The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Ap al from the decision or recommendation of the Land t. Hearing Examiner, dated AJDi/e,,b7 1,5 19 cic . 1. WENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT:/ fl REPRESENTATIVE (IF ,9.NY): Name: "1P crnett / /1/06.ryc/t (.vo113 ka„-(on Name: D(.4400K Address: lig 4,Cr S • Address: ALIjo0C} lE )0. _` ga t(1 r", c.)A SO55 e t A- 9t9Io3 Telephone No ydS - aa6- deia5 Telephone No. t - 7 - cird 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: FINDING OF FACT. (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's report) No. Error: 9e_ 444eit4 Correction: CONCLUSIONS: No. Error: Cn b//c dd Correction. OTHER: No. Error: rLeA Correction: 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: Attach explanation, if desired) x Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: OUP'-loiir 'ue DA15 , odify the decision or recommendation as follows: 2R mand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: O er 5 o tin 9 9 Appella t/Represent nye Signarzc ate 7- NOTE: Please refer to Title IV. Ctupter 8. of the Renton Municipal Code. and Section 4-8-110F, tor specific procedures. 11/29/1999 16: 29 7830233 CARPENTER R PAGE 03 MATTHEW D. O'CONNER ATTORNEY AT LAW 8011 GREENWOOD AVENUE NORTH • SEATTLE,WASHINGTON, 98103-4228 USA TELEPHONE:(206)782-0722 • FAX(206)783-0233 • E-MAIL:oconnereoconnerlegal.com November 29, 1999 City of Renton City Council 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Re: Appeal by Motorcycle Works of Renton of Hearing Examiner's Decision re: RPI Building File No. LUA99-082,SA-A Appeal File No. LUA99-126,AAD SPECIFICATIONS OF ERRORS; CONCLUSION #7: Error: The City-of-Renton-estimated 345 new trips per day will be added to or blend with the fairly substantial traffic counts already experienced along Rainier but mill have a severe impact on the number of trips experienced on(what the Examiner called) the driveway' on the west side of the intersection at Rainier Ave. South and S. 4`h Place. The concern of M W R is not on the increased traffic on Rainier Ave. S. but onto and off of S. 4'" Place. Correction: The Hearing Examiner's basis for upholding the actions of the ERC were erroneous and should be overturned. FINDING # 2(1: Error: The traffic report offered by the City of Renton and which was adopted by the Hearing Examiner, stated that .... "This amount of traffic is negligible when compared to the traffic volumes on the adjacent streets." As mentioned above, this proposed use will not significantly effect the number of trips north and south on Rainier Ave. South due to its large overall traffic flows but it will have a severe impact on the number of trips both onto and off of S. 4"' Place. Correction: The Hearing Examiner's basis for his conclusions was erroneous and should be overturned. FINDING #21 Error: The City's report did not specify what percent of the trips used in calculating its figures would come from the `driveway' referred to by the Examiner. Correction: The City should be required to so state so that the Examiner could then make a fully informed decision. 11/29/1999 16: 29 7830233 CARPENTER R PAGE 04 OTHER (Transcription of testimony by Anton Shatz) Error: The transcript of testimony by Anton Schatz offered by the Examiner stated that Mr. Schatz claimed that"When Fred Meyer bought its property, they put a newdrivewayinon4'h Place with a sidewalk, landscaping and curb." Actually Mr. Schatz stated that "When Fred Meyer bought its property, they promised to put a new driveway inon4'^ Place with a sidewalk, landscaping and curb." If the Hearing Examiner based his decision on the mistaken belief that Fred Meyer actually built the driveway on 4'h, then that would significantly affect the factual basis for the Examiner's conclusions. The drivewayMr. Schatz mentioned does not exist—Fred Meyer never built it. Correction. Remand to Hearing Examiner for further consideration. Pursuant to RMC 4-8-1 10F(4), MWR requests the admission of additionalinformationbyMWRregardingthetrafficflowontoandoffofS. 4'h Avenue. The information will he supplied in the form of written expert testimony regarding the traffic flows onto and off of S. 4'Avenue. This information could not reasonably have been made availahle at the time of the hearing before the Examiner as it is now needed to supplement the findings of the City's expert testimony that the Examiner found to be"not clear" (Finding #2 I ) and "not convincing" (Conclusion$ 7). CITY OF RENTON CITY TREASURER REG-RECEIPT:82-8051787 C:Nov 38 1999 CASHIER ID:T 8:43 am A:Nov 38 1999 8888 MISCELLANEOUS REVE 75.80 APPEAL 080.008.80.345.81.88.800883 TOTAL DUE 75.80 RECEIVED FROM: ABERNETHY, TED - MOTORCYCLE WORKS CHECK:75.00 TOTAL TENDERED 75.80 CHANGE DUE 0.80 II CITY CLERK DIVISIONSendConiesTo• z Date:CITY 9 ATTORNEY ea p '17_ CITY COUNCIL /, /1i ,, 9mi 4 4LaViroteemCOMMUNITYSERVICES/PARKS EDNSP/ECONOMIC DEVELOP. FINANCE/INFO SERVICES FIRE DEPT/FIRE PREVENTION t AuYHEARINGEXAMINER HUMAN RESOURCES/RISK MGMTHUMANSERVICES LIBRARIES MAYOR/EXECUTIVE MUNICIPAL COURT PLANNING COMMISSION POLICE CODIFIER NEWSPAPER PARTIES OF RECORD- af-t Lee/m Pit Planning/Building/Public Works: ADMINISTRATION Ititteff is1irn s4"* p•6642441 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PadaLTRANSPORTATIONSERVICESLUTILITIES&TECH SERVICES 511914'1114141 *tit) HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT November 15, 1999 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPELLANT: Ted Abernethy Motorcycle Works of Renton Appeal of Administrative Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA99-126,AAD LOCATION: S 4th Place and Rainier Avenue S SUMMARY OF APPEAL: Appeals site plan approval of RPI Building 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 October 19, 1999 hearing. The official record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Tuesday,October 19, 1999,at 10:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. 