HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP-91-074 - 1+SP-074-91 1+
BEGINNING
OF FILE
FILE TITLE � r goo D 7
� I'
i. -no -, 'M
Growth Management:
Councilman Str.»i�ke requested that the State and the City Attorney be
Joint Development of
asked to render an opinion regarding the legality of simultaneous
Comprehensive Plan
development of zoning and Comprehensive Plan policies. Council
do Zoning
President Keolker-Wheeler noted that inr-.rmation on this issue will be
presented at the 5/4/92 Committee of the Whole meeting, and that the
City Attorney will be involved in the preser tation and available for
discussion.
Rezone: Senior In response to Councilman Stredicke's request, Executive Assistant Jay
Housing Project, R- Covington stated that the Administration will report back to Council
020-91 regarding the status of the Senior Housing Project.
Community Event: Mayor Clymer said that the Spirit of Washington train will arrive at the
Spirit of Washington Renton depot on Sunday, 4/26/92, at 5:00 p.m. He invited the Council
Opening Ceremony and public to attend the dedication ceremony.
Public Works: Mt. In response to Councilman Stredicke's request for information on the
Olivet Landfill Mount Olivet landfill, Assistant City Attorney Zanetta Fontes clarified
that in May, 1991, the court determined that any attempt to exceed an
elevation of 310 feet and/or use the four residential lots to the Kest of
the existing site ivould be an expansion of the landfill.
As a consequence of that ruling, Fiorello Northwest applied to the City to
increase the elevation to 335 feet and the geographical boundaries to
include the four lots. The recent Hearing Examiner decision recommends
that the landfill not exceed 310 feet on the additional four lots and on
those portions of the old site that have not yet been raised to 335 feet.
ADMINISTRATIVE Referred 2/3/92:
REPORT
Finance: Senior 1) Councilman Stredicke requested a report regarding City non -voted
Housing Bond Issue, debt capacity and whether it could be used for the 10k for Art
1% Allocation to Arts Program (2/3/92).
2) Councilman Edwards requested information regarding the possibility
of adding the 1% for the Arts Program omitted from the Senior
Housing Bond Issue to a future bond issue.
A memorandum from Administrative Services Administrator Dan
Clements reported that the City's current non -voted debt capacity is
approximately S 12 million, and capital arts purchases are eligible
expenditures.
Mr. Clements also advised that 1% for the Arts would have been a valid
expenditure if it had been stipulated in the Senior Housing Bond Issue
ballot title.
Citizen Comment: Referred 2/24/92 - Letter and petition, signed by 16 residents of Nurth
Graves - Public 28th Place, were submitted by Laverne Graves, 905 North 28th Place,
Right -of -Way, N. Renton, requesting City retain "land strip" between Burnett Avenue North
28th St. and Park Avenue North (2/24/92).
Memorandum from Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator Lynn
Guttmann stated that the land strip between Burnett Avenue North and
Park Avenue North, formerly known as North 28th Street, is privately
owned and proposed to be included in a new development. She pointed
out that the property owners on the northeast end of North 28th Street
have petitioned that the City close and barricade the land strip due to
CITY # RENTON
Earl Clymer, Mayor
April 30, 1992
James L. Colt, President
American Memorial Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 547
Renton, WA 98057-0547
Dear Mr. Colt:
Re: File #SP-074-91
Fiorillo Northwest. Inc.
Hearing Examiner
Fred J. Kaufman
This office has reviewed your correspondence received on April 28, 199:, regarding the notice to
parties of record in the ^oove matter.
1-his office has reviewed the distribution of the report and finds that it complied v.itb legal
requirements. At the public hearing ali persons in attendance were informed that ar,ycae who testified
would become a "party of record" and receive a copy of the report automatically and that anyone else
who wanted a cohv of the report should provide their name at the close of the hearing. It is not
possible for this of, ice to check all correspondence found in these files to try to determine which other
persons should be p-.rtie, of :-cord. During the course of analysis and preparation for the public
hearing, city staff will provide notice of various aspects of review to various persons but these people
do not r,eces.,a.tly become parties of record. "Parties of Record" status is conferred by appearance at
the pu')lic hearing o• special requests at or subsequent to the public hearing.
r.l,. Colt'-; .upy of the repot was mailed as required by law. In addition, Mr. Colt personally received
a copy of the report approximately five minutes before the close of business on the day the report was
issued, April 14, 1992.
Under the circumstances Mr. Colt received both constructive notice and actual notice of the decision in
a timely fashion. As an agent and president of American Memorial Services it can ordinarily be
expected that he would communicate his knowledge to that organization.
Therefore, this office hardy sees how a third copy of the report would have altered the ability of the
concerned persons or American Memorial Services to file a timely appeal
You may obviously pursue further recourse through the City Council which wil! be considering an
appeal of this man,.er in any event.
Sincerely,
q�
FRED J. KA FMAN
NEARING EXAMINER
FJK:wmb
cc: Parties of Record, City Council, City Atto-ney, City Clerk
AMA tUWN MLN1UIUAL JL 1l,r�J,
POST OFFICE BOX 547
RENTON. WASHINGTON. 98057-0547
(206) 255-7479
April 28, 1992
Mr. Fred J. Kaufman
Hearing Examiner
City Of Renton
200 Mill Ave. South
Renton, Wa. 98055
Dear Mr. Kaufman:
In speaking with American Memorial Services, Inc's attorney this
morning it was determined that neither the corporations attorney,
Mr. Larry Ransom, nor American Memorial Services, Inc., the legal
owner of the property as referenced in you findings page 9
paragraph 1 were given the required notice of decision and finding
and conclusions as required in chapter 8 of 'Citle IV section 15 of
the Renton City code. At 4-8-14:A. it states that the examiner
shall... "transmit a copy of such decision by regular mail,
postage prepaid, to the applicant and other parties of record in
the case requesting notice of the decision. The person mailing the
decision, together with the supporting documents, shall prepare an
affidavit of mailing, in standard form, and the affidavit shall
become a reword of the proceedings"
I am sure that your secretary has determined this date that in
spite of a letter from American Memorial Services, Inc., as
referenced in your decision on page 2 as part of exhibit / 11,
which was a letter preserving American Memorial Services, Inc's.
right to appeal portions of the hearing or your decision, and
irrespective of the fact that Mr. Colt, as President: of American
Memorial Services, referenced the corporations letter in his
testimony, either inadvertently, or due to unintentional oversight
American Memorial Services Inc., nor it's attorney Mr. Ransom
received a copy of the decision via regular mail as required by the
city code. This is evidenced by the affidavit of mailing which is
a part of the record which clearly shows that American Memorial
Services Inc., the legal party of record was omitted with respect
to the required notice.
Insofar as American Memorial Services Inc. has not received proper
notice as required by City code of your Decision, American Memorial
Services Inc., formally request that the appeal period with respect
to your Findings, Conclusions & Decision be extended for fourteen
days to enable American Memorial Services Inc., it's attorneys and
engineers to adequately examine the record of the hearing and your
Findings, Conclusions & Decision to determine the extent to which
it contains errors in fact or of law, erroneous procedures, or
other judgments or conclusions which may adversely impact American
Memorial Services Inc., who as you state are the legal owners of
the property, portions of which may be impacted by your Findings,
Conclusions & Decisions.
I trust that this request for the appropriate time interval
provided by code, following proper notice via regular mail, will
be granted and American Memorial Services Inc. will receive the
proper mailed notification of the extension of the appeal period.
If your decision is to deny American Memorials request, please also
inform the Corporation by regular mail so that the corporation may
file any necessary appeals of that decision.
Sincerely,
American Memorial Services, Inc.
r�
i T,k
Darlene Berreth,
AdmiaiV ti,ve Assistant
ti
James L. Colt,
President
American Memorial Services, Inc.
6 -* 0 CITAF RENTON
Administrative Services
Earl Clymer, Mayor _ _Dan Clements, Director
April 29, 1992
STATE OF WASHING'rON)
ss
COUNTY OF KING
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
NANCY J. MILLS, Deputy City Clerk for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath,
deposes and says that she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of
Washington, over the age of 21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter.
That on the 29th day of April, 1992, at the hour of 5:00 p.m your affiant duly mailed and
placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail
to all parties of record, notice of appeal of Hearing Examiner's recommendation filed by John
D. Blankinship, Attorney, representing applicant Fiorillo Northwest, Inc. Mourt Olivet Land
Reclamation, Located at NE Third Street (File No. SP-074-91).
i
Marilyn J, eter en, CMC, City Clerk
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 29th day of April, IS` 2
No is in and for th tate of
Washington, residing in_ , .i7.1 .
es -*
.AL
Earl Clymer, Mayor
April 29, 1992
•
CIT Y%F ]R ENTON
Administrative Services
Dan Clements, Director
APPEAL FILED BY FIORILLO NORTHWEST, INC.
RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision, dated April 14, 1992, filed by John D.
Blankinship, Attorney, representing applicant, Fiorillo Northwest, Inc. regarding
Special Permit to complete fill and grade operation for landfill site, Mount Olivet
Land Reclamation, located at NE Third Street (File No. SP-074-91).
To parties of record:
Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinanres, written appeal of the
hearing examiner's decision or. the referenced matter has been filed with the city clerk,
along with the proper fee of $75.00.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal �:nd other pertinent documents will
be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committ: e, and the
recommendation of the Committee will be considered by the City Council at a
subsequent Council meeting.
The Council secretary will notify all parties of re -ord of the date and time of the
Planning and Development Committee meeting. If you are not listed in local telephone
directories and wish to attend the meeting, please contact the Council secretary at 235-
2586 any weekday (except Friday) after 1:00 p.m. for information.
Sincerely,
arilyn J. tt, en, CMC
City Clerk
0 0
CITY OF R�KTOM
Apq 2 r'
„tTY CLERK'S OFME
- -- CITY~OF RENTON
CITY TREASURER
REGIRCPT : 02-25220 04-28-1992
12_41 pi<-===_
CASHIER ID : T
-
goon MISCELLANEOUS -RE -
1.75.00
HEARING EXAMINEE: APPEAL
Itl o.! 0 I.Oc,.338.58,0 I,000000
IOTAL DUE
$7 .00
RECEIVED FROM:
MONTGOMERY, PURDUE, BLANKINSHF
$75. tCHECK____...___--
CHECK
TOTAL. TENDERED _-------$75.00
CHANGE DUE
$0.01)
.I
EAL
HEAAING XAMMR APR 2 8 1992 ,
WRITTEN APPEAL `F HEARING EXAMINER'S TIECISION/RECOMMENDATIOI+ gW,'RW(laffNARBER
COUNCIL. DEAN & FONTES, P.S.
FILE NO. SP-0-4-91
APPLICATION NAME''Fiorillo Northwest, Inc., Mount Olivet Land Reclamation
1-he undersigne4 interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of
the Lend Use Hestring Examiner, dated April 14 _19 9 2
APPELLANT: REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY)
John D. Blankinship and William K. Goodwin
Name, Fiorillo Northwest, Inc. Name; Montxomerv, Purdue, Blankinship & Austin
Address: p_�_ i3nx 66S26 Address: 5300 Columbia Center, 7Ql fifth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98166-0326 Seattle, A'A 115104
Telephone No. (206)_ 241-4800 Telephone No. (206) 682- i090
2. SPECIFICAIM tS QFJ;RROM (Attach additional sheets, if necessary)
Set forth below arc the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is ?cased:
FINDING OF Fi. C: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's repor,)
No. Error: SEE ATTACHED SHEETS
Correction:
CONCLUSIONS: SEE ATTACHED SHEETS
No. Error.
Correction:
OTHER SEE ATTACHED SHEETS
No. Error:
Correction:
3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is requested to grant the following relief:
(Attach explanation, if desired)
XX Reverse the decisiun or recommendation and grant the following relief: Approve and impleffent the F.RC
Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: recommendations.
Remand to the Examiner fur further consideration as follows:
Other
TL / �✓ G _--
fppellant/Reprftentative Sigrature Date , p r' i - - , L1411-
ohn D. Blankinship
NOTE: Plesse refer to 1't;e IY, rbspter a, of the Renton Municipet Lode, end sr-tton 4-8-16, for specific ippesi
procedures.
Movesber 15, 1"1 heappeal.doc/form
SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS
FINDINGS
Fiorillo NorthWest, Inc. (FNW) does not here challenge the Heanng Examiner's
Findings, except to note that what is set forth in Conclusion No. 12 is, rather than a
conclusion, an important finding of fact that:
"It appears that the measures the applicant has undertaken as
well as those proposed, including the liners, the sand and soil
protection system, the leachate collection system, the leachate
treatment facilities, the storm drainage system and the various
conveyance systems will provide a reasonable measure of
safety. The continued monitoring of accepted materials, the
impermeable cap and the long-term environmental monitoring
also appear to provide reasonable assurance that the site cs
finally being appropriately handled."
