No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA83-002 (3)BEGINNING OF FILE FILE TITLE CROlUI'tED 0 avied OO83 SR- act- 83 RECEIVE 1. wag 19k 2 1 c QUi1T7 SUPE1;iUi? 3 4 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY 5 RENTONITES, INC. , a Washington corporation, NO. 3 0 2 - 06 `#n 6 4 _6 Plaintiff , WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR 7 REVIEW AND ORDER vs. 8 CITY OF RENTON, a Municipal. 9 corporation; RONALD G. NELSON , its Building and Zoning Director ; 10 DAVID R. CLEMENS, it Policy Development Director ; RICHARD 11 C. HOUGHTON, its Public Works Director ; and FRED J. KAUFMAN, 12 its Land Use Hearing Examiner .30 p.n„ r 13 Defendants .i 14 15 STATE OF WASHINGTON TO: 16 THE CITY OF RENTON , a Municipal corporation ; RONALD G . 17 NELSON, its Building and Zoning Director ; DAVID R. CLEMENS , it: 18 Policy Development Director ; RICHARD C . HOUGHTON , its Public ) 19 Works Director ; and FRED J . KAUFMAN , its Land Use Hearincl 20 Examiner , respectively. 21 WHEREAS THE VERIFIED PETITION of Plaintiff has beery 22 presented to the above entitled court and based upon the ground: 23 stated in said petition , and it appearing from said petition tha 24 this is a proper cause for the issuance of such a writ , no' 25 therefore: 26 YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to certify and file in thi: 27 court, and with Plaintiff herein , on or before the I63ay of 28 at/IL, 1983 , the complete city record , including a verbatir 29 transcript of the proceedings , together with all notes an( 30 correspondence, memoranda , minutes , documents , records and othe ' 31 writings , relating to the final declaration of non-significance 32 with conditions attached dated February 2 , 1983 , and any other DOBSON, HOUSER Q DOBSON 1 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 220 WILLIAMS AVE. .O P. O. BOX 59 RENTON, WA. 91.,O57 255.0C4I 1 material , records or documents relating to any aspect of this 2 matter , that the same may be reviewed by this court and this 3 court may cause to be done what appears of right ought to be 4 done. 5 A conformed copy of this Writ may be served upon 6 Defendants in this action and have the same effect as a certified 7 copy. 8 DONE IN OPEN COURT this % day of May, 1983 . 9 MAURICE M. EPSTEIN 10 COURT COMMISSIONER 11 PRESENTED BY: 12 DOBSON, HCUSER & DOBSON 13 FIT:OCAWAA404.AUA.,..1._torWyman K. Dobson 14 Attorney for Plaintiff 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 2 DOBSON. HOUSER DOBSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW 220 WILLIAMS AVE. 00. P. O. SOX 59 RENTON, WA, 90037 255.0641 YGO Tt 1 PIG MyrY s81:E&lei Receipt for Copy) Clerk's Date Stam ) IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING RENTONITES, INC. , a Washington corporation, NO c t , zs a kJ, A- ` 3 Plaintiff, vs. SUMMONS (20 days) CITY OF RENTON, a Municipal corp, ; RONALD G. NELSON, its Building and Director; DAVID R. =HENS, its Policy d "r ivit__s Development Director; RICHARD C. HOUGHTON its Public Works Director; and tbdood t• 193FREDJr.. K its Land Use Hearing 4.10 p,vr ,Examiner, Defendants To rite: DEFENDANT: A lawsuit has been started against you in the above entitledcuiiit by REN`ICNI S MC., a Washington corporation plaintiff. Plaintiff's claim is stated in the written complaint, a copy oI' which is served upon you with this summons. In order to defend against this lawsuit, you must respond to the complaint by stating your defense in writing, and serve a copy upon the undersigned attorney for the plaintiff within 20 days after the service of this summons, excluding the (lay of service, or a default judgment may be entered against you without notice. A default judgment is one where plaintiff is entitled to what he asks For because you have not responded. II you serve a notice of appeal:once on the untletsignctl attorney, you are entitled to notice before a default judgment may be entered. You may demand that the plaintiff file this lawsuit with the court. If you do so, the demand must he in writing and roust he served upon the plaintiff. Within I4 (lays after you serve the demand, the plaintiff must file this lawsuit with the court, or the service on you of this summons and complaint will be void. If you wish Io seek the advice of an attorney in this matter, you should do so promptly so that your written response, if :my, may he served on time. This summons is issued pursuant to Rule 4 of the Superior Court Civil Rules of the State of Wash- ington. DOBSON, HOUSER & DOBSON Dated May Pi 1983 Signed) jWyman K. DLzbson Print or Typo Name) Plaintiff (x) Plaintiff's Attorney P.O. Address P.O. Box 59, Renton, WA 98057 Telephone Number 255-8641 Summons LMI-SM-10.1•- boy. 12/lW 1 2 3 4 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY 5 RENTONITES, INC. , a Washington corporation, VNO _ 6 4 6 4 -6 3 Plaintiff, PETITION AND AFFIDAVIT 7 FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI , vs. WRIT OF REVIEW 8 CITY OF RENTON, a Municipal 9 corporation; RONALD G. NELSON , its Building and Zoning Director ; 10 DAVID R. CLEMENS, its Policy Development Director ; RICHARD 11 C. HOUGHTON , its Public Works Director ; and FRED R. KAUFMAN, 12 its Land Use Hearing Examiner . 13 Defendants . 14 15 PLAINTIFF respectfully petitions the court for a Writ of 16 Certiorari , Writ of Review , and in support thereof , alleges as 17 follows; 18 I . 19 Plaintiff , Rentonites , Inc . , is a Washington 20 corporation. 21 II . 22 Defendant , City of Renton is a Municipal corporation 23 organized and existing under the laws of the State of 24 Washington. 25 III . 26 Plaintiff submitted an application for site approval to 27 allow construction of a 100 foot by 38 foot commercial building 28 upon real property owned by Plaintiff located at Northeast 3rd 29 Street in approximately the 2800 block in Renton and legally 30 described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. 31 IV. 32 On February 2 , 1983 , the City of Renton Environmental DOBSON. HOUSER DOBSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW 220 WILLIAMS AVE. O. P. O. BOX 59 RENTON, WA. 90007 j255,0041 1 1 Review Committee issued a final declaration of nonsignificance 2 subject to a number of conditions, a copy of which is attached as 3 Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by this reference. 4 V. 5 On March 11 , 1983, Plaintiff submitted an appeal .to the 6 Land Use Hearing Examiner , Fred J . Kaufman , a copy which is 7 attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and incorporated herein by this 8 reference. 9 VI . 10 On April 18 , 1983 , the Land Use Hearing Examiner 11 affirmed the decision of the Environmental Review Committee . A 12 copy is attached as Exhibit "D" and incorporated herein by this 13 reference. 14 vii . 15 In bringing this action the Plaintiff alleges the 16 decision of the Land Use Hearing Examiner as it relates to 17 conditions 1 and 5 was based upon errors of law or fact and 18 errors of judgment in that : 19 1 . It is unreasonable , arbitrary and capricious to 20 require one driveway for ingress and egress; 21 2 . It is unreasonable , arbitrary and capricious to 22 require Plaintiff to pay 1% of the cost of items listed in 23 condition number 5 which is contained in the final declaration of 24 nonsignificance. 25 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests the following relief : 26 J . That this court order and issue a Writ of Certiorari 27 and Writ of Review directed to the Defendants City of Renton , 28 Nelson, Clemens, Houghton, and Kaufman, requiring said Defendants 29 to promptly return and certified to this court a full and 30 complete record of the actions taken by said Defendants with 31 32 DOBSON. HOUSER DOBSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW 229 WILLIAM5 AVE. SO, P. O. UOX 59 RENTON. WA. 90057 255.9641 1 regards to the Defendants issuance of the final declaration of 2 nonsignificance , together with all notes and correspondence , 3 memoranda, minutes , documents , records , and other writings and 4 other material relating to any aspect of any and all actions 5 taken on this matter . 6 2 . That this court, upon return of the Writ, and after 7 a review of said Defendant ' s actions, the proceeding herein and 8 such extresinc material facts as it may not appear of record , 9 find and declare that the City of Renton ' s Environmental Review 10 Committee's condition of restricting access to one driveway along 11 NE 3rd Street was unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious and the 12 requirement that the Plaintiff contribute 1% of the cost of items 13 listed in Exhibit "A" condition 5 is arbitrary and capricious 14 and that both conditions be striken. 15 3. For Plaintiff ' s costs and fees , including reasonable 16 attorneys fees, incurred herein. 17 4 . For such other and just relief as the court may find 18 to be appropriate and equitable. 19 DATED this 9th day of May, 1983 . 20 DOBSON, HOUSER & DOBSON 21 l) 22 Wyman' K. Dobsn Attorney for Plaintiff 23 AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT 24 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) 25 ss. COUNTY OF KING 26 27 first being duly sworn on 28 oath, deposes and says: 29 I am an officer of Rentonites , Inc , a Washington 30 corporation ; I make this affidavit and verification on behalf of 31 32 DOBSON. HOUSER DOBSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW 220 WILLIAMS AVE. SO. P. O. DOS 59 RENTON, WA. 99057 255.0041 1 the Plaintiff and I am duly authorized to do so. I have read the 2 above Petition , know the contents thereof , and believe the samc 3 to be true and correct to the best of my knowledge . Each and: 4 every statement set forth in said Petition is incorporated be 5 reference and made a part of this Affidavit . 