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 LUA99-082,SA-A(by proof of posting and publication,and other reference) documentation pertinent to the appeal. Exhibit No.3: Vicinity map Exhibit No.4: Intersection diagram Exhibit No.5: Estimated Trip Traffic for PM Peak Exhibit No.6: Estimated Trip Distribution by Hours Percent and Daily Volume Exhibit No.7: Photographs(6) Parties present: Ted Abernethy,Appellant 485 Rainier Ave S Renton,WA 98055 Representing City of Renton Zanetta Fontes,City Attorney Leslie Nishihira,Assistant Planner 1055 S Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Representing Applicant RPI Tom Lee 4000 E Madison,#290 Seattle,WA 98112 1 Ted Abernethy Motorcycle Works of Renton Appeal of Administrative Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA99-126,AAD November 15, 1999 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 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. Mr.Abernethy,appellant herein, stated that he is in the process of purchasing Motorcycle Works of Renton, hereinafter MWR,from Anton Schatz. His argument with the City's granting the land use for the proposed retail building is that it would affect the traffic flow in the area,especially as it relates to his business. He described the traffic flow onto 4th Place from Rainier Avenue and its impact on his site at the current time. To increase the traffic flow would basically land-lock his site. He requested an easement onto 4th Place to give customers safe access to his business. He detailed the history of the buildings on the proposed site as well as his own site and the Fred Meyer complex to the west,and the traffic patterns in the area. MWR for many years had a side access onto 4th Place. When the Fred Meyer complex was completed,that side access was removed. On cross-examination from Ms.Fontes,Mr.Abernethy stated that MWR's current driveway has been in use since 1967. He also responded that he had not been in contact with Fred Meyer regarding access to his site from their property,nor had any traffic studies been conducted at his request. Based on his personal observation,he did not believe the traffic study submitted by the applicant was accurate in the number of predicted vehicle trips per day generated by the proposal. His main concern for his business was the increased likelihood of traffic accidents. Photographs were submitted of the appellant's site and the intersection of Rainier Avenue S and 4th Place. Anton Schatz, 17801 SE 146th,Renton,Washington 98059,testified on behalf of the appellant. He stated that in 1964 he bought the MWR site and at that time there was a driveway on 4th Place as well as on Rainier Avenue S. When Fred Meyer bought its property,they put a new driveway in on 4th Place with a sidewalk, landscaping and curb. A representative from Fred Meyer met with him and told him they would put the driveway back in,but they never did. At no time did he ever have a written agreement with the prior or present owners for the driveway. Leslie Nishihira, on behalf of the City,described the proposal as being an 8,850 square foot retail building to be located at the southwest corner of Rainier Avenue S and S 4th Place. It would include the creation of 39 parking stalls. She further described the City's process application,and detailed specifics of this proposal including plan review,posting of the project,and contact by the appellant. The traffic analysis which was submitted with the application was also discussed,along with other recent or current development proposals for the nearby area. Geri Reinart, 1319 Dexter Avenue N,#270, Seattle,Washington 98109,a traffic consultant for the applicant, described the process used for calculating traffic impacts to this site. The size of the previous building was compared to the size of the proposed building as a basis for calculating the net change in both the peak hour and daily traffic trips. From the ITE Manual,the closest land use designation to a motorcycle business would be new car sales. Ms. Reinart further explained the exhibits relating to peak hour traffic and trip distribution. On cross-examination, she stated she based the figures on the previous square footage for the same land use, not necessarily Rich's,as it has been gone for 5 years. If Rich's was open now,the new use would generate Ted Abernethy Motorcycle Works of Renton Appeal of Administrative Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA99-126,AAD November 15, 1999 Page 3 approximately 45 additional trips based on the larger square footage. Those trips would be spread throughout the various streets,not just at one location or at one point in time. Mr.Abernethy asked if the ten-fold increase in his business had been taken into consideration. Ms.Reinart stated it was not,that their assessment was for the proposed land use. Paul Lumbert,Public Works Department,City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055, stated that on July 14, 1999 a manual count was taken of the traffic southbound on Rainier Avenue at S 4th Place during the PM peak hour,and it was indicated at 1,816 vehicles. Normally the PM peak hour is 10 percent of the 24 hour period,or approximately 18,000 traffic trips. He further responded that the City maintains the pedestrian walkway at the Rainier and 4th intersection,even though it is a private driveway. Tom Lee,applicant representative, stated that even though Mr.Abernethy has a difficult driveway situation,the reason for the appeal was a SEPA determination on a retail building that has nothing to do with their driveway. He stated that the appellant is using the proposed development to try and gain access via Fred Meyer which the applicant cannot give him and it has nothing to do with the SEPA process. In his closing argument,Mr.Abernethy concluded that their concern was the increased traffic on S 4th Place and the existing problematic driveway. He stated that an easement onto S 4th Place and an entrance-only driveway off Rainier Avenue would be a safe resolution of the situation. In her closing argument,Ms. Fontes concluded that the purpose of the appeal was whether the City erred in its determination and should there be an EIS required for the proposal. The increase in traffic was the appellant's main concern and the traffic consultant's testimony indicated that the additional trips were insignificant to the overall traffic through this intersection on a daily basis. The real issue here is the dispute between Fred Meyer and MWR over its side access,and not the City's. The proposal has no significant adverse impact which cannot be mitigated by the traffic mitigation fees,and those are not in dispute. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this appeal. There was no one else wishing to speak. The hearing closed at 11:20 a.m. FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS&DECISION Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1.The appellant,Ted Abernethy,filed an appeal of a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated DNS-M) issued by the ERC. Mr.Abernethy,hereinafter the appellant,filed the appeal on August 30, 1999 and the appeal was filed in a timely manner. 