CONCLUSIONS
Conclusion No. 1.
Error.
(a) The second sentence of the conclusion refers to "more potentially
unsovad debris." That reference is inconsistent with Conclusion No. 12 in which the
Examiner found that, "The continued monitoring of accepted materials ... provides
reasonable assurance that the site is finally being appropriately handled." There is, in fact,
no showing, no evidence, and no finding that any unsound substances have teen or will be
introduced into the site.
(b) Conclusion No. 1 also states, "While lateral expansion to encompass
the four additional homes seems reasonable, this office feels that a vertical line must be
drawn and it is not appropriate to increase ,he height to twelve (12) feet at the western edge
of the site." The Examiner found that the existing fill is to an elevation of 335 feet (Funding
No. 25). The Examiner also found that the ERC required an increased setback of the west
cutoff wall to the location now proposed (Finding No. 27). Engineers say that a slope of
three horizontal to one vertical is necessary to achieve proper stability and lessen the
appearance of a jagged peak. In order to provide a 3 to 1 slope, a twelve foot retaining wall
on the west margin is essential. In effect, the Examiner compels a design unacceptable by
engineering standards. A sketch illustrating this point is attached together with a copy of the
letter of the professional engineering firm of RZA AGRA, Inc.
Correction: The quoted portions of the Examiner's conclusions should be deleted.
Conclusion No. 3.
Error. The Examiner said, "A waste site with potentially dangerous by-products has
been established in close proximity to residential areas and over a drinking water aquifer
recharse area." The reference to "potentially dangerous by-products" in the site is
inconsistent with the Examiner's Conclusion No. 12 for the reasons specified in our
comments on Conclusion No. 1. The Examinei also said, "It is time that all issues be raised
and dealt with," referring to passible "reuse" as a cemetery sometime in the future. In its
report to the Examiner, the Department of Planning/Building/Public Works painted out that
any future use of the site would require a separate application for conditional use permit
which is not pending before the City and that, therefore, a;iy specific possible future use of
the site was not now an issue. The Examiner's reference to possible future use of the site as
a cemetery is entirely speculative and premature.
Correction: Deletion of the quoted portions of the Examiner's conclusions.
Conclusion No. 4.
Error: The Examiner says, "But the expanded buffer required by the ERC has
pushed against the capacity of the site resulting in the applicant ... raising the height of the
margins from approximately 7 feet to approximately 12 feet." The Examiner analogized that
to the top of a balloon rising when its sides are squeezed. One of the reasons the ERC
insisted on relocation of the wall was to make way for a landscaping buffer with native plants
which would screen the cutoff wall regardless of whether it is 7 feet or 12 feet high. The
applicant preferred not to have the buffer which would have allowed a lower wall more to
the Examiner's liking.
Observation: Everyone has agreed that the existing fill with an elevation of 335 feet
should not he disturbed because of the risk of passible environmental damage (see,
.Eraminer's Report and Decision, page 7, quoting the City Attorney, Ms. Fontes). The
engineers say that a 3 to 1 slope is necessary for stability and appearance.
Correction: If a buffer is to be provided as required by ERC, then either the
retaining wail must be at 12 feet in order to retain the required 3 to 1 slope, or the wall, at a
reduced height of 7 feet, must be moved back 15 feet to the location originally proposed by
the applicant.
Conclusion No. 5.
Error: The Examiner said, 'This office did not examine the financial records of this
operation, but it is obvious that the applicant intends to make some profit ..." In fact, the
applicant is in the hole on this project by over $531,(W and does not have the financial
resources to complete and dose the site without assistance from user fees in the expansion
now proposed. Financial ability of the participants is an important consideration in this
matter. King County Superior Court Judgge Noe, who has had continuing and ultimate
supervision of the project, said in his 1991 IVlemorandurn Opinion that the City in its review
of the current application should consider not only environmental concerns but also
economic feasibility (Report of Hearing Examiner, Page 2). In a later section of the
applicant's statement, a more detailed explanation will be given as to why the Examiner's
ruling is no, economically feasible.
Correction: The conclusion should read: "Completion and closing of the site is not
economically feasible without the assistance which expansion of the site as now proposed
would provide through user fees.
PzohvnWPW i -2-
Conclusion No. 6.
Error. The Examiner said, "Seven foot walls are not insignificant but 12 foot walls
are unacceptable." As previously explained, the 12 foot cutoff wall on the west is essential
not only for leachate control but also to retain the 3 to 1 slope to the top of the existing fill
which cannot be disturbed without risk of environmental damage. It must be emphasized,
as the Examiner found, that the ERC dictated where the cutoff wall is to go. Restricting any
new fill to a 310 foot elevation will leave what amounts to a 25 foot waif*
drop off at the
top of the fill. See the sketch and letter of RZA AGRA, Inc. attached hereto.
Correction: Reference to a 12 foot wall being unacceptable should be deleted.
Conclusion No. 7.
Error. The Examiner said, "Whatever other compromises are required, the wall
should not exceed the originally proposed maximum height demonstrated in Exhibit No. 8."
That is in error for the reasons specified in our observations regarding previous conclusions.
The Examiner also commented that, "In a case such as this, an applicant should not be
permitted to hide behind the shield of proprietary information." In fact, the Examiner did
not request any financial information as indicated by the first sentence of his Conclusion No.
5 and FNW has, at all times, and now is, ready. willing and able to provide details as to its
financial loss on this project to date.
Correction: The quoted portions of the Examiner's conclusions should be deleted.
Conclusion No. 8.
Error. The Examiner purports to limit additional fill to a height no greater than 310
feet. That would leave a 25 foot wall or vertical drop off from the top of the existing fill to
the 310 foot level allowed by the Examiner and leave the appearance of a jagged peak at the
top. The installation of fill required for a proper 3 to 1 slope would be impossible. See the
attached sketch and letter of RZA-Agra. The conclusion is not supported by the record as a
feasible solution and, in fact, would present a hazard to the environment.
Correction: Deletion of a s, reference to a 310 foot inaximum elevation for the
additional fill.
Conclusion Nos. 9 and 10.
Error. FNW has the same objections to Conclusion Nos. 9 and 10 as to Conclusion
Nos. 6 and 8, and makes the same suggestions for correction as noted there.
OTHER
Decision Paragraph Nos. 1, 2,3 and 4.
Error. Based on the foregoing findings and conclusions, FNW urges that the
Examiner's Decision Paragraph Nos. 1 through 4 are not supported by the record, and are
unfeasible both from an engineering and an economic standpoint.
p20Nn"551 -3-
Correction: Paragraphs 1 through 4 should ')e deleted entirely, and the; ERC
recommendations should be approved and implememed.
ANALYSIS A1VD ARGUMENT
The foregoing specification of errors in the Examiner's ruling is amplified in the
following paragraphs dealing with these issues:
(a) From an engineering standpoint, the design dictated by the Examiner
is unfeasible;
(b) After careful study, City departments have already specified the
measures to be taken in amelioration of adverse aesthetic impacts at the site, and
furthermore, ameliorative measures possible now for the site are largely controlled by
measures required to protect the environment and the City's aquifer;
(c) Consideration of possible ultimate "reuse" of the site as a cemetery is
not part of this application and therefore is premature, speculative and irrelevant, as
pointed out by City personnel; and
(d) Financial realities are a major factor which must be considered, as the
King County Superior Court has directed.
1. The Decision Compels an Unacceptable Physical Condition.
A portit,. , of the overall site is already at an elevation of 335 feet (Exam;ner's Finding
29). That portion was filled in accordance with a plan of operation previously approved.
The existing fill cannot be removed or disturbed without unacceptable risk to the
environment and the City's aquifer. Final cap and other protective measures are now in
place which cannot be removed without creating a risk that those design features protective
of the environment, and particularly of the City's aquifer, will be unhinged.
The environmental engineers will not approve final slopes steeper than 3
(horizontal) to 1 (vertical) and, to protect the environment, the balance of the site was
designed not to exceed the engineers' recommendations. By prohibiting any additional fill
above a 310 foot elevation, the decision makes it physically impossible to maintain a 3 to 1
slope. If the new fill is tapered from the walls to the top of the existing fill, the slope will
exceed a 3 to 1 ratio. On the other hand, if the fill is tapered up from the walls at a 3 to 1
slope, the hillside will intersect the existing fill far below the summit, leaviti an extremely
steep slope of 1 to 0.75, virtually a sheer wall 25 feet high, between the old fit and the new
fill. Engineers say that slope is unacceptable because it is unstable, and it ;will be more
unsightly than the situation the Hearing Examiner envisioned.
The ERC directed that the cutoff wall be moved back 15 feet to provide for a more
extensive landscaping buffer. At that location, a 12 foot cutoff wall is necessary to maintain
a 3 to 1 slope. A sketch is attached to show graphically how the Hearing Examiner's
decision will produce an unacceptable physical result. Also attached is the letter from RZA
AGRA, Inc. explaining why the Examiner's ruling on the height of additional fill and the
height of cutoff walls is unacceptable.
Pzotivn*passi -4-
2. Adverse Visual Impacts Will Be Ameliorated.
We are keenly- aware of the City's sensitivity to the visual impact of the site. It is at its
ugliest now. Plans for closure provide for features which will improve the appearance. The
top of the fill will be grass because the presence of final cap and other measures protective
of the City's aquifer prevent trees whose roots might penetrate the liners. The sides would
be sloped to a 3 to 1 ratio so that there would not be an appearance of a jagged peak. The
slopes are necessarily retained by concrete walls which trap and collect leachate and contain
migration of methane emanating from the site and funnel the leachate into treatment
facilities on site.
As stated by the Department of PlanningfBuilding/Public Works in its report to the
Hearing Examiner, the concrete re.aining walls will be screened by native plants.
Engineering features required to protect the environment and the City's aquifer inevitably
affect the landscaping, and other measures which can he taken to soften the visual impact of
the completed site. It is significant that the Hearing Examiner found that all of the
engineering features provided by the applicant and now proposed for closure provide
reasonable assurance that the site is being appropriately handled. Thus, the Hearing
Examiner found:
It appears that the measures the applicant has undertaken as
well as those proposed, including the liners, the sand and soil
protection system, the leachate collect;on system, the leachate
treatment facilities, the storm drainage system and the various
conveyance systems will provide a reasonable measure of
safety. The continued monitoring of accepted materials, the
impermeable cap and the long-term environmental monitoring
also appear to provide reasonable assurance that the site is
finally being appropriately handled. All plans shall remain
subject to review and approval by the various agencies with
jurisdiction including the City and its various departments, the
Seattle/King County Health Department, the state, Metro, and
federal agencies. Examiner's Conclusion 12.
3. The Site Has Been Operated in Accordance with Court and Regulrtory
Requirements.
The Examiner referred to the regulatory jurisdiction of the County, a pertinent
observation, because design of the site to date including cutoff walls, inclusion of four lots
on Blaine Avenue, and the height of the fill incorporate the County's environmental
requirements.
A brief summary of the recent history of the site may be helpful. It has never been a
"dump site." It is accurately described by the Examiner as a "land reclamation site." The
work began 15 years ago. It stopped in 1986 when the land owner, American Memorial
Services, Inc. ("AMS"), and the City of Renton became engaged in litigation before King
County Superior Court Judge James Noe over renewal of permits for completion of the site.
In July of that year, McKc,nna Construction Co., Inc. (and ultimately its successor by
assignment, FNW) entered the picture in an effort to help settle the pending litigation and
thereafter to complete and close the site. That litigation was settled by a settlement
stipulation approved by Judge Noe. By terms of the stipulation, the City delegated to King
County "the authority and responsibility for project compliance with applicable
environmental laws."
p2ObVmwp455 l -5-
FNW obviously hoped to realize some return for its efforts, a hope that has sadly
turned into disappointment and dismay because of the large loss which it has experienced to
date on the project.
follwA
The settlement stipulation approved by Judge Noe prov�des in pertinent parts as
(a) AVIS will place construction debris within the landfill as
described and permitted by its King County Conforming Solid
Waste Demolition Landfill Permit and in accord with WAC
173-304 and King County Health Department Rule #8.
i f t
(d) AMS will comply with all measures for environmental
protection as are lawfully directed by King County under the
King County Solid Waste demolition landfill permit and the
rules and regulations governing operation under that permit. In
addition to proper uperatianal procedures, those measures will
include wells for monitoring both ground water quality and for
detection of methane gas, if any, at the site, and such other
measures including installation of an impervious or low
permeability barrier as may lawfully be required by King
County to protect the environment, including protection of the
City'! aquifer.
(f) AMS will cooperate with the City in arranging for
appropriate inspection of erosion and siltation control
tr;easure,. AMS has provided the City v th plans for the
maintenance and location of such devices, inc'.-jding specific
drainage, topography and other necessary &, ails. AMS will
cooperate further with ;he City in adjusting any such measures
which, after commencement of oheration, prove inadequate.
r..