6 7 8 SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me this day of May, 1983 . 9 NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of 10 Washington, residing at 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 121 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 DOBSON. MOUSER :r DOBSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW 229 WILLIAMS AVE. SO„ P. O. tfOX 59 RENTON. WA. 90037 253.0041 EXHIBIT "A" 4 Tract , of Short Plat No. 384-79 , recorded under King County Recorder' s No. 791018-9001, situated in King County, Washington. 4-. L lllf 1 1J 1 1 L) FINAL DECLARATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE Application No(s): SA-002-83 Environmental Checklist No.: ECF-003-83 Description of Proposal: Application for site approve] to allow the construction of a 100 foot by 38 foot commercial • building. Proponent: Louis Peretti (Rentonites, Inc.) Location of Proposal: Located on the north side of N.E. 3rd Street at approximately the 2800 block. Lead Agency: City of Renton Building and Zoning Department. This proposal was reviewed by the ERC on February 2, 1983, following a presentation byJerryLindoftheBuilding & Zoning Department. Oral comments were accepted from:Ronald Nelson, Richard Iloughton, Robert Bergstrom, Roger I3laylock, David Clemens,G _Norris and Jerry Lind.. Incorporated by reference in the record of the proceedings of the ERC on applicationECF-003-83 are the following: 1.Environmental Checklist Review, prepared by: Louis Peretti, DATED January 25,1982. 2.Applications: Site Approval (SA-002-83). 3.Recommendations for a declaration of non-significance: Fire Prevention Bureau,Building and Zoning Department, Utility Engineering Division, Traffic EngineeringDivision, Design Engineering Division. Acting as the Responsible Official, the ERC has determined this development has anon-significant adverse impact on the environment. An EIS is not required under RCW43.21C.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 non-significance: The Environmental Review Committee issues this final declaration of non-significancesubjecttothefollowingconditions: 1.Access is to be restricted to one driveway along N.E. 3rd Street and only right inandrightoutturningmovementsarctobepermitted. 2.A median barrier is to be constructed in the center of N.E. 3rd Street fronting thesubjectproperty. 3.Lighting is to be of directional type to mitigate light and glare for neighboringmulti-family and vehicular traffic on N.E. 3rd Street. 4.A landscape buffer consisting of evergreen trees and shrubs shall be required alongthenorthandwestpropertylinestoscreenthecommercialdevelopmentfromtheadjacentmulti-family. 5.The assessment value of the above-referenced development is as shown below:1% cost of listed improvement project's cost — N.E. 3rd St. & Sunset Blvd., $120,000 @ 1%1,200.00N.E. 3rd & Edmonds Avenue N.E., $100,000 @ 1% I,000.00 Monroe Avenue N.E. & N.E. 4th St. 200 linear feet @ $184.00/L.F., $36,800 @ 1% 3G8.00 Monroe Avenue N.E. do N.E. 4th St. signal Optieoui, pedestrian improvement, $32,000 @ 1 % 320.00 Total Amount 2,888.00 FINAL DECLARATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE LOUIS PERE7"I'I (RENTONITES, INC.): ECF-003-83 FEBItUARY 2, 1983 PAGE 2 SIGNATURES: Lt6nald G. Nelson David It. Clemens Building and 'Zoning Director Policy Development Director Richard C. Houghton Public Works Director PUBLISHED: February 28, 1983 APPEAL DATE: March 14, 1983 Date circulated : January 26, 1983 Comments due : February 1, 1983 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVILES SHEET E C F - 003 - 83 APPLICATION No (s ) . SITE APPROVAL (SA-002-83) PROPONENT : Louis Peretti (Rentonites, Inc. ) PROJECT TITLE : N/A Brief Description of Project : Application for Site Approval to allow the construction of a 100 foot by 38 foot commercial building. LOCATION : Located on the north side of N.E. 3rd Street at the 2800 block. SITE AREA: 38,000 sq. ft. BUILDING AREA (gross ) 3,800 sq. ft. DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (:) : IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes : X 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality :X 3 ) Water & water courses :X 4 ) Plant life : X 5 ) Animal life : X 6 ) Noise : X 7 ) Light & glare : X 1 8 ) Land Use ; north : Multiple Family east :Undevloped south: Undeveloped west :Multiple Family Land use conflicts : Possible with adjacent multi-family. View obstruction : Minor 9 ) Natural resources : X 1 10 ) Risk of upset : X 11 ) Population/Employment : I X 1 12 ) Number of Dwellings : X I I 1 13 ) Trip ends ( I II ) : 115/1,000 sq. ft. 0 3.8 = 475 ADT traffic impacts : Unacceptable driveway configuation. 14 ) Public services : I X I 15 ) Energy : X 16 ) Utilities : X 17 ) Human health:X 18 ) Aesthetics X 19 ) Recreation: X 20 ) Archeology/history : X I COMMENTS : Signatures: 9 onald G. Nelson avid R. Clemens Building Official Policy Development Director ERichardC. Iloughtott, , EXHIBIT "C" DOBSON, MOUSER tic DOBSON ATTORNEYS AT LAWJOHNW. OOUSON 12U WILLIAMb AVE. TCLCPH011CPAUL. W. HOUSLIt DAVID C. DOUSON P. O. UOX 'a0 1200)• WYMAN K. UOUSON IIL•'NTON, WAli111NGTON t)UO:i7 PAU1. W. (UUU) IIOUSLN, Jlt, IIIANK V. DAVIDSON March 11 , 1983 RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON H iAHINC LXAMRNL'It Fred xaufman MAR 1 1 1983 Office of Hearing Examiner AM PM 3rd Floor, Municipal Building7181`J11001020 i21:i1/1 01 200 Mill Avenue South 1 Renton, WA 98055 RE : Appeal of Final. Declaration of Non-Significant ApplicationNumberSA-002-83 , Environmental Checklist ECF-003-83 Dear Mr . Kaufman : We represent Rentonites, Inc. , the proponent of a project locatedonthenorthsideofNortheast3rdStreet , approximately 2800block . Rentonites has made application for site approval toallowconstructionofa100footby38footcommercialbuilding .The Environmental Review Committee determined the development hasanonsignificantimpactontheenvironmentsubjecttocertainconditions . A copy of. the report is attached . The proponentherebyappealsthefollowingconditions : 1 ) "Access is to be restricted to one driveway alongNortheast3rdStreetandonlyrightinandrightoutturningmovementsaretobepermitted" . The plan submitted by the proponent proposes that there be anentrydrivewayontheeastofthedevelopmentandanexitdrivewayonthewestofthedevelopment . Those driveways arealreadyconstructedandinplace. One of the principal owners ofRentonites , Inc, is Emma Cudi.ni who just recently completed theplatofthepropertyinthatarea . At the time of the plattingofthatpropertythedrivewaysproposedbyproponentswereputin . A parcel which was platted included some curbing , blacktopping , sidewalks , driveways , street work , and in 8 inch waterlane. All of those items were at that time inspected by the CityandapprovedbytheCity . Although this specific development was 'not contemplated at that time , the future development of thispropertywasandtheCityapprovedthetwodrivewaysasproposedbyproponent. Other businesses located in the same general area have no standard plan of ingress or egress . Some of them haveonedriveway , some of them have two driveways and there areotherswhohaveopenaccessforthewholeoftheproperty. Thereisabuildingupthestreetthatwasconstructedwithinthepastyearthathastwodriveways . Proponents feel that a separateentryandexitdrivewaywouldprovidespeedieraccessonandoffNortheast3rdStreetandsaferaccessonandoffofNortheast3rdStreet. Proponent requests that this condition be eliminated. 2 ) "A landscape buffer consisting of evergreen treesandshrubsshallberequiredalongthenorthandwestpropertylinestoscreenthecommercialdevelopmentfromanyadjacentmultifamily" . Proponent proposes to construct a brick building which will haveapproximatelya14foothighwallalongamajorportionofthewestlineoftheproperty. Proponent sees no need to provide anygreenerybufferzoneoverthisportionoftheproperty .Proponents plan proposes green shrubbery from the street north totheedgeofthebuilding. The northerly portion of the propertyisearmarkedforfuturedevelopmentandproponentfeelsthatthebufferzoneinthisareashouldbelefttilltheFuturedevelopmentoftheproperty . With respect to the northerly lineofthepropertytheadjacentpropertyownerhasevergreensplacedthereontoactasabufferzone . The proposed placement ofevergreensonthesoutherlypartofthewestlineandthebackofthebuildingwhichwouldhelikea14foothiqhfencewillprovide , :;uf fici ,n huh her for screening of noise and provide abarrierorbufferzoneoftheadjacentmultifamilyhousingfrom ..the project. 3 ) "The assessment value of the above referenceddevelopmentistotalamount $2 , 888 . 00" . The proponent objects to the proposed assessment because thoseimprovementslistedattoofarremovedfromthesitetogiveanysignificantbenefittotheproposedbuildingofthesite . The developerpropertywhoplattedthePropertyconstr. uc'ted significantimprovementsthereon , many of: which benefited other adjoining •property owners but none of which were contributed to by other .property owners . The proponents plan shows just north of the east entry to thepropertyacurbandgreenbeltarea . Proponent proposes toeliminatethatcurbandgreenbeltareaandprovidedirectaccessintotheparkinglotarea. Proponent respectfully requests that the conditions be modifiedasrequestedaboveandthattheybeauthorizedtoeliminatethecurbandshrubberyareawhichislocatedjustnorthoftheeastentry. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, • DOBSON, IIOUSER & DOBSON BY : Wyman K. Dobson I RENTONITES INC. BY: i EXHIBIT "D" I . i r i. ' U l April 18, 1983 rifil'Ck b1Pi'tUE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON ItEPOlt'I' AND DECISION. APPLICANT: LOUIS PERETTI FILE NO. AAD-019-83 1tENTONITES, INC.) LOCATION: Located on the north side of N.E. 3rd Street at approximately the 2800 block. SUMMARY OF APPEAL: Applicant is appealing Final Declaration of Non-Significance on Application No. SA-002-83, BCF-003-83. DECISION OF EXAMINER: The decision of the Environmental Review Committee is affirmed. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Building and Zoning Department Report, examining available information on file with the application and field checking the property and surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a public hearing • on the subject as follows: The hearing was opened on April 5, 1983, at 9:45 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the RentonMunicipalBuilding. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The Hearing Examiner entered the following exhibits into the record: Exhibit #! 1:Building and site plan for the proposal. Exhibit #t2:Photograph of the subject site. Exhibit #3:Photographs of various businesses in the subject area having more than one access for ingress and egress. Exhibit #4:Photograph of Benton Realty property onSunsetBlvd. N.E. Exhibit #{5:Photograph of Dalpay and Associates property on Sunset Boulevard. Exhibit #6:Photograph of businesses on Park Avenue N. Exhibit ##7:Photographs. (2) of property on N.E. 4th, showing sites of ingress and egress. Exhibit #8:Application file containing documentation and correspondence relative to the Environmental Review Committee's decision. The Examiner stated that the appellant has the burden of demonstrating that the determinationoftheEnvironmentalReviewCommitteewasincorrect. The Examiner called for testimony from the applicant. Testifying was: Mr. Wyman Dobson Attorney at Law 229 Williams Street S. Menton, WA 98055 Mr. Dobson reported his client is appealing the conditions imposed by the Environmental ReviewCommitteeintheirFinalDeclarationofNon-Significance in the following areas, all of whicharereferredtointheletterofappealdatedMarch11, 1983: Louis Peretti (Itentonites, Inc.) AAD-019-83 April 18, 1983 11Page2 1. (Condition 111 -- Final Declaration of Non-Significance) Access is to be restricted to onedrivewayalongNortheast3rdStreetandonlyright-in and right-out turning movements aretobepermitted. 2.Condition 1#4 -- Final Declaration of Non-Significance) A landscape buffer consisting ofevergreentreesandshrubsshallberequiredalongthenorthandwestpropertylinestoscreenthecommercialdevelopmentfromtheadjacentmulti-family. 3. (Condition #5 - Final Declaration of Non-Significance) The assessment value of the abovereferenceddevelopmentis $2,888. Mr. Dobson asked that his client's letter of appeal be incorporated as a part of theseproceedings. He stated his client believes the Environmental Review Committee made an errorandincorrectlyimposedconditionstomodifytheproposedproject. Mr. Dobson stated that the subject property was recently 4 uring that 'process, the City required a number of improvements to the plot plan;rr suiting inand there beingconstructedforthisparcel, two access roads; one on the east and one on the west side of theproperty. .The plan is being submitted for this development, proposing that the access road ontherightbelimitedtoingresstothepropertyandtheaccessroadonthewestbelimitedtoegress. lie stated there is no standard plan with respect to the number of access roads to thepropertyforothersurroundingbusinesses; some having one, two, or three, and some havinggeneralingressandegresstothewholesite. It is the applicant's feeling that by providing twoseparatesites, it would be much safer for those entering and exiting the property. The Hearing Examiner made reference to a recent newspaper article addressing the safety alongN.E. 3rd and N.E. 4th, and stated that he wanted the applicant to take notice of the fact theCityisconsideringvariousalternativesindealingwiththehighaccidentratealongthisstreet;that one of the alternatives would be C-curving in the center of the street. He noted he isawareoftheCity's concerns about those issues at this pont when he makes his decision. Mr. Dobson stated that Condition #2, which they are not appealing, provides for a barrier in thestreetwhichwilleliminateanyleft-turn access into the property. They are not opposing thatcondition, but are opposing the fact that they now have to change construction and put in onlyoneaccesswhichtheyfeelwouldbemuchmoredangerousthanthetwo. Mr. Dobson further stated Condition ##2 requires that there be a landscape buffer consisting ofevergreentreesandshrubsalongthenorthandwestpropertylinestoscreenthecommercialdevelopmentfromanyadjacentmulti-family residences. To the west and north of this propertyislocatedtherecentlyconstructedlowincomemulti-family housing project. Thesubmittedbytheapplicantro proposed planpposesthatshrubberytoprovideabufferzonebeplaceduponthewesterlyboundaryofthepropertyfromtheroadwaybacktotheedgeofthebuilding. Thebuildingitselfistobeconstructedofbrickandtheapplicanthasanumberofotherbuildingslocatedinthisarea, many of which are constructed with concrete block exterior on the rearportionofthebuildingsandbrickonthefront. They propose in this instance to construct thebuildingontherearsideoutofbrickbecauseoftheaestheticvaluetotheadjoiningproperty,and they see no need to place greenery or shrubbery in that area. It would seem to beunnecessarytocontinuethebuffertotherearofthebuilding. With respect to the balance ofthewestlineandnorthlineoftheproperty, it would seem to be premature to landscape thisareasinceitisnotdevelopedatthepresenttimeandtheplansareuncertain. Mr. Dobsonindicatedtheapplicantisnotopposedtoplacementofgreeneryonthewestlinefromtheroadwaybacktothebuilding. The third condition being appealed is Condition #5, the requirement to pay for certain otherimprovementsinthearea. The applicant feels this particular development has relatively noimpactonthesurroundingareawithrespecttotraffic, considering the hundreds of businessesandthousandsofresidentsintheareaandtoassesstheapplicanta1% charge on the fourparticulardevelopmentsisexcessive. These developments do not benefit the subject property. 1 Louis Peretti (Rentonites, Inc.) A A l)-019-8 3 April 18, 1983 Page 3 The Examiner called for further testimony in support of the applicant. Testifying was: Louis Peretti 115 Monterey Place, N.E. Renton, WA 98056 Mr. Peretti indicated he has been an appraiser for the past 33 years, as well as having beeninvolvedwithrealestateandright-of-way organizations and feels he is well qualified in knowingwhatisagoodaccessandwhatisn't. lie stated he has also checked approximately 25 businessesintheCityandmostofthemdohavedoubleaccesstothestreets. lle feels it is imperativethatfromasafetyfactor, he be allowed to utilize an ingress and an egress on this particularpieceofproperty. With reference to lighting, Mr. Peretti stated there is no lighting to the eastonthatparkinglot. Mr. Peretti then identified Exhibits 3 through 7 which were previously entered into the record. With respect to Condition 14 (landscaping), Mr. Peretti stated he felt the brick structure wouldbeaestheticallypleasingandsomesmallshrubsandgrasscouldbeplacedbetweenthe, buildingandthechainlinkfenceatthemulti-family housing project. Mr. Dobson indicated it is the applicant's desire to make one change to the proposal and that iswithreferencetocurbingandthegreenbeltareaproposedjusttothenorthoftheingressroadsouthofthebuilding). The applicant proposes to eliminate the curbing and the greenbelt areawhichislocatedtothenorthoftheentrywaytoprovidequickeraccesstothepropertyandwouldaskthatremovalofthatparticularfacilitybeallowed. The Examiner inquired if there was sidewalk contemplated for the triangular portion betweentheactualbuildinglineandthestreet. Mr. Peretti indicated there would be a 10' walk on theeastsidearoundthebuildingitselfanda4' walk on the south side of the building. A walk isalreadyinstalledonN.E. 3rd. The Examiner informed the applicant that he is not considering the merits of the actualproposal, merely the challenge to the conditions imposed; that actual site plans are not aconcernatthishearing. Mr. Dobson summarized the applicant's contentions that: 1. Separate ingress and egress would be much safer and much faster; 2. They feel an error was made by imposing a condition to establish a greenbelt on the westandnorthside; the building itself is constructed out of brick and provides an ampleaestheticview. 3. To say that this property is directly benefited from the four separate improvements is anuntruestatement. It is small in size and the access will be limited access from the east;to assess this property owner 1% of those development costs is exorbitant considering thenumberofbusinessesandresidencesinthatgeneralareawhowillbedirectlybenefitedbythem. The Examiner called on representation from the City. Testifying was: David Clemens Policy Development Director City of Renton Mr. Clemens reported that he, in part, feels the Environmental Review Committee's action mayhavebeenpremature, or the action of the Committee resulted in a number of changes to theapplicant's proposal which may or may not have realized what the conditions would have been.The ERC's concerns for this proposal were as follows: 1. With regard to driveways, the Committee saw two conflicts when it reviewed the plans.The first was with the turning movements onto and off of N.E. 3rd which the appellantshaveproposedtoresolvebyprovidingingressandseparateegressdrivewaysfromN.E. 3rd. Louis Peretti (Rentonites, Inc.) AAD-019-83 April 18, 1983 Page 4 2. The second problem deals with on-site traffic conflicts as a result of the locations of thetwodrivewaysandthelocationoftheparkinglotswithinthatarea. Initially, there were a number of turning movements goilig in various directions due to the location of a drivewaythatisactuallywithintheparkinglotareanotliningupwithdrivewayapproachesatthestreet. The second being a number of turning movements involved with the four parkingspacesthatarelocatedalongthewestpropertylinebetweenthebuildingandthestreet;also, backing into that travelway area is a concern. Mr. Clemens indicated that although the applicant's proposal to realign the driveways mayreducesomeoftheconflicts, it does not alleviate the problems on-site. The FireDepartmentwasconcernedaboutnotbeingabletoaligntheiremergencyvehiclemovementsbetweenthecentraldrivethatiswithintheparkinglotandthestreetfrontage. The on-site driving area in the parking lot does not align with the driveway curbcuts. 