2.The appellant operates and is buying the Motorcycle Works of Renton. That business is located at 485 Rainier Avenue South. The shop is located on the west side of Rainier Avenue immediately north of the signal light for the intersection of Rainier Avenue South and South 4th Place. Ted Abernethy Motorcycle Works of Renton Appeal of Administrative Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA99-126,AAD November 15, 1999 Page 4 3.The proposal that is the subject of the appeal would develop an approximately 8,850 square foot building on a site located just south of the appellant's business. The building would be constructed on what is called Parcel E of the larger commonly called Fred Meyer Shopping Center. Parcel E is located immediately north of a railroad trestle and the embankment on which the railroad line is located. 4.Parcel E is approximately 31,385 square feet and trapezoidal in shape. 5.While there previously had been a business located on the subject site,there has been nothing on the site for approximately five years. 6.There is currently no defined use for the proposed new building. 7.The proposed building pad is located south of a driveway that appears to form the western extension of S 4th Place where it intersects Rainier Avenue S. While it is controlled by a City owned and operated traffic signal and appears to be an extension of S 4th Place,the City indicates it is not a City right-of- way,that is it is not a public street. This driveway does have a three-lane section. The northernmost lane is westbound and allows traffic into the Fred Meyer Center either from Rainier(right turn)or through traffic from S 4th Place crossing Rainier. The middle lane permits a left turn onto northbound Rainier or through traffic to S 4th Place east of Rainier. The southernmost lane allows right turns southbound onto Rainier. Further reference to this driveway will refer to it as the "4th driveway." 8.South 4th Place east of Rainier has a similar but reversed lane configuration. It is a three-lane section. The southern lane allows eastbound right turns to S 4th from Rainier or eastbound through traffic to cross Rainier from the 4th driveway. The center lane allows through traffic to cross Rainier westbound or a left turn to southbound Rainier. The northernmost lane allows northbound right turns to Rainier. 9.Rainier northbound in this area is two lanes both north and south of this intersection. Northbound as the intersection is approached one emerges from under the railroad trestle. There is a sign at this location prohibiting left turns into the 4th driveway and the subject site. 10. The southbound lanes of Rainier north of this intersection are four lanes wide. The left lane accommodates only left turns. The two center lanes are for through southbound traffic. The right-most lane accommodates either through southbound traffic or a right turn into the 4th driveway or the appellant's driveway located immediately north of the 4th driveway. 11. The appellant's driveway and the 4th driveway are almost contiguous. The appellant's driveway accommodates both ingress and egress in the one location. The appellant's business has increased approximately ten times in the last few years and since the applicant's subject site was vacated. 12. The appellant has challenged the DNS which indicated: C]urrently,the area surrounding the subject site is developed with an existing shopping center, including associated parking areas and improvements. The proposal would not change the character or significantly increase the current use of the center. There, impacts to surrounding property and uses would be minimal." Ted Abernethy Motorcycle Works of Renton Appeal of Administrative Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA99-126,AAD November 15, 1999 Page 5 13. The appellant disputed this claiming the use "is across the street from the exit to a shopping center and would significantly change existing circulation patterns." 14. They claim the proposal would greatly impact the traffic volume on S. 4th Place. They further claim that a significant increase in traffic will harm the appellant's business. Currently, it is problematic for vehicles exiting the appellant business. The increase could lead to additional traffic making the appellant's driveway inadequate. 15. The appellant claims that comparing the past traffic from the proposed site does not appropriately consider the fact that when that site was last utilized,the appellant had three points of access. It had the current driveway. It also had a southern driveway to the 4th driveway and a western driveway to the Fred Meyer parking lot west of the appellant business. When the Fred Meyer complex was redeveloped,that developer closed off these two additional driveways. 16. The traffic report provided was based on an approximately 8,500 square foot"retail pad." It was termed a reconstruction of an existing 7,400 square foot pad for a net increase of 1,100 square feet. Access to this pad is most directly available via the center accesses along Rainier Avenue and indirectly from the access to Sunset Boulevard." (March 2, 1999 letter from David I. Hamlin& Associates) 17. The report used trip generation numbers for"Specialty Retail Center." This type of use would generate approximately 40.67 trips or approximately 346 trips for a retail pad containing the proposed 8,500 square feet. The PM Peak(afternoon rush hour)is estimated to be approximately 22 trips. Certain fast food restaurants could double some of these projections. 18. The report then compares this to the number of trips a pad of 7,500 square feet would have generated or approximately 301 trips per day. This number supposedly represents the earlier business pad that was on the site. The report does not indicate the type of prior use,nor does it indicate that the prior use was abandoned approximately five(5)years earlier. The PM Peak is estimated to be approximately 19 trips. 19. There is no projection for AM Peak traffic. This office presumes that many retail businesses are not open during the early morning rush hour. 20. The traffic report provides this conclusion: The proposed re-development of one of the retail pads at the Renton Center will have a very limited impact on the adjacent street system....This amount of traffic is negligible when compared to the traffic volumes on the adjacent streets." The numbers in this conclusion are the net change between the proposed larger pad to the prior pad or 45 daily trips and 3 peak trips. Ted Abernethy Motorcycle Works of Renton Appeal of Administrative Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA99-126,AAD November 15, 1999 Page 6 21. Charts accompanying the report show that approximately 65 percent of the trips would head south, north and eastbound,but it is not clear if these trips would enter/emerge from the 4th driveway. 