0) All pending proceedings, including litigation now
pending in King County Superior Court under case number 87-
2-03724-0 and all permit, permit renewal, and licensing
application proceedings in the City now pending under various
file numbers, including, but not limited to, SP 047-80 (renewal ,
SP 111-86, AAD 028-85, SP 116-84, SP 116-85, and SP 0 8-8 ,
shall be suspended and not resumed so long as the reclawsation
project proceeds to completion in accord with this stipulation,
and the order of the court approving this stipulation. Uiis
stipulation is intended to completely and finally resolve
numerous issues now pending in the proceedings referenced in
this paragraph; acid, so long as the project proceeds in
conformity with the King County Conforming Demolition
Landfill Perm;t and this stipulation, King County shall have the
authority and responsibility for grolect compliance with
applicable environmental laws. The parties shall propose to the
P20h4nWT)455 l -6-
•
0
Court considering entry of the agreed order approvinghis
Stipulation that the Court retain jurisdiction under the above
-
entitled caase to hear and decide any disputes relatt'ng to this
Stipulation and the completion of the Project contemplated by
this Stipulation. (Emphasis added)
Thereafter, FNW employed highly respected environmental engineers Harper Owes
to work with the County in Jeveloping a plan of operation for operation and closure o. the
site. The plan of operation ultimately approved by the County included development in six
phases expanding to incorporate the four residential lots on Blaine Avenue. It .o provided
for measures to control lateral migration of methane gas from the site by installing cutoff
walls, construction of an extensive leachate coBection system including cutoff walls around
the site to collect and funnel leachate from the site into pretreatment facilities on site., and
an extension of the sanitary sewer line along Northeast Third Street from Monterey Terrace
to the Metro trunk line.
That plan of operation showed the elevation of the fill at 335 feet, and Phases I
through IV were constructed to that elevation. in 1990. the parties disagreed as to whether
additional pen,uts were required for the four lots on Blaine Avenue. As a result, AMS
asked Judge Noe to rule that the site as contemplatethe 1987 settlement included the
d
four lots on Blaine and cutoff walls for that area. W intervened to protect its large
investment in the project. In May 1991, Judge Noe ruled that expansion of the site to
incorporate the four lots was subject to SEPA review by the City, but in his oral decision,
Jude Noe commented, as set forth in the Examiner's decision, that "although the
environmental issues must receive priority, the decision based on a SEPA review must also
be balanced, reasonable and fully aware of economical feasibilities. With these thoughts in
mind, it is time to implement the State E,wironmental Policy Act and not use SEPA as an
obstruction or shield. (Examiner's Repon and Decision, page 2).
After extensive investigation and review, and after negotiating extensive
environmental protections and aesthetic modifications necessary for the City's protection,
the Department of Planning/Building/Public Works issued a modified Declaration of
Nonsignificance (DNS). No one appealed from the issuance of the DNS. The De rtment
of Planning/Building/Public Works submitted an extensive report to the Hearing Examiner
which recommended approval of the application. To the surprise of everyone (since the
application was essentially unopposed), the Examiner rejected the Department's
recommendation, undertook to restrict the size of the site, and concluded with a
recommendation that the City Council explore an outright prohibition of such uses.
As the forevins brief history indicates, FN1W its predecessor operator have
diligently and conscientiously complied with all of the design requirements of both the
County and the City fer environmental protection and to the extcnt of its resources, FNW is
now prepared to comply with their recommendations regarding final filling, grading and
!andscaping to make the site as agreeablc as passible. The Examiner would like to have
what he characterizes as the "mound" removed or reduced but that is now impossible from
both an environmental and financial standpoint. The Department has recommended
approval of the only practical designs now available. The Council should accept that
recommendation of its own skilled personnel who have invested sc) much effort in this
project for the benefit of the City and its citizens.
4. Ultimate Use as a Cemetery is Not an issue.
in its presentation to the Examiner, the Department expressly stated that passible
reuse of the site to the future as a cemetery is not now an issue in this case. it coald become
0
an issue in the future only if the owner files with the City an application for a conditional use
permit. Thus, on page. 7 of its preliminary report to the Hearing Examiner, the Department
said:
The current application for a Special Permit for grade and fill
does not include conversion of the site to a furare use. Site
reuse as a cemetery would require a separate conditional use
permit from the City.
FNW agrees with the Department's statement that ultimate reuse of the site is not an issue
in this case. Nevertheless, the Hearing Examiner undertook on his own motion to make it
an issue and his decision. is based in part on his determination to foreclose any future use of
the site for cemetery purposes. In so doing, he overstepped his own jurisdiction and
impinged upon the role of the Department and the Council which have jurisdiction to rule
on any application for conditionaluse permit if and when such application might ever be
made in the future. FNW has no interest in cemetery operations, now or in the future.
S. Financial Realities are a Critical Consideration.
In his 1991 ruling, Judge Noe said that environmental considerations and economic
"easibilities must both be considered in the City's review of the present application. FNW
c. nnot finish the fill and close the site without the revenue which would be derived from fees
for placing 83,000 cubic yards of construction debris in the expanded fill area. FNW simply
de :s not have the financial resources required to close the site properly without the help of
user fees. The prior contractor for AMS, McKenna Construction Co., Inc., became
insolvent while attempting to complete the project while paying enormous costs required to
pprotect the City and the environment. FNW is now in the hole on this project by over
5531,000.00. It can only complete the project, close the site in an environmentally sound
manner and fund the post -closure trust fund from additional user fees from the placing the
full 83,000 cubic yards of construction debris on the site.
When the lawsuit was settled in July, 1987, permitting the project to go forward, it
was estimated that the cost of environmental protective measures kmonitoring wells,
impervious barrier, etc.) would be $125,000. It was not reasonably foreseeable that systems
would have to be insta;led of the sophistication and cost ultimately experienced. Some were
for measures tangentially related to the site which were of ggrreat benefit to the City. For
example, FNW irstalied -4 new sanitary sewer in Northeast Tfiird Street to carry leachate to
the Metro trunk. But in the process, the City required the line to be over -designed to
protect its aquifer from sewage from an outdated line serving Monterey Terrace. The over -
design features included installation of solvent weld sewer pipe, sealing of manholes,
backfilling with crushed rock, insituform of the down -stream sewer line, and a half -street
asphalt overlay of 'he street. The City required FNW to tie all the sanitary sewer lines from
the Monterey Terrace neighborhood into that newly constructed line. Potential future
pollution of the aquifer from Monterey Terrace was thus avoided by the City at FNW's
expense. That sewer extension alone cost FNW over $260,000. The total inclusive of that
item, spent by FNW for additional engineering and capital improvements is $1,088,000, all
for the City's benefit. Sheets detailing the originally estimated list and the costs actually
incurred are attached.
Numerous other costly and sophisticated measures were conceived and required by
public agencies as the job went along. It was first anticipated that there would be three wells
for monitoring methane gas emissions. Ultimately, nine were required for methane and
ground water monitoring. It was not contemplated that a leachate pretreatment facility
would be required on site. [,'Itimately, it was. It was not contemplated that cutoff walls
Pzc>hun.�+ssi -8-
around the site would be required, but now they are. Attached hereto is a summary of the
receipts and disbursements of McKenna Construction and FNW which detail their
aggregate loss to date in excess of $531,300. Details with respect thereto or sunwrtm
documentation will be furnished io the Council if it wishes. The Examiner never Aked for
that information.
6. Summary.
The Examiner has required things which are neither physically acceptable and
desirable nor economically feasible. In so doing, he has failed to carry out Judge Noes
direction that both environmental concerns and economic feasibility be considered. The
Examiner gave inadequate weight to the recommendation of the Department of
Planning/Building/Public Works regarding landscaping around and over the fill.
Notwithstanding the Examiner's wish that the "mound" (as he referred to it) would
disappcar or shrink, it will not. The fill now in existence cannot be disturbed without serious
risk that a liner will be punctured or other enwironmental damage caused. The fill is there
and will remain. The problem now is to find means to close it in both an environmentally
sound and economically feasible manner. In deciding how to do that, the Council should not
be diverted as was the Examiner evidently) by possible future uses of the site, any and all of
which the City can handle readily if and when an application for conditional use permit is
presented to the City any time in the future. It is hoped that the Council will keep to mind
that FNW is trying desperately to work with the City in achieving the best result now
possible, but its financial capabilities inevitably must be taken into consideration.
Pxobun+s t 1 -y-
��i06.o �F LL.et� u.ri.s sf ,
S 0
Skei�l, ��i�iKC G/ev•cirGNS ..a d Sy - le
of ' rot osej �te.y f,ll
y
pd ��uw. •anR.s' €
�0
1 14�LN92
!4dqfi,H to.
33 /o_
ITr,fD
lw.d
s �
RZA AGRA, Inc.
Englneennq & Environmental Services
23 April 1992
Fiorillo Northwest, Inc.
P.Q. Box 66826
Seattle, Washington 98166
Attention: Mr. John McKenna, Jr.
Subject: Evaluation of Landfill Slopes
Mt. Olivet Cemetery -Demolition Waste Landfill
Renton, Washington
Gentlemen:
11335 NE 122no VVav
Suite 10C
Kirkland, WA 98034-6918
1206, 820-4669
FAX (206) 821-3914
W-5425-1
In accordance with your request, we have evaluated the configuration of the slopes which currently
exist at the subject landfill and we have reviewed information you have provided to us concerning final
fill elevations authorized by the hearing examiner for the project. This letter summarizes our
understanding of that informatii. n.
The Mt. Olivet Demolition Waste Landfill has been constructed with are upper surface elevation near
335 feet above sea level, as designed by Harding Lawson & Associates. Side slopes on the existing
embankment approach a maximum inclination of around .75H:1 V (Horizontal:Verticai). We understand
that the hearing examiner has recently stipulated that further placement of fill, including apparently
work needed to effect closure of the site, should be restricted to levels below elevation 310. This does
not appear to be logical from a geotechnical standpoint, in that due to the steepness of the existing
sid, slopes, it would be physically impossible to place and subsequently permanently maintain cover
rnaterial on the .75H:1 V existing embankment slopes between elevation 310 and 335. In our previous
geotechnical engineering studies for the project we had recommended limiting final slopes on the
landfill tc inclinations of 3H 1 V or flatter. According to the information you have provided to us
reqarding the current configuration of the landfill, ;t is our understanding that closure of the installation
could be accomplished by placing fill and cover material from the present crest of the embankment
downward at a 3H.1 V finished slope or flatter, to surrounding undisturbed ground or embankment
retention structures, as originally envisioned for the project We therefore suggest that in light of this
UP AGRA
Earth 6 Ervnonmer,ra: Group
Fiorillo Northwest, Inc.
23 April 1992
W-5425-1
Page 2
additional information, the hearing examiner reevaluate his determinations concerning completion of
the project.
We appreciate having the opportunity to provide this information. If you have any questions, please
do not hesitate to call.
Respectfully submitted,
RZA AGRA, I
Tom Bekey
Vice President
cc: Montgomery, Perdue, Blankenship, and Austin/Mr. Jack Blankenship
=Y A G R A
earn & Enviror,men;a; Ur,*Up
Rii U MMW U,
W, OIM LNO levnTI01
SADII OPW9G - STATBW
W1 22,162
--- OCNNl,
ow-----FTRI" I M
i'',', �
1-
,iu* 17 -
4. 88 5irot . II - Mr. Q
WAK.-
&1 M ltntirly %w+eue
S9S,356.94 3,t96,21:.I4
i,612,20Q.q
CXT OF "rM
Sitt CIming
1,343.12
11,3d7.43
i2,79C.m
Site kwicticm
1;315.56
13,115.$6
Slat 9tabliritivr
44,960.59
34.VA. 77
79,3M.16
Le1jeU Calla:tim 6 Disp®1
1,52.82
204.0.40
W,A.22
DAt Or"!
