No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA81-013 • AFFIDAVIT • I , JOHN V. FARRELL & LEEANN FARRELL , being duly sworn, declare that X WE are am the ownersof the property involved in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. ' Subscribed and sworn before me this Zvi day of akaemi. , 19 i/ , Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at 571gaid& ed ti4 / �/�..� ` (' ( a - of Notary Public) (Signature of Owner) Attorney in fact for: John V. Farrell $ Leeann Farrell Gf/(f 2220 So. 1 2th Seattle. Wash. . (Address) / (Address) • • SEATTLE WASH. 98168 (City) (State) 248 2228 or 244 8690 (Telephone) • • (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) CERTIFICATION This is to certify that the foregoing application has been inspected by me and has been found to :be_ horough and complete in every particular and to conform to the rules`)4nd 41 .v�lations of the Renton Planning Department i�i governing the filg � \u�cplication . Rtl'C�� �fl ()\ Date Received . , 19 By: • /PA,��UG 117 Renton Planning Dept . 2-73 / r11, ✓ OF I �� © o THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 o ° BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 9A co' FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 O,9gT�O SEPS00 March 23, 1981 TO: Dave Clemens, Acting Planning Director Richard Houghton, Acting Public Works Director Ron Nelson, Building Official Del Mead, City Clerk FROM: Fred J. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner SUBJECT: Appeal of Declaration of Significance on Special Permit Application, File No. SP-013-81 ; Environmental Checklist No. ECF-017-81 ; Emilio and Richard Pierotti An appeal from the determination of the Environmental Review Committee has been received by this office on the above entitled matter. Please forward all official documents and correspondence concerning this matter to our office no later than 5:00 p.m. , Friday, March 27, 1981 . At the same time, the Planning Department should schedule a public hearing on this matter for the earliest possible date. The item may be scheduled for a Tuesday hearing if the agenda appears to be relatively light. In the event the agendas are full , the item may be scheduled for another time. The applicant ' s representative, S. Michael Rodgers, attorney at law, should be consulted prior to scheduling the hearing. If further assistance on procedural matters is required, please feel free to contact this office. )(1.4i VO4,4.____ 70. Fred J . Ka man 4 ��S\\'AC� "lam *,,-p ,.. . --.' 1 .....,-- 4,:- !NPNGD <,-,r-'1:".1-4T Or Ntilii i4 United States J epartment of the Interior {, FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE j Fts�'' Ecological Services �.ck 3.09 2625 Parkmont Lane, S.W. , Bldg. B-3 Olympia, Washington 98502 March 16, 1981 Mr. David R. Clemens Acting Planning Director City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 - Dear Mr. Clemens: Thank you for the copy of your Wetlands Study. It is encouraging to see your city acknowledge the importance of wetlands to fish, wildlife, and the public. We understand your inability to include seasonally-flooded grasslands in your study, but hope that you realize their importance as feeding and resting areas for migrating waterfowl . We concur with your high ranking' of the Black River Riparian Forest, and are working with the Soil Conservation Service to preserve as much of this area as possible as a buffer strip for the P1 retention basin. The Panther Creek wetlands are an integral part of the approved mitigation plan for the East Side Green River Project. We concur with the study's conclusion of the necessity of protecting this wetland until purchase by local project sponsors. Any damage to this area will necessitate delay of the SCS . project while mitigation needs are renegotiated. HIENINIED We disagree with the statement that mitigation for the East Side Project "has emphasized waterfowl almost to the exclusion of other forms of wildlife". A key element of the 1974 agreement is the requirement for local sponsors to require wildlife-sensitive landscaping plans and setting aside of at least 2 percent of each development for wildlife habitat in the granting of development permits. Perhaps there is _a potential for requiring fee payments in lieu of the 2 percent set-aside for use in acquiring wetlands for the City. It is not clear where the authors are heading in their discussion of vegetative succession. If the attempt is to imply that all wetlands in Renton would have naturally been lost regardless of human activities, we must take exception. Construction and operation of Howard Hanson Dam and the Green River levees, rerouting of numerous waterways, and extensive filling and drainage projects have greatly altered the former wetlands and any natural pattern of succession they may have followed. It is definitely valid, however, to point out that wetland maintenance may be required, especially if areas are used for moderating stormwater runoff. We urge the City to follow through on the recommendations presented on. pages 18-24 to keep this from becoming a report on "what was lost". As the authors have stated, wetlands have many values to the general public. It is unusual for a city to recognize these values before they are destroyed, and even more unusual for positive action to be taken. Yours sincerely, Charles A. Dunn Field Supervisor USDA-SCS-ES-WS-(ADM)-79-1.(F)-WA EAST SIDE GREEN"RIVER WATERSHED PROJECT- KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON AMPLIFICATION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. Lynn A• Brown State Conservationist Soil Conservation Service • SPONSORING LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS KING COUNTY CITY OF AUBURN . County Executive 20 A Northwest • King County Courthouse Auburn, Washington 98002 Seattle, Washington 98104 CITY OF RENTON GREEN RIVER FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT City Hall 976 King County Administration Building 220 South 4th Seattle, Washington 98104 Renton, Washington 98055 CITY of TUKWILA KING COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT 14475-5th Avenue South 35 South Grady Way Tukwila, Washington 98067 Renton, Washington 98055 • CITY OF KENT City Hall Kent, Washington 98031 February 1981 PREPARED BY • UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE Room 360 U. S. Courthouse S Spokane, Washington 99201 • • I . USDA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT EAST SIDE GREEN RIVER WATERSHED PROJECT KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON Prepared in accordance with Sec. 102(2) (c) of PL-91-190 and the Soil Conservation Service Regulations for compliance with the National Environmental Protection Act of 1969 and (7 C.F.R. , Part 650, August 8, 1977) . I. Amplification of Final • II. Soil Conservation Service III. Administrative • IV. Project Purpose and Action: A project of watershed protection and flood prevention in King County, Washington. Federal • Assistance will be provided under the provision' of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (PL-566) , 83rd Congress, 68 Stat. 666) as amended. • Desires of the Sponsors have brought about a change in design from the original selected plan. The design alternative proposes four changes from the selected plan in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) -/. The first change would reduce the width of the flood prevention channel from the P-1 Pump Plant to South 180th Street. The channel from South 180th Street south to the upper limits of the project would remain the same as in the EIS. The second change involves relocating approximately 8,100 feet of the 58,000-foot channel system. The relocation will involve por- tions of the P-i Channel between the P--1 Pump Plant and South 180th Street. These portions of the P-1 Channel will be moved varying distances from the alignment shown in the EIS (See at- tached map for alternative locations) . The third change involves the P-9 Channel. While the location will remain the same as in the EIS, the gradient between South Lind Avenue and State Road 167 will be steepened to provide a fish spawning area. 1/ The East Side Green River Watershed Project Final Environmental Impact Statement was distributed July 5, 1979. The fourth change would involve replacing the flood storage no longer built into the narrower channel with two storage ponds. The first storage pond of about 23 acres is proposed to be located immediately upstream from the existing P-i Pump Plant. The second storage pond of 61 acres is to be located in the existing wetland east of State Road 167 at the end of the P-9 Channel. Both ponds will be developed as marshes with all possible safeguards established so that migrating fish will not be trapped in these areas. V. Environmental Impacts: The above design changes will bring about the following differences in impacts: 1. Channel bottom width will be changed from an average of 120- 150 feet to 40-80 feet on approximately 14,700 feet of channel. Channel bottom width.on 1,200 feet of concrete-lined channel • will be changed to 80 foot wide grass-lined dhannel. The • remaining .42, 100 feet of channel will not be affected. 2. The new channel will require rock riprap on both banks for an additional 2,700 feet to prevent erosion from higher in- channel flow velocities. 3. An additional 5.2 acres of Wetland Type 3 and.8.7 acres of Wetland Type 6 will be lost, due to the design modifications. These losses will be compensated by developing and maintaining for the life of the project, a like acreage value of wetlands in,the forebay of the P-1 Pump Plant. 4. Riparian vegetative along Springbrook Creek, between 180th Street and the Green River, has a wildlife habitat acre-value (acreage x value of habitat) of 24.4. Most of the existing riparian veg- etation will be lost when the Creek is relocated in the P-1 Channel. This loss will be totally compensated by landscaping the new channel with a mixture of trees, shrubs, grasses and forbs. Land- scaping will feature native species in an attempt to duplicate as closely as possible, a visually attractive riparian zone. 5. Project costs will increase approximately due to the design changes. 6. Design changes have local acceptability. 7. Design changes will result in two shallow marches, developed in such a way that wildlife habitat will be created to mitigate for losses attributable to this project. • . I . I 8. The P-9 Channel will provide approximately 3,000 square feet of spawning channel. 9. The reduction in channel width on 14,700 feet of channel will allow more shade cover which will improve salmon habitat. 10. Rerouting of Panther Creek through the Panther Creek Wetlands will provide better fish access to 3.9 miles of stream habitat upstream of State Road 167. 11. Approximately 400 feet of P-9 Channel with a bottom width of 30 feet and 3:1 side slopes will be eliminated. 12. Approximately 640 feet of channel with a bottom width 'of 80 feet and 3:1 side slopes will be added to the P-1 Channel system. • I . - I • • I ' • . • • • USDA-SCS-ES-WS-(ADM)-79-1_(F)-WA . EAST SIDE GREEN RIVER WATERSHED PROJECT KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON AMPLIFICATION OF . FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT • _ Lynn A. Brown State Conservationist • Soil Conservation Service SPONSORING LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS KING COUNTY CITY OF AUBURN County Executive 20 A Northwest • King County Courthouse Auburn, Washington 98002 Seattle, Washington 98104 CITY OF RENTON GREEN RIVER FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT City Hall 976 King County Administration Building 220 South 4th Seattle, Washington 98104 Renton, Washington 98055 CITY of TUKWILA KING COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT 14475-5th Avenue South 35 South Grady Way Tukwila, Washington 98067 Renton, Washington 98055 CITY OF KENT City Hall Kent, Washington • 98031 February 1981 PREPARED BY • UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE Room 360 U. S. Courthouse Spokane, Washington 99201 • USDA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT EAST SIDE GREEN RIVER WATERSHED PROJECT KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON Prepared in accordance with Sec. 102(2) (c) of PL-91-190 and the Soil Conservation Service Regulations for compliance with the National Environmental Protection Act of 1969 and (7 C.F.R. , Part 650, August 8, 1977) . I. Amplification of Final II. Soil Conservation Service •III. Administrative IV. Project Purpose and Action: A project of watershed protection and flood prevention in King County, Washington. Federal Assistance will be provided under the provision of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (PL-566) , 83rd Congress, 68 Stat. 666) as amended. • Desires of the Sponsors have brought about a change in design from the original selected plan. The design alternative proposes four changes from the selected plan in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)11. The first change would reduce the width of the flood prevention channel from the P-1 Pump Plant to South 180th Street. The channel from South 180th Street south to the upper limits of the project would remain the same as in the EIS. The second change involves relocating approximately 8,100 feet of •the 58,000-foot channel system. The relocation will involve por- tions of the P-1 Channel between the P-1 Pump Plant and South 180th Street. These portions of the P-1 Channel will be moved • varying distances from the alignment shown in the EIS (See at- tached map for alternative locations) . The third change involves the P-9 Channel. While the location will remain the same as in the EIS, the gradient between South Lind Avenue and •State Road 167 will be steepened to provide a fish spawning area. 1/ The East Side Green River Watershed Project Final Environmental Impact Statement was distributed July 5, 1979. • • • The fourth change would involve replacing the flood storage no longer • built into the narrower channel with two storage ponds. The first storage pond of about 23 acres is proposed to be located immediately upstream from the existing P-1 Pump Plant. The second storage pond of 61 acres is to be located in the existing wetland east of State Road 167 at the end of the P-9 Channel. Both ponds will be developed as marshes with all possible safeguards established so that migrating fish will not be trapped in these areas. V. Environmental Impacts: The above design changes will bring about the following differences in impacts: 1. Channel bottom width will be changed from an average of 120- 150 feet to 40-80 feet on approximately 14,700 feet of channel. Channel bottom width on 1,200 feet of concrete-lined channel will be changed to 80 foot wide grass-lined Channel. The remaining -42, 100 feet of channel will not be affected. 2. The new channel will require rock riprap on both banks for an additional 2,700 feet to prevent erosion from higher in- channel flow velocities. 3. An additional 5.2 acres of Wetland Type 3 and 8.7 acres of Wetland Type 6 will be lost, due to the design modifications. These losses will be compensated by developing and maintaining for the life of the project, a like acreage value of wetlands in the forebay of the P-1 Pump Plant. 4. Riparian vegetative along Springbrook Creek, between 180th Street and the Green River, has a wildlife habitat acre-value (acreage x value of habitat) of 24.4. Most of the existing riparian veg- etation will be lost when the Creek is relocated in the P-1 Channel. This loss will be totally compensated by landscaping the new channel with a mixture of trees, shrubs, grasses and forbs. Land- scaping will feature native species in an attempt to duplicate as closely as possible, a visually attractive riparian zone. 5. Project costs will increase approximately due to the design changes. 6. Design changes have local acceptability. 7. Design changes will result in two shallow marches, developed in such a way that wildlife habitat will be created to mitigate for losses attributable to this project. ' — -- — = • • 8. The P-9 Channel will provide approximately 3,000 square feet of spawning.channel. 9. The reduction in channel width on 14,700 feet of channel will allow more shade cover which will improve salmon habitat. 10. Rerouting of Panther Creek through the Panther Creek Wetlands will provide better fish access to 3.9 miles of stream habitat upstream of State Road 167. 11. Approximately 400 feet of P-9 Channel with a bottom width of 30 feet and 3:1 side slopes will be eliminated. 12. Approximately 640 feet of channel with a bottom width of 80 feet and 3:1 side slopes will be added to the P-1 Channel system. o I j • USDA-SCS-ES-WS-(ADM)-79-1(F)-WA • EAST SIDE GREEN RIVER WATERSHED PROJECT KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON • AMPLIFICATION ' OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Lynn A. Brown State Conservationist Soil Conservation Service • SPONSORING LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS KING COUNTY CITY OF AUBURN County Executive 20 A Northwest • King County Courthouse Auburn, Washington 98002 Seattle, Washington 98104 CITY OF RENTON GREEN RIVER FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT City Hall 976 King County Administration Building 220 South 4th Seattle, Washington 98104 Renton, Washington 98055 CITY of TUKWILA KING COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT 14475-5th Avenue South 35 South Grady Way Tukwila, Washington 98067 Renton, Washington 98055 CITY OF KENT City Hall Kent, Washington 98031 February 1981 PREPARED BY UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE Room 360 U. S. Courthouse Spokane, Washington 99201 • _ _ g USDA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT EAST SIDE GREEN RIVER WATERSHED PROJECT KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON I. repared in accordance with Sec. 102(2) (c) of PL-91-190 and the Soil Conservation Service Regulations for compliance with the National 'I Environmental Protection Act of 1969 and (7 C.F.R. , Part 650, August 8, 1977) . I. Amplification of Final • . II. Soil Conservation Service III. Administrative • IV. Project Purpose and Action: A project of watershed protection and flood prevention in King County, Washington. Federal Assistance will be provided under the provision of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (PL-566) , 83rd Congress, 68 Stat. 666) as amended. • Desires of the Sponsors have brought about a change in design from the original selected plan. The design alternative proposes four changes from the selected plan in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)1/. The first change would reduce the width of the flood prevention channel from the P-I Pump Plant to South 180th Street. The channel from South 180th Street south to the upper limits of the project would remain the same as in the EIS. The second change involves relocating approximately 8,100 feet of the 58,000-foot channel system. The relocation will involve por- tions of the P-1 Channel between the P-1 Pump Plant and South 180th Street. These portions of the P-1 Channel will be moved varying distances from the alignment shown in the EIS .