3. Another level of concern is that as this property develops, both the parcel behind and the adjoining parcels to the east are going to provide more instances of driveway within theparkinglotareathatwillbecominguptothestreetcurbcut. The result will ultimatelybealotmoredrivewaysalongthefrontageofthisrelativelysmallparcel. Mr. Clemens stated that at the time the short plat application was considered, one of the primary reasons the blearing Examiner required site plan approval was that this relatively largeparcelcouldeasilyhavebeendesignedasoneintegrateddevelopment; with the parcels brokenup, a number of conflicts are possible. The ERC believes that the two driveway concept simplyisnotinthebestinterestofthegeneralpublic. With regard to buffer zone, Mr. Clemens expressed his concern that this is a 14'x100' wall andfeelssomesofteningoflandscapematerialswouldbeappropriate. With regard to the area to the north of the building, the parking area will be used at all hours and there will be noise fromthemovementofvehicles. Consequently, there needs to be some separation provided from theparkingareasandtheresidentialareastothenorth. The 75' or so between the proposed parkinglotandthebuildingsisnotsufficienttoadequatelymitigatethataspect. Regarding traffic fees, Mr. Clemens reported the Committee's review of the amount of traffictripsthatwouldbegeneratedbyadevelopmentofthissizewouldbeapproximatelyequivalentto80multiplefamilydwellingunitsandthatkindofanimpactisclearlyonethatisnotsignificant, but cumulatively would create greater problems. As a result, the City has tried tobeconsistentinassessingalldevelopmentswithinthatentirecorridoralongN.E. 3rd and N.E.4th for the improvements at the intersection to assure that access for both business andpersonaluseofthestreetalongthatareaareavailableandadequate. Testimony was then heard from: Mr. Gary Norris Traffic Engineer City of Renton Mr. Norris stated he believes it is important to point out what the condition of the N.E. 3rd andN.E. 4th corridor is. Approximately 20,000 to 25,000 cars use this corridor each day; it is a major arterial to the City, providing major east-west movement for residential and commercial areas on the hill to downtown Renton, to 405, and to the business and commercial community inthevalley. Therefore, it has been the City's intent to restrain access to the major arterialsystemasmuchaspossiblesothatwemightpromotethroughmovement. Mr. Norris stated hebelievesitispertinenttoalsopointoutthattheCitydiddenyaccesstoN.E. 3rd to the lowincomehousingdevelopmenttothewestofthissubjectsite. Mr. Norris pointed out some indications given to the City by national studies with reference toaccesstoarterialsystemsbycitingexcerptsfrom "Access Management for Streets andHighways", Federal Highway Administration, June, 1982 issue. The article, in essence, indicatesthatthenumberofpotentialconflictpointsamongvehiclesrisesasaresultofanincreasingnumberofdriveways, causing the capacity at a specific level of service to diminish; where maximum efficiency of traffic movement is achieved, direct access to roadway is limited and,conversely, minimal restraint on roadway access severely reduces the safe, efficient movementofthroughtraffic. The Examiner asked Mr. Norris to make a copy of this information available for the record inthismatter. Louis Peretti (Rentonites, Inc.) AA1>-0I9-113 April 18, 1983 Page 5 Mr. Norris stated with respect to the trip generation rate fee that was assessed, the assessmentwasrelatedtopercentageoftrafficthatanyparticulardevelopmentaddedtothatlocation;what the City has done in carrying out that policy direction is to uniformly require alldevelopmentsinthatcorridoramongstthoseimprovementstobechargedwithapercentageequivalenttotheamountoftraffictheyaregoingtogenerateattheintersections. Mr. Clements again presented on overview of the EItC's concerns with this development. The Examiner called for further testimony or rebuttal. Mr. Dobson stated with reference to the access road, that they are proposing there be aseparateingressandseparateegress; it is not two separate roads that provide ingress and egressateachlocation. They feel it would be much safer to have this separated rather thancombined. Further, Mr. Dobson noted that this property was platted recently and the planssubmittedshowedtwoseparateentriestothesubjectpropertyandtheCityhadnocommentsatthattimetoeliminatethem. The developer since spent considerable money developing theplansapprovedbytheCityandtocomeinnowandaskthemtoredeveloptoonecurbisunreasonable. With respect to the 5th condition regarding assessments, they feel that if there isauseof80multiplefamilydwellingunitsforthisparticularsite, some 25,000 cars that use theroadwayeachday, they would submit that it is not 1% of the improvements. With respect to the corridor as it runs to the cast, and the assessment for this improvement, thispieceofpropertywillbetheonlyparcelthatwillhaveamedianbarrierthatwillprohibitaccessfromthewesttothisparticularpieceofproperty. The only access will be from the east. All oftheotherpropertiesinthecorridorhaveopenaccess, most of them multiple ingress and egress.They again state there was an error made by the E1tC and feel that the conditions should bemodifiedpertherequest. The Examiner asked Mr. Norris what the restrictions are on driveways within certain frontfootagethatapplytocommercialdevelopmentorindustrialdevelopment. Mr. Norris statedwithincommercialorindustrialdevelopment, there is a maximum limit that can be placed onthespacebetweenthem. The Examiner called for further testimony in support of the abeingnoneoffered, the Examiner closed the hearing at 10:40 a.f11ppeal or from the City. There FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION: (laving reviewed the record in this matter, theExaminernowmakesandentersthefollowing: FINDINGS: • 1. The appellant, Rentonites, Inc., filed a request for site plan approval (SA-002-83) for thefirstphaseofasmallshoppingcenter. An environmental checklist was submitted and theEnvironmentalReviewCommittee (ERC) issued a Declaration of Non-Significance (DNS)for the project subject to certain conditions. Thereupon, the appellant filed this appeal. 2. The appellant objected to the imposition of certain of the conditions and alleged that theconditionsarenotreasonablyrelatedtotheimpactsoftheproposal. 3. The specific conditions objected to were Numbers 1, 4 and 5 (see Exhibit #1 for the ERC'sdeclaration). These conditions generally relate to the number of driveways serving thesite; the requirement that the western boundary of the site be buffered by landscaping;and the assessment of certain costs for a variety of roadway improvements. 4. The subject site is located on the north side of N.E. 3rd Street, just west of Index AvenueN.E. as extended. The site was part of the Tito Cugini Short Plat #2. Other lots of thatshortplatarenowoccupiedbythelowcosthousingcompleximmediatelynorthandwestofthesubjectsite. 5. The appellant or its successor in interest was required to install certain improvementswhentheplatwasapproved. The site now has two driveways to N.E. 3rd Street. Undertheproposal, the east drive would provide entry to the site's parking lot, while thewesterlydrivewouldpermitexitingbacktoN.E. 3rd Street. The original plans submittedbytheappellantindicatedthatbothdriveswouldprovidebothinandoutaccess, but theplanshavebeenmodifiedtoprovidetheone-way circulation. Louis Peretti (Rentonites, Inc.) AA D-01 9-83 April 18, 1983 Page 6 G. The proposed building would be the first phase of development on the site. This phase`,,would develop the westernmost portion of the site with ndditionnl buildings on thenortherlyportionofthesite, or the eastern portion, or both. The ultiinnte complex wouldbe "U" shnl)C(l. Parking; for the complex would be located in the central portion of the';site, surrounded on three sides by buildings. 7. The western wall of the building now being proposed would beIwouldbe14feethighby100feetlong. po constructed of brick and This wall would face the low income complex tothewest. The north wall of the building would also be in evidence to the complex, aswouldtheparkinglot. 8. The project is expected to generate approximately 475 vehicle trips per day, which isequivalenttoan80unitmulti-family development. 9. The N.E. 3rd/N.E. 4th Street corridor, a designated arterial, carries between 20,000 and25,000 vehicles per day. This street serves as a major route from the residential HighlandsareaoftheCitytotheCentralBusinessDistrict (CBD) and I-405. 