22. The ERC imposed a traffic mitigation fee based on the net change from the prior 7,400 square foot footprint to the proposed 8,500 square foot footprint. Other than concluding there would be approximately 45 new trips,the ERC took no other notice of traffic or transportation issues. 23. The estimates for traffic along Rainier varied. There are no current traffic counts and the estimates varied from approximately 18,000 vehicle trips per day to approximately 25,000 trips. 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 Significance and the mitigation measures imposed by the ERC in this case are 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. 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. 6.The appellant has failed to demonstrate that the actions of the ERC were erroneous or arbitrary and capricious. There is a definite burden in overturning an administrative determination. The appellant did not present evidence that the ERC decision regarding this development should be modified. That does not mean that development will have no impacts or that legitimate safety issues may not exist. 7.While this office is not convinced that the net change in traffic from a use that closed approximately five(5)years ago to a new business accurately represents the traffic impacts of the proposed development,that in and of itself does not mean the overall ERC determination was incorrect. It still appears that the total traffic generated by the proposed business,approximately 345 trips per day,will Ted Abernethy Motorcycle Works of Renton Appeal of Administrative Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA99-126,AAD November 15, 1999 Page 7 not be significant. The 345 trips can enter or leave this larger shopping center from any of four or five driveways including driveways to the north,west and other locations along Rainier Avenue. The 345 trips will be spread out over the course of a business day. And finally,they will be added to or blend with the fairly substantial traffic counts already experienced along Rainier. In this light, it does not appear that this would be significant in terms of SEPA impacts. 8.The appeal appears to have been brought in good faith. The appellant appeared to earnestly believe that the new development adjacent to his business will have an adverse impact on that business. 9.SEPA and the impacts it analyzes are context dependent. That is,additional traffic in some locales could have a definite adverse impact,whereas in other locales the impacts would be less significant because of the high background traffic. Whether one uses only the new traffic that the larger pad or retail business may generate over the former business or even using the total traffic of the pad(ignoring that it replaces a former business),the traffic will not greatly impact the flow along Rainier Avenue. There is already a signalized intersection which controls the flow and meters it to some extent. 10. The absence of SEPA impacts sufficient to trigger either conditions or the preparation of an EIS does not mean that there might not be a safety issue which needs to be addressed by the City. 11. If there are true hazards and the complex interplay of the applicant's roadway/driveway,the appellant's immediately adjacent driveway,Rainier's traffic and illegal turning,then the City always retains some right to preclude, limit or condition access to its public streets. If there is a safety issue the City could limit the access to the 4th driveway if it finds safety issues. The City could alter the flow or even close the access point entirely to safeguard traffic flow and public safety. The appellant might seek such review if the situation appears to warrant it. 12. Finally,there appear to be underlying legal issues between the parties that this review cannot reach. It does appear that the appellant probably needs to seek third party advice on its remedies if it was denied access to which it was legally entitled due to custom and use or other reasons. 13. 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. No such conviction results from hearing this case. This office,based on the record,will not substitute its judgment for that of the ERC. DECISION: The decision of the ERC is affirmed. ORDERED THIS 15th day of November, 1999. I FRED J.KAUF146\N< a(41N-6-'1---) HEARING EXAMINER Ted Abernethy Motorcycle Works of Renton Appeal of Administrative Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA99-126,AAD November 15, 1999 Page 8 TRANSMITTED THIS 15th day of November, 1999 to the parties of record: Ted Abernethy Zanetta Fontes Leslie Nishihira 485 Rainier Ave S 1055 S Grady Way 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 Anton Schatz Geri Reinart Paul Lumbert 17801 SE 146th 1319 Dexter Ave N,#270 1055 S Grady Way Renton,WA 98059 Seattle,WA 98109 Renton, WA 98055 Tom Lee James Hamm 4000 E Madison,#290 1420 Fifth Avenue,#2200 Seattle, WA 98112 Seattle, WA 98101-2333 TRANSMITTED THIS 15th day of November, 1999 to the following: Mayor Jesse Tanner Gregg Zimmerman,Plan/Bldg/PW Admin. Members,Renton Planning Commission Jana Hanson,Development Services Director Chuck Duffy,Fire Marshal Mike Kattermann,Technical Services Director Lawrence J. Warren,City Attorney Larry Meckling,Building Official Transportation Systems Division Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer Utilities System Division Councilperson Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Sue Carlson,Econ. Dev. Administrator Betty Nokes,Economic Development Director 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.,November 29, 1999. 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 Ted Abernethy Motorcycle Works of Renton Appeal of Administrative Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA99-126,AAD November 15, 1999 Page 9 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. AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Charlotte Ann Kassens first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL 600 S. Washington Avenue, Kent, Washington 98032 NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING RENTON HEARING EXAMINER a daily newspaper published seven (7)times a week. Said newspaper is a legal RENTON,WASHINGTON An Appeal Hearing will be held by the newspaper of general publication and is now and has been for more than six months Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular prior to the date of publication, referred to, printed and published in the English language meeting in the Council Chambers on the continually as a daily newspaper in Kent, King County, Washington. The South County seW floor City , 1l, Renton, Wasshinhin floor on OOctober 19 1999 at 9:00 Journal has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the AM