(See at- tached map for alternative locations) . The third change involves the P-9 Channel. While the location will remain the same as in the EIS, the gradient between South Lind Avenue and State Road 167 will be steepened to provide a fish spawning area. • 1/ The East Side Green River Watershed Project Final Environmental Impact Statement was distributed July 5, 1979. • The fourth change would involve replacing the flood storage no longer built into the narrower channel with two storage ponds. The first storage pond of about 23 acres is proposed to be located immediately upstream from the existing P-1 Pump Plant. The second storage pond of 61 acres is to be located in the existing wetland east of State Road 167 at the end of the P-9 Channel. Both ponds will be developed as marshes with all possible safeguards established so that migrating fish will not be trapped in these areas. • V. Environmental Impacts: The above design changes will bring about the following differences in impacts: 1. Channel bottom width will be changed from an average of 120- 150 feet to 40-80 feet on approximately 14,700 feet of channel. Channel bottom width.on 1,200 feet of concrete-lined channel will be changed to 80 foot wide grass-lined Channel. The • remaining .42,100 feet of channel will not be affected: 2. The new channel will require rock riprap on both banks for an additional 2,700 feet to prevent erosion from higher in- channel flow velocities. • 3. An additional 5.2 acres of Wetland Type 3 and.8.7 acres of Wetland Type 6 will be lost, due to. the design modifications. These losses will be compensated by developing and maintaining for the life of the project, a .like acreage value of wetlands in the forebay of the P-1 Pump Plant. 4. Riparian vegetative along Springbrook Creek, between 180th Street and the Green River, has a wildlife habitat acre-value (acreage x value of habitat) of 24.4. Most of the existing riparian veg- • etation will be lost when the Creek is relocated in the P-1 Channel. This loss will be totally compensated by landscaping the new channel with a mixture of trees, shrubs, grasses and (orbs. Land- scaping will feature native species in an attempt to duplicate as closely as possible, a visually attractive riparian zone. 5. Project costs will increase approximately due to the design changes. 6. Design changes have local acceptability. 7. Design changes will_ result in two shallow marches, developed in such a way that wildlife habitat will be created to mitigate for losses attributable to this project. o s 8. The P-9 Channel will provide approximately 3,000 square feet of spawning channel. . 9. The reduction in channel width-on 14,700 feet of channel will allow more shade cover which will improve salmon habitat. 10. Rerouting of Panther Creek through the Panther Creek Wetlands will provide better fish access to 3.9 miles of stream habitat upstream of State Road 167. 11. Approximately 400 feet of P-9. Channel with a bottom width of 30 feet and 3: 1 side slopes will be eliminated. 12. Approximately 640 feet of channel with a bottom width •of 80 feet and 3:1 side slopes will be added to the P-1 Channel system. • USDA-SCS-ES-WS-(ADM)-79-1(F)-WA EAST SIDE GREEN RIVER WATERSHED PROJECT KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON AMPLIFICATION OF • FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Lynn A. Brown State Conservationist Soil Conservation Service • SPONSORING LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS KING COUNTY CITY OF AUBURN County Executive 20 A Northwest • King County Courthouse Auburn, Washington 98002 Seattle, Washington 98104 CITY OF RENTON GREEN RIVER FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT City Hall 976 King County Administration Building 220 South 4th Seattle, Washington 98104 Renton, Washington 98055 CITY of TUKWILA KING COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT 14475-5th Avenue South 35 South Grady Way Tukwila, Washington 98067 Renton, Washington 98055 CITY OF KENT City Hall Kent, Washington • 98031 February 1981 PREPARED BY • UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE Room 360 U. S. Courthouse Spokane, Washington 99201 • • USDA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT EAST SIDE GREEN RIVER WATERSHED PROJECT KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON Prepared in accordance with Sec. 102(2) (c) of PL-91-190 and the Soil Conservation Service Regulations for compliance with the National Environmental Protection Act of 1969 and (7 C.F.R. , Part 650, August 8, 1977) . I. Amplification of Final II. Soil Conservation Service III. Administrative • IV. Project Purpose and Action: A project of watershed protection and flood prevention in King County, Washington. Federal Assistance will be provided under the provision of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (PL-566) , 83rd Congress, 68 Stat. 666) as amended. • Desires of the Sponsors have brought about a change in design from the original selected plan. The design alternative proposes four changes from the selected plan in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)i/. The first change would reduce the width of the flood prevention channel from the P-1 Pump Plant to South 180th Street. The channel from South 180th Street south to the upper limits of the project would remain the same as in the EIS. The second change involves relocating approximately 8,100 feet of the 58,000-foot channel system. The relocation will involve por- tions of the P-1 Channel between the P-1 Pump Plant and South 180th Street. These portions of the P-1 Channel will be moved varying distances from the alignment shown in the EIS (See at- • tached map for alternative locations) . The third change involves the P-9 Channel. While the location will remain the same as in the EIS, the gradient between South Lind Avenue and State Road 167 will be steepened to provide a fish spawning area. • 1/ The East Side Green River Watershed Project Final Environmental Impact Statement was distributed July 5, 1979. The fourth change would involve replacing the flood storage no longer built into the narrower channel with two storage ponds. The first storage pond of about 23 acres is proposed to be located immediately upstream from the existing P-1 Pump Plant. The second storage pond of 61 acres is to be located in the existing wetland east of State Road 167 at the end of the P-9 Channel. Both ponds will be developed as marshes with all possible safeguards established so that migrating fish will not be trapped in these areas. V. Environmental Impacts: The above design changes will bring about the following differences in impacts: 1. Channel bottom width will be changed from an average of 120- 150 feet to 40-80 feet on approximately 14,700 feet of channel. Channel bottom width.on 1,200 feet of concrete-lined channel will be changed to 80 foot wide grass-lined dhannel. The remaining '4.2, 100 feet of channel will not be affected. 2. The new channel will require rock riprap on both banks for an additional 2,700 feet to prevent erosion from higher in- channel flow velocities. 3. An additional 5.2 acres of Wetland Type 3 and 8.7 acres of Wetland Type 6 will be lost, due to the design modifications. These losses will be compensated by developing and maintaining for the life of the project, a like acreage value of wetlands in the forebay of the P-1 Pump Plant. 4. Riparian vegetative along Springbrook Creek, between 180th Street and the Green River, has a wildlife habitat acre-value (acreage x value of habitat) of 24.4. Most of the existing riparian veg- etation will be lost when the Creek is relocated in the P-1 Channel, This loss will be totally compensated by landscaping the new channel with a mixture of trees, shrubs, grasses and forbs. Land- scaping will feature native species in an attempt to duplicate as closely as possible, a visually attractive riparian zone. 5. Project costs will increase approximately due to the design changes. 6. Design changes have local acceptability. 7. • Design changes will` result in two shallow marches, developed in such a way that wildlife habitat will be created to mitigate for losses attributable to this project. • ------ - - ---- 8. The P-9 Channel will provide approximately 3,000 square feet - of spawning channel 9. The reduction in channel width on 14,700 feet of channel will allow more shade cover which will improve salmon habitat. 10. Rerouting of Panther Creek through the Panther Creek Wetlands will provide better fish access to 3.9 miles of stream habitat upstream of State Road 167. 11. Approximately 400 feet of P-9 Channel with a bottom width of 30 feet and 3: 1 side slopes will be eliminated. 12. Approximately 640 feet of channel with.a bottom width of 80 feet and 3:1 side slopes will be added to the P-1 Channel system. I - •; . == f United States Department of the Interior • • f ).:.:4 : c , FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE r-P 1 „ . Ecological Services ' 2625 Parkmont Lane, S.W. , Bldg. B-3 • Olympia, WA 98502 • March 13, 1981 • Lynn A. Brown _ State Conservationist . 11 Soil Conservation Service Room 360, U.S. Courthouse _ 11 Spokane, Washington 99201 Dear Mr. Brown: IThe Fish and Wildlife Service has been working with representatives of local sponsors, state Fisheries and Game, and the Soil Conservation Service to develop a detailed plan for implementing the 1974 mitigation '1 agreementfor the East Side Green River Project. We have been pleased • 'with the creativity shown by most parties in making improvements to the 'original project design. These joint efforts culminated in the Environ- 'mental Mitigation Program adopted by the Basin Executive Committee on 'October 21, 1980. In our view, adoption of this program by each of the ',local sponsors will enable us to recommend release of federal funds for 'project construction. 1 1We concur with the general concepts presented in the January 21 , 1981 preliminary project drawings. Our major concern is the routing of the Channel through a portion of the Renton wetlands. It is our under • - standing that this route change is very important to local sponsors. We Fare willing to concede on this issue with the understanding that the quantity and quality of wetland and riparian habitat for the storage pond and channels as shown on the preliminary drawings dated 1-21-81 is provided. . I _ The following specific points have been discussed in earlier meetings, but we are repeating them hereto make sure they don't get lost as the project design is finalized. Our support of the project is based on the assumption that these items and the BEC-approved Mitigation Plan will remain as part of the project. The Northern Alignment alternative will be used for the P-1 storage 1 pond. ,,.A minimum of 20 feet of riparian forest will be acquired as 1 • 1 a buffer strip on the east edge of the pond, and no excavation 1 material will be stockpiled on the riparian forest. 1 I 1 1 ' 1 . 1 1 1 1 -- 1 1 1 • • I I • • -- The P-9 spawning channel remains an important part of the approved • mitigation plan. -- Within the 'pond_and P-1 channel , crushed rock can be placed in the flood storage area to allow less-damaging channel maintenance • access than use of the illustrated maintenance bench. Trees and shrubs should be allowed to grow as thickly as possible between the bench and low-flow channel . We understand that this vegetation is considered expendable and can be removed when it is necessary to • use the bench for maintenance. When this does occur, disturbed areas should be replanted with similar species (although not necessarily the same size). • -- Fish and wildlife agencies will reviewand approve local sponsors operation and maintenance procedures. We are particularly concerned with P-1 pump testing procedures and access methods for channel maintenance. • -- No wetlands will be used for stockpiling spoils from channel excava- tion. a We believe the last year's numerous meetings and compromises have resulted in a less-damaging project than originally proposed. Any changes in either project design or the Environmental Mitigation Program will quire renegotiating previous agreements. Yours sincerely., ' f* . 1;4 c44,6e4.,,,,..„ Charles A. Dunn Field Supervisor cc: WDF, Robel WDG, Stendahl • BEC • • • '�.• It WO . �.Ky. -T.rW9 e..=al.,'.-2 i.--'-IY.A,: ...7 4;61'Y)-,-_ _':4_i�fi�"_VZigi Al.,I.'sZc"a_- r:ac�Fun._.e`_[:ux'�`'-'.n_.ir'ii:ui -.,..u._...__�....[.. r_.v.........r.Yw.._... ..- 3 3 _ C.ITI Or, RE, �zv 55 6 ~rL1 T CITY TREASURER'S CHECK a 19-188/1250 i" Jan. 271g) 82 AN i lik ORDElz OF Emilio and Richard PLerotti - - I $ 300.00 Oki P National ;p Bank 1 /°���� Renton Highlands Branch . 1 Renton,Washington 98055. E,' ' tr, £ FOR_ , .: /77 t II'00 3 5 5`3 i"'. 1: L 2 500 LB8 ?I:9 ? ?'6t000.20 ?II' .'•'......'ti•_-A 'O._ rn= ..ti' '2.'.':.lMLEC,,;:..`'L12303))i..'..^:.. 1 ', ,Atmo.A;'Yi,:it' 7.-'.a:1Rvli5..'ia'`malA inia,«2r-S114816 `�.:.:4R='22^:7,3M:_ MSZn t'1Fr:.lima.^t^: um. .'lam._'"^.-tron'....men "1oza.-",- 4111 February 1, 1982 Messrs. Emilio and Richard Pierotti 17034 S.B. 184th Renton, Washington 98055 Subject: Special Permit SP-013-81 Gentlemen: Inasmuch as you have requested the subject permit request be withdrawn, we return herewith your appli- cation and are closing our file. We enclose herewith our check #3553 in the amount of ,$300.00 refunding that portion of the fee paid by you on February 16, 1981, covered by our receipt ;17024.. Sincerely, Roger J. Blaylock Zoning Administrator RJB mp . Encl. 1111111. 11 January 27, 1982 TO: Finance Department FROM: Building & Zoning Department Application for Special Permit SP-013-81 did not go to public hearing and has now been withdrawn. Please issue a check in the amount of $300.00 to Emilio & Richard Pierotti refunding a percentage of the fee paid by them on February 16, 1981 covered by receipt #17024. OF IP o THE CITY OF RENTON U 4$ ® Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 o BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT 235- 2550 °9g7,,D SEPle‘4°- • January 26, 1982 MEMORANDUM TO: Mary FROM: Roge RE: SPECIAL PERMIT SP-013-81; AMELIO AND RICHARD PIEROTTI, REFUND OF FEES AND DISMISSAL. OF FILE Since this application did not go to public hearing and the applicant has requested that the file application be withdrawn, it is appropriate that a certain percentage of the fees be refunded. Please request a check from Finance Department in the amount of $300 payable to Amelio and Richard Pierotti. Reference the original receipt number #17024 from the Planning Department dated February 16, 1981. I cannot find a copy of the receipt from the Finance Department. They will probably want to reference their own file at that point. After we have received the check back from Finance, please enclose all of the information in the white file with the check and send back to the Pierotti's. A copy of this memorandum and subsequent photocopy of the returned check should be placed in the yellow file. SHOVELS • TRUCKS • TRACTOR GRADERS • BULLDOZING • EXCAV G • ROAD BUILDING • CLEARING RED & ? % ctce CONSTRUCTION CO. 5412 N. Valley Rd. 251-3131 o.-a..ae 2.+s P.1+erre-5-4441 REN T ON - - WASHINGTON Jan. 4, 1982 Roger Blaylock Zoning Administrator 200 Mill Ave. So. Renton, Washington 93055 Dear Mr. Blaylock: Thank you for your consideration and guidance during our phone conversation of Dec. 22. At this time we wish to withdraw our application for the proposed fill project (SP-015-81), at 3,15 Talbot Rd. So. Renton. It is our intention to temporarily await the progress of the East Side Watershed Project. With this in mind, we shall reapply in the future. Should there be any questions, please call us at 251-8181. Very truly yours, /)s- ---?c%A"l<7 f"1<'R-)- -fil : Richard Pierotti CITY OF ii1i'1TON ,_ Jar,, / 1982 BUILDING EPARTMENT OF i A. �d� ..r5* ° BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT U .2 ,�,. RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOR o MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 • 235-2540 0 9�TF� SE PI BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR December 15, 1981 Emilio Pierotti 17034 S.E. 184th Renton, Washington 98055 Dear Mr. Pierotti: This letter is written to you regarding the May 5, 1981 decision of the Hearing Examiner affirming the March 4, 1981 decision of the Environmental Review Committee in which a Declaration of Significance was issued on your proposed fill project (SP-013-81), 3315 Talbot Road S. Because the Hearing Examiner concurred in the decision of the Environmental Review Committee, you were required to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. To date you have not responded to this office on making preparations for this document. Therefore, unless you or your representative make arrangements by December 28, 1981, to meet with our staff for consultant selection and Environmental Impact Statement preparation, your application will be considered an expired file and a new one must be submitted. If you have any questions, contact us at 235-2540 or 235-2550. Very truly yours, ,2.. ed..e,7rator4e)..1 Steve Munson Assistant Planner Rciv '`y �R !cD � May 5, 1981610_ZA `. V tslil,Y 5 � LANDUSE CE OF THE USE HEARING EXAMINER �- 11 -o _... _/' (¢v: 'fig/ • CITY OF RENTON REPORT ANmjJ c i S I ON , APPELLANT: Richard and Emilio Pierotti , FILE NO. ECF-017-81 represented by Michael Rodgers, Attorney (SP•-013-81) LOCATION: 3315 Talbot Road South PURPOSE OF APPEAL: The appellants, owners of the subject site, have appealed the Declaration of Significance issued by the Environmental Review Committee, dated March 4, 1981 , for property proposed to be filled under special permit application, SP-013-81 . SUMMARY OF DECISION: The decision of the ERC is upheld. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the letter of appeal , examining available information on file with the application, and field checking the property and surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: (The following minutes represent a summary of the proceedings, and are not a verbatim transcript. ) The hearing was opened on April 21 , 1981 at 2:03 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The Examiner reviewed the hearing procedure, advising that the burden of proof rests with the appellant to show that the Environmental Review Committee erred in its decision. He then discussed the appeal from the determination of the E.R.C. , city' s responsible official , based upon special permit application, ECF-017-81 , filed by Michael E. Rodgers on behalf of Richard and Emilio Pierotti , and requested the parties to identify themselves for the record. Responding were: Michael Rodgers Richard Pierotti Emilio Pierotti Attorney at Law 3412 E. Valley Road 17034 S.E. 184th 11111 N.E. 3rd Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 Bellevue, WA 98004 The Examiner requested that staff members representing the city also identify themselves. Responding were: Larry Warren • David Clemens Roger Blaylock City Attorney Acting Planning Director Associate Planner 100 S. 2nd St. Building 200 Mill Avenue S. 200 Mill Avenue S. Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 The Examiner advised that at his request, two maps had been prepared by the Planning Department to assist in the presentation, which were entered as follows: Exhibit #1 : Large Vicinity Map Exhibit #2: Site Plan Mr. Rodgers discussed the location of the site, noting that the western portion of the property is low lying and generally wet, and approval of a special permit for fill and grade would allow eventual development of single family residential uses within the current SR-1 zoning category on the site. He advised that the property owners have been paying taxes on the site for many years and now desire to develop it for use of their business. Citing the Final Declaration of Significance which was issued on March 2, 1981 , and indicates concern regarding the quality of the fill material from Pacific Car and Foundry Company (PACCAR) , Mr. Rodgers advised that a letter of confirmation stating that the composition of material conforms to all codes and standards published by the EPA had been requested from PACCAR, but had not been received to date. Therefore, he stated, inclusion of that fill source has been deleted from the request. Mr. Rodgers stated that the property has been studied at great length by the Soil Conservation Service pursuant to its Eastside Watershed Project which proposes acquisition of private property for public flood storage purposes. He noted, however, that the plan has been pending for 20 years, has no funding, and no date for implementation. He advis • _ R ECF-017-81 Page Two that absent a current funded plan to acquire the subject property, it is the applicants ' 4 belief that they are entitled to a reasonable use of their land such has been requested in the special permit application. He also referenced the Wetlands Study accomplished by the City of Renton in February of 1981 which encompasses the subject site and is applicable to the Hearing Examiner's consideration in the matter. Citing paragraph one of the section regarding Panther Creek, page 20, Mr. Rodgers reviewed the recommendation that the city should take all necessary measures to prevent development in these wetlands, including a temporary development moratorium or denial of development permits on environmental grounds until such time as the Eastside Watershed Project acquires the property to serve as a flood storage area. Responding to the comments in the study, he stated that prior to construction of SR-167, the subject property was no different from any other property in the entire valley, and in the past 15 years, most of the lower areas in the valley have been filled and intensely developed into industrial parks. Mr. Rodgers also referenced paragraph four of the same page which states that at this time, the city should not attempt to purchase the Panther Creek Wetland unless this is the only means for its preservation. If the Eastside Watershed Project is not constructed within a reasonable period of time, then the city should explore alternatives for acquiring the wetland. He stated the appellant's position in the matter that the city's primary purpose as identified by their own studies is to acquire the wetlands by placing such restrictions as to keep them from private development until the Eastside Watershed Project gets underway, or assuming that the project does not get underway, then sometime in the future, other means must be studied to acquire this private property for public purposes. Mr. Rodgers referenced the list of reasons for the determination of environmental significance, and advised that Items 5 and 6 have been deleted through withdrawal of the proposal to fill the site with materials from PACCAR, and Items 1 through 4 have been adequately addressed by the Soil Conservation Service and the city to provide sufficient information regarding the subject site to preclude the necessity for an Environmental Impact Statement. Richard Pierotti noted that comments by reviewing agencies of the city indicate that only the Planning and Public Works Departments had recommended a declaration of significance on the matter, and discussions with the Public Works Director had indicated that the only concern was the content of fill material obtained from PACCAR. With that portion deleted, Mr. Pierotti felt that the possibility exists that the declaration of significance would be withdrawn by the Public Works Department. Mr. Pierotti indicated his opinion that preservation of the wetlands should occur in rural areas for purposes of wildlife habitat , but the community cannot afford to restrict valuable property within the city limits from becoming a productive use and increasing the city's tax base. He stated that a large percentage of the city' s residents cannot afford the increased taxes which would be required to purchase wetlands for purposes of preservation, and it would not be reasonable to restrict or obstruct industrial use in times of high unemployment and shrinking revenues when it could contribute to the viable economic base of the community. Mr. Pierotti discussed impacts from previous floods in the valley, and stated that even with the implementation of plans by the Eastside Watershed Project, storage of voluminous flood waters would not be feasible. He discussed complaints regarding mosquitoes from residents of Talbot Hill located directly above the Panther Creek wetland area, and read a petition, circulated to eight residents in that area, which indicates support for the applicant 's proposal in recognizing the economic right and necessity of development of this valley property for a higher and better use. The petition also supported the reduction of swamp ground below Talbot Hill homes which has been a breeding ground for mosquities. Mr. Rodgers asked Mr. Pierotti to explain the proposed fill project. Mr. Pierotti stated that the project is located approximately 450 feet from Talbot Road and that distance would allow trucks to lose mud from tires before reaching the arterial . Berms will be provided around the perimeter of the site, and siltation stations will be located behind them. The proposal is set back 50 feet from SR-167, he advised, and that right-of-way currently contains a ditch in which stagnating water stands. Mr. Pierotti indicated that the fill and grade project would be accomplished over a period of from five to ten years, the site is required because of the nature of the applicant's business, there are no other uses presently suitable for the site unless it is filled, and the site has never been used for recreational purposes because of its muddy condition most of the year. He stated that with the setback of 50 feet from SR-167 combined with an additional 40 feet between the fill of the state right-of-way, a total of 90 feet would be provided between the applicant's berm and the edge of the right-of-way. Responding to Mr. Rodger's inquiry regarding concerns of neighbors with noise and traffic generated by the project, Mr. Pierotti advised that neighbors are supportive of the project, and noise emanating from the trucks on the site would be minimal compared to existing noise levels on the freeway. • y ECF-017-81 Page Three TheExaminer stated that although background information regarding the site is helpful , - tetimony should be confined to the subject of the declaration of significance. Mr. Emilio Pierotti discussed the magnitude of impacts from floods during the past to emphasize that retention of the subject site for purposes of flood control would be of inconsequential value. He advised that the project has been studied for the past 20 years, and expressed his opinion that the property should either be acquired by the city or permission given to the applicant to proceed with development since the owners cannot of ord to continue to pay taxes on it without some type of return. He also stated that he is being assessed for improvement to East Valley Road as well as extension of water and sewer lines in the area. Responding to Mr. Rodger's inquiry, Mr.. Pierotti advised that the Soil Conservation Service has not offered to purchase the property either on their behalf or that of the city. Mr. Rodgers stated that concerns listed as reasons for a declaration of significance, Items 1 through 3, relate to the Renton Comprehensive Plan, the Green River Valley Comprehensive Plan, and the Eastside Watershed Project under one major element. He advised that the Soil Conservation Service project has been of record for 20 years, and each time the plan has been studied or new plans developed, previous information is always incorporated. He noted that because of this, the subject site will always be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan designation of greenbelt because of the intent to preserve it for purposes of flood control . Mr. Rodgers indicated that the study should not be given any more weight than something of interest which has been looked at from time to time by the public and never enacted since it has not achieved either support or funding after 20 years. Therefore, the property owner has the right to commence development of the site pursuant to its established zoning. Referencing Item 4, impact on storm drainage, Mr. Rodgers stated that the testimony had adequately addressed proposed storm drainage facilities, and the property in question is a miniscule area which would have little or no effect on the flood storage capabilities in the valley. Mr. Rodgers further stated that if the public desires to delay development of the Pierotti property for purposes of flood water control , then they should acquire the property and not impede or obstruct development. He discussed water quality, flora and fauna, noting that the current quality of the water is stagnant and inky, and flora consists of cattails grouting so thickly that mallards cannot land. He urged the Examiner to grant the appeal after all testimony is considered, and allow the applicants to proceed with the project on a controlled basis subject to conditions as discussed. Larr Warren stated that the case has nothing to do with whether the city, county, state or federal government intend at some point to purchase wetlands, and discussion should not relate to the merits of the fill project itself or ultimate use of the property, or whet er or not the property should ultimately be used for storm water retention. He stated that the purpose of the discussion is to .discuss whether or not this is a major action significantly affecting the environment mandated by SEPA regulations which in turn is mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act, and the city is required to accept the environmental consequences of any action. He cited the case of Sisley v. San Juan County, 89 Wn. App. 825, 593 P.2d 821 1979, which includes the standard for review before the Examiner today, and states the review is conducted under the court 's inherent statutory powers and an agency determination will be reversed only if found to be arbitrary and capricious or contrary to law. He indicated concern that the application has been modified by deletion of fill material from PACCAR, and noted that the burpose of an EIS is for full disclosure and discussion of the project and the consideration of the environmental factors which is necessary in this instance. Mr. Rodgers and Mr. Pierotti clarified that reference to the PACCAR waste material was not made in the original special permit application, but had been deleted because Items 5 and 6 of the declaration of significance related to concerns about the material . Mr. Warren requested testimony by a representative of King County. Responding was: Herbert Young King County Department of Public Works 976 King County Administration Building Seattle, WA .98104 Mr. Young advised that a meeting is being held this date attended by the Mayors of Kent, Tukwila and Renton as well as a King County Councilman, the head of the Soil Conservation Service, and an equal number of top staff people to discuss the very active SCS drainage project for the valley. Included in topics for discussion are construction drawings for the nlext phase of construction, and local financing. The various elements of this project have been developed over the past and are fixed at the present time, including storage requirements which have been calculated and are considered satisfactory. He clarified that this earlier severe floods, the recently constructed pumping plant did not exist, and this facility will remove the large bulk of the water. Mr. Young advised that the use of the wetlands for wildlife purposes has also been an integral part of this project for some time and it is the desire of the State Department of Fisheries to rehabilitate • ECF-017-81 Page Four Panther Creek and develop the fishery there. He emphasized that the project is very active and has received cooperation from people who are directly affected on both the east and west sides of the valley. Discussion then ensued between Mr. Rodgers, Mr. Young and the appellants regarding the uncertainty of the timing of the project, acquisition of the subject site, and delays incurred by the property owners in development of their site upon which taxes continue to be paid. Emilio Pierotti stated that Panther Creek is a dry stream bed during summer months, and therefore does not provide a fish run. Mr. Young clarified his statement that the State Department of Fisheries plans to establish a migratory fish run at that location. Responding to Mr. Rodger's inquiry regarding Mr. Young's familiarity with the site, Mr. Young briefly reviewed his credentials as a civil engineer, and utilizing a USGS Quadrangle Map which shows the Panther Creek wetlands intended to be used for flood storage, described the site in detail . Mr. Richard Pierotti objected to the statement that the project is very active since plans have been ongoing for the past 20 years and uncertainty remains regarding funding and timing in the future. David Clemens, member of the Environmental Review Committee, presented supporting information for ,preparation of an EIS as follows: The requirement for review of the environmental document has been mandated by state law, and the City of Renton Environmental Ordinance, Section 4-2804.A specifies that certain areas shall be defined as environmentally sensitive areas within the City of Renton. These include areas shown on the Comprehensive Plan as greenbelt designations, which includes the subject property; are in the Conservancy Environment of the Shoreline Master Program, which the subject property is outside of; and properties which are designated as being within the- 100 Year Flood Plains, which includes the subject property. He advised that it would appear that subject to that section, the property is a potentially environmentally sensitive area, and although it does not categorically mean that the development within that property should be considered automatically to have a significant impact on the environment,, careful review should occur. He referenced a letter from the King County Department of Planning and Community Development, dated February 24, 1981 , which contains a number of concerns to suggest that the project could have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Secondly, he referenced a letter from the Soil Conservation Service, dated February 20, 1981 , which expressed concern about the adequacy of the checklist submitted by the applicant and the problems the proposal would create for the Soil Conservation Service project.. In addition, the City of Renton developed an environmental mitigation program for the project which was signed by all of the public agencies involved, and pages 18 and 19 of that document contain discussion of the fish passage portion of the environmental mitigation programs as related to this particular area, and as a result of a survey of the area, the Department of Fisheries concluded that Panther Creek did support anadromous fish and ' would be capable of supporting fish runs in the future if measures to ensure passage were made part of the project design. He also entered into the record the draft and final EIS of the Soil Conservation Service as it relates to the Eastside Watershed Project and the amplification statement for the final EIS which was issued by the SCS in February, 1981 , as it relates to the revisions to the project over the past 12 month period. He noted that one of the statements in the amplification statement was that the wetlands would be preserved as part of the mitigation for the proposal , and the project as reviewed by the ERC indicated that there was potential for significant adverse impact of the proposal as well as potential for significant adverse impact from future proposals in the same geographical area of the City of Renton. Mr. Clemens referenced the city's Wetland Study discussed earlier by Mr. Rodgers, and advised that in the City Council 's review and adoption of that report, pages 18 through 24 were specifically deleted from consideration by the City Council until such time as further study by the Planning Commission and Council could occur and a final decision as to the appropriateness of the recommendations could be made. Mr. Clemens concluded his presentation by stating that on the basis of the environmental documents which were presented, and the information from other public agencies with jurisdictional review, it was the feeling that the public has the right to evaluate the project with complete facts, and the applicant should prepare an impact statement which would address all points and provide for public circulation, scrutiny and comment. Mr. Warren stated that discussion at this hearing had been held regarding fish capability in the Panther Creek area and the flood hazards in ,the flood control area, and if the argument exists that the floods are as severe as attested to by Mr. Pierotti , then removal of any storage capacity in that area is critical and requires additional . review. Also. required to be reviewed would be the revision to the contentof the fill material . He advised that the city is not preventing-.the project from occurring or making- a decision about its merits, but the city must follow the dictates of the, Environmental Policy Act that the most important aspect of SEPA is consideration of environmental values which must be carried out through the EIS procedure. He stated that requirement of an EIS does not mean that the proposed project cannot be built, but merely assures full x - ECF-017-81 Page Five disclosure and consideration of environmental information prior to the construction of the project. He concluded by stating that the appellant has the burden of proof to show that the city's action is arbitrary and capricious and the evidence is clear that tha is not the case. Mr. Rodgers reiterated previous comments regarding the location of the/ditch within a 100 foot setback between the applicant's proposed berm and SR-167, which would provide sufficient area for development and maintenance of a fish run. He noted that maintaining the remainder of the property for wetland purposes has little to do with the creek itself, and the applicant's proposal is no different from development which has occurred to the entire valley. If the Examiner would hold the applicant to that standard and request preparation of an EIS which would detail and establish the effect of removing the subject site from the flood water retention area, it would cost thousands of dollars to create the hydrology studies necessary to acquire that information. Mr. Rodgers stated that after 20 years of delay, the property owner has the right to develop his site, and there seems to be no testimony that the applicant's proposal with siltation control , berms and proper fill procedures will be damaging to the environment. Referencing the draft and final EIS prepared by the county and the SCS, he stated that the property has been dealt with as if it were public for so long that the public sector has placed these kinds of controls on privately owned property, but the property owner now has the right to go forward with a project which is properly engineered to develop the only use, residential , to which the property can be put. The 1xaminer requested further comments. Since none were offered, the hearing regarding the matter was closed by the Examiner at 3:30 p.