10. The appellant submitted for the record, photographs and the locations of numerous siteswhichhadmorethanonedrivewayforaccesstoanarterialstreet. These sites werelocatedalongN.E. 3rd/N.E. 4th and along Sunset Boulevard N.E. City staff indicated that most of these sites were developed without regard to protectingtheintegrityandfunctionsofarterialstreets. These concerns are the safe and efficientmovementoflargenumbersofvehicleswithlittleornoconflictingturningmovements. The low income housing complex, after site plan review, was not permitted access to N.E.3rd Street. The complex has access to the north via a collector street, which thenconnectstothearterialcorridor. 11. Staff cited a federal report published in June of 1982 (see Exhibit #2) which, in part,provides insight into the factors that impact the efficiency and safe functioning of arterialstreets. The primary impediments to efficiency and safety arc curb cuts andintersections. Reducing and/or limiting the number of new curb cuts was a critical factorinreducingaccidentsandimprovingthelevelofserviceonarterialstreets. 12. The report also indicated that courts have found that abutters, that is, owners of propertyfrontinguponacertainstreet, are not entitled to unlimited access to that street, but onlyreasonableaccess. They have further indicated that reasonable access may be circuitous;that is via a collector street or series of streets, if the situation, i.e., public safety orconvenience, warrants. 13. The Fire Department has indicated that the current configuration of the entry drives willnotprovidesuitableemergencyaccess, especially if the remaining portions of the proposalareconstructed. The drives are not aligned with the aisle of the parking area. Additionalmaneuveringisnecessarytoentertheactualparkingaisle. Emergency vehicles and carswillhavetomaneuveroffofN.E. 3rd into a small entryway and then into the main parkingarea. The parking lot will not permit a "clean" turn out of traffic — a pause capable ofimpendingtrafficmaybenecessary. 14. The Environmental Review Committee imposed the landscape buffer requirement tosoften" the visual impact of the western wall upon the adjacent residential complexpursuanttopoliciesoftheComprehensivePlan, which requires screening betweendifferingusesandzones_ Landscaping was also required along the northern property line to minimize the impacts oftheparkinglotuponthenortherlyresidentialunits. The E1tC indicated that until andunlesssomeadditionalstructuresareconstructedinthenorthcentralportionofthesite,the parking lot will be visible and the noise, light, glare and odors emanating from theparkinglotswilladverselyaffecttheresidences. 15. The Environmental Review Committee has assessed the appellantimprovementcostsintheamountof $2,888. The fee was a eessed foro the i mprovvoeprvidm ntsoftheN.E. 3rd and Sunset Blvd. N.E. intersection ($1,200); the N.R. 3rd and Edmondsintersection ($1,000); and linear and intersection improvements for Monroe Avenue N.E.and N.E. 4th Street ($688). Louis Peretti (Rentonites, Inc.) AAD-019-83 April 18, 1983 Page 7 The assessments were based upon the estimated impacts of the proposal upon the totalactivityontheaboveroadsandintersections. The Traffic Engineering Departmentindicatedthepercentageincreasetobeapproximately1 %. Since left turns will be precluded to and from the site, the ERC reasoned that bothemployeesandpatronsoftheproposedcomplexwouldbepassingoverorthroughthevariousintersectionscited. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The determination of the knvirorr,nentnl Review Committee, the City's responsibleofficial, is entitled to receive substantial weight when reviewed in an appeal procedurepursuanttoRCW43.21C.090 (SEPA) as outlined by the court in Mentor v. Kitsap County,22 Wn• App. 285,289 (1978). The appellant, therefore, has the burden of demonstratingthatthedecisionoftheEnvironmentalReviewCommitteewaserroneous. The courts of Washington have further defined the burden as showing that the decision oftheresponsibleofficialoragencyisarbitraryandcapricious (Short v. Clallarn County, 22Wn. App. 825,829, 1979). That is, whether the decision was a "willful and unreasoningactionindisregardoffactandcircumstances" (Stemperl v. Department ' of WaterResources, 82 Wn. 2nd 109, 114, 1973). 2. The decision of the Environmental Review Committee to require the elimination of onedriveway, the provision of landscaping buffers, and the payment for a percentage ofroadwayimprovementsisnotarbitraryandcapriciousunderthestandardsenunciatedabove. 3. While the appellant has referenced other sites with more than one driveway, theEnvironmentalReviewCommittee, in reaching its decision in this case, evaluated newstudiesandappliedthatnewlearningtothesubjectsite. The site is located along a curve on a major arterial street and the Environmental ReviewCommitteereasonedthattheminimizationofcurbcutswillimprovearterialsafetyandefficiencybaseduponanewunderstanding; of traffic safety and engineering principles.The decision is not unreasoning action in disregard of the circumstances, as the appellantstillhasreasonableaccesstoN. E. 3rd Street, unlike the adjacent housing complex whichmustenterandexittothenorth. The Environmental Review Committee indicated that while there are a number of existingoffendingdriveways, they have limited resources to correct past errors, hut have theabilitytopreventadditionalproblemsbynowlimitingthenumberofaccessdrivesonarterialstreets. 4. The Comprehensive Plan's goals and policies indicate that differing uses be effectivelyscreenedfromoneanotherandespeciallywhereone •of the uses is residential and theadjoininguseisnon-residential. While the intent of the brick wall was to be more aesthetic than concrete blockconstruction, the large expanse of wall, 14 feet high by 100 feet long, will still present arelativelyunaestheticappearancetotheadjacentresidentialcomplexunlessitissoftenedandbrokenupsomewhatwithlandscapingintheformoftreesandshrubs. Similarly, the parking area and the light and glare of vehicles, especially in the eveninghoursofwinter, will infringe on the residential complex. These effects can be moreeffectivelyscreenedbytheuseoflandscaping. Landscaping can also serve to absorb someofthenoiseoftheparkingareaandbreaktheimpactofodorsontheresidentialcomplex. 5. The decision of the Environmental Review Committee to require landscaping is notunreasoning. The decision was based upon policies found in the Comprehensive Plan andtheEnvironmentalReviewCommitteehasonlyattemptedtoeffectuatethosepolicies. 6. While certain improvements were installed as part of the platting process, the additionalfeesimposedbytheEnvironmentalReviewCommitteeareintendedtomitigatethespecificimpactsoftheproposeddevelopmentuponthetransportationsystemoftheCity.When the short plat was approved, general improvements were required. Since thedevelopmentoptionsopentotimeapplicantwerevariedunderthesite's zoning, the Citycouldnotanticipatetheprecisenatureoftheproposeddevelopmentarid, therefore, couldnotassesscostsrelativetoimpact. The information is now available and it permitted theEItCtoanalyzethepotentialimpactontheroadwaysandassesscosts. Louis Peretti (Rentonites, Inc.) AAD-019-83 April 18, 1983 Page 8 The percentage assessed for the proposal, 1%, is based upon a reasonable expectation ofthetrafficwhichwillbegeneratedbythedevelopment. The record discloses that theproposalwillgeneratetheequivalentofan80-unit apartment complex that isapproximately475vehicletripsperday. Based upon this estimate, the Traffic Engineering Department calculated and the Environmental Review Committee imposedthe $2,888 fee. Other development has been similarly assessed based upon a similaranalysis. 7. The formulation and calculations appear to be based upon reasonably anticipated impactsofthedevelopmentuponthestreetsandintersectionsalongtheN.E. 3rd/N.E. 4thcorridor. These intersections may be remote from the site, but the limitations uponturningmovementsandothercriteriaindicatethattheseintersectionswillbeaffectedbytheproposal, as patrons and employees of the site must very well use some, if not all, ofthecitedintersections. 8. The imposition of the fee is not arbitrary and capricious and the decision of theEnvironmentalReviewCommitteeonthisissuewascorrect. 9. The various conditions imposed by the Environmental Review Committee were based uponareasonableexaminationoftheproposalanditsreasonablyanticipatedimpactsontheroadsandadjoiningdevelopmentandthedecisionoftheEnvironmentalReviewCommitteeisthereforeaffirmedinitsentirety. DECISION: The decision of the Environmental Review Committee is affirmed. ORDERED THIS 18th day of April, 1983. Fred J. Itaufm y1LandUseHeari Examiner TRANSMITTED THIS 18th day of April, 1983 by Affidavit of Mailing to the parties ofrecord: Wyman Dobson Attorney at Law 229 Williams Ave. S. Renton, WA 98055 Louis Peretti 115 Monterey Place, N.E. Renton, WA 98058 TRANSMITTED THIS 18th day of April, 1983 to the following: Mayor Barbara Y. Shinpoch Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Richard Houghton, Public Works Director David Clemens, Policy Development Director Members, Renton Planning Commission Ron Nelson, Building and Zoning Director Roger Blaylock, Zoning Administrator Gary Norris, Traffic Engineer Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Renton Record-Chronicle Louis 1'eretti (ltentonites, Inc.) AAD-019-83 April 18, 1983 Page 9 Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filedinwritingonorbeforeMay2, 1983. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of theExaminerisbasedonerroneousprocedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing maymakeawrittenrequestforareviewbytheExaminerwithinfourteen (14) days from the date oftheExaminer's decision. This request shall set forth the specific errors relied upon by suchappellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deemsproper. Any appeal is governed by Title IV, Section 3011, which requires that such appeal be filed withtheSuperiorCourtofWashingtonforKingCountywithintwenty (20) days from the date of theExaminer's decision. ya 3K s,...1...i r l;/, 4et. •k 1`..