to consider the following petition: State of Washington for King County.RPI BUILDING eThenoticeintheexactformattached, was published in the South County TAD-a9-12s ppellant, Motorcycle Works of Journal (and not in supplemental form)which was regularly distributed to the subscribers Renton, appeals the administrative site during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a plan approval and environmental review committee staff report dated August 17, 1999 (File No. LUA-99-082,SA-A,ECF). RPI Building RPI proposes construction of a 8,850 sq.ft. building in the Renton Center. Location: 504 Renton Center Way SW. as published on: 10/8/99 Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the Development Services Division, Sixth Floor, Renton CityThefullamountofthefeechargedforsaidforegoingpublicationisthesumof$40.25, Hall. charged to Acct. No. 80510 All interested persons to said petitions are invited to be present at the Public Hearing. Legal Number 6672 Publication Date:October 8,1999 Published in the South County Journal October 8, 1999.6672 Le7I Clerk, outh County Journal Subscribed and sworn before me this ) 1day of nr,1- , 19 ( / s o"N•' • Gi'i Notary Public of the State of Was ington 5 o4* s fFkq••d' residing in Renton NkomoNkomo •King County, Washington 9 BI' O.(• 11 p/ftp;fWA H```• AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Charlotte Ann Kassens first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL 600 S. Washington Avenue, Kent, Washington 98032 NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING RENTON HEARING EXAMINER a daily newspaper published seven (7)times a week. Said newspaper is a legal RENTON,WASHINGTON An Appeal Hearing will be held by the newspaper of general publication and is now and has been for more than six months Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular prior to the date of publication, referred to, printed and published in the English language meeting in the Council Chambers on the continually as a daily newspaper in Kent, King County, Washington. The South County second floor of City Hall, Renton, Washington, on October 19, 1999 at 9:00 Journal has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the AM to consider the following petition: State of Washington for King County.RPI BUILDING AAThenoticeintheexactformattached, was publishedCounty TheintheSouth a pe6Theappellant, Motorcycle Works of Journal (and not in supplemental form)which was regularly distributed to the subscribers Renton, appeals the administrative site during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a plan approval and environmental review committee staff report dated August 17, 1999 (File No. LUA-99-082,SA-A,ECF). RPI Building RPI proposes construction of a 8,850 sq.ft. building in the Renton Center. Location: 504 Renton Center Way SW. as published on: 10/8/99 Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the Development Services Division, Sixth Floor. Renton City The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of$40.25, Hall. charged to Acct. No. 8051067. c All interested persons to said petitions are invited to be present at the Public Hearing. Legal Number 6672 Publication Date:October 8,1999 Z"fl ` Published in the South County Journal October 8, 1999.6672 ega Clerk, ou u ouMnal Subscribedworn before me o this tq day of OCI , 19 9 / Ilimioll,h..e,t 0. <gSiOIVF 4%•0 Notary Public of the State of ashington NOTARY ':residing in Renton King County, Washington 5. N: UBL\G p: N i,/• fll jA- 0- CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING OCTOBER 19, 1999 AGENDA COMMENCING AT 9:00 AM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7TH FLOOR, RENTON CITY HALL The application(s) 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. PROJECT NAME:Appeal — RPI Building PROJECT NUMBER: AAD-99-126 (LUA-99-082,SA-A,ECF) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The appellant, Motorcycle Works of Renton, appeals the administrative site plan approval and environmental review committee staff report dated August 17, 1999 (File No. LUA-99- 082,SA-A,ECF). RPI proposes construction of a 8,850 sq.ft. building in the Renton Center. Location: 504 Renton Center Way SW. AGNDA.DOC NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING RENTON HEARING EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON An Appeal Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall, Renton, Washington, on October 19, 1999 at 9:00 AM to consider the following petition: RPI BUILDING AAD-99-126 The appellant, Motorcycle Works of Renton, appeals the administrative site plan approval and environmental review committee staff report dated August 17, 1999 (File No. LUA- 99-082,SA-A,ECF). RPI proposes construction of a 8,850 sq.ft. building in the Renton Center. Location: 504 Renton Center Way SW. Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the Development Services Division, Sixth Floor, Renton City Hall. All interested persons to said petitions are invited to be present at the Public Hearing. Publication Date: October 8, 1999 Account No. 51067 NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING 4 77)CIT OF RENTON Hearing Examiner Jesse Tanner,Mayor Fred J.Kaufman September 13, 1999 Mr. Matthew D. O'Conner 8011 Greenwood Avenue N Seattle, WA 98103-4228 Re: Appeal by Motorcycle Works of Renton of Administrative Decision re RPI Building File No. LUA99-082,SA-A Appeal File No. LUA99-126,AAD Dear Mr. O'Conner: This office has reviewed your request for a night hearing. This office does not hold evening hearings. While a daytime hearing might inconvenience some persons, a similar case can be made for evening hearings. In addition,please find attached our procedures. It will be unnecessary for multiple parties to introduce the same or similar testimony regarding the proposed project. If this office can provide any other assistance,please feel free to write. Sincerely, Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Larry Warren, City Attorney Leslie Nishihira Applicant 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)430-6515 MATTHEW D. O'CONNER ATTORNEY AT LAW 8011 GREENWOOD AVENUE NORTH • SEATTLE,WASHINGTON, 98103-4228 USA TELEPHONE:(206)782-0722 • FAX:(206)783-0233 • E-MAIL:oconner@oconnerlegal. comM pSe tember 09, 1999 E @ E I u SEP 131999 Fred J. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner City of Renton NER 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Re: Appeal by Motorcycle Works of Renton of Administrative Decision re RPI Building File No. LUA99-082,SA-A Appeal File No. LUA99-126,AAD Dear Mr. Kaufman, Thank you for granting Motorcycle Works of Renton(MWR) a hearing to appeal the administrative decision. However, MWR feels that the time of day of the hearing(9am, Tuesday, October 19, 1999) is prohibitive. A 9am hearing time will require several of the parties who would like to testify to not work for that morning and that would require closing the store for that morning. Accordingly, MWR hereby requests an evening hearing time. Sincer 9// 7, 1 Matthew D. O'Conner Attorney At Law cc: Ted Abernethy, Motorcycle Works of Renton MATTHEW D. O'CONNER ATTORNEY AT LAW 8011 GREENWOOD AVENUE NORTH • SEATTLE,WASHINGTON, 98103-4228 USA TELEPHONE:(206)782-0722 • FAX:(206)783-0233 • E-MAIL:oconnereoconnerl-:al.com RiE:I(311 LIJ September 09, 1999 161SEP 131999 Fred J. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner City of Renton I'',.- li?• 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Re: Appeal by Motorcycle Works of Renton of Administrative Decision re RPI Building File No. LUA99-082,SA-A Appeal File No. LUA99-126,AAD Dear Mr. Kaufman, Thank you for granting Motorcycle Works of Renton(MWR)a hearing to appeal the administrative decision. However,MWR feels that the time of day of the hearing(9am, Tuesday, October 19, 1999)is prohibitive. A 9am hearing time will require several of the parties who would like to testify to not work for that morning and that would require closing the store for that morning. Accordingly,MWR hereby requests an evening hearing time. Sincer Matthew D. O'Cormer Attorney At Law cc: Ted Abernethy, Motorcycle Works of Renton CIT.. OF RENTON Hearing Examiner Jesse Tanner,Mayor Fred J.Kaufman September 2, 1999 Mr,Matthew D. O'Conner 8011 Greenwood Avenue N Seattle, WA 98103-4228 Re: Appeal by Motorcycle Works of Renton of Administrative Decision re RPI Building File No. LUA99-082,SA-A Appeal File No. LUA99-126,AAD Dear Mr. O'Conner: We received your appeal dated August 25, 1999, and the hearing will be scheduled for Tuesday, October 19, 1999, at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Should you have any further questions,please contact this office. Sincerely, Fred J. K fman Hearing Examiner cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Larry Warren, City Attorney Leslie Nishihira Applicant 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)430-6515 MATTHEW D. O'CONNER ATTORNEY AT LAW 8011 GREENWOOD AVENUE NORTH • SEATTLE,WASHINGTON, 98103-4228 USA TELEPHONE:(206)782-0722 • FAX:(206)783-0233 • E-MAIL:oconnereoconnerlegal.com August 25, 1999 Hearing Examiner AUG 0 1999 City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way qq1Y OfR ON Renton, WA 98055 HEARING 0(AM(NER Dear Hearing Examiner, Motorcycle Works of Renton, c/o Ted Abernethy,485 Rainier Avenue South, Renton,WA 98055,hereby appeals the City of Renton P/B/PW Department's August 17, 1999 Administrative Site Plan Approval&Environmental Review Committee Staff Report file# LUA-99-082, SA-A, ECF). In¶3 on page seven of the August 17 Renton report,the city claims that C]urrently,the area surrounding the subject site is developed with an existing shopping center, including associated parking areas and improvements. The proposal would not change the character or significantly increase the current use of the center. Therefore, impacts to surrounding properties and uses would be minimal." Motorcycle Works of Renton(MWR) is aggrieved and disputes this finding of fact for the following reasons: The staff report erroneously claims that the proposed site is within"an existing shopping center and would utilize existing circulation patterns. This is an incorrect statement of fact;the proposed site is across the street from the exit to a shopping center and would significantly change existing circulation patterns. Specifically, this proposal would greatly impact the traffic volume on S. 4`h Place by increasing the traffic flow to the intersection of 4th and Rainier Avenue South. A significant increase in traffic at the intersection would harm MWR; currently,it is problematic for vehicles exiting MWR as such vehicles are,upon leaving MWR's parking lot, forced to turn right into the middle of that intersection. An increase in the amount of traffic flowing to (and particularly `from')the proposed Real Property Investors' (RPI) site would have a significantly adverse impact on MWR as the increase could lead to the one ingress/egress to MWR becoming inadequate. This adverse impact is increased by the specific use of the proposed site as a retail site versus office use. It is foreseeable that traffic flow will be increased more for a retail site than for office space. Also, Part One,¶2 of the August 17 Renton report states that, "The building would occupy the same location as the previous building..." When the previous building on the proposed site was in place, the traffic ingress/egress onto S. 4th Place was significantly different. At that time,the business on the MWR site had three separate access routes to its parking lot, the current one on Rainier Ave. South, one on S. 4`h Place, and one into the Fred Meyers parking area. Accordingly, "the impacts to surrounding properties and uses"would not be minimal and MWR requests an appeal of this approval and staff report. Sincerely, Matthew D. O'Conner Attorney At Law cc: Ted Abernethy, Motorcycle Works of Renton MMwww Matthew D. N er,Attorney at Law FIR! "ICE`8011 Greenwoou Ave N. 206-782-0722 1711Seattle,WA 98103-4228 Date 8 Gi Pay to the Order of 0/4>r5 n RANK dONN' 55 gg noh 027905SEittI.BWA 96100 19-2/1250 W o eta I 1,08 DSET),1,1e( 9 4iion 1711 CITY OF RENTON CITY TREASURER CASHIERTID : 8289:209am A:08-38-1999 5887 APPEALS & WAIVERS 75.88 008.008.80.345.81.08.000803 TOTAL DUE 75.88 RECEIVED FROM: M. O'CONNER CHECK 75.88 TOTAL TENDERED 75.88 CHANGE DUE 8.08 911 - ag2lSA P/ iw .. r y y .. :. r J M \c yit ± a . . :, w fx ' 4"y '''•`ttA s'°'`' i l T' "p Q{ 't h -•.•w , sue. :o F 1 t , fi Wgty,,Fi..'*/ i ,5 .5 s.R'`k ,yririv3_+.filxS v;Fh ', d S .'y,t. t S` 19 Lti-4/P v' 44i ft aa .. DEV QPti+ , S i1fICES tN ft1W3vy o9' tro, 4,':..y '• Mr`\ :#7 , w i' J: ntivi :'e,: .r t t.\F`'f;. is f• « { 2 ' t ssr, 4 ;. t.flA%l %F 'y`e3"`:4w 4.y,.y a. 6,'.xs"•n' , tt. 3'3s/ _a'.,s .x :'`` .,.:..:> r y"ty. `4,, t,fr._i,. d `-, g S Ott f. `, j,,: ut.Cm.40. 9 vgAi A , Rs p i,.i61 ., : i y . i tr i?-;-dui ;' t -^ `; yam tyNev_,Atvwsev:;:ntiroi,„Avito x fx<'z: ?t': t,' `u.`: Y t:„ /^.R -:.._..:..,. ..,. • :...,...t,,,... .,n> :v Wit. .i, ` tsat.", , / :e,' ^„ n„ y5 /m.x :, +.•an:{A„„!_..f',^k:?^ :.v•y ..k•,?e(.M4`Ji\ Y:.M+'.t. tt y•.ric .a" .r•.^ `" .E p tea.