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now Makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1 . The appellants, Emilio and Richard Pierotti , filed a request for a special permit to grade and fill approximately eight acres pursuant to Section 4-2303 of the Mining, Excavation and Grading Ordinance. The subject property is located in the vicinity of 315 Talbot Road S. immediately east of SR-167. 2. he subject property is currently zoned SR-1 (Single Family Residential ; Minimum lot ize - 7,500 square feet) . 3; he Comprehensive Plan and the Green River Valley Comprehensive Plan designate the area in which the subject property is located as suitable for greenbelt uses. Green- belt is defined as that area: a. with severe topographic, ground water, slide potential or other physical conditions which impair development and is intended to be developed in extremely low density single family, recreation, open space, wildlife habitat or other compatible low density use; or b. designated as permanent wildlife habitat; or c. consisting of low intensity open multiple uses that include, but is not limited to, wildlife habitat, recreation, maintenance roads and flood control devices. 4. The applicant submitted an environmental checklist upon which a combination of yes The no answers were checked by the applicant. 5. The city, in conducting an environmental assessment pursuant to Section 4-2809(B) of the Renton Environmental Ordinance, contacted various public agencies for input into the review process. 6. The city conducted its own review of the checklist items (WAC 197-10-320) . 7. The site is a combination of wetlands fed by Panther Creek and low-lying uplands. The lower elevations are below the level of the Valley Freeway, SR-167. The applicant proposes raising the level of portions of the area to an elevation of from 15 feet to about 30 feet. The applicant proposed leaving an undisturbed area about 50 feet Wide immediately adjacent to SR-167 to provide a channel for continued drainage of Panther Creek. The elevation of the site would rise quickly from 15 to 26 feet, and thereafter, rise the remaining- five feet over a distance of about 450 feet. A. three to four foot berm would be constructed along the perimeter. 8,. A supplementary letter to the original application indicated that material for the fill would be generated by, among other operations, Pacific Car and Foundry. The material would contain iron scraps and other byproducts of foundry work. ECF-017-81 Page Six 9. Based on the environmental checklist and an independent review of the project and checklist, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued a Declaration of Significance for the subject proposal . That declaration gave rise to the current appeal . 10. The ERC gave the following reasons for its declaration. 1 . Conflicts with the City of Renton's Comprehensive Plan land use designation of "Greenbelt." 2. Conflicts with the Green River Valley Plan. 3. Conflicts with East Side Project of the Soil Conservation Service. 4. The impacts upon storm drainage, fauna, flora nad water quality are inadequately addressed. 5. The quality of the fill materials from Pacific Car and Foundry are questionable when considering possible contamination of ground and surface waters by industrial pollutants. 6. The proposed use of the site as an industrial waste recycling facility is not a compatible land use with the adjacent single family uses and the natural wetland environment. 11 . The applicant, as a result of the Declaration of Significance, proposed to amend the application during the public hearing on the appeal of the Declaration of Significance. The applicant proposed eliminating from the fill sources, fill generated by the Pacific Car and Foundry operation. This amendment, if timely, would have eliminated as reasons for the Declaration of Significance (DS) , reasons 5 and 6. 12. In answering questions on the environmentalchecklist, the appellants responded with all "no" answers to subquestions 3a through 3i ,- which are all water-related questions. Similarly, the appellants answered "no" to all eight subquestions 4a through 4d and 5a through 5d on the effects of the project on flora and fauna. A "no" answer was also supplied to the question on depletion of any non-renewable natural resource, question 9b. A "no" answer was also furnished to storm water drainage question, 16e. 13. The appellants alleged mosquito abatement would result to some extent from the project as a positive impact. Adjoining property owners endorsed this effort. The appellants also alleged that the filling would allow housing to be constructed on site, also a beneficial effect of the proposed action. 14. The Eastside Green River Watershed Project includes the wetland portions of the subject site as part of the ultimate storm water retention system. The subject property is part of the largest contiguous wetland suitable for acquisition by the project sponsors of the Green River project. The wetland, is about 80 acres in extent. Panther Creek, as the upper extension of this wetland, flows out of Panther Lake located in the hillside area south of the site. A fish enhancement project is proposed which would connect the subject property with the Green and Black Rivers to provide a channel through which anadromous fish would migrate during spawning season. 15. The wetland is planned to provide a large part of the flood storage capacity required as the result of 100 year floods. 16. Filling of the subject site would force flood waters to find alternative locations and cause flood waters to back up onto other properties. 17. Responses were received from both the King County Department of Public Works, Surface Water Management Division; the King County Department of Planning and Community Development; andlrom the United States Department of Agriculture, the Soil . Conservation Service. These responses indicated that the answers on the checklist are wrong and/or incomplete. They also expressed concern relating to the potential impacts of the proposed action. These concerns are that the impacts . on flood control , flora, fauna, and fish runs are uncertain and thatthe proposal is incompatible with the Greenbelt designation of the subject site and the proposed Eastside Watershed Project. 18. The appellants allege that numerous studies have been performed, the Eastside project has been a "proposal" for too long, and that their property is useless without the fill . ECF-017-81 Page Seven CONCLUSIONS: 1 . The decision of the governmental agency acting as the responsible official is entitled to "substantial weight" (RCW 43.21 .C.090) . Therefore, the determination of the Environmental Review Committee, the city's responsible official , is entitled to substantial weight, and the appellant has the burden of demonstrating that the determination was in error. The burden is further defined as to whether the decision was arbitrary and capricious in light of the record. (Short v. Clallam County, 22 Wn.App.825, 829, /1979) A decision is "arbitrary and capricious" if there is no support for it in the record and it is therefore a willful and unreasoning action, in disregard of facts and circumstances. (Stempel v. Dep't of Water Resources, 82 Wn.2d 109,114, 1973) 2. the policies of SEPA are more clearly safeguarded when agency action results in full disclosure of the impacts of a proposal upon the environment. (Norway Hill V. King County Council , 87 Wn.2d 267, 1976) The issuance of a Declaration of Significance by the ERC requires the completion of an environmental impact statement Which does result in full disclosure. 3. There was no contention that the subject proposal was not a major action capable of significantly affecting the quality of the environment; therefore, the ERC had to determine whether the proposal would or would not have a significant adverse effect on the quality of the environment. A major action is determined to have a significant adverse effect on the quality of the environment if more than a moderate effect on the quality of the environment is a reasonable probability (Norway, at 278) . "The nature of the existing environment is an important factor. The same project may have a significant adverse impact in One location, but not in another location." (WAC 197-10-360(2)) "It should also be lemembered that proposals designed to improve the environment may also have adverse nvironmental impacts. The question at the threshold determination is not whether the beneficial aspects of a proposal outweigh its adverse impacts, but rather, if the proposal involves any significant adverse impacts upon the quality of the environment. If it does, an EIS is required." (WAC 197-10-360(3) ) 4. ubject to court decisions and to the criteria enumerated by the Washington Courts in 4nalyzing environmental threshold determinations, the decision of the ERC must be affirmed and an EIS is required. • There are too many unanswered questions about the impacts of the proposal . The proposal is a major action, and in its location in the middle of a proposed wetland and greenbelt area, the proposal would have a significant adverse effect on the quality of the environment. Therefore, the ERC could reasonably find under the . acts and circumstances that the proposal to fill approximately eight acres of existing wetlands would have a significant adverse impact on the quality of the environment. The comments and issues raised by city departments and independent agencies at the county and federal level , support the decision of the ERC. Those issues are: What would be the effects of the proposal on the immediate adjacent wetlands, north aind south? What property would be affected and how would it be affected by the loss of the water holding capacity of the subject site? What might be the effect on the proposed fish runs and on the flora and fauna? The action of the ERC is not willful and unreasoning action, in disregard of the facts and circumstances. Only the preparation of an EIS would allow a reasoned decision to be made on whether or not the proposal should be permitted and under what circumstances. 5. The fact that other areas of the valley have been filled, and the wetland characteristics of these portions of the valley have been altered does not change tle fact that the subject proposal should be independently evaluated. "The existing environment is an important factor." (WAC 197-10-360(2)) Abatement of mosquitoes and the provision of housing may be beneficial , but that does not negate the fact that a balancing of benefits is not to be made at the threshold level (WAC 197-10- $60(3)) . The issue is whether there is reasonable probability of the proposal having more than a moderate effect on the quality of the environment. Based on the information supplied in the checklist, an independent review of that information and input from agencies with expertise, the ERC concluded that the subject proposal would have more than a moderate effect on the quality of the environment, and that conclusion should not be lightly disturbed. EFC-017-81 Page Eight ' 6. Requiring an EIS is more consistent with the policies of SEPA. The provision of an EIS will enable the decision maker to fully evaluate the project. The policy enunciated in "Norway Hill" was that public agencies should foster the environmental full disclosure goals of SEPA. "An affirmative threshold determination should be overturned only if found to be arbitrary and capricious or contrary to law." (Short at 830). Whether or not a proposal should or should not be approved should be based on firm environmental evidence before the decision is made. (Norway at 279) The decision of the ERC should be affirmed. 7.7. The amendment or the attempted amendment of the application at the hearing stage would not impact or change the result of this decision. The ERC in its determination cited six reasons for that determination, and the other reasons cited are sufficient, standing alone, to support the Declaration of Significance. The project still conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan, the Green River Valley Comprehensive Plan, the' Eastside Watershed Project, and the effects of the proposal on fish, wildlife, storm drainage, and other issues remain unanswered. DECISION: The decision of the ERC is affirmed. ORDERED THIS 5th day of May, 1981 . CPA Fred J. ufman Land Use aring xaminer TRANSMITTED THIS 5th day of May, 1981 by Affidavit of Mailing to the parties of record• Michael Rodgers, Attorney, 11111 N.E. 3rd, Bellevue, WA 98004' Richard Pierotti , 3412 E. Valley Road, Renton, WA 98055 Emilio Pierotti , 17034 S.E. 184th, Renton, WA 98055 Herbert Young, King County Department of Public Works, 976 King County Administration Building, Seattle, WA ' 98104 TRANSMITTED THIS 5th day of May, 1981 to the following: Mayor Barbara Y. Shinpoch Councilman Richard .M. Stredicke Richard Houghton, Acting Public Works Director David Clemens, Acting Planning Director Michael Porter, Planning Commission Chairman Barbara Schellert, Planning Commissioner Ron Nelson, Building Official Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney • Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before May '19, . 1981 . Any aggrieved, person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the' specific errorsrelied .upon by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. . An appeal is governed by Title IV, Section 3011 , which requires that such appeal be filed with the Superior Court of Washington for King County. within 20 days from the date of the Examiner's decision. , , ,,,,' ,I.,* ;14,, :,' P .q'i ''''' -*,,,:' 11' -'10 ''',P,,., e.,•1' , "4 ,./ e'll -S.. . V ;If lift- .•'.' - 12.4, '''':P.1 .44`. ' ''''' - 4 • ' ',: ' . t;,4'11 7:144) ek"t KE • -''' • r: 4' , t I 101,,,,Z., 4,.; .,. 4 Ifr-,'1,,,te ' ' ' . -_,,A . 1 ,k4'K'f A Of) .,` )i'„ .''',7:C , lj 6, rt; 1,4;,,,, , :. :: '.'N.m) . 4, .4- ,,,.,.4%' t- 19 I I,-''' 40 . i,' I! 1:,,,-„-: It...p. ' , . . . . . MEAL LOCE/ 04:1: AND, 4,X1 AWATESS: 1 VICINITY ,0 T.)15 ALBOi ROU SOUTH. ; LEW,. nEscRiProm . . ON FILE IN',THE e,‘.0!if OF REN FON PLANN I NG DEPARTMENT , . . • , . i . . , 1 . „ I ' ' I , • S P 6STED !T 0 NOTIFY PROPERTY OWNERS OF . . •,, q .si-% . i,•1 *Ma : .:, 4.,- =, ,' ' , ' '. . .„. -2,-,, ,...: " , ',,.„-; 1.4;7 4,,,,-,,,,; i •ii,,, . , J . , . 1 -al BE i'1E;',...0 . . ! :IN CT ( C6UNCIL CIA ES, MUNICIPAL. BUILDING' AFTilit, 2 , ig81 PL, -4 '1%r tinu min tk T (-4 ;Igoe vesia les Il ...,....a.....a.,,,...,.......••••••,••••*.An M. x a, 1 I I 200 asors..-salast.arsvouriemwortftivoesifft,..... P.M. covirtERNin reEM Ri.,3„,,,, , iri rgi ; ,„ „,„ , ,.,,,, , , : . , j , . .. . 1 4....... , ' " ' ' - ' .....,. It '' f , . ti ., '1, .'e ,' [ 1 tt% '',0k c.:r f ,,:„1 p Fs Ai ) Tiro Nam Aboor kil tql .; ' SITE: Li • ii,,, a * vic. ii * tr 0 ' n ,g L ,i1dit4-44= MAN ? EET r ,V A . ,--•' APPEAL OF DFCLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE RE SPECIAL PERMIT FOR FILLING ABOVE PROPER 1Y: FILE NO, SP-013-81 , . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CALL 235 2550 THIS NOTICE 140T TO BE REMOVE) WITHOUT ...' -4*IZATON :! ,! ; - • . '-...,f- i,t ,,,,.:~: . Affidavit of Publication ;///,:-. z . STATE OF COUNTY OF KING ON ss. t' .0 MAY 11 1981 • -s,2 & / Michel.g...Roe being first duly sworn on \' DEP A04‘ she. Chief Clerk ii oath,deposes and says that is the of 10 THE DAILY RECORD CHRONICLE,a newspaper published six(6)times a — week.That said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been FIN.NOTICE OF for more than six months prior to the date of publication referred to, PUBLIC HEARING printed and published in the English language continually as a newspaper , RENTON LAND USE published four(4)times a week in Kent,King County,Washington,and it is HEARING EXAMINER now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained at the RENTON, WA aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper.That the Daily Record A PUBLIC HEARING Chronicle has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior WILL BE HELD BY THE Court of the County in which it is published,to-wit,King County, RENTON LAND U S E HEARING EXAMINER AT Washington.That the annexed is a NYKiam Notice of Hearing HIS REGULARE CHAMB- ERS, CITY HALL, RE- R6455 APRIL 2,A 198 , ATN 2:00 P.M. TO CONSIDER THE as it was published in regular issues(and FOLLOWING PETITION: not in supplement form of said newspaper) once each issue for a period 1. EMILIO AND RI:;HARD PIEROTTI 1/1 An appeal by S. vtichael Rodgers, Attorney for of 1 consecutive issues,commencing on the Emilio and Richard Pierotti of a Declaration of 6 day of Aril �1 Significance issued by 19 and ending the the Environmental Re- • view Committee (ERC) dated March 4, 9181,for day of 19 both dates property proposed to be filled under speciai permit inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its sub- application SP-013-81; scribers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee Environmental Checklist No. ECF-0170-81; lo- charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of a19.98, which cated in the vicinity of has been paid in full at the rate of per folio of one hundred words for the 3315 Talbot Road South. first insertion and per folio of one hundred words for each subsequent Legal descriptions of files insertion. noted above are on file in the %/f/� Renton Planning Depart- . /.. ' . ment. ALL INTERESTED PER- SONS TO SAID PETITIONS Chief Clerk ARE INVITED TO BE PRE- SENT AT THE PUBLIC 7 HEARING ON APRIL 21, Subscribed and sworn to before me this 1 day of 1981, AT 2:00 P.M. TO EXPRESS THEIR OPIN- IONS. April , 19.V1.. David R. ActingPublis Planning Clemensr Directohed in the Daily Re- co.d Chronicle April 6,1981. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, R6455 residing at ,ingifizisi,,,n - —Passed by the Legislature,1955,known as Senate Bill 281,effective June 9th, 1955. —Western Union Telegraph Co. rules for counting words and figures, adopted by the newspapers of the State. .;1-/--1-14e:'Ifill - V.P.C.Form No.87 Rev.7-79 46.2 %,7t-Ze :// - / NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON APRIL 21 , 1981 , AT 2:00 P.M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETITION: 1 . •EMILIO AND RICHARD PIEROTTI An appeal by S. Michael Rodgers , Attorney for Emilio and Richard Pierotti of a Declaration of Significance issued by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) dated March 4 , 1981 , for property proposed to be filled under special permit application SP-013-81 ; Environmental Checklist No. ECF-017-81 ; located in the vicinity of 3315 Talbot Road South. Legal descriptions of files noted above are on file in the Renton Planning Department. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS TO SAID PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE PRESENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON APRIL 21 , 1981 , AT 2: 00 P.M. TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS. PUBLISHED: April 6, 1981 DAVID R. CLEMENS ACTING PLANNING DIRECTOR CERTIFICATION I , STEVE MUNSON, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THREE COPIES OF THE ABOVE DOCUMENT WERE POSTED BY ME IN THREE CONSPICUOUS PLACES ON THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED ABOVE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW. ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public , in and for the State of Washington residing in King County, on the 3rd day of April, 1981 . SIGNED: OF i •D o THE CITY OF RENTON U ,� '„ MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 o aim BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH. MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT °9,� �• 235- 2550 0,9gT�O SEP1Gt,04 April 3 , 1981 Mr. S. Michael Rodgers Attorney at Law 11111 N.E. 3rd Street Bellevue, WA 98004 Re: Appeal of Declaration of Significance on Special Permit Application, File No. SP-013-81 • Environmental Check- list No. ECF-017-81 ; Emilio and Richard Pierotti Dear Mr. Rodgers : The Renton Planning Department formally accepted the above mentioned application on February 17 , 1981 . A public hearing before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner has been set for April 21 , 1981 , at 2: 00 p.m. for the appeal of the Final Declaration of Significance on the special permit application. Representatives of the applicant are asked to be present. All interested persons are invited to attend the hearing. If you have any further questions , please call the Renton Planning Department, 235-2550. Very truly yours, tet..iec: falqAciL Roger J. Blaylock Associate Planner - RJB:gh cc: Emilio Pierotti Richard Pierotti 1� ` OF R�� '� ., O THE CITY OF RENTON `� © Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 a IMO BARBARA'. Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER .33'O `O• FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 0 42- 4 7. F0 SEPtctIO March 23, 1981 TO: Dave Clemens, Acting Planning Director Richard Houghton, Acting Public Works Director Ron Nelson, Building Official Del Mead, City Clerk FROM: Fred J. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner SUBJECT: Appeal of Declaration of Significance on Special Permit Application, File No. SP-013-81 ; Environmental Checklist No. ECF-017-81 ; Emilio and Richard Pierotti An appeal from the determination of the Environmental Review Committee has been received by this office on the above entitled matter. Please forward all official documents and correspondence concerning this matter to our office no later than 5:00 p.m. , Friday, March 27, 1981 . At the same time, the Planning Department should schedule a public hearing on this matter for the earliest possible date. The item may be scheduled for a Tuesday hearing if the agenda appears to be relatively light. In the event the agendas are full , the item may be scheduled for another time. The applicant's representative, S. Michael Rodgers, attorney at -law, should be consulted prior to scheduling the hearing. If further assistance on procedural matters is required, please feel free to contact this office. Fred J. Ka man of R4., v •�i ' " o THE CITY OF RENTON ' :. s. MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 o MIND " " BARBARA' Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR 0 LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER o�rF ����(4? FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 0 SEP March 23, 1981 Mr. S. Michael Rodgers Attorney at Law 11111 N.E. 3rd Street Bellevue, WA 98004 RE: Appeal of Declaration of Significance on Special Permit Application•, File No. SP-013-81 ; Environmental Checklist No. ECF-017-81 ; Emilio and Richard Pierotti . Dear Mr. Rodgers: I am in receipt of your appeal of the final Declaration of Significance - for special permit application, File No. SP-013-81 , filed March 20, 1981 . A memorandum has been forwarded to members of the Environmental Review Committee requesting transmittal of all official documents and correspondence concerning this matter no later than Friday, March 27, 1981 . The Planning Department has also been advised to contact you regarding establishment of a hearing date which is convenient to both city officials and your client. Incidentally, in a telephone conversation this date, the applicant, Richard Pierotti , was advised that additional information may be required prior to acceptance of the appeal . Upon further review, it appears that the letter is sufficient to proceed with the hearing. If this office can provide further assistance regarding procedural matters, please do not hesitate to contact us. Very truly yours, 4. .1(41"+"°'"---- Fred J. ufman Hearing Examiner cc: ti/Planning Department City Clerk ,.., • ,, Mr KAI, ;:,;::it; ': - t J. '• .,;.1/40 SI,''' i'' '; 4 27.- ,, • 4 M ,, - , '' •, , , g ...' 111 - ,. a : 4,;; ,_2 " of ' --, -' 'i f 4_• 1 t4 j PtogotIENFri AcTgoN FINAL DECLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO FILL 8+ ACRES WITH MATERIAL FROM I PACCAR WHICH WOULD BE DIRT AND IRON SCRAP, FILE NO. SP-013-81 GERBER/2a., LOCIATRON AND DP AESS PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE VICINITY OF 3315 TALBOT ROAD SOUTH P 0 S T E D 140. Al DT U F.V il N TET E rz POI REONS OF AN E NV 4 nr2i7ki MEN TAL ATM . THE CITY OF RENTON ENIVARONMENTAL REVIEW COMM ITT E E E. R.C. 3 g*,.AS o ETER!MINED THAT THE PRiirPOSED ACTION', OrtIDES riporza No 13, HAVE A IGli'M I FAT ADVEPSE IRA PAT ON TLI1E ENINR ON- MET. AN ENVIRONMENTAL iii,:,iPACT STATEMENT; PrWRLL OWILL Ni CT BE REQUIRED. A AP40EAL OF THE Lava ovE. DETERIWNATION MAN' E1E FILED WITH THE RENTON! HEARING' EXAMONEn esy 5:0 0 gm.nil.2 MARCH 22, 1981 - U FC3R PUR-THEP,2 INFORMATiON , C3 N TACT THE, CITY OF PIEffkATCNI PL A NINO ',,t'0, DEPAr-77TVIENT ! 23S-2B5` ; Otr3 NOT REMOVE TH NOTICE VtIOTHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION i Affidavit of Publication STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING ss. a 1U.C.h.e1e...RQ.Q being first duly sworn on oath,deposes and says that .be...is the Chief Clerk of THE DAILY RECORD CHRONICLE,a newspaper published six(6)times a week.That said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication referred to, printed and published in the English language continually as a newspaper published four(4)times a week in Kent,King County,Washington,and it is now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained at the aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper.That the Daily Record Chronicle has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior b NOTICE•OF Court of the County in which it is published,to-wit, King County, ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Washington.That the annexed is a...Notice REEVIIEW NMEN'TTE RENTON, E WASH. tz6l�ol ' Environmental Re' Public Notice I. view Committee(ERC)has view Committee(ERC) has as it was published in regular issues(and d Issued a final declaration of further Issued a deciaratlon not in supplement form of said newspaper) once each issue for a period non-significance for the tot- of significance for the follow- - 1 CH S, UNGER projects: I� . E M I L I O A N D (ECF-02480) RICHARD PIEROT11(ECF- of consecutive issues,commencing on the Application for Shoreline 017.81) - Management Substantial Application for special per. 8 1• Development Permit,file no. mit,file no.8P-013-81,to fli ..day of A'��x Ch ,19 ,and ending the , SM.87.80, to allow con- 8+ acres with material from struction of 20'x20' deck; PACCAR,which would cor 1. property located at 3717 slat of dirt and Iron scrap day of ,19 both dates Lake Washington Boulevard property located In the vicin inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its sub- = ty of 3315 Talbot Roa 2 scribers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee = COCK,, R.. ( G. WOOD- South. JR. ECF-019-81) Further Information re Application for rezone, file garding these actions is a' charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of $..� 1. hich no.R-015-81,from R-2toR- affable In the Planning De has been paid in full at the rate of per folio of one hundred words for the 3 and special permit,file no. partment, Municipal Build first insertion and per folio of one hundred words for each subsequent ' SP-018-81,to allow parking Ing, Renton, Washington insertion. �addition for existing adja- 235-2550 Any appealo cent medical/dental clinic; ERC action must be filet property located at 123 Pally with the Hearing Examine //,(Th • Avenue North. • by March,22,1981. The Environmental Re- Published In the Datlti Re Obi Gf...C1.erk J_ cord Chunk* March e 1981.08401 Subscribed and sworn to before me this * 10 day of • KePE3h . 19....gl C/6 Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at i,Kbi g County. Au —Passed by the Legislature,1955,known as Senate Bill 281,effective June 9th, 1955. —Western Union Telegraph Co. rules for counting words and figures, adopted by the newspapers of the State. • V.P.C.Form No.87 Rev.7-79 NOTICE OF ENVIRRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a final declaration of non-significance for the following projects: 1. CHARLES, UNGER (ECF-624-80) Application for Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit, file no. SM-87-80, to allow construction of 20 ' x 20 ' deck; property located at 3717 Lake Washington Boulevard North. 2. DAVID G. WOODCOCK, JR. (ECF-019-81) Application for rezone, file no. R-015-81, from R-2 to R-3 and special permit, file no. SP-016-81, to allow parking lot addition for existing adjacent medical/dental clinic; property located at 123 Pelly Avenue North The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has further issued a declaration of significance for the following project: 1. EMILIO AND RICHARD PIEROTTI (ECF-017-81) Application for special permit, file no. SP-013-81, to fill 8+ acres with material from PACCAR, which would consist of dirt and iron scrap; property located in the vicinity of 3315 Talbot Road South Further information regarding these actions is available in the Planning Department, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington, 235-2550. Any appeal of ERC action must be filed with the Hearing Examiner by March 22 , 1981. Published: MARCH 8, 1981 11 FINAL DECLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE Application No (s) : SP-013-81 Environmental Checklist No. : ECF-017-81 Description of Proposal: Request to fill 8+ acre site with dirt and scrap iron Proponet: Emilio and Richard Pierotti Location of Proposal: Vicinity of 3315 Talbot Road South Lead Agency: Planning Department This proposal was reviewed by the ERC on March 4 , 1981 , following a presentation by Steve Munson of the Planning Department. Incorporated by reference in the record of the proceedings of the ERC on application ECF-017-81 are the following: 1 ) Environmental Checklist Review Sheet, prepared by: Gene Williams DATED: March 4 , 1981 2) Applications': SP-U13-81 3) Recommendations for a declaration of significance-were received fromthe Engineering and Planning Departments. Police, Fire and Utilities Engineering Departments re- commended a declaration on non-significance. More infor- mation was requested by the Traffic Engineering Division and the Building Department. In addition, the Soil Conservation Service of the United States Department of Agriculture, the Planning Division of the King County Department of Planning and Community Development, and the Surface Water Management Division of the King County Department of Public Works raised a series of environmental questions that should be addressed in detail and recom- mended that either an environmental impact statement be prepared or the request be denied. Acting as the Responsible Official, the ERC has determined this development does have significant adverse impact on the environment. An EIS is required under RCW 43. 21C. 030 (2) (c) . This decision was made after review by the lead agency of a complete environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. Reasons for declaration of environmental significance: 1 ) Conflicts with the City of Renton' s Comprehensive Plan land use designation of "Greenbelt. " 2) Conflicts with the Green River Valley Plan. 3) Conflicts with East Side Project of the Soil Conservation Service. 4) The impacts upon storm drainage, fauna, flora and water quality are inadequately addressed. Ir FINAL DECLARATION 0:; . ,IGNIFICANCE PAGE TWO EMILIO AND RICHARD PIEROTTI 5) The quality of the fill materials from Pacific Car and Foundry are questionable when considering possible con- tamination of ground and surface waters by industrial pollutants. 6) The proposed use of the site as an industrial waste recycling facility is not a compatible land use with the adjacent single family uses and the natural wetland environment. Signatures : . 46W2 /4,14;;; _ /7 / /// • Ronald G. Nelson David R. Clemens, Acting Building Director Planning Director R' hard C. Houghton Acting Public Works Direct r • DATE OF PUBLICATION: March 8, 1981 EXPIRATION OF APPEAL PERIOD: March 22 , 1981 ti.3 King County,State of Washington Planning Division Ron Dunjap,County Executive Department of Planning and CO W217 King County Courthouse Community Development 516 3rd Avenue John P.Lynch,Director Seattle,Washington 98104 (206)344-4218 .7& REA/ February 24, 1981 a,� Mr. Roger J. Blaylock ( IVM:7;: 4,;;) Planning Department A ,.-----" 4 City of Renton \. 200 Mill Avenue South 114/ Renton WA 98055 `�,� • Dear Mr. Blaylock: Re: Application for Special Permit to Fill (File SP-013-81) We have reviewed the subject permit and feel it raises a number of signi- ficant issues that need to be considered prior to the City taking further action on the application. They are as follows: 1. East Side Watershed Project Over the past two years local sponsors of the East Side Project have worked with the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) to complete planning and other pre-construction activities on the project. As a result of that work, the outlet channel will be built this summer and design plans on the Renton phase will be completed so that construction can begin on a major portion of the project in 1981. A significant part of the progress made with the SCS was the agreement last year on project design which removed flood storage from wide channels to storage in two major detention ponds. These ponds are being sized and designed to store water when outflows from the pump station have to be reduced due to high flows in the Green River. The City of Renton as a local sponsor of the project adopted the pond storage concept in February 1980. One of the project storage ponds is the 65 to 70 acre wetland east of the Valley Freeway (SR167) known as the Panther Creek wetland, which includes the subject fill site. Fill encroachment into the pond as proposed is not consistent with project design and could result in flooding to other properties. Loss of flood storage would also com- promise the operation of the project which must be capable of storing surface runoff for up to 7 days while pumping is restricted. Mr. Roger J. Blaylock February 24, 1981 Page 2 2. Environmental Mitigation Agreement In October 1980 the Green River Basin Executive Committee (BEC) adopted the Environmental Mitigation Program for the East Side Project. The program contains.specific implementing_measures .and a process for carrying out the provisions of the 1974 Environmental Mitigation Agree- ment with the SCS. The mitigation program, which has been approved by the State Depart- ments of Fisheries and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, recognizes that 40 acres of the Panther Creek wetland .is to be credited toward the wetland acquisition requirement (i .e. , 110 acres) provided that the entire area is managed for flood control and wildlife habitat purposes. Further, the program calls for Panther Creek and the P-9 drainage channel to be designed with fish passage structures and spawn- ing channels in an effort to enhance its production for salmonid species. The proposed landfill would be extremely disruptive and damaging to both of these planned program features for Panther Creek and would in all probability require that the mitigation agreement be reopened for addi- tional negotiations with the resource agencies. These negotiations could delay design work and planned construction schedules adding project costs to the local sponsors and SCS. Further, if the opportunity to credit 40 acres of the Panther Creek wetland to the mitigation account is lost, the sponsors would be faced with acquiring an equivalent wetland acreage at substantially higher costs at another location in the project area. 3. Comprehensive Plan The Green River Valley amendment to the Renton Comprehensive Plan identi- fies all of the area between the Valley Freeway and the toe of Talbot Hill as greenbelt. The subject site is within the designated greenbelt area. The proposed fill and reclamation activity does not appear to be consistent with the greenbelt designation or the definition of the same contained in the comprehensive plan. 4. Environmental Assessment The information provided in the environmental checklist with the proposed permit is deficient in several areas and decidely understates the poten- tial impact the fill could have on Panther Creek, the wetland and habitat it supports, the residential community immediately to the east of the site and general aesthetics of the area. At the minimum, the environmen- tal assessment should be redone with more detailed explanations in sec- tions covering; water, flora, fauna, land use, aesthetics and plans of others. A more detailed assessment will likely show that the project is a major action significantly affecting the environment which requires an EIS under SEPA. P Mr. Roger J. Blaylock February 24, 1981 Page 3 Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed permit. If you have any questions concerning our comments please contact Dave Clark at 344-7990. Sin erely, JG��t%eJ-Z F l Harold Robertson Acting Manager HR:le cc: Herb Young, Surface Water Management / ii '''. . 