9.491.07
12.M.36
22.453.43
Job Offfic*
32.271.01
96,T23.31
129.000.Ir
Prwowiry his
156,7".06
534,i11 81
t,OO1.2S7.I7
Eraticr 0"^0-
25,186.11
25,VA. 97
k=w to&
29,G22.25
53,112.38
82, 731.5E
Piro I - CIML-V
1,561.;7
7,161.17
631,S51.33 t ,OW, 094.59
1,5ya ,046.02
Oook OM Uri:
bwal ri Wnistratire
t,'0,920,91
66,399.31
+99,32I.25
King Owly Inert Tat
6,1It. 33
6,111.33
r,u+.23
21,a1l.23
gpy,�
115,816.42
75,81t./2
i�.783.90
1,YA, E8
S9. OBI-71
tip! SO-Acm
1,315.14
232,320.0
233,865.15
Awian pan al SNW4" -
%3pitim
524. Ms. it
I, M,145 05
i , 8O6, is 1.73
ii61,0i3.1ii 1,7l1,1O6.73
2.16�,469.39
CWIAL DPRXO4*S:
ho rviow Ow brHw
and is dju (bllactim 9yto
18,071.29
87,426.92
SOS,SOS.11
N.E. 3H Smirvy Serer
26 i ,115.73
2I1,115.73
Sul@ Inatallstio Wrtums
15,303.17
1i,3ili.91
kvimftm Sanitary &M
O,037.94
49,031.94
Ludttt Strlxw 5+"
72,541.13
i2,511,T3
No QfOff 1141+IiII
at pf"" sK Wildim
311,6t8.03
3!S,I4L.Q3
lrot Esj+mt+m
75,731.12
75, T31.82
'3,3Tt;.25 e77,us 11
I90,427.13
C�IDa �J69f,65
232,M.36
232,410.i6
TOTAL Owts of ODD-W(M
',371,7a2.18 3,900.11U u
5,221,413.2O
NET PINT (U0M)
(ti1,126.i5) (401,0T1.53)
(S]4,2413.T2)
OLIM Tolk RRCLAMTION
C"IML
718 ADQuV= PSR Tn nxP=1MD SE'1TLZKMT
JULY 19$7
1) GROUND WATER MONITORING WELLS.
2) MRTNANE MONITORING WELL.
3) IMPERVIOUS OR LOW PERMEABILITY VUA RIER.
4) EROSION CONTROL FOR STORK WATER RJN OFF.
The estimated cost for construction of the above capital
improvements as prepared by HoXenna construction -Inc. in July, 1987
was as follows:
1)
Three ground water monitoring wells.
$15,000.00
2)
One methane monitoring well.
$ 5,000.00
3)
Tnpervious liner and fill over liner.
$68,000.00
4)
Erosion control
S26,759,00
Sub Total
$114,750.00
5)
Contingency 10%
11.475.00
Total
$126,22.5.00
In addition
to the aforementioned capital improvements we were
required
to provide the City of Renton with the
following;
1)
A $2,05C.00 check to t;ie city of Renton for a fund for
street c 1 f an i ng .
2)
A bond in the amount of $35,000.00 tG insure that the
till and Trade at the Mt. Giivet Land
Reclamation will
be done Appropriately.
rw-R CL JC. 1 ! •f7 r r7u%r- y
•
MT. OLIo"aT LUM RRCI.MMTXON
CAPITAL IUPROVEME '!'B
AB coXpL=TSD 'THROUGH MARCH, 1992
CAPITAL IMPROVEX&nS
impervious Liner Barrier 105,505.21
N.E. 3rd Sanitary Sewer 261,115.73
Scale Installation/Maintenance 15,303.97
Insituform Sanitary Sewer 49,037.94
Leachate Stripper System 72,581.73
Nothana Cut Ott Walls I & II and
Pretreatment Building 311,648.03
Lot 15/16 - sansion 75,734.82
Total
MT. OLIVNT LIND RACLNIMTION'
GBICWAL NZPSNDITQRNS
AS COAPLNTBD THRoO g MARCH, 1992
$890,927.43
Additional expenditures incurred and not contemplated at the time
the budget was prepared in July ct 1987.
Permit Fees 21,441.23
Engineering bees 17-5,_-_76_.A2
Total 5197.117.65
Total of Capital Improvements,
Permit and Engineering Fees $1,088,045.08
�- yr
1�
l
,ram
Lm.
I!1
V
Q5
(U
Parties of Record:
16
Fiorillo
Northwest, Inc.
Rich DeCample
111 Capri AVE NE
Renton, WA 98056
Clinton Morgan
Development Services
Gregg Zimmerman
Plan Review Supervisor
James Colt
President Mt. Olivet Cemetery,& Mausoleum
100 Blaine AVE NE
Renton, WA 98057
Robert Cornell
i 29 Capri Ave
Renton, WA 98056
Dave Hickok, R.S.
Solid Waste Program
Seattle -King County Department of Public Health
201 Smith Tower
i Seattle, WA 98104
Jon B. Swanson
152 Monterey PL NE
Renton, WA 98056
Harold Sevende
114 Monterey PL NE
Renton, WA 98056
Chris Wright
120 Monterey PL NE
Renton, WA 98056
Versie Vaupel
P.O. Box 755
Renton, WA 98057
Mayor Eari Clymer
Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator
Members, Renton Planning Commission
Gary Gotti, Fire Marshal
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Transportation Systems Division
Utilities System Division
Jennifer Toth Henning
Planner
Zannetta Fontes
Assistant City Attorney
Don Erickson
Zoning Administrator
John L. McKenna, Jr.
P.O. Box 66826
Seattle, WA 98166-0826
Len Zickler
705 2nd AVE, Hoge BLDG, Suite 910
Seattle, WA 98104
Randy Rockhill
141 Capri AVE NE
Renton, WA 98056
Randy Rockhill
President
Monterey Terrace Club
141 Capri AVE NE
Renton, WA 98056
Pete Hackett
83 Monterey PL NE
Renton, WA 98056
Robert Moore
58 Monterey PL NE
Renton, WA 98056
Councilman Richard M. Stredicke
Lynn A. Guttmann, Administrator
Jim Hanson, Development Services Manager
Ronald Nelson, Building Director
Jay Covington, Mayor's Executive Assistant
Valley Daily News
10
i
DATE CIRCULATED: 07/17/91 COMMENTS DUE: Utl3 1 /u 1
APPLICATION NO(S): ECF;SP-074-91
PROPONENT: FkAlo Northwest, Inc.
PROJECT TITLE: Mt. Olivet Land Reclamation
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Expan3ion of the Mt. Olivet Land Reclamation onto the four adjoining residential lots
to the south & west of the existing landfill. The project would construct a third cut-off wall and install landscaping at the
base of the wall.
LOCATION: 2325 N Third St
SITE AREA: 1.75 acres BUILDING AREA (gross):
IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS: PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE
MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION
IMPACT IMPA NE E ARY
1. Eartt
2. Air
3. WatE
4. Plan1
5. Anirr
6. Ener
7. Envir
S. Land
9. Hou:
10. Aestl
11. Lighl
12. Recr
13. Histc
14. Tran
15. Publ
16. Utilit
r
5
-
als
fy & Natural Resources
onmental Health-
_
& Shoreline Use
—
ing_
ietics
—
_
& Glare
nation
ric & Cultural Preservation--
,portation
c Services
es
—
COMMENTS:
We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those a eas in which we have expertisa and have identified
areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is net -ad to properly assess this proposal.
ApPLICATIG,-4 NO(S).:
ECF;SP-074-91
PROPONENT:
PROJECT TITLE:
Fiorito Northwest, Inc.
Mt. Olivet Land Reclamation
BRIEF DESCRIFTION OF PROJECT: Expansion of the Mt. Olivet Land Reclamation onto the
four adjoining residential lots to the south & west of the existing iandfill. The project would construct a third
cut-off wall and install landscaping at the base of the wall.
LOCATION:
TO:
PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION
ENGINEERING SECTION
TRAFFIC ENG. SECTION
UTILITIES ENG. SECTION
FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU
POLICE DEPARTMENT
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION
SEC:17 TWNSHP:23 RNG:5
2325 N Third St
CONSTRUCTION FIELD SERVICES
DEVELOPMENT FANNING
PLANNING 8 TECHNICAL SERVICES
PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION
SCHEDULED TAC DATE: 08/06/91
OTHERS:
COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING.
PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION BY 5:00 P.M. ON JULY 31, 1991.
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION:
APPROVED _APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 �
18
19
20
21
22
23
2.4
25
26
27
28
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY
AMERICAN MEMORIAL SERVICES, INC.,)
a Washington Corporation, )
Plaintiff, )
and )
FIORILLO NORTHWEST, INC., )
a Washington Corporation, )
Intervenor -Plaintiff, )
V. )
CITY OF RENTON, a Washington )
Municipal Corporation, )
Defendant. )
NO. 87-2-03724-0
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Mt. Olivet Cemetery was purchased by American Memorial
Services, Inc., (AMS) in 1974. AMS designed a plan to
rehabilitate the undeveloped part of the property by filling a
gravel pit area and restoring it to a more natural elevation. To
that end, drawings were produced showing the geographic boundaries
of the site and the proposed elevations.
In 1977 a Declaration of Nonsignificance was issued by the
City and AMS was permitted to fill the gravel pit. Disputes arose
concerning roadways and access. The project was stalled and by
1980 a new three-year permit was required. Another Declaration of
Nonsignificance was issued by the City and the permit was granted.
An intervening lawsuit involving AMS and the Washington State
--^r%1k%Tr%TT1II ^nT%TT^ILT - 1
I
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Attorney General's Office interfered with the completion of the
project and the 1980 permit expired.
AMS was required to seek a new permit and the City requested
additional information.
In 1985, AMS sued the City, but did submit a new application
for a permit. That application included an environmental
checklist dated October 14, 1986 and also the 1986 Giaudrone
drawings. None of the documents or drawings above described
included the four residential lots in question. The 1986
Giaudrone drawings depicted a maximum site elevation at 310 feet.
The environmental checklist reported that no buildings were on the
site and that no demolition would take place. Further, that the
amount of fill would be 168,000 cubic yards.
Further information was requested by the Citl. Instead of
complying, AMS began the instant lawsuit in March 1987. On July
24, 1987, this court approved the "Settlement Stipulation"
(Stipulation) and retained jurisdiction to resolve disputes, if
any, with regard to implementing the stipulation.
The court having ruled on March 20, 1991, that the
Stipulation is ambiguous, the matter is again before the court to
resolve the intent of the parties at the time of the settlement
with regard to the Plan of Operation, the definition of the
"project", the geographic boundaries of the site and the elevation
of the final fill.
The City urges that the inclusion of the four lots and the
raising of the elevation of the site to 335 feet, an increase of
25 feet, are expansions of the proi�ct not contemplated by the
stipulation and thus subject to permit requirements and a State
UC1U 1Dh1JnTnff r10T1JTnM - 7
1
2
3
4
S
61
7
8
9
10
I
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review.
AMS and Fiorillo, Northwest Inc. (FNW), on the other hand
claim that the stipulation is a prospective document and that it
was always intended that a Plan of operation would be developed
that would not only provide ample environmental protection but
also be economically feasible. With that in mind, AMS and FNW
claim that adding the four lots and raising the elevation by 25
feet are not expansions of the project but sound changes in
response to the mitigating conditions attached to the Declaration
of. Nonsignif icance imposed by the City. Further, they assert that
the changes are allowed by the Stipulation and approved by King
County.
Certainly King County has played a key role in this matter
at the request of all parties. Clearly, the parties wanted the
City out of the environmental aspects of the project while
providing competent environmental management and monitoring by
King County. The City divested itself of the environmental
responsibility and authority by agreeing to transfer environmental
jurisdiction to King County as the "lead agency". The City
wanted, however, to remain in the "information loop" on
environmental concerns.
There is evidence that the City was aware that the project
was still in need of development subsequent to the Stipulation and
may, therefore, require changes. Specifically, it was understood
the final elevation was still in question (see Warren deposition).
The City, however, argues cogently that the changes were
never intended to expand the site as described by permits existing
at the time the Stipulation was signed in July 1987. Those
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
permits did not include the four residential lots (see Ex. 23, !
p.l of Stipulation).
Although pending permits were "suspended" by the Stipulation
and the Stipulation acted as a de facto permit, the permits
remained as a description of the site. The four lots were not
included in that description and adding them to the project was an
expansion not intended by the Stipulation.
Although the stipulation states "A construction sequencing
and staging Plan of Operation has been provided", that was not the
fact. The parties understood a Plan of Operation would be
developed.
As late as the fall of 1987, however, the developing Plan of
Operation did not include the four lots. A Giaudrone drawing
dated "9-87" shows the site without the four lots (Ex. 139). Mr.
Bishop testified that Mr. Colt drew a methane gas monitoring well
on Ex. 139, indicating the edge of the site as it was envisioned
at that time. The date of that conversation between Bishop and
Colt was not i ntified specifically except that it took place
after the Stipulation and obviously after the drawing was created.
It appears the four lots evolved into the plan sometime in
early 1988 to make: the project more economically feasible for AMS
and FNW.
Although AMS/FNW claims that the changes were made to make
the project economically feasible, it is difficult to determine
from the evidence that the addition of the 4 lots and the raise in
elevation was necessary for economic or environmental reasons. No
experts were called nor did any witness testify as to the clear
basis for such significant changes.
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 j
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The Stipulation intended to transfer environmental
jurisdiction to King county, but it did not give AMS and FNW the
ability to expand the project unilaterally without SEPA review.
Obtaining King County's approval could not and did not waive
compliance with permit and SEPA requirements. King County had
environmental jurisdiction, but did not have the authority to
allow a geographic enlargement of the original site. That
authority remained with the City and was not covered by the
Stipulation.