\ r i..y kpRoPERTY OWNER(S) P tOJ. ECTIN. ORMATI0.Nt? %f .. ; '.Note If ihbre(a mote then one tapaT Owner •i5fease`attacR er)edcfdonatr notarized Master Application for i;sr i .. PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: NAME: r.C t-- --r.o. (2. R P I LLC Q rt _ l PROPERTY/PROJECT ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION: ADDRESS: 1 G RAINIER AVE S & S 4TH P L CITY: 1>47g y , ic> ZIP: z4 KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER,S1: 1 tom' 182305-9157-00 TELEPHONE NUMBER: l. 182305-9238-03 p 1• d -2 3- e. EXISTING LAND USE(S):t,1EN R -( o%, VACANT pev k° of EN APPLICANT4ii ott er:,than owner}- p.( '., 1999 NAME: I PROPOSED LAND USES: 45) REAL PROPERTY INVESTORS. LLC RETAIL BUILDING C ADDRESS: EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: 400 EAST MADISON STREET EMPLOYMENT AREA COMMERCIAL CITY: ZIP: PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION(if appicable):SEATTLE, WA 98112 TELEPHONE NUMBER: EXISTING ZONING: i r 206 .322 4600 CA PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): rcorn—ACT PERSON . SITE AREA (SQ. FT. OR ACREAGE): NAME: EDI LINARDIC 31 ,385 SF COMPANY Cif applicable): PROJECT VALUE: I LDG/ARCHITECTS 440,000 ADDRESS: IS THE SITE LOCATED IN 7HE AQUIFE:i PROTECTION AREA? 1319 DEXTER AVE N., SUITE 260 NO CITY: ZIP: IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY OTHER TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLYSEATTLE, WA 98109 SENSITIVE AREA? TELEPHONE NUMBER: NO 206 283 1292 LEGAL DESCRIP.TION OF:PROPERTY {Attach "separate sheet if'necessary}; . LOT E OF CITY OF RENTON BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LUA-99- 1017—LLA RECORDED APRIL 6, 1999 UNDER RECORDING NO. 9904069001 . BEING A PORTION OF THE HENRY A TOBIN LAND CLAIM NO. 37 AND A PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 16 IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON TYPE OF APPLICATION i SEES Check all a licationPA ZyPas that Itppty <City`staff will determine fees ANNEXATION SUBDIVISION: COMP. PLAN AMENDMENT REZONE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT SPECIAL PERMIT SHORT PLAT TEMPORARY PERMIT S TENTATIVE PLAT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PRELIMINARY PLAT RSITE PLAN APPROVAL IDa,CO FINAL PLAT GRADE & FILL PERMIT y NO. CU. YDS: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: VARIANCE FROM SECTION: PRELIMINARY WAIVER FINAL WETLAND PERMIT ROUTINE VEGETATION MOBILE HOME PARKS: MANAGEMENT PERMIT BINDING SITE PLAN SHORELINE REVIEWS: SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT $ CONDITIONAL USE VARIANCE S j EXEMPTION No Chare X_ ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Q0 tl REVISION AFFIDAVIT f}F OWNERPHIP I, (Print Name) EDI LINARDIC , declare that I am(please check one)_the owner of the property involved in this application, Xthe authorized representative to act for the property owner;please attach proof of authorization), and that the foregoing statements end answers herein contained end the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge end belief. ATTEST: Subscribed Ind sworn to before me. a hats. uEDILINARDICjt:• R 1 fo the State of A( residing at cy ifNameof0'yJr'ner/Representative) 7f l e. L.i A on the.21itda.olt,,` yw i, i I j 1PP Signatureeof Owner/Representative) 1/C?-7—i '; , V Signature Of Notary Public) pit `".' 2-10 . r0 h, 'vt This section to be completed by City Staff.) City File Number:.Z.V7' - A ;AAD :BSP CAP $ :CAP U CPA. CU-A CU-H LLA MHP ,:FPUI3 .FP PP R RVMP,CSA-A SA-H SHPL A .:SHPL4{ SP".SM .SME TP .::V-A'.:V-H W TOTAL FEES: $ i)5ZI, ) TOTAL POSTAGE PROVIDED: :$ .f t ?5' r,„ 33 MASTERAP.DOC REVISED 8197 F3 • 7 T23N R5E E 1/2 RM—I 11 R-io z 1A IL(P) 3iid Pi. cY--- CC IL_ dr = P-1 R-1O(P) IX ' 7 Airport Way INN R-8 co L ........Oc., E ]. c4 CA' I R8' iSTToin 1St HRL--1 1H I cD ini x Y i I R-81l I R:8 faiCt .. ; til -- I ci CA 64 r aL a- c° — i'° 0 _ CD(P) CD RMI-U RM— 4fti N d ,s -a CA i g a.C D CA S 2nd St.S 2nd St / zw_ CD CD _ --J.CA CJ,` _ CD dD24 1- _ 921, J--CD (CD - .s _ S 3rd St7 cD Ic, ( . ,-. l _T - N z75F-- \ iCAI S' I3Ird(j 1 LI CD o 1 cD A I I cD 1 ( I (L_ -z cD CD CDCP) e CD CD I CD QID CD CD .f lb CDCD CIXi)S. C / CD CD CD CD CD CD f 1 CD:rD CD -f- CD CA p 46 -It 1• it w § -< 1 c any ' _ ,/ . m -:. ' 1 ce S6.h= St -- —! ' - RM—U 7 .... ,CAS I_ D _- _ I C. .- CI, - S -7th 6 I 1 f ' i.. ... • i. f••.Ii H_ f.13 1 f.f 11 Y o G3 . 19 T23N R5E E 1/2 S Y O 4 °? F3ZONING00 F L SERVICES 18T23N R5E E 1/2 ZONING MAP BOOK ` Irginf,rignie n 455 . a/4i so., '` 459 __ _`c_cE'_ '- Iii74543; k•' -.: 1.*,,],:: F,:, 1:1„.; i.,:..:.:::: 1, i.,, ii1:t:: i.„i.si Ip.i-' a i f•-,- 70 . 1.. i r •110 ,.t'::'-:''.:- i.'K-.*-..:'::-.,- C::.•' i u;: E• `1 ''. IMF 6ij , dN R4E *--; ,R4 , 304.. .t i•T24 Eft !1B't2 i '.5 ; • 44:4NtE"26 T24N RSE 1%It.',''::.:i.ii::nl:C.:]!?:...i4ti:,-.,:ii.:4:$:-,..:,. - J ! :...;..0.1:,: :1-.. .. • 4 1, Ill. 19IF. 6(sk. ...441/4 464 : lk.• 1:.,.i,, :::-m,,,:i-c,2:,.: ... •....... ,. -,.'or-" . - ., i„:::::: ,• -- - ,:' l:;;;•;,..:;::-. --- /ff,00k AINI 'I.-. . 4-- -C 7c i-,,:,:‘:: 1.:.-: p,:giiift r. iE:,:!1il 36 T2,,:. ,„, 31 T24N RSF.' 3 ry E..f 24N R5E 14.1 1 i i...-i.e.,-. 7 i;... IS,P,.AR) f r-4t I \ 307 C RL .' 08 M 4 6 ra...;l.ii h Iiiiiiiiip I1.0 R 2 T23N R5E in.-1. '' ..i 4.' 16,61.6 --el'1, 1,44.1.: r '1'711 p IL- -''' ' ,--- 1 40.4. '-: i -:- -0 806 del kb 1 W =42zi• -z,,,-7.- 0 1-moz.1 ‘ ‘...- .-,-. . - \iiii.: ,,.. :.;,, " '...:-J,:-.... 411AL., . .gr, .,... i, -, , . . r, i ,.. _, , :i t'-,-"r'',K. ._.VII,! .... . Pv..,' E 6i -114 4 3N a & C{. •5E ,,': /iti Al'•. a1., as• .' 10_.23IN 1R 7 11 TA31R5E t 1 4. ,til”-370 LE -Rail 81i 1,-,,.'• 11 iE 9 F 47A: . 41:- TA\ VRIOlk r_ 1'x,. i t i:r ar1 1 i i.:- 0; a- a : iJCP.'1 twkSt r 18 23 R II E 16 T23..RSEI. )SX13 1 2,1`RSE. y x lliU `. 5 -',t 4_33.6 r I / t r d* 371 81,_ " s 16 ' ° . '. 1rim 41 • til dEr -( _:•.,,,,.. 71e, t„ 1 ,0,,, • *- '; .----:::-. ..-':'. .-&:7._- 1:--: 1/1 T2 N R4 , ', 1 19'T23. '•y I ' T23N1R5 r L2T;•T23 .:...22 T23N R _ 23 T23N RSE 2 s •4a++_. aa-, 1-11 •o 0 e01 11I i.o*2 e' a 0 ' - I ' t' -. ' ..=: ..;7:-' I-- C ' " 'f - IF tn..... - h. ( :-.)#-":.4 .. - .. .-'r.',.,< 1 1 Ir,,1;I x't l300,T23g1 ' Fir .. 9.:L2.3LRSE>` IR 7 Ni.SE 26 T23NZOk7t'1' S UP :51 _ i, ? jt 825, s82 ` 8 f1, y -. ),4 t, , r;,,,, .. • 36 T2JN'R$ 31 T231lRSE 32- N rRSE j ht., r •, I 1 - . cs36JYn.T23N SE •r 4 t23N RSE _, 35 T23N 11 6. i " i 0--..—'—'. m• , 6 , • 608 ' 0,° 32' 833 i::::>::::» . 8 0 1 2 :p j p r. -,—:-. 22N RAE 1 T-?2N—R4E 6 T22N R5E(•'.