-0 i,P,04(4 r0 41 ,,,p 'r:„y!','W-ol'^i''. ".. iFrarr 0. i. y7.. •-.1.•?,.2T"p •7••••Sl••. i'aa: '4. r`.w., .t?.`oi, : .•,b, .,.•. ,,, i i s" 1 4y; A :+ ./ 'i it S+:•'-i t •.'. 1. x),,,,f 43/** tM sJ'i:;"+k,t?. .1 ,, .-.,,,,,,. }.iu ,..44t i- 4t v?. •+ .k, ,.,,,, cJ/} - GC`- - i n8uil City of7C:ntoaQept. ' Affidavit of PublicationCECEM IWL STATE OF WASHINGTON lvf4r'+p J COUNTY OF KING ss. ill Str APR 8 1983 LOeUIS PERETTI (RENTO- NITES, INC.) Appeal by Louis Peretti for C indy....S trupp being first duly sworn on Rentonites, Inc., File AAD- 019-83, of a decision of the Environmental Review oath,deposes and says that..She is the chief...clerk of Committee to(1)allow only THE DAILY RECORD CHRONICLE,a newspaper published six(6)times a one curb cut; (2) require a week.That said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been landscape buffer along the for more than six months prior to the date of publication referred to, northern and western pro- printed and published in the English language continually as a newspaper perty lines;and(3)payment published four(4)times a week in Kent,King County,Washington,and it is of $2,888.00 for specific now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained at the traffic impact improvements aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper. That the Daily Record regarding a site approval Chronicle has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior application, File:SA.7002-j Court of the County in which it is published, to-wit, King County, located on the north side of N.E. 3rd Street at approxi- Notice of Public mately the 2800 block. Washington.That the annexed is a Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file Hearing in the Renton Building and Zoning Department. ALL INTERESTED PER- as it was published in regular issues(and SONS TO SAID PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE PREnotinsupplementformofsaidnewspaper) once each issue for a period SENT AT THE PUBLIC r.HEARING ON April 5,1983, AT 9:00 A.M.TO EXPRESS of one consecutive issues,commencing on the itir7 ` r#rz THEIR OPINIONS. PUBLPG'Ff •ARING e' Ronald G. Nelson 23>.]tJayof RENTON LAND USE Building and Zoning Match 19..83...,and ending the HEARING EXAMINER Director RENTON,WASHINGTON Published in the Daily Re- A PUBLIC HEARING WILL cord Chronicle Mali,,, BE HELD BY THE RENTON 1983. R8495 `""° day of 19 both dates LAND USE HEARING EX- inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its sub- AMINES AT HIS REGULARscribersduringallofsaidperiod. That the full amount of the fee MEETING IN THE COLIN- CIL CHAMBERS, CITY charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of $.3.2...13Owhich HALL , RENTON , has been paid in full at the rate of per folio of one hundred words for the WASHINGTON ON April 5, first insertion and per folio of one hundred words for each subsequent 1983AT9:OOA.M.TOCON- insertion. SIDER THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS: c PUGET SOUND POWER& 1`•..L.s... • -‘,,.. ,, LIGHT COMPANY Application for special Chief...Cl»lerk permit to allow fill and grad- ing of approximately 2,377 cubic yards of fill material Subscribed and sworn to before me this....25.th day of plus 1,700 cubic yards ofpreloadmaterialforanew substation that is to be con- March 1983... structed on the site;File SP- i.,7 /_,Zeoe::4‘.__ 004-83; located at 1101 Lake Washington Boulevard lirNorth. Notary Publi in an r the State of Washington, SIGI ULLRICH residing at ItXKing County. Applicaton to rezone 0.85 qdv rAl WtLY acre from G-1 to R-2;File R- 008-83;and short plat appli- cation to divide property intoPassedbytheLegislature,1955,known as Senate Bill 281,effective June four lots—File SP-009-83; 9th, 1955.and a variance application to allow reduction of lot widthWesternUnionTelegraphCo. rules for counting words and figures, —File V-010-83,located onadoptedbythenewspapersoftheState. the east side of Union Av- 1 Ii4 •M •,- 4,mow.. ''4th VN#87 Revised 5/82 ks`4`b yRV 1 7.!: '' i k R Y .t` .lleb .:' 4 Y+ • y,' r ali.,`Gt y i • -. r... _,a rA ry r+x r'yt7 y,y 4 g r • . r .! y,.,,•;,.y-:4 t 41 "i" „ 1 .'+'011 " {tF.wn',`viJ eat icj .tH ,,,M00,teiv$, 1': I OF RA, , y o ° BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT k RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOR Z rn Op MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 • 235-254C 0 9FO SEP1Et• 0 BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR DATE: February 28, 1983 TO: Files FROM: Jerry F. Lind, for the Environmental Review Committee SUBJECT: Louis Peretti Site Approval, File SA-002-83 (ECF-003-83) The Environmental Review Committee today republished and posted the final Environmental Declaration of Non-significance with conditions for the above referenced application, with an appeal period expiring on March 14, 1983. It was necessary to republish and post this declaration due to a delay in finalizing it's conditions. This will now therefore allow the applicant the full two week appeal period to voice any concerns. JF L:se 0016N FINAL DECLARATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE Application No(s): SA-002-83 Environmental Checklist No.:ECF-003-83 Description of Proposal:Application for site approve] to allow the construction of a 100 foot by 38 foot commercial building. Proponent: Louis Peretti (Rentonites, Inc. Location of Proposal: Located on the north side of N.E. 3rd Street at approximately the 2800 block. Lead Agency:City of Renton Building and Zoning Department. This proposal was reviewed by the ERC on February 2, 1983, following a presentation by Jerry Lind of the Building & Zoning Department. Oral comments were accepted from: Ronald Nelson, Richard Houghton, Robert Bergstrom, Roger Blaylock, David Clemens, Gary Norris and Jerry Lind.. Incorporated by reference in the record of the proceedings of the ERC on application ECF-003-83 are the following: 1.Environmental Checklist Review, prepared by: Louis Peretti, DATED January 25, 1982. 2.Applications: Site Approval (SA-002-83). 3. Recommendations for a declaration of non-significance: Fire Prevention Bureau, Building and Zoning Department, Utility Engineering Division, Traffic Engineering Division, Design Engineering Division. Acting as the Responsible Official, the ERC has determined this development has a non-significant adverse impact on the environment. An EIS is not required under RCWV 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 non-significance: The Environmental Review Committee issues this final declaration of non-significance subject to the following conditions: 1.Access is to be restricted to one driveway along N.E. 3rd Street and only right in and right out turning movements are to be permitted. 2.A median barrier is to be constructed in the center of N.E. 3rd Street fronting the subject property. 3.Lighting is to be of directional type to mitigate light and glare for neighboring multi-family and vehicular traffic on N.E. 3rd Street. 4.A landscape buffer consisting of evergreen trees and shrubs shall be required along the north and west property lines to screen the commercial development from the adjacent multi-family. 5. The assessment value of the above-referenced development is as shown below: 1% cost of listed improvement project's cost -- N.E. 3rd St. & Sunset Blvd., $120,000 @ 1% 1,200.00 N.E. 3rd be Edmonds Avenue N.E., $100,000 @ 1% 1,000.00 Monroe Avenue N.E. & N.E. 4th St. 200 linear feet @ $184.00/L.F., $36,800 @ 1% 368.00 Monroe Avenue N.E. be N.E. 4th St. signal Opticom, pedestrian improvement, $32,000 @ I% 320.00 Total Amount 2,888.00 FINAL DECLARATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE LOUIS PERETTI (RENTONITES, INC.): ECF-003-83 FEBRUARY 2, 1983 PAGE 2 fF, SIGNATURES: f+ WG a.,L C Ronald G. Nelson David R. Clemens Building and Zoning Director Policy Development Director Richard C. Houghton Public Works Director PUBLISHED: February 28, 1983 APPEAL DATE: March 14, 1983 it Date circulated : January 26, 1983 Comments due : February 1, 1983 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET E C F - 003 - 83 APPLICATION No(s ) . SITE APPROVAL (SA-002-83) PROPONENT : Louis Peretti (Rentonites, Inc. ) PROJECT TITLE : N/A Brief Description of Project : Application for Site Approval to allow the construction of a 100 foot by 38 foot commercial building. LOCATION : Located on the north side of N.E. 3rd Street at the 2800 block. SITE AREA : - 38,000 sq. ft. BUILDING AREA (gross ) 3,800 sq. ft. DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes :X 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : X 3 ) Water & water courses : X 4 ) Plant life : X 5 ) Animal life :X 6 ) Noise : X 7 ) Light & glare : X 8 ) Land Use ; north : Multiple Family east : Undevloped south : Undeveloped west : Multiple Family Land use conflicts : Possible with adjacent multi-family. View obstruction :Minor 9 ) Natural resources : X 10 ) Risk of upset : X 11 ) Population/Employment : X 12 ) Number of Dwellings : X 13 ) Trip ends ( ITE ) : 115/1,000 sq. ft. @ 3.8 = 475 ADT traffic impacts : Unacceptable driveway configuation. 14 ) Public services : X 15 ) Energy : X 16 ) Utilities : X 17 ) Human health : X 18 ) Aesthetics : X 19 ) Recreation : X 20 ) Archeology/history : X COMMENTS : Signatures: onald G. Nelson avid R. Clemens Building Official Policy Development Director Rithard C. Houghton, ' Public Works Director nX + M y .''Fi as 4''xj•1={ Ytt •4r'A ..