Further, the increase of the elevation from 310 feet. to 335
feet was a major change from the 186 Giaudrone drawings and
environmental checklist. It was understood that some modification
in the 310 foot elevation was a possibility, but the final
elevation was a substantial expansion of the project, not intended
by the Stipulation.
It may be that the addition of the four lots and the raising
of the elevation to 335 feet under the Plan of Operation would
meet a SEPA review and at the same time be economically feasible
for AMS and FNW. The City, however, is correct. Those additions
are not covered by the Stipulation and AMS and FNW must submit to
the reasonable requirements of the City for a SEPA review. Such
a review is mandated by SEPA.
Also, AMS and FNW argue that "A municipality need only
conduct a new SEPA review for a revised project, if the changes
are such that the new project is likely to have significant
environmental impacts not inherent in the earlier proposal."
(FNW brief, p. 11), citing WAC 197-11-340(3) (a) (i) . They argue
that this is such a case and no new review is needed. I disagree.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 j
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The changes were more than "revisions"; they amounted to a I
substantial expansion of the project. The environmental impact of
the expansion would most likely be similar to the original project
but would not be inherent in the earlier proposal. It is unknown
what environmental impact the significant expansion will have on
the project and failure to obtain a SEPA review at this time could I
allow an environmental disaster in the future.
AMS and FNW argue, however, that notwithstanding an
interpretation that the Stipulation did not allow the expa ision of
the geographic boundaries or a 25 foot raise in el-.,vation, the
City waived its right to enforce a SEPA review or should be
estopped from requiring a SEPA review.
State law mandates a SEPA review of projects such as the
project before the court. RCW 43.21C.
In certain limited cases, the municipal government, through
its legislative body (City Council), may declare an emergency and
waive SEPA review. Pollypon Corp. v. SeatP (1978) 90 Wn. 2d 59.
The City did so in this case on June 11, 1990 with resolution
2800 (Ex. 111), but specifically stated that "This declaration
DOES NOT 0extend to the contiguous four lots (emphasis in the
resolution)".
The City Attorney does not have the authority to waive SEPA
review requirements and any attempt to do so would be an ultra
vires act on his part. Ngel v. Cale (1982) 98 Wn. 2d 375 (It is
noted that AMS and FNW claim to rely on the inaction or action of
the City Attorney, not the City Council).
In addition, those dealing with the government (state, county
or municipal) are charged with knowledge of an entity's or
1
2
3
4
5
6
7'
8
`3
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 1
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
A
officer's authority. Noel v. Colp, supra.
A governmental act in disregard of the provisions of the
State Environmental Policy Act is ultra vires and void.
(Noel v, Cole, supra)
As held above, the four lots and 25 foot elevation increase
was an expansion requiring SEPA review. The fact that AMS
provided a copy of the 1988 Giaudrone drawings to the
City Attorney along with a letter (Ex. 67) stating: "Let me know
if you require anything further to satisfy you or city officials
" was not sufficient notice under the circumstances to
require a reply.
First, the letter listed 8 items included in the "package"
and specifically with regard to the 1588 Giaudrone drawing the
letter stated:
A set of drawings by John M.
Giaudrone, professional engineer,
showing original typography,
excavation plan for semi -impervious
barrier and final grading plan for
the site. (emphasis supplied)
Although it was clear to AMS that the four lots and 25 feet
were added, that major change was not mentioned in the letter.
The letter further stated that the Plan of Operation would be
finished and "submitted to the Health Department before April 30."
No statement in the letter indicated that a copy would be
forwarded to the City.
when dealing with significant public policy, a party has an
affirmative responsibility to be candid, forthright and open about
changes that might have even a slight environmental impact on the
project. AMS did not fulfill this responsibility.
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Apparently, the City Attorney did not review the 188
Giaudrone drawings. There is no direct evidence that he was aware
of the additional of the four lots during 1988. He was avrare that
the fins' elevation hr.d not been settled as of his letter to
Blankenship dated March 18, 1988. (Ex. 66)
Exs. 64 through 67 demonstrate that the City Attorney was
concerned about a number of issues; elevation was one.
A copy of the Plan of operation should have been forwarded to
I
the City with a clear outline of the changes from prior Giaudrone
drawings. The Plan, however, was not "submitted" until March of
1990 and the City took action to issue a stop work order on May 3,
1990 (Ex. 87). Ron Olson disputes asking for a copy of the Plan
of Operation and testified he has never read it. Mr. McKenna
testified he gave a copy to Olson in March, 1989. It was an
informal delivery, unassociated with any formal proceeding or
requirement in this matter.
In short, AMS and FNW have not established the necessary
elements for estoppel against a municipality involving a public
policy matter such as SEPA.
AMS and FNW cite Taylor v. Stevens County (1988) 1.11 Wn. 2d
159 as authority for estoppel. Taylor, however, deals with a tort
case and the Public Duty Doctrine, not public policy. It provides
that once a duty arises because of a "special relationship" the
plaintif_ may "proceed in tort against the local government."
The first requirement in Taylor is met. There was "direct
contact" in this case between the pa. -ties.
The second requirement, however, is missing. That
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17 1
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
requirement states that "the official., in response to a specific
inquiry, provides express assurance ." The "let me
know . . ." statement in the Blankenship letter is not a specific
inquiry and indeed, there was no "express assurance" responding to
a specific inquiry.
Finally, the third requirement is also absent. AMS and FNW
could not "justifiably" rely on the representation of the
official. At best, there was a tacit acquiescence to the plan,
months after the Plan of operation was available to AMS and FNW.
This is not a fact pattern leading to equitable relief of
estoppel. AMS and FNW contributed to the confused state of
affairs by not coming forward with the expansion of the project
and clearly showing the changes would be environmentally sound and
economically feasible.
Perhaps the strained relationship that developed between AMS
and the City over the years of struggling with the overall
Mt. Olivet reclamation project contributed to a breakdown in
communicztion, cooperation and trust. Whatever the underlying
causes, the parties were and are dealing with a significant public
policy and the normal business dealings between independent
private parties and the rules of law that govern those dealings do
not always apply to a situation such as the instant case. That is
why any acts by the City Attorney that would waive SEPA
requirements would be ultra vires acts and void. That is why
equitable rsmedies do not apply in this case. To hold otherwise
would be manifestly against public policy (SEPA) and inconsistent
with the facts of this case.
28
The court finds for the City. The Stipulation did not intend
%or,U MAX1nrry nDTWTOM - Q
I to include the four lots or a 25 foot increase in elevation.
2
Those two changes must be submitted for SEPA review and City
3
permit authority before they can be included in the Mt. Olivet
4
project.
5
Having ruled on this matter, I now urge the parties to begin
6
reasonable and responsible discussions about the continuance of
7
the Mt. Olivet project. It is clear that Mr. Cole, Mr. McKenna
8
and their organizations have expended substantial funds, time and
9
effort on the project. It stands uncompleted and represents a
10
potential environmental danger.
11
The City is not without some responsibility to proceed in
12
good faith and in a spirit of cooperation. The breakdown in
13
communication, the misunderstandings and the distrust does not all
14
rest on the shoulders of AMS and FNW.
15
Therefore, this project should find a high priority on the
16
City's agenda and all efforts should be directed at assisting AMS
17
and FNW to bring the project to a speedy and environmentally safe
18
completion. It should be recognized that although the
19
environmental issues must receive priority, the decision based on
20
a SEPA review must also bi balanced, reasonable and fully aware of
21
economical feasibilities. With these thoughts in mind, it is time
22
to implement the State Environmental Policy Act and not use SEPA
23
as an obstruction or shield. Private enterprise, local government
24
and environmental integrity can, indeed, thrive together. I urge
25
the parties make it so in this case.
26
DATED this day of May 1991.
27
28 A. 110E
JAMES A. NOE, JUDGE
2
3
4
I
i
E
7
8
a
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
i 23
24
25
25
IN T=- 5U==:tIOR CCCRT OF WASr.L. r0R RING CoL-:iTY
AINS-RrC.Au"i .'EEX0R AL SIRVIC=S, 1NC. ,
a Washington ccrrcratioa
1
,i f` n�_
VS.
CI6Y OF RENTON, WM INGTON, a
Washington municipal coreoration,
Defendant.
NO.07-2-03724-0
S'c:TL-�:iT STI=t�ir►?'.Irti
In this instrument the plaintiff, American Memorial Ser-
vices, Inc., will be referred to either as plaintiff or as
and the defendant, City of Renton, will be referred to either as
dPferidant or "City." Through their respective ccunse:,, the car -
ties agree as follows:
1. As per the .terms of.this stipulation and pursuant to
=permits previously lissued'by.the city, and in accordance wit: its
pe=t nua=.117= 011+� A.�.S `'shall:c�mplate"'s
declamation pro.�'..r r�r..rr.�_ T.'.4+'ae• —.w,zateria1 t fT cn- ' 'the s-tt
'LdescribecLyiz%U4i pewits' anii -by 7,the completion 'cf . its `:c1a:t.hed
fillinq,.•ade�? ��ation'cft'�at sits`. In prcceeding tc cc--le=a
the proj ect, t::e' parties agree: r
-.MS will Rlace construction
debris within t::s>s
landfill
as described and permittad by
its
icing
Ccunty Ccnfc-_. _
S=TTL=:�vT STZ=G=yTION - 1
MCS CCMERY, FVROCE. $ ?._: .`
ATTORMYS A7 LA-
1
L
J
5
6
7
a�
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
25-5
I!
Solid Waste Ce=cliticn Landfill Permit and in accord «;th WAC
173-304 and King County Health Department R.-:e 473.
(b) A.wS will rNcuire a written agreement fr_m
tors plating raterials in the landfill wherein and whereby t e•f
warrant that, the materials comply with the above -stated re_uire-
mentsin additicn, eac:: such contractor placing materials in
t he landfill shall _.^.demnify AMS, the City and King Cc;.ty
against ccnse_.:ences e.: placers.^.t of prohibited material w:t=:n
the landfill. r s will comply wit' existing County cede and =er-
mit provisions as to doc=entation of material placement in the
la dfill, inclu-ing tericdic reporting, and such si=ilar re_.:ire-
ments as are lawfully prescribed by King County authorities hav-
i,g jurisdiction over landfill operations. The cost c: pericd_c
irspecticns and repents as required by such zequlaticr.s and
authorities shall Le borne by M.S.
(c) The City hai accepted from A.*4S a deed in dedica-
tion of a road -way along the eastern boundary of the property as
previously re_.:_red for t,e sout.he_ly extension of 1:1--cnds Avanue
u r.:,ar Sr047-80, and said deed has been recorded. The carries
agree that said deed is a valid and effective conveyance c: t`e
lane: described tn' erein.
(d) r`!S will comply with all measures far envirc-_en-
tal protection as are lawfully directed by King County under to
1(ing County Solid Waste demolition landfill permit and
and regulations ccvern'_nq oce_aticn under that Permit. a-c_-
ticn "Co = _ der c: e_aticnal procedures, those measures •.::11
BSc`-comu3Y. P::nt:'E. CU.NX:NSH(T .4
1
21'
3
4
c i
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
i
16
17
18
iC
20
21
22
23
24
2�
25
'Include wells for mcnitorirg bath c:-ound eater Cca'_ity and 16
detection cf methane gas, if any, at t.`.e site, and such c_,he=
-easures includin installation of an impervious cr Icw
permeability barr-4 e: as may lawtuliy he required by King Cc ._•;
to protect the environment, including protection of the City's
acuifer.
(e) All bonds rewired of A.wS by the City in cwr.-ec-
t'-on with operation, reclasatien and rc_, tora_ion t::e site h.a7e
been delivered to the City.
(f ) A.w_s will cooperate with the City in arranging fzr
apercoriate inszection of erosion and siltation control measu as:
Aw.S has provided t`.a City with plans for the maintenance and
location of suc:: devices, including specific drainage, topcq=aphy
and other necessa^y details. MX5 will cocperate fu-_t`:er wiw t e
City in adjusting any such measures which, after co=.encement cf
operation, prove inaderuate.
(g) Ac:ess to the site will continue to he in accor-
dance with t_`:e.plars, ow-�ile _with the City'.,
(h) A c_-nstructicn sec^.:encing and staging Flan c.
Operation has !:een -revided for rrcjact ccmpletic.- and far
restcraticr: and ra abilitat:ion of t::a s__e.
( ? ) 71q ::curs of opera.,-^n s`a_ l be tram 7 : 00 a.m.
10:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday.