-4 F$' T22N R5E, ,4, g. R5E •_,7'3 T N R5E ,_• II 2 T22N R5E;:}T.: $2; p a KROLI RC Resource Conservation CC 1 Convenience Commercial tvl Publicly Owned n Residential 1 du/ac El Center Neighborhood Rer.:oa City Limits PAGE# rR-5 Residential 5 du/ac I CS I Center Suburban Adjacent City Limits IR-B Residential 0 du/ac I CD I Center Downtown Grey Text) Ercxoncs SECT/TOWN/RANGE IRio Residential Manufactured Homes I CCR I Center Office Residential I Autor all District A IR-la Residential 10 du/ac I CA I Commercial Arterial ,; I•:•:•:1 Automall District D Piii R-le Residential 14 du/ac n Commercial Arterial Aulomall PAGE j CM ReaidenLial Multi-Family Infill Commercial Office in CM Residential Multi-Family Neighborhood Center I- Industrial - Heavy INDEX11itI•l n Residential Multi-Family Suburban Center Industrial - MediuriL mni Residential Mulll-Family Urban Center I-1 Industrial - Light i a1-7Public Use m a I l 1 I I I I 114,i,VP,,,A2klay.va f ' i 1 I f c . 4.-kfr‘_--. p L031:1.11A.111/0 6 41 4/ I \il I 1 4_i. No LEFT pi J. I . 1, I \if ill4' i v 1\ 1 01.i 1 I I 1 1 1 t 1111,1 1 1.„ 1 1 NI .,, r__,cL,_ A 1 NORTH z Q + S.2ND ST. 5 0) 5 ) S.3RP ST. II)0) UNSET SL"• 0)1XX -TOTAL SITE TRIPS XX) -NET INCREASE IN SITE TRIPS 0) 6RP 91'WAY I-405 ESTIMATED P" PEAK HOUR TRIP ASSIGNMENT FIGURE S DAVID I.HAMLIN S ASSOCIATES RPI RETAIL PAD PAGE RENTON,WA. F-5 NORTH 4:4H 40% ui S.2ND ST. 55% 3RD ST. 52 gUNSET BLV411111144 XX -TOTAL SITE TRIPS XX) -NET INCREASE IN SITE TRIPS 10% P4) 6RP'121'yrp,Y 1-405 ESTIMATED TRIP D ISTR IEUT ION BY PERCENT DAILY VOLUME) E 6URE 2 DAVID I.HAMLIN 4 ASSOCIATES RPI RETAIL PAD PAGE RENTON,WA. F-2 L q, 010- a._ 4^ •.--".4..^4• 4 la--4 0:5, ' 1 411111111.".... vvvmm... 1444.44...., ene....e.g.*. e. Altitlitiat0;' ' • . -. 42111414‘440P4ili r4.5.41 41.1:4,-. ', 1kler* 4.....44111144#11t4V- 4 4• •, t' •'•i '.. .;:!...#'''. ' ' ' " . . r.'.:•• ...i.'=',.. vom AP* 0 ie.AgVior.dwlli . 1V4016..6. 41111111111% 44 . , V' 4.4%,„ "-,. • aollsollowerwo 1//a/Mar film 1 1111 WO* mil I I leso %.1. ,.,8 limp 01-41 cirit.tf-:,/ t- ii,II mimum.8.--,....., 37)ANI° ff' 4 4 j v""IIIIIIZIr 11/6_...... aI A, II fill . • • LA 110.••••4, „____ 1... .w............ 11111111 Or Nr- . e . j . .41111111r 101.....Mir• & 40r. iiii, reline& 01.. MOO -14 • -.. - vitt . to i 1 ail I 11111110 I "1 40. iii .;r a' i i• ld ii• P I 4 es 4 t A •• 41.• 11.,. If , ai 4 • 4.. ir 0 - ..,•-- op At • 1;4 d. • 11 t i 11 n • •••'4- I f . ' " f V: 1 ;.I... 8' 1. . , •t . 1.. V A R iv yr,Sib, J% 411‘it . r r.. 1 !' 1 e• ., . r•6 • .. i .• ii Mt; • .! •t- I • t yp, I N AI 1, Ik r . I v. 1*, ' ett..* Isq 11 n e 14' -•••' ..Plitill i . i 7 In P ) 4. i OP i . V \ .41 WI 4811. V i . •' ' . • .' ir.,Al I • % Lk Ir. 1.,,41, •. • ... 4, j P 41111121W-- wr , . •,, 11' . I 411r---, _ 7.:-e.'.. •l'''., afir.1.00 . i . i4- 4 014111L. 4 .". .• .' 1%, .41c ‘, 10111%... 4ir ,c41 0 illt 4. •1k ' *JP' ak I, • 0 ' • I. dt. 4r NIi•4, ei-" 7'. illiF NM 4 le/ AI" 41104.... MO.•, 40114 4.7:• am... IBM 4' 7' 0111111111Or' PL Or 1.• Oil 7.' 11, t. 1 waitomemilr ft. 4...__ amboomiimr ow. yip. ,_ er 111111Mailia. 11111. 01. 111* i, 111........ 001. 10. 1. llit kill A r•-•••-•"----- P----- z- IrlIP -. 00100."' aligift. 111111P11$ r. 11111111." i di lik. a Wa. AI glillear4, , 411...". oatill 0 4 7•• 111111111mum..............- - Ae. 4. 111411111 A ._,_ 1 _ h. I , 7' 5 1, 1gAv -.... ...., k....... 0* d, t' „ igi aim. igios ......... e I i . b • k. I. ,.. mor s,...: 0;.• I 0 1 1 11: Pn. 4. 771 ik. 457.• ders... 4 14 . .' Aril rEgh HEE MR 00 k‘ 11111 8 i . ••' a s.8• i,: j-- • 8 42/ 16: 120/ 14111: il ' 1. 1. 8. 4h4P1410._ 4treSi iillek. 8. 3 M IN Ai gift I VA 1 1 sir ulf00 . I I' k 4••• •• ''``..... 111111t 44..... a.. Imm........ mpr 4.4.... 4. O., ii,.: 6 , e.,... ' 44 11I • * Vial f 41, 1 SP( le 4:• 11. d''' ' ii.... A • ••"?' 40 ite 0; •' II, 4%.* 0010• a, . t F' 4" 43$ I 4, . ,- ,• 4.. ` , i. ie 411L.. " • w e 41k IP . S• ar,„.. . ••••••.••• oio.. .. 1 .-.) I , • ,-. •• 1 t` 1 T I J 0,• el . ir . 4 r ; i$ •*"....... s - • ' • • ill 1 0111: 1 , ..• - .' ' I t t . .• •-• WO 4. •. ai# 1111Art.- 47# 14 7. Ill . 4. ._ • ' i . 1%,.. 1 . 0p• r "v • t- f' 1 • -- 1 I ..• ' , , , 441 Nli* 1 ,.... I.. Ii. 41/40 4... S Ay hI3INIV id t... 11, 01................. lii i-il: is iiii31.-- - I r ;` vit , 10( J. a d , IV sisimv .17,v- - O 1 ' I 4 ir 1:41011144' 1' rrr ii k . Effie i ilk 4E1 7 0,4 4.2„.„,je .......•i„.........,_ e.-- g . st . f i t. j !'• l • A.• 1 4 i Nir , 14 . I, Ai: 4*. t rir fi 1h. s• ` lit 1 talk, j7 v. w 4 Alit • , • Iserit i 4 . t 3 ' ••••‘, •• kill . It' A ' P 9r. . 4 1 i I . i: S.. ' 4: 4R.. t i, 1 1• 0 f r , t?— ' • Ai iiiiiiirIV . ltj4 . i' • ',• 44•• ‘ 1. t" . -•! '' Os, „, e A t• P. 44 ' 1 i . Ir 1 4 1• a II de . L y 4. i1 t 1 4 h ' j I 4 t 6, 0.1 L 4 1- ell ... 3 4 1 O ti3O Ce il. t 4 r A 16 1 V CO vab el t , u ' r .# js Est• 1 t i e : , 1 r 0 i . • e* iii it , .. . t i i '. i,. .,. 4, 1 ri iii) d ' i• t ! N. 4 4. - ' T A i 1 1 • i ter 0 I. C • -. r . 4 •Mb il iot.s. $ie,- at•ba '4 - 11. Zur;op.* I..it kidk i A. lob Aii.if 40t p, ft, 1' I 'e, •90 44 • . th: • • t 1„ *. dr d• • i. I di 41>ig•.Att,,,. : r 10 j$ 41‘ Alit .."111111V t e . 0 ,i s 11 liop.44 • •lk , II, , 0 VI,.., ; .f 4 Air is , - • I a. .,, .• .... It Si. • • 14 ' •• ••• .it I t ' ' f. fr I' - • •% 1, , I. . . . •, 1 ... k I lir 11119.•• 1110 b . s -•.' 1 . t A .' • ..d.‘.: 1'' P. ski.,• ••• li ;. . • ' 0:4 .• 4. e, ..... _.'•'•'.. t. *, 4° I,• '.•.', O.w„..*,,,"', a1.17ill-'..••‘• lNAa).•gi.ti.„•.• II•'• 51b•4 4' 1,.-. 1. 111,4,,. i- 11‘ r. i•... J,, 43.••.•••• ii" M. 4. i.•.#•. a•:i'gl•'•' 4 • 1.' il• a... SA1 INitLfr 46a - - 44 iii- i r . 4 si 04 AP I••. r V..•••. 14 es 0 ir ‘A IV:•'., • . Nok irk P iiii ; 1/4 • .. • 4,1i *.- ... q.II. 10,-, •- i s• ,s... it .. ak .`- ,ir iiiel, kib-' .r.,,,',•• • .r,,.•,• 4 Pr : 0 Ali: .. . is . .. t*L . .., Ill NI• • :r. •• t 1141%( '/IL.• .' I .... " ,Alltr 4'14 AM, 400.1b..• 4 .. 10 411 ' ; 1 Up: ^` '.....4, L.• ': ; 14-.• * 1111611. 4 11114114111INNIIINiklir t4 -*fp rII, 7•41.,*: ..''4',lir .: 4: I. • . ir1.,;1/4 ,•••4 1 :' Mill511111" . 10. 1 It kr r lio. Jaw. .„... ,...,. Q Ilk' f RODEO 34%,„ .-404. I e.. 7 Lag • lift A ew•tt if rallgekall.111111111111 16 lillimmamitil 1 a• •• Illb i Irili"-"ellip 4 vtio I I bon, MOD ENTRANCE .r'''bx N , • MEM 111.2 1 vel at isimierawassasi• for Itt• - .t.. .. ea, -44 4---.. Motorcycle MI Pr . NM '-- - ' - 411111111111111111111.16,W 0 r k s 48 Rns.,,••• S 4 lir 1 de I 6. I, 10 .• • • 14,... ' 1.•* 1‘11*• 416, '!• . r 11 lima44,• a. ay Off." f 9 410s 11111110111.11111.01MIIIIIIIIMMIP 111k t , tiifr . a a// ' k R (( Y l C°4. 1 1 r ' fi 111 ill at1*-,a 011dIllil.' 1.: i alli iI 1111V f' I I II adi. .-. .1r Pi'A r, i r-:: ' I f. ..: 4, 111. 114 11 rill I illA / . . i 4. 0 a al,., rWM.4111411 r air) 411 1. i r a 4 .- ) it I^ i ai I k t MM. 4 'IP' ) % - 7 Ai Y ic;i.•: of •1 • tivit fit n yit •,: . ' lit' * 0 K'• .'i i ,A 11_: , . fix.. , 4. 1.,, . . .. . . , 47.Y .-, { r' 6 41:111Ntro' libr inx T lic.: -0. i' Ill 1\ .. 4 1 At rih, i . t YM t E. r r .of at 0 4,, . .. , La z( y I'*• ' *• • '' ••4 .e - ' , t I a r 4