•.. #u . t.Y OF R4, A. 411 © o PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION • 235-2620 pp MEM MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 O Q A? 47- 0 SEP'E® C BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR February 15, 1983 Ciro _ u:;i•TQM TO : Jerry Lind FEB 15 1983 FROM : Gary Norris BUILCING 'ZON:NO ;'L;'r. SUBJECT : Assessment/Renton i tes Property Louis Peretti f"J la The assessment value of the above-referenced development is as shown below: 1% cost of listed improvement project 's cost -- NE 3rd St. & Sunset Blvd. , $120,000 @ lq 1 ,200.00 NE 3rd St. & Edmonds Ave. NE, $100,000 @ 1% 1 ,000.00 Monroe Ave. NE & NE 4th St. 200 linear feet @ $184.00 per L.F. , $36,800 @ 1%368.00 Monroe Ave. NE & NE 4th St. signal Opticom, pedestrian improvement, $32,000 @ 1% 320.00 Total Amount 2,888.00 CEM:ad e. f w 1, k h l, r a: f '•°( t -;x IK s7 t °. r. tii+t'i` Y j`t p sa."' c' YL' ,Z tv MbYa q; yv "` t yt'''' _ s : "`'} yicw• x "-t`6'. 3' y'F:ti ti ram.°''t'-E ! ° je''ii sue . 4'+ ylr. y f ; r I I,I NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION jl ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a final declaration of non-significance with conditions for the following projects: LOUIS PERETTI (RENTONITES, INC.) (ECF-003-83) Application for site approval•to allow the construction of a 100 foot by 38 foot commercial building, file SA-002-83; located on the north side of N.E. 3rd Street at approximately the 2800 block. SEA PORT DOZING, INC. (ECF-587-80) Application for building permit for the construction of a 31-unit apartment complex, file B-236; located on the east side of Monroe Avenue N.E. and south of N.E. 12th Street. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a final declaration of non-significance for the following project: THE ANDOVER COMPANY (ECF-007-83) Application to construct a single story office building of approximately 5,006 square feet, file B-286; located on the north side of S.W. 43rd Street, approximately 147 feet east of West Valley Road. Further information regarding this action is available in the Building and Zoning Department, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington, 235-2550. Any appeal of ERC action must be filed with the Hearing Examiner by March 14, 1983. Published:February 28, 1983 0076Z p gip,," .k`.k u 4h A;} i Y., d N VI "xlV 0„,_,,,..,,,;,.:a' ' ATI N . • y,(( APPLICATION NO. SA-0O2-ECF-003-83) PROPOSED ACTION I ATI N' FOR SITF APPRtVAL TO Al LOW TI- CONSTRUCTION OF A 100 FOOT BY .`KOT 'ONERCIAL BUILDING. a; GENERAL LOCATION -AND OR ADDRESS 1 OCATFT) ON T F TH SIDE OF N.E. 3 MET AT. APPROXIKIELY TEE 280O BLOCK.ub POSTED TO TIFY INTERESTED PERSONS 'OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION. r 4 RENTONCITYOFRETON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE t E.R.C."3 HAS DETERMINED THAT THE Ot, PROPOSED ACTION DOES ' MODES NOT: s HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. 0.ig AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT t WILL.JWILL NOT s SE REQUIRED. AN APPEAL OF THE ABOVE DETERMINATION MAY BE FILED WITH THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER BY 5:00 P.M., MARCH Vey 1983 zx FOR FURTHER , INFORMATION CONTACT THE CITY ' OF RENTON BUILDING e ZONING DEPARTMENT4 235...25 O f 10r+q°r' DO NOT REMC/VE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT ` .PROPER ,AUTHORIZATION NOTICE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION APPLICATION NO. SITE PLAN APPROVAL (SA-002-83) PROPOSED ACTION APPI ICATION FOR STTF PI AN APPROVAI TO Al LOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 100 FT. X 38 FT. COMMERCIAL BUIIDING. GENERAL LOCATION AND OR ADDRESS LOCATED ON THE THE NORTH SIDE OLN.F. 3Rn STRFFT AT APPRnXIMATELY THE 2800 DOCK, POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE ( E.R.C.3 HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT DWILL LJWILL NOT BE REQUIRED. AN APPEAL OF THE ABOVE DETERMINATION MAY BBEY FIL DR M! TH E tbR gR,FtgNT,Qr HEARING EXAMINER FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT 235-2550 DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION a• rw NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a final declaration of non-significance with conditions for the following project: LOUIS PERETTI (RENTONITES, INC. ) (ECF-003-83) Application for site approval to allow the construction of a 100 foot by 38 foot commercial building, file SA-002-83; located on the north side of N.E. 3rd Street at approximately the 2800 block. Further information regarding this action i s available in the Building and Zoning Department,. Municipal Building, Renton, Washington, 235-2550. Any appeal of ERC action must be filed with the Hearing Examiner by February 21 , 1983. Published: February 7, 1983 h tea}; r 7 ' 4 a"x 'i J c .r'+' R y : ti.ti'' y1" 't"`• xK t:, Y os t wy 9' r• A.:y' .x any;V7j ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA February 2, 1983 THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM: COMMENCING AT 10:00 A.M. OLD BUSINESS: NORTHWARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Rezone of approximately 62 acres from G-1 to R-1 , R-2, R-3 and B-1 to permit future construction of a mixed-use development - Prel imi nary Fi nal Environmental Impact Statement. ERC i s to impose precise conditions. NEW BUSINESS ECF-003-83 LOUIS PERETTI (RENTONITES, INC. ) SA-002-83 Application for site approval to allow the construction of a 100 foot by 38 foot commercial building; located on the north side of N.E. 3rd Street at the 2800 block. ECF-004-83 JAMES LEAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY - MR FRANK PIERSON AND CAMBELL B-285 ASSOCIATES Renton Plaza Office complex. Present (Phase One) design and construct one five-story - 34,679 square feet office building including required parking and landscaping. Future (Phase Two) design and construct one additional five-story - approximately 30,000 square feet office buildings, expanding parking and landscaping as required; located at the northeast corner of Talbot Road and S. Puget Drive. 4, ~ U 1 Y U t 1 .E N 1 e l. T FILE NO(S): cr l __DIN(; do ZONING DEhr RTo..cNT S MASTER T APPLICATiONNOTEETOAPPLICANT: Since this is a comprehensive application form, only ,,;useitemsrelatedtoyourspecifictypeofapplication(s) ore to be completed.Please print or type. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) APPLICANT I 1 TYPE OF APPLICATION AME Louis Peretti FEES DDRESS 0 REZONE•(FROM TO 1033 N . First Street O SPECIAL PERMIT• ITY ZIP 0 TEMPORARY PERMIT" Renton, Washington 98055 C7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT• ELEPHONE En' SITE PLAN APPROVALS oc,, 2 0 6) 2 5 5-2 4 8 4 0 GRADING AND FILLING PERMIT No. of Cubic Yards: CONTACT PERSON VAFIomCS From Section: AME Justification Required Louis Peretti DDRESS SU©DIVISIONS: 1033 N . First Street SHORT PLAT ITV ZIP TENTATIVE PLAT Renton , Washington 98055 PRELIMINARY PLATELEPHONE Q FINAL PLAT 206) 255- 2484 WAIVER Justification Required) OWNER NO. OF LOTS: AME PLAT NAME: Rentonites , Inc . DDRESS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: 1033 N . First Street ITY CD PRELIMINARY ZIP a FINAL Renton , Washington 98055 LEPHONE P.U.D. NAME: 206) 2552484 0 Residential ® Industrial Cam:ercial a Mixed LOCATIONI MOBILE HOME PARKS: 2DPEN F 35' 34'TENTATIYE ISTING USE PRESENT ZONING El] PRELIMINARY None Co h "ttrte I2--1 CJ FINAL 20P05ED USE PARK NAME: Commercial Building NUMBER OF SPACES: Ei ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE SQ. FT. ACRES REA:38 , 000 Sq . Ft TOTAL FEES 5L' isTAFF USE ONLY -- ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSING kTE STAMP;` ,' F I:I U n , n g APPLICATION RECEIVED BY: T: L JAMLIU2 5 1983 '•""' I APPLICATION DETERMINED TO BE: Accepted 431JI! F`IN', /ZONIN:Ii L.;.,i Incomplete Notification Sent On By: Initials) TE ROUTED ADDITIONAL MATERIAL RECEIVED BY: I — 2 i, - e,a APPLICATION DETERMINED TO BE: aAccepted Incomplete Notification Sent On By: UTED T0: Initials) IZI Building I .1 Design Eng. tGJ Fire ParksErPoliceelPolicyDev. 12r Traffic Eng. Utilities REVISION. 5lt.og— Legal description of property (if more space Is required, attach a separate sheet). Cugini Short Nat No . 2 as recorded October 18, 1979 , No . 7910189001 , Vol . 20, Page 214 . AFFIDAVIT L0 tit/ ?&'#e being dulydeclaresworncare that I am authorized representative to act for the property owner, ®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 TO BEFORE ME THIS 5 DAY OF Uvasvt, 1 NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTO RESIDING AT q•-e life A.,/ TQf 2' Nam f Notary Public) Signature of Owner) a .kl. I16 2 - I ao t ay , 'o. Address) Address) tAi4o t-a 9 ro£s City) State) (Zip) Telephone) Acceptance of this application and required filing fee does not constitute a complete application. Plans and other materials required to constitute a complete application are listed in the "Application Procedure." COI IERCIA L BUILOIN! FOR RENTON IT E S 16615 O tei t RITURE. DEVEL PME+-IT z s m.o.. o.o, Gov.0..QT ie'.o. j zs'.0M } ie.o' fREFUSEARIA PAVE 01 Tufty A 12.00,4 C5'34 IS' CON C.SLAB ExT&MT 1f Nose I rF +c60 u Itf4 CaATfc OCV@ 0 1ENT o itg,—-i-- I i.O' i z i 8 Z FUTURE. o DEvEtAM N tF E N OE I 0 y o W 1-4 e 0 W o n II l C.e. t.. 1- BuiLDINC2 1 t7R N/E a d VI j IB T 4 , IE--cua5 1' f i j Int c,, lEaL stv 1 7,( 1004 1. s C.B. M I R rota NYC s 18 : # d 4 VKIVE T •• 0 // 9 l PARK.1NCo (4) 46 yr! 1.\ AA A° t` F ua4' 4- n, O. \« O r, itCo \ 0 1 O Q)O '4* 41%• 6 O P..°\ \ JE a 1 JAI c'x i _' if.nt el. ' DI JAN 2 5 ,283 i E PLAN NOS SGA.LG : 1,.. 2c'.cp. Fi NOTE : 6.1 TE DRAINAGE -CON FORM TO CIT'r OF REN7-o+-4 RECrU12EMEs-TS . ITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM CITY OF RF'1T0*1 1:-)1 . FL! rffil HI] FOR OFFICE USE ONLY 9 2lAri ,5 1;,ft R3 -- App1 ication No. ll- 002.