(j) All rending proceedings, including litigation n_a
pending in King County Su a -ion Court under case ru=.:.e: 87-2-
03724-0 and all permit, pe=it renewal, and licensing application
S _T : Trr.:r—_- .\ 1 5 . -- - U :AT:O — 3
Max-ccmvty, P::a::c_. 3LQVNSH:? 4 .._c-x
477=2-N[77 .7 Law
1 1
2
3
c
6
7I
SI
9 I!,
10
11
12
13
14
- 15
15
17
18
to
20
21
22
_z
23
A
L
25
proceedings in the City now pending under various file nu=.hers,
inclddinq,vbtit{-•nct==limited to, -SP '047-80 "(reheval) ;-S? 121-o'6u
Jl�Dy028-8!i a�S?�Yi6-84,` S? 116-8S,-rand SP 028-35,' shall be sus•-
gest$id ` iid riot r wed so� lvnq as wile=reclama pion ' pro j ec p: c=
weds ato:Ycomplaticn . n' -accord vitli'-"this stigul'ation, and the er-
der of the court a_prcvirg this stipulation. This st:pulat'_on is
intended to ccWpletely and finally resolve ro=e:cus issues r.cr
;ending in t.e z_-ceed'rgs referenced in this pa_ay..a:..; a...d, so
long• as the pro j act proceeds in conformity with the King County
L •. .
Contorminq Demolition Landfill Permit and this stipulation, King
County shall - have the authority and responsibility for project
c.smpliance •with applicable environmental lass. ! The parties shall
.. ..
propose to the Ccu- considering entry of the agreed order
approving this Stipulation that the Court retain jurisdiction
under the above -entitled cause to hear and decide any disputes
relating to this Stipulation and the completion of the Project
cadteyvlated by this Stipulation.
(k) MS and the City shall cooperate in good faith.
with each of e r to realize and acco3plish the timely =pleticn
cf the reclayaticn project permitted hereby, and the a:lherence tc
environmental standards and measures referenced harein.
(1)' This Stipulation shall to presented to the Fcn.
James A. Nce, judge of the King County Sucer'_er Court, for revie,,
and approval. upc^ its approval by the court this stipulation
shall be inccrrorated by reference in the order of approval an:�
be binding upcn the ;arties hereto and their successes an-
S7T TYT STI:QI.�..ZC:1 - 4
?'.:ACLE. BLo-m +SHt? Sk ALS7.,
A--Aars AT Lk-
f
i
1 I
I
2
3
4
� II
E
7
8I
c
10
11
12
13
14
1s
ti
16
17
18
19
' 20
21
22
s
23
2:
25
26
a*" 1 4 ates .
2. Attached hereto is a copy of the Consent Decree in tie
case camticned "State c: Washington, plaintiff, v. James L.
and others," Causa No. 80-2-09783-1 in the Superior Ccurt of. t=e
State of Wasnin tcn, fcr King County. The City s all cocperata
wit` A.wS in ena-ling it to Ferform the duties recurred cf it
under parag_ap::s 4 a. and b. of said Decree, and will not urrea-
scrably prevent, binder or delay performance cf paragraphs 4 a.
and b. of said Decree by any of the defendants :tamed therein. As
s: eeified i. said Consent Decree, all building ccnst--.action
permits shall be issued in accordance with applicable
ccver=ental building code standards of design, quality and
constniction -
3. Upon ccmdletion of the reclamation/development project -
provided for herein, and release of the bonds furnished in con-
nection therewith, any and all claims which each party may have
age nst the other, including claims for damages arising from
alleged delays resulting in the Consent Decree, shall be released
and satisfied, and this suit stall `hereupcn he dismissed wit
prejudice and wit.haut costs -
DATED 1.fD SiG:t=D this clay cf July, 1987.
Laurence J. Warren City Attornay
`iCN MGMERY, P':XCUE. BLOCNSHIP &
A77-ANCY3 AT LI-
S
6
7
8
a
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
25
MONTGOI '�Y, pL _O Jr, BL.A {�NS�:�
AUSTIN
By
,dhn 0.' Blankinsh_p
f attorneys for ?la
�ff
,%(O,NGCMEZY. P :ACI'E.
♦--JLN9Y3 %r L%-
1
1
2
31
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
25
COPY SENT TO
---------------
E
IN Tim SUPERICR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR NG—c_oUF.,Y
A.N[ERI CAN )aMORIAL SERVICES, INC.,
a Washington corcration )
Plaintiff, }
}
VS. )
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, a )
Washington municipal corporation, )
Defendant. )
NO. 87-2-03724-0
ORDER APPROVING S-cTTL-
MEENT STIPULATION AND
RETAINING JURISDICTIC'+
This matter came on for hearing on the joint oral moticn cf
the parties, and it having been shown the Court that the case has
been settled as set forth in the Settlement Stipulation filed
with the Court; that said Stipulation asks that the Court a-rrcve
said Stipulation and that Judge James A. Noe retain jurisdicticn
of the case until the work contemplated by the Settlement Sti=u-
lation has been performed and the case dismissed; and the CcL:t
being satisfied that the requested relief should be granted, ncw,
therefore,
IT IS HEREBY"ORDERED AS FOLLLCWS: '!
1. The Settlement Stipulation dated July Y 1987, and
filed with the Court is hereby approved.
2. J,idge James A. Noe shall retain jurisdiction of the case
pending cc�mpletior. of :theAwork contemplated by said Settlement
t
ORDER APPROVING SETTI-r-ME JT STIP.
& RETAINING JURISDICTION- 1 MCN-GOMERY. Ft Rouu BLANKINSHIP & A.i:,x
r
1'
2
3
4
5
Stipulation and dismissal of the suit.
DONr IN OPEN COURT t-h's ¢_L day of July, 1937.
Qw,.L 1A
JUDGZ JABS A.
Presented by:
6 MONTGOIaRY, pURD7'_, BLANKINSHIP
AUSTIN
7
8
n
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
nn D. BlankI shipI P.S
ore
f Attorneys for Plaint.,f
jam. MF_Z_
Of Attorneys for Plaintiff
17 Approved for entry:
18
19 , I'll
20(
21
22
23
24
25
25
zaw-R r.*� cS J . 1 c i
l - 11
.`-3: ney
0
ORDER APPROVING S .T,U!C—NT STIP.
& RZTAINING D-CTION- 2
�l0[�G0MLRY, PtRot;t. BL\.;x:`SH1? & A�:5-N
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE E' MA I! TNG
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
ss.
County of
WA.NDA 11. BRITTS
upon oath, deposes and states:
, being first duly sworn,
That on the _ 14th _ day cf. April 1992 affiant
deposited in the mails of the Uniteb' Sates a sealed envelope containing a
decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of
record in the below entitled application or petition.
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this day
of _ April_, 1592
Notary FubrZc./in and for the State of Washington,
residing at therein.
Application, Petition, or
Case P:
SP-074-91 Fiorillo
NW, Inc. Kt. Olivet
(The minutes
contain
a list of the parties
of record.)
April 14, 1992
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF RENTON
REPORT AND DECISION
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
PLANNING DIVISION REPORT
PUBLIC HEARING:
FIORILLO NORTHWEST, INC.
Mount Olivet Land Reclamation
File No.: SP-074-91
2235 NE Third Street
The applicant seeks to obtain a Special Permit to complete
the fill and grade operation for the landfill site begun
und!;r previous special permits. The application includes
introducing approximately 83,000 cubic yards of
construction debris to fill and expand the site, capping the
site, building structures to retain the site, and finish the
gnule at approximately an elevation of 335 feet above sea
level.
Planning Division Recommendation: Approval w;th
Conditions
The Planning Division Report was received by the
Examiner on Mach 10, 1992
After reviewing the Planning Division 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 March 17, 1992, at 9:02 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton
Municipal Building. (This is not a verbatim report of the minutes, but rather, a summary of the
testimony.) Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner.
The following exhibits were entered into the record.
Exhibit * 1 - Yellow File containing application, proof of posting
and publication and other documentation pertinent to this request.
Exhibit *2 - Project Vicinity Map
Exhibit *3 - Large Scale Vicinity Map
Exhibit *, - Topographical Map Showing Locstion of Four
Homes
Exhibit *5 - Existing Topography of Site
0 •
Fiorillo Northwest, Inc.
SP-074-91
April 14, 1992
Page 2
Exhibit *6 - Proposed Topography of Site
Exhibsr, *7 - Sample of "Type of Liner To Be Used
Exhibit *8 - Cross Section of Cut Off Wall
Exhibit *9 - Illustrative of Landscaping on Wall
Exhibit * 10 - Grounds Maintenance Program
Exhibit * 11 - Two Letters Dated 3-16-92 from Mr. Colt
Exhibit * 12 - Series of 9 Photos
The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by JENNIFEf TO']"H HENNING, Planner,
who reviewed the background information regarding the site, and quoted from the comments of Judge
James Noe, who issued a Memorandum Opinion on May 21, 1991, wherein he stated that the four lots
(fou, residential homes located just west of the property) and the proposed 25 foot increase in the
landfill height, to a height of 335 feet, was considered to be a substantial expansion of the project and
would require an environmental review by the City. The Court also said that, "although the
environmental issues must receive priority, the decision based on a SEPA review 1st also be balanced,
reasonable and fully aware of economical feasibi:ties. With these thoughts in m►„d, it is time to
implement the State Environmental Policy Act and not use SEPA as an obstruction or shield."
Ms. Henning continued, stating that Fiorillo Northwest had submitted a master application and a SEPA
checklist to the City in June of 1991, for the construction of the third cut-off wall and the expansion
of the site to include four residential lots and the proposed 25-foot increase in height. The project is
located at NE 3rd Street and Blaine Avenue, with Mt. Olivet Cemetery located south of the project, the
Monterey Terrace neighborhood to the west, a Puget Power transmission line easement to the east, and
vacant land north. A proposed residential development might be located to the south. Because of its
height, the site was visible from City Hall and Liberty Park, was designated public/quasi-public on the
Comprehensive Plan, zoned G-1, which is typically intended for low density, single family residential,
and was located in the Mt. Olivet drainage basin, within zone two of the aquifer protection area. The
project site covered between 10 and I I acres, accessed off of Third Avenue NE, and included a
partially filled landfill and four residential homes located in the western extent of the site, accessible
from Blaine Avenue. The applicant was seeking a permit for grade and fill under the City's Mining,
Excavation and Grading Ordinance and would like to expand the area of fill and complete the fill
operation. This expansion would require the removal or demolition of the four homes, under a separate
permit for which the applicant had not yet applied. In addition, the applicant proposed to construct a
third cut-off wall which would be I I feet tall at its highest point and would step down to 7 feet at the
southern end of the project site. This wall would be extended in front of the four homes and was
intended to retain the soil and also methane gas.
Ms. Henning said the proposed project would require the addition of 83,000 cubic yards of m iter,at.
That would be 1.17,000 cubic yards of debris, compacted to 83,000. A permit and a special annutl
license were required because the fill exceeded 500 cubic yards. The site presently had the appearance
of engineered fill, angular in nature, and the highest point of the completed fill would be 335 feet
above sea level. She introduced a sample of the type of liner that would be used to keep the leachate
from getting into the aquifer. The Exaalmer wanted to know the difference between the sample and
• •
Fiorillo Northwest, Inc.
SP-074-91
April 14, 1992
Page 3
what would actually be used on the project. finning replied that this sample was thz same
thickness as what was being and would be used on the property, and said the content of the fill would
be demolition materials; razed buildings, roads, crushed concrete, brick, wood, masonry, steel,
composition shingles, and other materials. The Examiner asked whether the shingles would contain
asbestos, deferred that question to the applicant and stated that the project would be
done in six phases, parts of which were at capacity and the liner put down. The applicant had
constructed a leachate treatment facility where all the leachate was piped for pre- treatment before
going to Metro. The Examiner asked what the pre-treatment consisted of and was some of it, sediment
for example, taken away someplace else. Ms, Henning replied that it was released into the Metro
system following treatment and she would let the applicant further address that question. Closure of all
six phases included putting a two -foot clay capping material over the top of the last debris, adding six
inches of topsoil and then hydroseeding the surface. The Seattle/King County Health Department had
required a post -closure trust fund agreement of the applicant to ensure maintenance of the landfill site,
the leachate system, and the landscaping for a period of up to 30 years.
Ms. Henning said to expand and finish filling the approximately 10-acre site was expected to ta►:e 6 -
12 months to complete, including the construction of the cut-off wall, the addition of the fill and final
covering material, and the landscaping. Some of the site cover material would be excavated on site and
used to cover the area each day, after fill had been placed. She reviewed the criteria for the Special
Permit under the Mining, Excavation and Grading Ordinance. She continued, saying that Traffic
Division staff felt that if similar grade and fill projects in this area, the I-405 "S' curves expansion
project, and the Mt. Olivet project all happened at once, there could be a problem with traffic volumes
and congestion. Other problems could occur if the City decided to widen Blaine Avenue. The footings
of the cut-off wall could be impacted, thus staff had requested the applicant to move the wall back by
15 feet. The Examiner asked whether the landscape buffer would disappear. Ms. Henning pointed out
the location of the cut-off wall and said discussions with the Traffic Department staff led her to
believe that the landscaping wouldn't be in jeopardy. There would be 250 - 300 truck trips per day.