'drifted States S' Room 360 r S t1. Department of C rvation U.S. Courthouse " .s*` - Agriculture Service Spokane, Washington 99201 February 20, 1981 Roger J. Blaylock City of Renton 00 Mill Avenue, South Renton, Washington 98055 Dear Mr. Blaylock: Per your request to Bill Cokeley, we offer the following comments on the City of Renton Environmental Checklist Form completed by Emilio 'and Richard Pierotti, your application number SP-013-81: Section I • 7. This area should more appropriately be described as a type 3 and 7 wetland. Section II (1) Earth (d) Should be answered yes, covering and disturbance of a wetland. (e) Should be answered yes. The site is currently a well vegetated depression, filling and constant disturbance will increase erosion. The erosion control measures in their drawing (straw bales) probably will not control all off-site sedimentation. (3) Water (b) Should be answered yes. Wetlands act as natural sponges, absorbing water during the winter and releasing it during dry seasons through surface flow or to groundwater. Filling the wetland will destroy this function. (e) Should be answered yes. Sediment and other contaminants in the . proposed fill have a good chance of contaminating water in the adjacent wetland. (h) Should be answered maybe. -There is -a good Chance that -material- in the fill will be leached into groundwater. (4) Flora (a) Should be answered yes. The area is currently covered with a diversity of wetland vegetation. Filling and disturbance will destroy this flora. (b) Should be answered maybe. Documentation is required to answer no. Tho Sod Conservation Sorvicokj O SCS-AS-1 is an agency of Iha 10-79 Department of-A9nculture -z- (5) Fauna (a) Should be answered-Yes. Existing fauna will be eliminated by direct disturbance and destructionTof habitat. - (b) Should be answered maybe._. Documentation is required to answer no. • - (c) Should be answered maybe. May interfere with passage of anadromous fish and other animals between Panther Creek and Springbrook Creek. (d). Should be answered yes. See (a) , (b), (c) above. 6) Noise: Should be answered yes. Operation of heavy equipment and trucks make noise. ;8) Land-Use: It should also be noted that this area is planned to be used for stormwater retention and wetland mitigation in the East Side Green River Watershed Project. This project, and specifically the use of this site, are supported by the City of Renton, King County, and the King County Conservation District. ;9) Natural Resources (a) Should be answered yes. Wetlands, flora, and fauna will be lost. (10) Risk of Upset: Should be answered yes. The exact nature of the material to be dumped (stockpiled) should be specified. (18) Aesthetics: Should be answered yes. The visual resource will be degraded. The wetland is highly visible from both the highway and the houses above. ( 0) Archeological/Historical: Should be answered maybe, until documentation is obtained. e proposed fill has several actual and adverse environmental consequences. The iroposed fill is also in a wetland that is an integral part of the East Side Green iver Watershed Project. It would be extremely difficult (if not impossible) to locate an alternate site to serve the floodwater storage and wetland mitigation -unctions planned for this site. incerely, tO LYNN A. BROWN State Conservationist • cc: W. Lee, SCS, Bellevue AO • W. Cokeley, SCS, Renton WSPO . OF I leo ® THE CITY OF RENTON = MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 1 BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT 09,o co' 235- 2550 ,94TFD SEP.0.0 February 17, 1981 1 Division of Hydraulics King County Government Room 976 King County Administration 1 Seattle, WA 98104 I RE: APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO FILL, File SP-013-81, EMILIO PIEROTTI/RICHARD PIEROTTI; property located between SR-167 and foot of South Talbot Hill Gentlemen: The City of Renton has received the attached application by I Emilio Pierotti and Richard Pierotti to fill 8+ acres with material from PACCAR which would consist of dirt and iron scrap.. The City of Renton is interested in any comments that your agency would find pertinent in filling the desig- nated wetland of the Green River Valley. It is also the intention of the developer to recycle the iron after the site has been filled so it would become a continuous recycling operation. Please respond by Tuesday, February 24th, at 5: 00 p.m. Very truly yours, 7TC-it Roger J. Blaylock Associate Planner RJB:wr 1 1 - r ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MARCH 4 , 1981 AGENDA COMMENCING AT 10:00 A.M. : THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM PENDING BUSINESS: NORTHWEST COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE COMPANY (AUSTIN COMPANY) (ECF-602-80; SA-092-80) FRED BOWSER (ECF-642-80; R-135-80) DAVE BEST (ECF-634-80; R-125-80) FOR RECONSIDERATION: HOMECRAFT LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC. (ECF-013-81; SA-010-81) NEW BUSINESS: ECF-020-81 H. A. AND JANET BLENCOE SA-017-81 Application for site approval to V-019-81 allow expansion of medical/dental facility through second floor addition and application for variance from Parking and Loading Ordinance regarding parking requirements; property located at 138, 200, and 206 South 3rd Place ECF-624-80 CHARLES R. UNGER SM-87-80 Application for Shoreline Manage- ment Substantial Development Permit to allow construction of 20 ' x 20 ' deck; property located at 371.7 Lake Washington Boulevard North ECF-017-81 EMILIO AND RICHARD PIEROTTI SP-013-81 Application for special permit to fill 8+ acres with material from PACCAR, which would consist of dirt and iron scrap; property located in the vicinity of 3315 Talbot Road South ECF-019-81 DAVID G. WOODCOCK, JR. R-015-81 Applications for rezone from R-2 to R-3 and special permit to allow parking lot addition for existing adjacent medical/dental clinic; property located at 123 Pelly Avenue North iJ� ENVIRONMENTAL Ru:- _EW COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING - MARCH 4, 1981 th T /. .;r1 CITY OF RENTON "l r ()(1_11.7. .yiltl11ii.:.' a . 1 , .— f i C , :�41 - '----4. 'N i..• •. •H. M Y Y . r.f'. Q i'. f . j Al ._ _ fik v ' I ___.) s\ , A C 0 iy 19 7 CF-624 • �oi l 1 1 \ . 1 MAY ",. \ � - CREEK 're, . • UN ' ' � LAKE ifi r . . r' WASH I NGTON �' -�• . 1 T i T 1 1,1 f 1 r111111i111111."V ' ' t 1.-Z`± IN ,_--',-� . r '• 0„it:: T M 013-81)`71 '�-� - - CEDAR RIVER 0 •�AL__1 +-sr- ! " ' �`j�'OCK CF-019-. 1 i F7___,Ai. , � '.4 - ILA AP T I .X. BLACK _ W -r- ��,, RIVER 1 !"�!.pE ':� p ,_g _ _ '•_ ;1:.4(...'-el SPRINGBR00K l; '���7 ' =i-- �- `\ CREEK I 1 t=*-- r 3��- AUS,. 1 .,x- _4, Ate} 1 l (ECF" 60 h 0 ''' ''' ��I _G,./ . ' " ` '-'j• .mot -----1 . ' t i IER0Tl'!I - ry 1 i i II CF-01 -a: ' \ ! i PrJ -%- 4i 1.EST (EC -634 QX__-.__ � GREEN I i IBOWSER a:CF-642-80) I / RIVER �, _ --Tr r-t- r 4... . ... wry ' 1 l _ _ - 1 , 1 ( LAKE 1 • 1 1 _7 —1.. .1 � 11, �1YL . % � YOtMrf,S 1 King County Sta....,.Washington Ch0Ron Dunlap,County Executive Department of Public Works James W.Guenther,Director 900 King County Administration Building 500 Fourth Avenue Seattle,Washington 98104 (206)344-2517 POKED ° FEB 251991 FEB 26 1981 Mr. Roger J. Blaylock Al Renton Planning Department � � Municipal Building y,,t,j�C. Dr��'¢�� Renton, WA 98055 Dear Mr. Blaylock: We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the application for special permit to fill , file SP-013-81, Emilio Pierotti/Richard Pierotti ; property located between SR-167 and foot of South Talbot Hill . The fill as described would be incompatible with the Soil Conservation Service watershed plan for the Green River Valley. That plan, among other things, requires the project sponsors to acquire 1110 acres of wetland. The largest continuous wetland suitable for this purpose is the 80-acre Panther Creek wetland lying just east of SR-167 and extending south from I-405 about 1.3 miles. Acquisition of most of this area is a part of the 30 September, 1980 Environmental Mitigation Program, endorsed by all sponsors of the SCS project. We understand this area also has been designated as a greenbelt in your municipal comprehensive plan. As part of the Soil Conservation Service project, for fish and wildlife mitigation, a fish transportation channel is to be excavated parallel to and east of SR-167 to permit migration between the head of the P-9 channel and Panther Lake. Although the Pierotti application shows 50 feet of clearance between the highway right-of-way and the toe of fill , it is doubtful that this would be adequate to prevent fill material from continuously finding its way into and blocking the fish channel . In addition to wildlife aspects, the Panther Creek wetland would constitute an important part of the flood control capability of the SCS project. It is being counted on to provide a large part of the 810 acre-feet of storage required during a 100-year flood. Without this storage damaging water surface elevations would occur on the valley floor during the period that pumping is reduced because of high stages on the Green River. At this time the property in question lies outside the existing Flood Control Zone No. 2. This however, is expected to be a temporary condition pending approval of an expanded Flood Control Zone which would include all of the Panther Creek wetland. It is recommended that approval of this permit be denied. erely, David A. Aggerh m Manager Surface Water Management Division DAA:HY:n.im OF RSA 4 0 0 THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL_ AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 n ' BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT co- 235- 2550 o ,P �it,O SEPS-�� February 17 , 1981 Mr. Harold Robertson, Acting Manager Department of Planning & Community Development W-217, King County Courthouse 516 Third Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 RE: APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO FILL, File SP-013-81, EMILIO PIEROTTI/RICHARD PIEROTTI; property located between SR-167 and foot of South Talbot Hill Dear Mr. Robertson: The City of Renton has received the attached application by Emilio Pierotti and Richard Pierotti to fill 8+ acres with material from PACCAR which would consist of dirt and iron scrap. The City of Renton is interested in any comments that your agency would find pertinent in filling the desig- nated wetland of the Green River Valley. It is also the intention of the developer to recycle the iron after the site has been filled so it would become a continuous recycling operation. Please respond by Tuesday, February 24th, at 5 :00 p.m. Very truly yours,:--824.1L"--h• '-- &cdt-ia- Roger J. Blaylock Associate Planner RJB:wr OF R�ti �If THE CITY OF RENTON` U � © Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 n BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT ,0 cp. 235- 2550 O P 9�TF0 SEPtc_oO February 17, 1981 Department of Transportation State of Washington Office of District Administration District 1 6431 Corson Avenue South Box C-81410 Seattle, Washington 98108 RE: APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO FILL, File SP-013-81, EMILIO PIEROTTI/RICHARD PIEROTTI; property located between SR-167 and foot of South Talbot Hill Gentlemen: The City of Renton has received the attached application by Emilio Pierotti and Richard Pierotti to fill 8+ acres with material from PACCAR which would consist of dirt and iron scrap. The City of Renton is interested in any comments that your agency would find pertinent in filling the desig- nated wetland of the Green River Valley. It is also the intention of the developer to recycle the iron after the site has been filled so it would become a continuous recycling operation. Please respond by Tuesday, February 24th, at 5:00 p.m. Very truly yours, ( e_ gee,Ci7B(AI Roger J. Blaylock Associate Planner RJB:wr OF I . �$ © z THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 n e ' BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT °9,� co. 235- 2550 � 'PSEP�E�,O February 17 , 1981 Mr. Bill Cokeley Soil Conservation Service 232 Main Street Renton, Washington 98055 RE: APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO FILL, File SP-013-81, EMILIO PIEROTTI/RICHARD PIEROTTI; property located between SR-167 and foot of South Talbot Hill Gentlemen: The City of Renton has received the attached application by Emilio Pierotti and Richard Pierotti to fill 8+ acres with material from PACCAR which would consist of dirt and iron scrap. The City of Renton is interested in any comments that your agency would find pertinent in filling the desig- nated wetland of the Green River Valley. It is also the intention of the developer to recycle the iron after the site has been filled so it would become a continous recycling operation. Please respond by Tuesday, February 24th, at 5 : 00 p.m. Very truly yours, Roger J. Blaylock Associate Planner RJB:wr Date circulated : 2/17/81 Comments due : 2/24/81 ENVIRONIMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET ECF - 017 - 81 APPLICATION No (s ) . SP-013-81 PROPONENT : EMILIO PIEROTTI/RICHARD PIEROTTI PROJECT TITLE : Brief Description of Project : Fill and reclamation site for Pacific Car & Foundry Company material LOCATION : Between SR-167 and foot of South Talbot Hill SITE AREA : 8 .4 acres BUILDING AREA (gross) DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes : 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : 3 ) Water & water courses : 4 ) Plant life : 5 ) Animal life : 6 ) Noise : 7 ) Light & glare : 8 ) Land Use ; north : east : south : west : Land use conflicts : View obstruction : �s,i,p 9 ) Natural resources : 10 ) Risk of upset : 11 ) Population/Employment : �\ 12 ) Number of Dwellings : 13 ) Trip ends ( ITE ) : traffic impacts : 14 ) Public services : 1 X 15 ) Energy : x 16 ) Utilities : )11c 17 ) Human health : 18 ) Aesthetics : 19 ) Recreation : 20 ) Archeology/history : �( COMMENTS : �< ��7�.e. ` � cam_ �✓�c�t /�V �� §1 ,Aaa Recommendation : SI DOS More Information_) Reviewed by : - .—�. title : IIIL Date : -2 FORM: ERC-06 Date circulated : 2/17/81 Comments due : 2/24/81 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECIKLIST REVVIEW SHEET ECF - 017 - 81 APPLICATION No (s ) . SP-013-81 PROPONENT : EMILIO PIEROTTI/RICHARD PIEROTTI PROJECT TITLE : Brief Description of Project : Fill and reclamation site for Pacific Car & Foundry Company material LOCATION : Between SR-167 and foot of South Talbot Hill SITE AREA : 8 . 4 acres BUILDING AREA (gross ) DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes : 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : 3 ) Water & water courses : r 4 ) Plant life : 5 ) Animal life : 6) Noise : 7 ) Light & glare : 8) Land Use ; north : east : south : west : Land use conflicts : View obstruction : 9 ) Natural resources : 10 ) Risk of upset : 11 ) Population/Employment : G~" 12 ) Number of Dwellings : 13 ) Trip ends ( ITE ) : i_ l ;10, ., ) , ) tJ traffic impacts : 14 ) Public services : 15 ) Energy : 16 ) Utilities : 17 ) Human health : 18 ) Aesthetics : 19 ) Recreation : 20 ) Archeology/history : COMMENTS : Recommendation : DNSI DOS More Information_ Reviewed Title : ;by : �� /r 2 )� Sf� /_zl 5 Y �� �r � �� , f Date : 2 )-) - FORM: ERC-06 Date circulated : 2/17/81 Comments due : 2/24/81 ENIVIRONME9NTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET ECF - 017 - 81 APPLICATION No (s ) . SP-013-81 PROPONENT : EMILIO PIEROTTI/RICHARD PIEROTTI PROJECT TITLE : Brief Description of Project : Fill and reclamation site for Pacific Car & Foundry Company material LOCATION : Between SR-167 and foot of South Talbot Hill SITE AREA : 8. 4 acres BUILDING AREA (gross ) DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes : 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : t/ _ 3 ) Water & water courses : r/ 4 ) Plant life : '/ 5 ) Animal life : I/ 6) Noise : i/ 7 ) Light & glare : :/ 8 ) Land Use ; north : east : south : west : Land use conflicts : View obstruction : T 9 ) Natural resources : i/ 10 ) Risk of upset : ✓ 11 ) Population/Employment : ✓ 12 ) Number of Dwellings : 13 ) Trip ends ( ITE ) : traffic impacts : 14 ) Public services : ✓ 15 ) Energy : ✓ 16 ) Utilities : ,�jy,,ti 2 4,7A-- 17 ) Human health : 1.---'. 18 ) Aesthetics : t/ 19 ) Recreation : . 20 ) Archeology/history : L/ COMMENTS : Recommendation : DNSI DOS `x More Information Reviewed by : > title : I::3 Date : a/ ZS/e/ FORM: ERC-06 Date circulated : 2/17/81 Comments due : 2/24/81 ENVIRONIMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET ECF - 017 - 81 APPLICATION No (s ) . SP-013-81 PROPONENT : EMILIO PIEROTTI/RICHARD PIEROTTI PROJECT TITLE : Brief Description of Project : Fill and reclamation site for Pacific Car & Foundry Company material LOCATION : Between SR-167 and foot of South Talbot Hill SITE AREA : 8.4 acres BUILDING AREA (gross) DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes : )< 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : )( 3) Water & water courses : N( 4 ) Plant life : x 5 ) Animal life : k 6) Noise : �( 7 ) Light & glare : X 8 ) Land Use ; north : east : south : west : Land use conflicts : DlA.c.- 'ce.- 0' `1'r. ESD P) ayt 2,14-) v4rtSie(t...x-CS View obstruction : 9 ) Natural resources : x - 10 ) Risk of upset : X 11 ) Population/Employment : X 12 ) Number of Dwellings : 13 ) Trip ends ( ITE ) : traffic impacts : UMkket . 14 ) Public services : x 15 ) Energy : 16 ) Utilities : )( 17 ) Human health : )( 18 ) Aesthetics : x 19 ) Recreation : 20 ) Archeology/history : r' )( COMMENTS : , (I E ,d- Si LUc 4-Ltd �t l e.'