-" Environmental Checklist No. PROPOSED, date:FINAL , date : 0 Declaration of Significance Declaration of Significance 0 Declaration of Non-Significance 0 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 I' 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. I' 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 ;.omplete 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 in 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 RENTONITES, INC. 2. Address and phone number of Proponent: 4154 . fJ:---FIRST ST-REET By4'0 ,, j o ,41 (-1/L f /Uo, RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055 206) 255-2484 3. Date Checklist submitted 4. Agency requiring Checklist CITY OF RENTQ,N 5. Name of proposal , if applicable: COMMERCIAL BUILDING 6. Nature and brief description of the proposal (including but not limited to its Isize, general design elements , and other factors that will give an accurate understanding of its scope and nature) : 4 CONSTRUCTION OF A 100' x 38' COMMERCIAL BUILDING INCLUDING PARKING AND REQUIRED LANDSCAPING. 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 ) : THE PROPERTY IS FLAT, IS LOCATED ON THE EAST HILL OF RENTON ON THE NORTH SIDE OF N.E. 3rd STREET (CEMENTARY ROAD) , JUST LESS THAN ONE ACRE IN SIZE. 8. Estimated date for completion of the proposal : SUMMER 1983 9. List of all permits , licenses or government approvals required for the proposal federal , state and local --including rezones) : CITY OF RENTON BUILDING PERMIT AND RELATED PERMITS 10. Do you have any plans for future additions , expansion , or further activity related to or connected with this proposal ? If yes , explain : POSSIBLE FUTURE EXPANSION OF PROPOSED BUILDING 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: 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 substructures? X YES MAYBE TO— b) Disruptions , displacements , compaction or over- covering of the soil? YES MAYBE NO c) Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X YES MAYBE NO d) The destruction , covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? X YES MAYBE NO e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils , ither on or off the site? X YES MAYBE NO 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? X MAYBE t Explanation: 3- 2) Air. will the proposal result in : a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? X YET- MAYBE NO b) The creation of objectionable odors? X YES MAYBE WO--- c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature ,or any change in climate , either locally or regionally? X 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 , ortherateandamountofsurfacewaterrunoff? X YES MAYBE NO c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? X YES MAYBE NOd) Change in the amount of surface water in any waterbody? YES MAYBE NO e) Discharge into surface waters , or in any alteration surface water quality , including but not limited totemperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? YET- MMAYBE NO f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? X YET- NO I'MAYBE NO g) Change in the quantity of ground waters , either through direct additions or withdrawals , or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? X 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? X YES— MAYBE NO i ) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? X YES MAYBE tiU- Explanation: BUILDING AND PAVED AREA WILL BE ADDED 4) Flora. Will the proposal result in: a) Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any IIIspeciesofflora (including trees, shrubs , grass , crops , microflora and aquatic plants)? X VET MAYBE NO b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique , rare or endangered species of flora? 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? X Y M YB if d) Reduction to acreage of any agricultural crop? Yr"- MAYBE MO Explanation:BUILDING AND PAVED AREA WILL BE ADDED. I a- 4111 S ) Fauna. dill the proposal result in: a) Changes in the diversity of species , or numbers of any species of fauna (birds , land animals includingreptiles , fish and shellfish , benthic organisms ,insects or microfauna)? X YES MAYS NO b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique , rare or endangered species of fauna? X YES MAYBE NO c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an area , or result in a barrier to the migration or movementoffauna? X YES MAYBE NO d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: BUILDING AND PAVED AREA WILL BE ADDED. I 6) Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation : BUILDING AND AUTO TRAFFIC WILL BE INTRODUCED 1I 7) Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? X YES MAYBE TO— Explanation: SIGHT LIGHTING FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDING WILL BE ADDED. 8) Land Use. Will the proposal result in the alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? X VET— MAYBE NO Explanation: 9) Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? X YES MAYBE NO b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? X 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? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 11) Population. Will the proposal alter the location , distri- bution, density, or growth rate of the human populationofanarea?X YES MAYBE NU- Explanation: 5- 12) Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing , or create a demand for additional housing? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation : 4 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 i c) Impact upon existing transportation systems? X YES MAYBE TU— d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? X YES MAYBE NO e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X YES MAYBE NO f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles , J. bicyclists or pedestrians?X YES MAYBE Explanation: Ii 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? X YES MATTE NO 1 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? X YES MAYYbE 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 the development of new sources of energy? X YES MAYBE WU— Explanation: ELECTRICAL POWER FOR RUNNING BUSINESS. 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 b) Communications systems? X YES MAYBE NO c) Water? X YES MAYBE NO d) Sewer or septic tanks? X YES MAYBE NO e) Storm water drainage?X Yam— MOBS NO 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 Xmentalhealth)? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 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: 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 FTC 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 lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: signed Louis Peretti - Rentonites, Inc. name printed) City of Renton Planning Department 5-76 1 Affidavit of Publication STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING ss. Cindy...Str.upp being first duly sworn on oath,deposes and says thatfihe...is the ....chief...c lerk 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 Court of the County in which it is published,to-wit,King County, Washington.That the annexed is a Notice of Environmental 0.asi_., Determ .nati41 Public Notice Public Noticeasitwaspublishedinregularissues(and not in supplement form of said newspaper) once each issue for a period NOTICE OF treet. ENVIRONMENTAL The Environmental Re DETERMINATION view Committee (ERC) ha ENVIRONMENTAL issued a final declaration c of one consecutive issues,commencing on the REVIEW COMMITTEE non-significance for the fo RENTON, WASHINGTON lowing project: 2 8 th day of February 19 8 3 and endin the The Environmental Re- THE ANDOVER COMPAN' g view Committee (ERC) has (ECF-007-83) issued a final declaration of Application to construct non-significance with condi- single story office building c tions for the following pro- approximately 5,006 squardayof19bothdates jects: feet, file B-286; located oinclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its sub- LOUIS PERETTI RENTO- the north side of S.W. 43rscribersduringallofsaidperiod. That the full amount of the fee NITES, INC.) (ECF 003 83) Street, approximately 14 Application for site approval feet east of West Valle charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of C5 20, which to allow the construction of a Road. has been paid in full at the rate of per folio of one hundred words for the 100 foot by 38 foot commer- Further information re first insertion and per folio of one hundred words for each subsequent cial building,file SA-002-83; garding this action is avai insertion. located on the north side of able in the Building an N.E. 3rd Street at approxi- Zoning D e p a r t m e n t mately the 2800 block.Municipal Building, Rentor i• SEA PORT DOZING, INC. Washington, 235-2550.An ECF-587-80) appeal of ERC action mu: Chief clerk Application for building per- be filed with the Hearin mit for the construction of a Examiner by March 1, 31-unit apartment complex, 1983. 2.$day of file B-236; located on the Published in the Daily RESubscribedandsworntobeforemethis tst side of Monroe Avenue L- . ,,-„ uary 2E P E. and south of f1.E.12th. 1983. R8464 February , 19...8.3 e_ Y-taZe- i All Notary Public' and the StAtc,of Washington, residing atM4ift, King County. co of Cemor cede 41 lisav Q 13wmiraaZt,i,gear ) Passed by the Legislature,1955,known as Senate Bill 281,effective June l E M UWIE 9th, 1955. Western Union Telegraph Co. rules for counting words and figures, adopted by the newspapers of the State. 1 APR 8 1983 VN#87 Revised 5/82 ENDING • OF FILE FILE TITLE 662i ,1( 51. I I 00 I Ir+"