The Examiner asked whether those figures were based on 117,000 or 83,000 cubic yards of fill, a
question that Ms. Hennina deferred to the applicant, and stated that to reduce the impacts during times
of high t affic congestion, hauling hours would be limited to between 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m.
weekdays, using approved roads to and from the site. As decided by King County Superior Court,
hours of operation for the facility would be 7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. Assistant City Attorney, Zannettg
Fumes, said that the applicant had a permit but they might have finished their prior permit, they had a
certain degree of permission as a result of the stipulated settlement, but anything above that would
concern this application. The Examiner said somehow he must be able to separate those two items out
so if hours o► operation from 7:00 to 10:00 were not found to be acceptable, the hours could be
reduced. He said he assumed that the court order did not bind him for any new application and,
presumably, there was some technical ability to determine where the old project ended. Ms. Fontes
said the original stipulated settlement, in so far as they might still be working on the old project, did
bind the City. As far as the new project was concerned, however, it did not. The Examiner wanted to
know what the applicant was really applying for at this time, was it 83,000 cubic yards under this
permit or how much were they still filling under the old permit. Ms. Fontes said the applicant didn't
want to finish up the prior permit, they wanted to do this project.
Ms. Henning said that the project would include hydroseeded slopes and planting of native trees,
shrubs, and ground -cover in front of cut-off wall *3. Previously, a landscape plan to plant hardy,
native plants in front of cut-off walls *1 and 2 was approved by the City, but it had not been
accomplished because the City shut down the operation. City staff had asked the applicant to relocate
the wall 15 feet back to allow a significant amount of trees and shrubs for screening the wall,
recommended that the applicant plant a vine to help hide the wall, and requested that the same plant
materials be planted on top of or below existing cut-off walls *I and *2 for a more aesthetic
Fiorillo Northwest Inc0
SP-074-91
April 14, 1992
Page 4
appearance. In addition, there should be a buffer of plantings installed behind the existing cut-off
walls that would include shrubs or trees to help soften the impact and relate to the other landscaping.
The plantings would extend about 275 feet to the south and east in a 10-foot wide strip along the north
corner of the project site.
Ms. Henning stated that this proposal would expand the land fill laterally, to the east and west.
According to the application, the landfill height would be 335 feet above sea level, a height already
reached by a portion of the landfill, incorporating slopes that were generally three -to -one. Currently
the slopes were approximately two -to -one, but in one area on the south portion of the site adjacent to
the cemetery, the 40% slope would remain. The applicant would be required to stay away from the
root zone and drip line of a line of mature evergreen trees in the southern area separating the project
site from the cemetery. Eventually, a wall might be constructed there as part of possible plans to
construct a mausoleum, but that was not part of this application. The slopes on the east side would
remain at a ratio of two and one half to one. The Examiner asked what was the code requirement.
Ms. Henning noted that two to one was the maximum. The applicant had stated that he was willing to
work with adjacent property owners to mitigate air quality and dust impacts and to provide cleanup
and any other agreed upon compensating action. A storm drainage report submitted by the applicant
included preliminary runoff calculations and showed hom, the site would drain. The report concluded
that water velocity and flow should not be any greater than water currently coming off the site. The
application did not include any plans for reuse of the site, but there was a post -closure trust fund
which would maintain the site for a period of 20 - 30 years, as required by the King County Health
Department. The owner had indicated to the applicant that he would like to expand the cemetery onto
the landfill site, however that was not part of this application. The Examiner asked if this site was
going to be rehabilitated so it could be used, would more material have to be added if it was going to
be a cemetery eventually, and shouldn't the City consider the fact now that this site should be six feet
shorter so that it didn't gain more elevation later. Ms. Henning answered that was true, if the site was
going to be rehabilitated for cemetery use. She said that City staff and the Environmental Review
Committee (ERC) had looked at possible results of the addition of another six to seven feet of fill,
raising the height to 342 feet, but the court had directed the City to allow the applicant to fill to the
point that it was economically feasible to put in the mitigation measures that were required. Staff had
been told that there would be settlement of the site over time but it was the City's position that they
would not like to see the landfill increase over the 335-foot level.
The Examiner said part of the mining and excavation ordinance required rehabilitation, and that meant
reasonable rehabilitation. To Ms. Fontes he directed the questions, was he under some kind of court
order, did he have to approve this project, and was it being driven by economics and not
environmental considerations. Was this site going to be reused as a cemetery. If that was so, then
approximately another six feet of material would have to be placed on top of the fill, expanding the
height of the site which was already a concern of staff, City Council and members of the adjoining
community. If the site was to be reused, shouldn't that be considered at this point, and shouldn't the
site be filled six feet lower so that it would not exceed the 335 feet. Ms. Fontes replied that reuse of
the site as a cemetery wasn't certain. If it was determined, based on environmental grounds, that the
height could not exceed 335 feet under any circumstances, some subsequent uses would be limited by
such R finding. The Examiner asked whether reasonable use of the site in the future would be found
to be denied because six feet more of anything was untenable. Ms. Fontes stated that it seemed to her
that the land owner was already being allowed use of this property. An unknown factor was how far
down the top of this site would sink. The Examiner said differential settlement didn't exactly make
for great crypts and vaults, noting that geotechnical surveys to indicate whether Greenwood Cemetery
would serve cemetery purposes had been required due to differential settlement. Ms. Fontes agreed,
and stated that, in court, the applicant's engineer was unable to state how much it would settle and
over what period of time settlement would take place. The Examiner again asked whether he was
• 0
Fiorillo Northwest, Inc.
SP-074-91
April 14, 1992
Page 5
under a court order to approve this proposal. Ms. Fontes stated she didn't think that the court had
directed the Examiner to approve this particular plan, but that the court directed the City to use its
best efforts to work with the applicant to assure that this project came to closure in an environmentally
sound way and make it economically feasible to achieve that. The primary concern should be
environmental with an eye toward recognizing that environmental things cannot be done without funds,
and there must be some means of getting those funds, in this case, accepting fill.
its. Henning stated that the final criteria that must be looked at was protection of the public trust.
The site was located in zone two of the aquifer protection area, considered to be the zone of capture
for all water that recharged the City's sole -source drinking water supply. The site could potentially
contaminate the aquifer if the protection system failed or was inadequate. The installation of an
impermeable liner should keep leachate from entering the aquifer. The Examiner asked whether this
liner had been found to withstand the test of time. Ms. Henning said that, according to the applicant's
plan of operation, it was an impressive system. Some of the liner was already down and care was being
taken that it not be punctured or compromised in any way. Landscaping buffers had been designed
quite narrow so the liner wouldn't be punctured by roots. The liner would be installed in remaining
phases five and six. Because of concerns about stability, aesthetics, and public health, the ERC had
stipulated that the ultimate height of the landfill be limited to 335 feet, including the final cap, closure
and hydroseeding. The site was located in the zone of obstruction for the airport, and the landfill and
the natural plateau currently exceeded the height limit allowed in that area, but the applicant had
obtained from the FAA a non -expiring waiver for the 335-foot height.
Ms. Hennina advised that staff recommended approval of the application subject to conditions, the first
of which was that the applicant comply with the 19 conditions imposed by the ERC as listed in the
Preliminary Report To The Hearing Examiner (see attachment) and in addition, comply with additional
conditions (here summarized): Applicant to provide $10,000 in a set -aside fund to mitigate dust and
noise impacts if determined to be necessary by a project monitoring committee composed of two
representative; from the City (appointed by the Administrator of the Planning, Building and Public
Works Department) and two representatives from the Monterey Terrace neighborhood (determined by
the Monterey Terrace Homeowner's Association President); Provide the City with results of a survey
locating the true center line of Blaine Avenue and identify the limits of the City's right-of-way in
relation to the proposed cut-off wall; Obtain right-of-way use permits or appropriate street vacation
from the City in order to install proposed landscaping buffers along the west side of cut-off wall *3;
Comply with all applicable local, regional, state and federal rules for water qual;ty sampling and
Department of Ecology (DOE) requirements for on -site remediation or clean up of leaks or spills,
supplying letters of agreement from King County and the DOE regarding compliance with on -site
remediation or clean up of possible spills or leaks of hazardous substances.
JOHN L. MCKENNA. JR., P.O. Box 66826, Seattle, WA 98166-0826, stated that in the ERC review,
Fiorillo Northwest, Inc., was allowed to extend the wall 12 feet above the subgrade surface because of
the 15-foot set back which would cause loss of the additional revenue necessary for closing the site.
He said his engineers were preparing new drawing, now snowing the 15-foot set back and the 12-foot
height. The Examiner asked whether that one additional foot would be carried all the way around the
wall. Mr. McKenna said it would be 12 feet all the way, not shrinking as shown on the exhibit, but
staggering up the hillside as the topography changed. The applicant couldn't afford to lose the revenue
from the fill that would be lost oy the 15-foot set back. In order to compensate, the wall had to be
raised an average of three and one hslf feet. Ms. Fontes stated that this necessary raising of the wall
all the way across because of the loss of fill was discussed in her meeting:, with the applicant but may
not have been communicated to the ERC. Mr. McKenna stated that initial phases rtl, *2, *3, and *4
were lined with 20 mil PVC liner The liner above the old landfill that was in place prior to McKenna
Construction company taking over was a 30 mil liner, and the new liners would be 60 mil. The
! i
Fiorillo Northwest, Inc.
SP-074-91
April 14, 1992
Page 6
leachate collection system had been installed throughout the land fill and tied into the pretre,stment
facility and the sanitary sewer line had been extended to the site, with solvent welded connections so
there were no joints. Asbestos was not accepted in the land fill. If roofing material contained
asbestos, it was disposed of at the demolition site. Pipe was accepted in the land fill. Tie Examiner
asked whether this included Wad or chromium finished pipe. Mr. McKenna did not know about that,
but said the solids or sedimer_ts from the leachate were trapped in the system, cleaned out annually,
and then placed back in the fill, so only liquids were released into the Metro system. The number of
truck trips was based on 17,000 cubic yards of fill. The Examiner asked whether placing the collected
solids from the leachate system back into the fill wasn't going in a circle. Mr. McKenna said the solids
were primarily decomposing wood products, no different than the fill itself. So far, no testing on the
leachate had registered below drinking -water standards. The Examiner asked about painted and
preserved wood winding up in the fill. Mr. McKenna agreed that it could, but paint cans were
excluded. He said there was about 54,000 cubic yards of Lund fill in the four lots, and it would take
83,000 cubic yards to fill and close the site, per the plans, pushing the wall back 15 feet and raising it
to an elevation of 12 feet. The Examiner asked what was left to be done that required the funding
from another 83,000 cubic yards of fill. said the completion of the liner system,
leachate collection system, cut-off wall *3, placement of the fills, closure and capping of the site, and
landscaping. The Examiner asked whether introducing more of this type of material over zone 2 of the
aquifer was worth the rest of these costs and wasn't there some other way of accomplishing this. ML
Minna said the only way he could close the site was to generate the income necessary to make the
required improvements. He said his company had been operating in the red since 1988 and would see
no profit at all until the site was closed. He also stated that he, Jim Colt, and two of his employees
had taken a 40-hour course with the Department of Ecology to be certified as land fill operators. Two
certified land fill operators would be on the site at all times during the operation.
LEN ziCKLER, 705 2nd AVE, Hoge BLDG, Suite 910, Seattle, WA 98104, stated that he was a
licensed landscape architect and reviewed the plan of landscaping near or on top of cut-off walls 01,
*2, and *3 and a proposed grounds maintenance program for the landscaping, reflecting a 15-foot set
back and a 12-foot wall. He noted that care would be taken to limit the amount of hydrostatic water
pressure around the wall. In answer to the Examiner's question, Mr. Zickler stated that the drainage
way would be located ,rn-,ediately behind the proposed shrubs along the top of the wall.
RANDY ROCKiJILL, 141 Capri AVE NE, Renton, WA 98056, stated he was speaking as an individual
but that he was president of the Monterey Club, and that there was not now, nor had there ever been,
a Monterey Terrace Homeowners Associction. He questioned the mention of widening Blaine Avenue,
noting that in past negotiations it had beer, stated tha! Blaine Avenue would never be an entrance for
anything located up the hill, that any developnvent would access by Monroe or Union, not Blaine. He
said that he was very interested in seeing that Bi:ine Avenue wasn't made into something it was not
intended to be. He said that people who lived alo►a,{ Blaine Avenue were worried about the stated
intent to bulldoze and fill until 10:00 p.m., noting that seemed like rather a long day. He also
wondered if there hLd been any settling of the hill so that calculations could be made as to how fast or
how much it would settle. Had the zoning already been changed on the property where the houses
exist. Traffic flaggers on Third Avenue were requested. One main concern was cutting corners, he
said, since problems were normal for a large operation and wondered what would happen if there was a
problem that needed solving, would the proposed committee make those corrections. He wanted some
guarantee that problems could be solved quickly without extensive lawsuits.