��• 'ice. 15o,AA _ is e o� 4- a►1l �4 C mod- 4D acA24 of vAcl i , 4 -c c..ft c? e iZL 14_ Mi ti 41 m1. -For &SW/3 a,01 74 ,is besde, e � d ,ler- 4/1 w- a � n ! elk a, d " ( Al-.,d . ��c epommmedtion D09 More Information Reviewed by : �,lj�/6 aw-- l ltle : i et Date : riGt4e1 FORM: ERC-06 U a/r.7/ Date circulated : 2/17/81 Comments due : 2/24/81 ENVIROINMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET ECF - 017 - 81 APPLICATION No (s ) . SP-013-81 PROPONENT : EMILIO PIEROTTI/RICHARD PIEROTTI PROJECT TITLE : Brief Description of Project : Fill and reclamation site for Pacific Car & Foundry Company material LOCATION : Between SR-167 and foot of South Talbot Hill SITE AREA : 8 .4 acres BUILDING AREA (gross) DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes : ✓ 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : 3) Water & water courses : ✓ 4 ) Plant life : ✓ 5 ) Animal life : v/ 6) Noise : 7 ) Light & glare : ./ 8 ) Land Use ; north : east : south : west : Land use conflicts : View obstruction : 9) Natural resources : ✓ 10 ) Risk of upset : 11 ) Population/Employment : ✓ 12 ) Number of Dwellings : 13 ) Trip ends ( ITE ) : traffic impacts : 14) Public services : ✓ 15 ) Energy : ✓ 16) Utilities : ✓ 17 ) Human health : ✓ 18 ) Aesthetics : ✓ 19 ) Recreation : v/ 20 ) Archeology/history : ✓ COMMENTS : Recommendation : I_ ✓ DOS More Information_ Reviewed by : a- 1 itle : 491-64'4 ' 54 Date : 3/2/ti FORM: ERC-06 Date circulated : 2/17/81 Comments due : 2/24/81 ENVIRONlME11TAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET ECF - 017 - 81 APPLICATION No (s ) . SP-013-81 PROPONENT : EMILIO PIEROTTI/RICHARD PIEROTTI PROJECT TITLE : Brief Description of Project : Fill and reclamation site for Pacific Car & Foundry Company material LOCATION : Between SR-167 and foot of South Talbot Hill SITE AREA : 8.4 acres BUILDING AREA (gross ) DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes : // V 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality :3 ) Water & water courses : 4 ) Plant life : f 5 ) Animal life : ,( 6) Noise : 7 ) Light & glare : 8 ) Land Use ; north : east : south : west : Land use conflicts : View obstruction : 9) Natural resources : I 10 ) Risk of upset : 11 ) Population/Employment : ✓ 12 ) Number of Dwellings : 13 ) Trip ends ( ITE ) : traffic impacts : 14 ) Public services : 15 ) Energy : vr 16 ) Utilities : 17 ) Human health : 18) Aesthetics : / 19 ) Recreation : ✓ 20 ) Archeology/history : COMMENTS : Recommendation : ✓ OS More Information Reviewed by : � r J';/—G Date : z/2;S/g/ FORM: ERC-06 V Date circulated : 2/17/81 Comments due : 2/24/81 ENIVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET ECF - 017 - 81 APPLICATION No (s ) . SP-013-81 PROPONENT : EMILIO PIEROTTI/RICHARD PIEROTTI PROJECT TITLE : Brief Description of Project : Fill and reclamation site for Pacific Car & Foundry Company material LOCATION : Between SR-167 and foot of South Talbot Hill SITE AREA : 8. 4 acres BUILDING AREA (gross) DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (o) : IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes : 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : 3) Water & water courses : 4) Plant life : 5 ) Animal life : 6) Noise : 7 ) Light & glare : 8 ) Land Use ; north : east : south : west : Land use conflicts : View obstruction : 9 ) Natural resources : 10 ) Risk of upset : 11 ) Population/Employment : 12 ) Number of Dwellings : 13 ) Trip ends ( ITE ) : traffic impacts : xxxx 14 ) Public services : xxxx 15 ) Energy : 16 ) Utilities : 17 ) Human health : 18) Aesthetics : 19 ) Recreation : 20 ) Archeology/history : COMMENTS : Recommendation : DNS ' xxxx DOS More Information Reviewed by : Lt. D.R. Persson Title : Date : 3/3/81 FORM: ERC-06 71 2,y 1 e , Planning 12-1979 RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET Application : EMILIO PIEROTTI/RICHARD PILRQTTI SP-013-81 - - SPECIAL PERMIT TO FILL, FADE, AND RECLAIM Location : BETWEEN SR-167 AND FOOT OF SOUTH TALBOT HILL Applicant : EMILIO PIEROTTI/RICHARD PIEROTTI TO: Parks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : 3/24/81 Police Department 4144P. MEETING DATE : Public Works Department EAC. " of a1 a/N Engineering Division Traffic Engineering Building Division Utilities Engineering 6; , Fire Department (Other) : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN gia5CLIPAIA ) TO BE HELD ON Vi a, AT 9 : 0 A.M. IN THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM. IF YOUR DEPARTMENT DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT ABLE TQ ATTEND THE ARC, PLEASSEi PRO IDE THE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5: 00 P .M. ON REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION ; ,,/ Approved Approved with Conditions — Not Approved 0/Lit y I"7 , - - _,___) -r---- z,----- ' - ',5-47 Signature o Director or uthorrized Representative Date REVIEWIING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : u<ic,ir`/ / Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved rlLA- 0AAJy (il ZPA-/- Oat- 3/-. Signatuyhe of Director or Authorized Representative Date - 1 awl el Planning 12-1979 RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET Application : Ef�ILIO PIEROTTI/lnRD PIEROTTI SP-013-81 - - SPECIAL _PERM TO FILL GRADE, AND RECLAIM Location : BETWEEN SR-167 AND FOOT OF SOUTH TALBOT HILL Applicant : EMILIO PIEROTTI/RICHARD PIEROTTI TO: Parks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : 3/24/81 olice Department 441444., MEETING DATE : _— Public Works Department E.A.C. " " aia/S? Engineering Division Traffic Engineering Building Division Utilities Engineering Fire Department (Other) : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WR TI�IG r0 H P�6t �r�MRC) TO BE HEgrsViIM ` ii AT 9 :00 A.M, IN THE THIRD FLOCOENCE ROOM. IF YOUR DEPARTMENT DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT ABLE TO ATTEND THE ARC, PLEA3SSE�R Q�/,I ICE THE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5 : 00 P .M. ON REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : POLICE Approved xxxx Approved with Conditions Not Approved 1) The proposed 400 foot haul road be paved prior to hauling of material . 2) A gate be placed at the entrance to stop unauthorized dumping & tracking of material . 3) A $2 , 000 cash street cleaning bond be posted with the city to be used if the area is not kept clean. 4) Due to the closeness to V.G. H. the hours of hauling be 0800 hrs to 1800 h: Mon. ru t. and no hauling prior to 1000 hrs on Sundays. Si a e/% r-ector or Authorized Representativ Date L . . R. ersson ' 3 6 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date ."A1 2.y1 S Planning 12-1979 RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET Application : EMILIO PIEROTTI/RICHARD PIEROTTI _ SP-013-81 - - SPECIAL PERMIT TO FILL GRADEAND RECLAIM Location : BETWEEN SR-167 AND FOOT OF SOUTH TALBOT HILL Applicant : EMILIO PIEROTTI/RICHARD PIEROTTI TO: Parks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : 3/24/81 Police Department 41194iT6N MEETING DATE : _ Public Works Department £.R-C. "• a1 of S/ Engineering Division Traffic Engineering Building Division Utilities Engineering Fire Department (Other ) : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WR TI G FO TH HELD ON V/ 3 1$/ AT 9 : 00 A.M. IN THE THIRD) TO FLOORBE CONFERENCE ROOM. IF YOUR DEPARTMENT DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT ABLE TO ATTEND THE ARC, PLEASE PR I E THE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5 :00 P .M. ON ,! I f REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : Approved Approved with Conditions X Not Approved 2/e--5*/ Signature of Director or uthorized Re resentative Date REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : Approved Approved with Conditions _ Not Approved Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date 1 2.41 $ , Planning 12- 1979 RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET Application : EMILIO PIEROTTI/RICFIARD PIEROTTI SP-013-81 - - SPECIAL PERMIT TO FILL, GRADE, AND RECLAIM Location : BETWEEN SR-167 AND FOOT OF SOUTH TALBOT HILL Applicant : EMILIO PIEROTTI/RICHARD PIEROTTI TO: Parks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : 3/24/81 Police Department , MEETING DATE : Public Works Department EAC. f „ /a/W/ Engi ring Division Traffic Engineering Building Division Utilities Engineering Fire Department ( Other ) : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WR TI G FO TH ) TO BE HELD ON 3� 81 AT 9 : 00 A.M. IN THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM. IF YOUR DEPARTMENT DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT ABLE TO ATTEND THE ARC, PLEASSSE1OV PROVIDE THE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5 : 00 P .M. ON REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : Approved v Approved with Conditions Not Approved I S v c x„ -a. s S i 1.1 n . Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date • I12.'1J 8 1 Planning 12-1979 RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET Application : EmmILIO PIEROTTI/RICHARD PIEROTTI SP-013-81 - - SPECIAL PERMIT TO FILL, GRADE, AND RECLAIM Location : BETWEEN SR-167 AND FOOT OF SOUTH TALBOT HILL Applicant : EMILIO PIEROTTI/RICHARD PIEROTTI TO: Parks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : 3/24/81 Police Department 414i94, MEETING DATE : Public Works Department £,R.C. " e' Engineering Division Traf is Engineering Building Division Utilities Engineering Fire Department (Other) : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WR Ti G FO H ) T O BE HELD ON 3i 3 I�/ _ AT 9 : 0 A.M. IN THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM. IF YOUR DEPARTMENT DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT ABLE TQ ATTEND THE ARC, PLEASE PRO IDE THE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY : 00 P .M. ON REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : .3(sp Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved 2,- 2 54/ Signature of Director or Aut' . rzed Representative Date REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : Approved Approved with Conditions _ Not Approved Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date - TY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM rF:3 K, ,,, ., FOR OFFICE USE ONLY ' ‘k' Application No. -dip. y" I EL.2 F - / Environmental Checklist No. _ - x PROPOSED, date: FINAL , date: 0 Declaration of Significance Declaration of Significance Declaration of Non-Significance Declaration of Non-Significance COMMENTS : • Introduction The State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, Chapter 43.21C, RCW, requires all state and local governmental agencies to consider environmental values both for their own actions and when licensing private proposals . The Act also requires that an EIS be prepared for all major actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to help the agencies involved determine whether or not a proposal is such a major action. Please answer the following questions as completely as you can with the information presently available to you. Where explanations of your answers are required, or where you believe an explanation would be helpful to government decision makers , include your explanation in the space provided, or use additional pages if necessary. You should include references to any reports or studies of which you are aware and which are rele- vant to the answers you provide. Complete answers to these questions now will help all agencies involved with your proposal to undertake the required environmental review with- out unnecessary delay. The following questions apply to your total proposal , not just to the license for which you are currently applying or the proposal for which approval is sought. Your answers should include the impacts which will be caused by your proposal when it is completed, even though completion may not occur until sometime in the future. This will allow all of the agencies which will be involved to complete their environmental review now, with- out duplicating paperwork in the future. NOTE: This is a standard form being used by all state and local agencies ih the State of Washington for various types of proposals . Many of the questions may not apply to your proposal . If a question does not apply, just answer it "no" and continue on to the next question. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I . BACKGROUND - 1.- Name of Proponent Emilio Pierotti / Richard Pierotti 2. Address and phone number of Proponent: 3412 E. Valley Road Renton, Washington 9$055 251-8181 3. Date Checklist submitted Feb. 1981 4. Agency requiring Checklist City of Renton , Planning Dept. 5. Name of proposal , if applicable: ' 'Xl and Reclamation Project 6. Nature and brief description of the proposal (including but not limited to its size, general design elements , and other factors that will give an accurate understanding of its scope and nature) : 8.4 Acres Build road from Talbot Hill road to iia1& yff&oor- strip, pile and hRul topsoil- Fill property on valley floor to specified level' while reclaiming scrap iron from nearby foundry with dozer or magnet . -2- ;. • 7. Location of proposal (describe the physical setting of the proposal , as well as the extent of the land area affected by any environmental impacts , including any other information needed to give an accurate understanding of the environ- mental setting of the proposal ) : 8.4 acres, mostly unimproved low land located between hiEhway 167 south rand fhp font ofA Talbot Hill- yearly to Valley Generu1 '4nspitAL 8. Estimated date for completion of the proposal : 5-10 years • 9. List of all permits, licenses or government approvals required for the proposal (federal , state and local --including rezones) : City of Renton Fill Permit 10. Do you have any plans for future additions , expansion, or further' activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes , explain: No 11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain : No " 12. Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the pro- • posal ; if none has been completed, but is expected to be filed at some future date, describe the nature of such application form: None • • II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required) (1) Earth. Will the proposal result in: (a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic X substructures? YES MAYBE NO (b) Disruptions, displacements , compaction or over- X covering of the soil? YES MAYBE NO (c) Change in topography or ground surface relief X features? YES MAYBE NO (d) The destruction, covering or modification of .any unique geologic or physical features? YES MAYBE WO (e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils , X either on or off the site? YES MAYBE N0 (f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands , or changes in siltation , deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the . bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? }� YES TOTE NU _Explanation: Strip marketable topsoil, and replAee with 4vercovering of waste dirt~ to specified level -3- (2) Air. Will the proposal result in: (a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? YES MAYBE NO (b) The creation of objectionable odors? %. YES MAYBE NO (c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: (3) Water. Will the proposal result in: (a) Changes in currents , or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? X YES MAYBE NO (b) Changes in absorption rates , drainage patterns , or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? YES MAYBE NO (c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? YES MAYBE NO (d) Change in the amount of surface water in any water $ body? YES MAYBE NO (e) Discharge into surface waters , or in any alteration surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? YES MAYBE NO (f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of X ground waters? YES MAYBE NO (g) Change in the quantity of ground waters , either through direct additions or withdrawals , or through X interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? YES MAYBE NO (h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either through direct injection , or through the seepage of leachate, phosphates, detergents , waterborne virus or bacteria, or other substances into the ground waters? YES MAYBE NO (i ) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available $ for public water supplies? YES MAYBE NO _ _ _ __i- - _ _- _Explanation: (4) Flora. Will the proposal result in: (a) Change in the diversity of species , or numbers of any _ species of flora (including trees , shrubs, grass , crops , microflora and aquatic plants)? YES MAYBE NO (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of flora? 4 X. YES MAYBE NO (c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? YES MAYBE NO (d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? YES MAYBE NO --Explanation: • -4- (5)- Fauna'. Will the proposal result in: (a) Changes in the diversity of species , or numbers of any species of fauna •(birds , land animals including . reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms , insects or microfauna)? YES MAYBE NO • (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of fauna? YES MAYBE NO (c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an area, • or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of fauna? YES MAYBE NO (d) Dete,rioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X. YES MAYBE NO • Explanation: (6) Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? X YES MAYBE NO • - Explanation: • (7) Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? YES MAYBE NO ___._ ___.._ Explanation: - (8) Land Use. Will the' proposal result in the alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? x- YES MAYBE NO _ _ _Explanation: unimproved low land, zoned SR-1 ;(Single family residence) (9) Natural Resources. Will the p'rbposal result in: _ _ (-a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? YES MAYBE , NQ (b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? YES MAYBE NO _ _ Explanation: - • (10) Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an - explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil , pesticides , chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? YES MAYBE ifr— Explanation: (11) Population. Wi11 the proposal alter the location, distri- bution, density, or growth rate of the human population X of an area? y M BE NN - ._ _Explanation: - - < ;� ar -5- ( 12) Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing , or create a demand for additional housing? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: (13) Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: (a) Generation of additional vehicular movement? X YES MAYBE NO (b) Effects on existing parking facilities , or demand for new parking? X YES MAYBE NO (c) Impact upon existing transportation systems? X YES MAYBE NO (d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? YES MAYBE NO (e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? YES MAYBE NO (f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles , X bicyclists or pedestrians? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: Occationaal dump truck to and from property (14) Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas : (a) Fire protection? X. YES MAYBE NO (b) Police protection? YES MAYBE NO (c) Schools? X YES MAYBE NO (d) Parks or other recreational facilities? X YES MAYBE NO (e) Maintenance of public facilities , including roads? X YES MAYBE NO (f) Other governmental services? $' YES MAYbE NO Explanation: (15) Energy. Will the proposal result in: (a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X YES MAYBE NO (b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require X the development of new sources of energy? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: Fuel savings by dumping waste dirt olncA to pnpn1Atinn center Also reclamation from foundry material (pipnAA nf° AcrAp iron) will save onergy (16) Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities,: (a) Power or natural gas? X YES MAYBE NO X (b) Communications systems? YES MAYBE NO (c) Water? x YES MAYBE NO •411 y ' a -6- �„ (d) Sewer or septic tanks? X YES MAYBE NO (e) Storm water drainage? YES MAYBE 0 (f) Solid waste and disposal? X. YES MAYBE NO Explanation: (17) Human Health. Will the proposal result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? • .X___ YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 0 • (18) Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? X. YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 14„v1 all project similar to the many currently underway in the galley. _ (19) Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? __X___ YES MAYBE NO Explanation: (20) Archeological/Historical . Will the proposal result in an _ alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: • III. SIGNATURE • I , the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that -the lead agency may withdraw any decla- ration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful 1a ;k of/ffUli dis,ciosure on my part. /!�a�.�. / Proponent: �..4' i ,l'' Q ?/ `(signed) Richard Pierotti (name printed) f Af-- --e---et: /- 3 b— Emilio Pierotti City of Renton Planning Department • 5-76 , II a1 J eceipt # CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT NAME `t ; , , . �' �,'F.;` DATE PROJECT & LOCATION e' �' �• .' _:''F I , Application Type Basic Fee Acreage Fee Total II Environmental Checklist Environmental Checklist Construction Valuation Fee li TOTAL FEES Please take this receipt and your payment to the Finance Department on the first floor. Thank You. CITY OF RENTON APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT A� CrIviaT.41) ')C� • FEB 17 1931 FOR OFFICE USE ONLYamam �m---- ----wearers .4.L. � File No . SP-©/S- J Date Rec' d. ' •• e` Application Fee $ Receipt No . \G ��. En vi rorimen tat Review Fee $ APPLICANT TO COMPLETE ITEMS 1 THROUGH 6': 1. Na e Emilio Pierotti / Richard Pierotti phone 251-8181 Address 3412 East Valley Road Renton, Washington 98055 2 . Property location w�Y+ np rttt, sou h�f 3,�5 Talbot Road So Renton, WaR - 3. Legal description (attach additional sheet if necessary) W.m;t;o Piero .ti 30-23-05 9027 W 1152.80 FT OF S 194 FT OF NW fit n� F GF i, LESS ST HWYS LYING EAST OF ST RD #167. (Road Access) 30-23-05 9012 THE N 60 FT OF THE S 254 FT OF THE S 534.25 FT OF POR OF N 1/2 OF SE 1/4 LY W OF CO RD #SO LESS W u A1 _A6 FT o LESS S" 224 FT • John V. Farrell 30-2 -05 9062 POR OF W 1381.86 FT OF S 1/2 OF N 1/2 OF' SE 1/4 LY ELY OF ST HWY #55 LESS S 194 FT 4 . Number of acres or square feet 8.4 acres Present Zoning SR-1 5 . What do you propose to develop on this property? Unknown 6 . The following information shall be submitted with this application : A. Site and access plan (includ.e setbacks , Scale existing structures , easements , and other factors limiting development) 1" = 10 ' or 20 ' B. Parking, landscaping and screening plan 1" = 10 ' C. Vicinity map (include land use and zoning on adjacent parcels) 1" 200 ' to 800 ' D. Building height and area (existing and proposed) E. A special permit required by the Renton Mining , Excavation and Grading Ordinance shall submit the information listed in Section 4-2307 . 5 in addition to the above. 7 . LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER'S ACTION: Date Approved - Date Denied Date Appealed Appeal Action Remarks Planning Dept. 1-77 SHOVELS • TRUCKS • TRACTORS GRADERS • BULLDOZING • EXCAVAT • ROAD BUILDING • CLEARING • RED Lie Mete CONSTRUCTION CO. "'of R6:;'N == 3412 E. Valley Rd. P. O. DOX Z452 1-8181 -n�r�. "— /" � i r b 0) RENTON - - WASHINGTON ,/ ,? February 12, 1981 FEB 1 7 1981 \c,,t) Planning Department �� 200 dill Ave. So. S G DE?" Renton, Washington 98055 �"`" Re: Fill and Reclamation Site ' Dear Mr. Clemens: This application for a special permit is our sincere desire for a fill and reclam- ation site, on what is currently our unimproved low-land property. Prior to the filling and reclaimgng, all usable topsoiilwill be stripped, piled, and hauled to nearbi-ymarkets. This site will then enable our company to dispose of waste dirt from our various construction jobs, at a close by location and therefore energy saving manner. Further our company needs this fill and reclamation site for the Pacific Car & Foundry;,"C°. material we have been hauling for many years. Consisting of sand,and. bricks and scrap iron; much of the iron mixed throughout can be reclaimed by use of a dozer or magnet. This nearby site will best accomodate customers, and consequently the public, through the shortest possible haul; and our company by the reclamation proceedure. Once the project ,is completed and the property filled, proper use can be deter- mined as conditions warrent. Considering our individual rights and liberties as property owners, tax payers, private enterprise, and employers in Renton for over 30 years; we feel it is well within our rights and ability to undertake this project. As it will help employ our workers and eventually add to the tax base of our community. In these times of economic belt tightening, and scarcity:it is sound proceedure to employ every advantage possible to save energy, recycleaand reuse resources, provide jobs, as wellas4preserve or increase the tax base. This proposal does all of the above, and combined with the extensive proceedures outlined in our engineering plan drawing, clearly demonstrate our commitment to a environmentally sound and useful project. Very truly yours, Emilio Pierotti EP:rpavat Richard Pierotti i \\ SHOVELS • TRUCKS • TRACTORS - GRADERS • BULLDOZING • EXCAVATING • ROAD BUILDING • CLEARING RED & 2 4c ee CONSTRUCTION CO. 3412 E. Valley Rd. P O. DOX z 4 5251-8181 -ei-1 -6-.+.c4-t- RENTON - - WASHINGTON February 12, 1981 StD--Ql3 / Planning Department 200 Mill Ave. So. Renton, Washington 98055 Res Fill and Reclamation Site Dear Mr. Clemens: This application for a special permit is our sincere desire for a fill and reclam- ation site, on what is currently our unimproved low-land property. Prior to the . filling and reclaimOmg, all usable topsoillwill be stripped, piled, and hauled to nearby'markets. This site will then enable our company to dispose of waste dirt from our various construction jobs, at a close by location and therefore energy saving manner. Further our company needs this fill and reclamation site for the Pacific Car & FoundryyCo. material we have been hauling for many years. Consisting of sand,and bricks and scrap iron; much of the iron mixed throughout can be reclaimed by use of a dozer or magnet. This nearby site will best accomodate customers, and consequently the public, through the shortest possible haul; and our company by the reclamation proceedure. Once the project is completed and the property filled, proper use can be deter- mined as conditions warrent. Considering our individual rights and liberties as property. owners, tax payers, private enterprise, and employers in Renton for over 30 years; we feel it is well within our rights and ability to undertake this project. As it will help employ our workers and eventually add to the tax base of our community. In these times of economic belt tightening, and scarcity,it is sound proceedure to employ every advantage possible to save energy, recycleaand reuse resources,- provide jobs, as wellaspreserve or increase the tax base. This proposal does all of the above, and combined with the extensive proceedures outlined in our engineering plan drawing, clearly demonstrate our commitment to a environmentally sound and useful project. Very truly yours, Emilio Pierotti EP:rp . .-7446,utt2 aAlfdtt. Richard Pierotti • AFFIDAVIT • I, Emilio Pierotti , being duly sworn, declare that I am the owner of the property involved in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Subscribed and sworn before me this c�O day of o , 19 6F1 , Notary Public in'and for the`' State of Wasington, residing at arm-> . c/6,4kAAL....;46 (Ne of Notary Public) (Signature of Owner) 17054 S.E. 184th Renton, Wa. Address) (Address) • Renton, Washington 98055 (City) (State) 251-8181 (Telephone) (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) CERTIFICATION • Thl s is to certify that " '=e�f.gregoing application has been inspected, by me and has been found two Cce ihfbiIgh and complete in every particular and to co�form to the rul,4 an •��' �egul/ ions of the Renton Planning Department governing the fit g o , app' ication . FEB 17 1001 1 Date Received ... , By : • Renton Planning Dept . 2-73 i -' A F F I D A V I T I, �� f 1fh �`'o / , being duly sworn, declare that I am t e owner, of the property involved in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Subscribed and sworn before me this,W day of()• 1 _., , 19?, , 61 Notary Public in and for th State of Washington, residing at , J -tL . L-,i2 d :!1 `t lti��f LA m'(Nae of Notary` ublic) (Signature of Owner) 1 /..2 -7.,,,z,-;,,, kJ c,, CA dress) (A dress) 314-9-1'\ (AR 5 (-0A) City) ( ate) (Telephone) (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) CERTIFICATION This is to certify that the foregoing application has been inspected by me andI has been found to be thorough and complete in every particular and to conform to the rules and regulations of the Renton Planning Department governing the filing e A application . fik clfCH\itb 0 Date Received f1'\1b�6 ' , 19 By: FEB 17 1981 r� -9„ � Renton Planning Dept . • Generral Power ® Attorney ,, KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That JOHN V. FARRELL & LEE ANN FARRELL U) ' \-O • - I n ha ave made, constituted and appointed, and by these presents do make, constitute and appoint C VELMA R. BUCHANAN 1 CNl In • CD their true and lawful attorney for them and in their names , place and stead and for the r use and benefit • • to ask, demand,sue for, recover,'collect and receive all such sums of money, debts, dues, accounts, legacies, bequests, interests, dividends, annuities and demands whatsoever, as are now or shall hereafter become due, owing,' payable or ' JOHN V.-_,FARRELL and/or LEE ANN FARRELL belonging to and have,use and take all lawful ways and means in their name s , or otherwise, for the recovery thereof, by attachments, arrest, distress or otherwise, and to compromise and agree for the same, and to make, sign, seal and deliver acquittances, or other sufficient discharges for the same; for them and in their" • name s ,to bargain,contract,agree for,purchase,receive and take lands, tenements, hereditaments, and accept the seizin and possession of all lands,and all deeds, and other assurances in the law therefor; and to lease, let, demise, bargain, sell, , remise, release, convey, mortgage and hypothecate lands, tenements and hereditaments, upon such terms and conditions she and under such covenants as shall think fit; to assign and transfer any note or mortgage; to dedicate any street, avenue, alley,place, way or park for public uses.ALSO to bargain and agree for, buy,sell,mortgage, I hypothecate, and in any and every way and manner deal in and with goods, wares and merchandise, choses in action and other property, in possession or in action, and to release mortgages on lands or chattels, and to make, do and transact all and every kind of business of what nature and kind soever. AND also for them and in their name s , and as their . act and deed, to sign, seal, execute, deliver and acknowledge such deeds, leases and lssignments of leases, covenants, indentures, agreements, mortgages, hypothecations, bottomries, charter parties, bills of I ading, bills, bonds, notes, receipts, evidences of debt, releases and satisfactions of mortgage, judgment and other debts, and such other instruments in writing, of whatsoever kind or nature, as may be necessary or proper in the premises: GIVING AND GRANTING unto theirsaid attorney full power and authority to do and perform all and every act and thing whatsoever requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises as fully to all intents nd purposes as they might or could do if personally present; hereby ratifying and confirming all that their said attorney shall Iawfully do or cause to be done, by virtue of these presents. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,•••.they..•-hatire••hereunto set them' hands and seal s the 18th day of May in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and seventy nine Signed, Sealed and Delivered in the Presence of -9 !y lAf i '� �(�f.=- (SEAL)- l - - `--- -, f _�-'-_f_?`'" ?',2--',A„-,1 ate,,; --' y�? !i�%t_ (SEAL) Form L 16 /`- •••••19.VVVVVVVVVVV 0711.1,117•19•1=11070.• .11........ ,op lev7--v-riw-67—Arre: 9 (2, , //".....ssaippv fre—tloweIl P.,1 JO! (101! ' !O ls.2;rfil-:',:'1-1 173 Pjf--1-4- - , , / 001e, i iiit, ; oil ni 17 AV" (, i, ( . .: ..: c , STATE OF WASHINGTON, 1. i l- ss. A C: COUNTY OF KING . ! k : • C. On this 18th day of May , A. D. 19....79, before me, the under- k';1 signed, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared I • JObla V...7.arxell..and_.Lea..Ann..Farrell ,... • C'; • to me known to be the individual.P_ described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and,acktiOledgecl to -t-) r...1_: .-) ''. me that .t.heY._ signed and sealed the said instrument as -tricAte7"" - free and voluntary act .ri ‘ ert""ali)'f.t.h"e.u:Se's and purposes therein mentioned. - 7 :•7-7. f.. ''..-; C--- \ ,--,— -. ; -- WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year in this certificate above w4itten.i,'y.,,. ,c„:, ,,,,,,,•;:,.._.- i 21 cz.4 c. Notary ubli n and for, the,StAZiiCIMgio.n, . . :Seal ' residing at Seattle • . 1 I - . I , 1 • Lt.. 7,3 ..... . 0 on , : .— ;Fs •,t' o al .",f• sa. 04 d7:4 i— 14.1 C4 ou -E 0 41 g 0 o ou" ..., i o Z P4 V* •0 • ±-. 0 . • Z Q g 14' 0 1,.. 0 ..., E • r'l a, 1.0 ta.65 —0 (9 2 0-1 [.... z c r,„ a — a N LEI 'cL3 0 6:::g o ›.... ri Cr) 0 '7:, .... - , . ..... ' 1 4. 4. • Y I I General Power of At t.irney KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That JOHN V. FARRELL & LEE ANN FARRELL !1) • In ha ave made, constituted and appointed, and by these presents do make,constitute and appoint VELMA R. BUCHANAN C\I. Q their true and lawful attorney for them and in their name s place and stead and for their use and benefit • to ask, demand,sue for, recover, collect and receive all such sums of money, debts, dues, accounts, legacies, bequests, interests, dividends,,annuities and demands whatsoever, as are now or shall hereafter become due, ,owing,'•payable or belonging to JOHN V.' FARRELL and/or LEE ANN FARRELL and have, use and take all lawful ways and means in their name s , or otherwise, for the recovery thereof, by attachments, arrest, distress or otherwise, and to compromise and agree for the same, and to make, sign, seal and deliver acquittances, or other sufficient discharges for the same; for them and in their.' names ,to bargain,contract,agree for,purchase,receive and take lands, tenements, hereditaments, and accept the sei2in and possession of all lands,and all deeds,and other assurances in the law therefor; and to lease, let, demise, bargain, sell, remise, release, convey, mortgage and hypothecate lands, tenements and hereditaments, upon such terms and conditions and under such covenants as she shall think fit; to assign and transfer any note or mortgage; to dedicate any street, avenue, alley,place, way or park for public uses.ALSO to bargain and agree for,buy,sell, mortgage, hypothecate, and in any and every way and manner deal in and with goods, wares and merchandise, choses in action and other property, in possession or in action, and to release mortgages on lands or chattels, and to make, do and transact all and every kind of business of what nature and kind soever. AND also for them and in their name s , and as their _act and deed, to sign, seal, execute, deliver and acknowledge such deeds, leases and assignments of leases, covenants,rindentures, agreements, mortgages, hypothecations, bottomries, charter parties, bills of lading, bills, bonds, notes, receipts, evidences of debt, releases and satisfactions of mortgage, judgment and other debts, and such other instruments in writing, of whatsoever kind or nature, as may be necessary or proper in the premises: their GIVING AND GRANTING unto said attorney full power and authority to do and perform all and every act and thing whatsoever requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises as fully to all intents and purposes as they might or could do if personally present; hereby ratifying and confirming all that their said attorney • shall lawfully do or cause to be done, by virtue of these presents. • IN WITNESS WHEREOF,....they....ha`Ie..hereunto set their hands and seal s the 18th day of Mal' in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and seventy nine Signed, Sealed and Delivered in the Presence of �j`-. ✓ it (SEAL); /),') _.-/ �'�9f �i s �sf� (SEAL) JA orm L 16 ,o,cf,..),,, ,,7.7„,frieeq•-pri.7_ 9 v..........77.-ssaippv • fri,/, ,,tewell . To f :fp 1 C Ao 3aH JO1. IP11.1" . isd.a th» fiI; t j? A!H `, • Y� { a' t STATE OF WASHINGTON, i. Q • r ss. COUNTY OF KING ; C.day ;- 18thMay \i' 1 On this of , A. D. I9..--��, before me, the under- signed, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared j 1 J:Qbsa-.Y.a--Farrell-.and-.Le.e.-Ann...Farrell c 1 1 to me known to be the individual.P. described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and,acknowledged to ti v a v; .: me that :�-hey. signed and sealed the said instrument as 4 4 mac. free and voluntary acCarediideed-,or'the uses., and purposes therein mentioned. �, %., ; c WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year in this certificate abovewtit.en.: ' '- 1 . ''..:' ' 7,",-.,a,.../A:,:...,..,:;' ,,,:-- • . .Notary ubli n and for.'the State,df4Washisgton,., j residing at Seattle 4 ' I 1 • • 1 • 0 2. Ngi c o U a e. A W 'C 2. a p" co Q 4 Z w V p O L ® c4 Ti U ® � Z0 .,...,; ' (..) E- "- `� ci 0 al 0 rz. 7.3 4 . . • .., . . < ,..., c, . . , z ... ,. c),,, O _ 'g .. >, U Gc. o m Q t . .• I � � . " AFFIDAVIT I , JOHN V. FARRELL & LEEANN FARRELL , being duly sworn, declare that A WE are the ownersof the property involved in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief . Subscribed and sworn before me thi s3, d day ofc_,4 , 190 , Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at i m 41(4 . - d2)a ,e04e-c_ d_ H--. } (Naa e of Notary Public) (Signature of Owner) Attorney in fact for: f`� John V. Farrell f Leeann Farrell / 2220 So. 112th Seattle, Wash. , (Ad ress) / (Address) SEATTLE WASI-I. 98168 (City) (State) 248 2228 or 244 8690 • (Telephone) (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) • CERTIFICATION Tiffs is to certify that the foregoing application has been inspected by me and has been found to - " °•orough and complete in every particular and to conform to the rut ca'd re, t° ions of the Renton Planning Department ''governing the fil .4 o ° u.ch',a' lication . .. R[UU\l-I) . . Date Received FEB w 7 1981 9 By: -6 .......uns..u......... r 41 ` I'R Inge Renton Planning Dept . 2-73 1 ' ENDING OF FILE FILE TITLE