PETE HACKETT, 83 Monterey PL NE, Renton, WA 98056, said he thought that land reclamation
meant returning the land to its original state, once it was completed. It seemed to him that the longer
this continued, the taller it would get. He worried that if there was a year delay, inflation would
dictate that the walls be 16 feet high. He felt that economics were the driving force, causing it to be
orillo Northwest, Inc. 0 Fi
SP-074-91
April 14, 1992
Page 7
constructed in the manner that it ww, and in his opinion, he wanted the City not to let tte economics
of this project outweigh the public trust and aesthetics of the City. He said he planned on raising his
family in the Monterey neighborhood and wanted the City to think carefully now.
ROBERT MOORE, SE Monterey PL NE, Renton, WA, 93056, in reference to the appearance of the
project, said that going by pictures he had seen in the National Geographic, it looked like a moss -
covered Peruvian sacrificial temple. He. felt it would be appropriate to add wave -like contouring on
the top of the mound to make it look more natural and take away the straight lines. He asked whether
trees were going to be planted along the top of the project. Ms. Henning sated that the appearance of
the site was angular now, but when finished it would have a much more natural appearance with
softened and rounded slopes. She said there was no proposal to plant trees at the top, only grass,
because trees would pierce the liner. DON ERICKSON, Zoning Director, sated that at completion
there would be a two -foot cap of clal material on top to keep water from getting down into the fill.
Anything rn top that would penetrate the cap would compromise its integrity and natural vegetation
that migrated in, other :han grass, would not be allowed. The Exaalner asked who, over the next 30
years, would be making sure that trees did not migrate in. Mr. Erickson said there was the $180,000
maintenance fund to cover that. Ms. Henning said the applicant would go in ann,ially and patch any
area that had broken away.
RICH DeCAMPLE, I I I Capri AVE NE, Renton, WA 9e056, stated that he was greatly opposed to the
project and wanted to know whether the 335-foot height was determined in the courts. Aesthetically,
it didn't conform with the contours of the land, and this large bump was visible from his work location
at the north end of SeaTac Airport. He questioned the stated 83,000 cubic yards of material which had
now turned into 117,000 cubic yards. He was concerned about the hours of operation with heavy
equipment to 10:00 p.m., stating that private homes adjoined the project. He was also concerned about
traffic impacts, with traffic growth on NE 3rd and an additional 300 trucks there per day. He said NE
3rd had been repaved when the first phase was completed and wanted to know who would be
responsible for repaving NE 3rd after the project was finished. His concerns included impacts on the
value of his home and neighborhood and, though he saw some efforts being made environmentally, he
felt that the whole thing was an eyesore. Ms_. Henning advised that repaving on NE 3rd had been
financed by a 517,000 fund provided by the applicant. Some of the disputes that had occurred on the
monitoring of this land fill site in the past had revolved around whether King County or the City of
Renton had authority to control the application and that was why the court decision was needed, to
determine who had authority. By the time the City was given the environmental authority, the land fill
was already in excess of the height limit. Regarding the amount of the fill needed, 83,000 cubic yards
is the amount on the application and it was just clarified as 'uncompacted 117,000 cubic yards'. AL.
DeCamole asked whether the developer exceeded the height limit for the initial phase. The Examiner
said he thought that was a question that was determined in court, but he wondered if the site could be
spread out or lowered at all. Ms. Fontes stated that the court determined in May of last year that the
prior application had exceeded the height limit of 310 feet. The court had decided that the site must
be closed in an environmentally sound fashion, which would cost the applicant maney to accomplish.
The 335-foot height wasn't locked in by Judge Noe, however, the possibility of danger to the
environment at this point in trying to maneuver the fill around, the cap in place would be disturbed,
water could get into the material which would increase the leachate produced, and the liner might be
punctured. Mr. McKenna said the judge determined that the City, not King County, had authority. In
the plans approved by King County, finish elevation was 335 feet. Phases **1, 02, **3, and half of 04
had been completed and capped. He outlined the overall area that had been capped and closed, stating
that no more fill would be put into that area, and he explained the existing and future contours of the
site. In answer to Ms. Fontes question about noticeable settlement of the fill, Mr. McKenna said there
had been one and one half to two feet of settlement during the last year and one half.
Northwest, Inc.
•
Fiorillo No ,
SP-074-91
Ap::l 14, 1992
Page 8
In answer to Mr- Hackett's question whether any alternative solutions had been proposed and the
Examinees question about applicable laws and what would happen if the permit was denied, ML
Eggs stated that federal legislation would implicate landowners, subsequent purchasers, the contractor,
and perhaps the City in the event there was he" dous material escaping from the site. The court
found that the land fill represented an environmental hazard. The oQtion of putting no further fill on
the site had been examined. The site would still have to be closed in an environmentally safe manner
with the attendant costs. If the fill was not compacted, it would settle and compromise the capping.
She described the options which had been examined and ali involved needed work and costs which
could not be avoided. She said that if no one had to worry about the environmental factors, everyone
would walk away and leave it, but in order to provide funds to close the site, revenue must be earned
by accepting more fill.
The Examiner asked about the costs involved, how much fill was needed to pay for the closure of the
site. Mr. McKenna reviewed the list of work necessary for closure, stating that, based on the gross
revenue anticipated for 117,000 cubic yards of land fill, 42% would be used for site maintenance, 48%
fan overhead, 5% for contingency, leaving 5% for profit. The Examiner asked whether the surface area
of the land fill was being expanded in square footage to the west. Mr. McKenna said the expansion
was around 50,000 square feet.
The Examiner asked why the applicant was being required to provide for the potential expansion of
Blaine Avenue.
CLINTON MORGAN, Development Services, stated that transportation's concern was maintaining
flexibility for the right-of-way, which was considered an emergency access at this time. Should the
property to the south ever develop, some flexibility would be wanted. Regarding the landscaping, if
they set back 15 feet, the wall structure should be designed so that the footing was at the 15-f.'oot
mark. Landscaping then could be installed from the wall right up to where the curb line street edge
would be, 18 feet from center line or 27 feet from the future edge of the roadway. He reviewed
proposed elevations as they related to landscaping needs and the pr-)posed slopes. Truck traffic would
be limited to non -peak hours: 8:30 a.m. - 3:30 p.m. and 7:00 - I0:00 p.m. The site had been operated
on that schedule in previous phases and to further alleviate the tsKffic, right turns only would to used
in and out of the site for truck hauling. If necessary, a flagger would be requested as a mitigation
measure. The Examiner added, for clarification, that trucks would not be. permitted to make a left
turn down the slope, and only right turns in and right turns out would be permitted. He also
questioned the reasoning behind the 15-foot set back; was it to accommodate the proposed expansion of
Blaine. Mr. Morgan agreed, noting that at 14 feet wide, Blaine was an unimproved roadway and not
necessarily located in the center line. Ms- HCnnin stated that the 15-foot set back was not intended
exclusively for any proposed widening of Blaine, but was to accommodate a significantly -treed
landscape buffer zone. As a secondary benefit, it would also allow for some widening of Blaine
Avenue.
GREGG_ ZIMMERMAN, Plan Review Supervisor, said the City did not have any immediate or long-
term intention to widen Blaine, but simply didn't want to preclude that possibility. The applicant l;ad
extended a sanitary sewer line to be used for disposable leachate but the City had not yet accepted that
extended line. It needed to be dedicated to the City by bill of sale. The City also had not approved
the final connection detail between the leachate system and that extended sanitary sewer line. There
were no other immediate sanitary sewer impacts. He said he had received a conceptual drainage plan
which contained some assumptions which needed exploring. An improved level one downstream
analysis was also needed, however, these issues could be satisfied at the time of application for the fill
and grade license. A finalized drainage plan would be needed in order to issue that license.
is
Fiorillo Northwest Inc.
SP-074-91
April 14, 1"2
Page 9
Regardip.g hours of operation, Mr. McKenna said that if operation was allowed from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00
p.m. Monday through Friday for purposes of preparing for the debris, they could accommodate the
haulers. The Examiner said would that include on -site grading, backhoe operations, and building the
retaining wall starting at 7:00 a.m. and concluding at 6:00 p m. each day, and would hauling traf. is to
and from the site be during the hours of 8:30 am. - 3:30 p.m. Mr. Mcj enU agreed that was correct.
He also said that regarding Mr. Zimmermann's comment on the sewer line, they were already tied into
the sanitary sewer and had a letter from Mr. Jim Hanson about it.
Mls. Hennina said one of the neighbors had asked about the role of the monitoring committee made up
of representatives from Monterey Terrace and City staff. The committee could consider more than just
noise and dust abatement, and the City would be open to expanding the role of the monitoring
committee. Also, the increased height to 12 feet had been considered when final recommendations had
been reviewed with the ERC.
Mc-liackett asked whether there was any traffic plan proposed in relation to the 405 project. M,
Morgan said he did not have any information from the state on their schedule, but it was in the
planning stages now.
JAMES COLT, President Mt. Olivet Cemetery and Mausoleum, 100 Blaine AVE NE, Renton, WA
98057, stated he was a party of record and had provided a letter to preserve his appeal rights, pending
the decision.
The Examiner asked for an additional two weeks to consider the decision and there was no objection.
He then called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak,
and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 11:41 a.m.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION:
Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following:
FINDINGS:
The applicant, Fiorillo Northwest, Inc., filed a request for approval of a Special Permit to fill
and grade a portion of the Mt. Olivet property located at 2235 NE Third Street. The site is
owned by American Memorial Servi::es.
2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit *I.
3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official, issued a
Declaration of Non -Significance (DNS) for the subject proposal.
4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter.
5. The subject site is located just east of the Central Business Distract as NE Third Street climbs
up the slope to become Cemetery Road. The site is set back approximately 80 feet from NE
3rd Street. The site fronts along Blaine Avenue NE. The Monterey Terrace community is
located on the west side of Blaine.
6. The applicant proposes both enlarging an existing disposal site and permanently closing the
entire site with appropriate structures to prevent off -site contamination. The applicant proposes
Fiorillo Northwest, Inc
SP-074-91
April 14, 1992
Page 10
accepting additional construction debris for fees which would permit the applicant to close the
site in an environmentally sound manner.
7. The site has been dte subject of a protracted legal dispute which resulted in a court order
permitting the site to be used for solid waste but which determined that the City had
jurisdiction of the site and that use of additional acreage was an expansion of the proposal not
covered by earlier permits and court orders.
S. The applicant proposes expanding the surface area of the site to the west by encompassing four
single-family lots. The applicant has purchased the lots to accommodate the expansion. The
four homes on these lots would be removed.
9. The site is served by a water line located along Blaine that serves the four homes. There is also
a water truck on -site to assist in fire suppression.
10. The four homes are served by a septic system. The Monterey Terrace subdivision is served by
the City's sewer system.
11. The applicant has completed an 8-inch extension to the sanitary sewer line along NE 3rd. This
line is to provide a connection to the sewer system from the applicant's leachate
collection/treatment facility.
12. The treatment facility has been given a permanent disposal permit from Metro. The link to the
8-inch line was made in November, 1991.
13. Storm water is channelled through a number of systems including an 18-inch line along NE 3rd;
a "V" ditch on the east side of Blaine; natural ravines along NE 3rd; and check dams and silt
fencing. The east and northeast areas of the site are also served by ditches that drain to a pond.
14. The applicant proposed accepting "demolition waste." This has been generally defined as "solid
waste, largely inert, resulting from the razing of buildings, roads and other man-made
structures. Demolition waste consists of, but is not limited to concrete, brick, wood, masonry,
composition roofing and roofing paper, and steel."
15. Two cut-off walls, Walls *I and *2, and a pretreatment building were constructed in 1990 and
completed in November of that year. The cut-off walls intercept leachate generated by the
decomposition, decay, corrosion and breakdown of natural and man-made products that were
disposed of in past landfill operations.
16. The City determined that any expansion of the project onto the four single-family lots or
increase in height would require this additional review by the City.
17. The proposed project covers approximately 10.15 acres. It consists of six phases of which
Phases *1 through *4 have reached capacity and have received the final cover to seal them off.
A liner was placed and leachate collected above the liner. The liners are connected to one
another with leachate collected on Phase *4 draining to Phase *3. The Phase *3 and *4 system
liners have been covered with 1.5 feet of sand and 1.5 feet of soil to both protect the liner and
to improve drainage.
18. Proposed Phases *5 and *6 would complete the operation. Part of Phase *5 included the
construction of the first two cut-off walls, the leachate collection system, and a stripping system
Fiorillo Northwest, Inc
SP-074-91
April 14, 1992
Page 11
to remove Hydrogen sulfide from the leachate before discharge to the sewer system. Instead of
the 20 mil liner used in earlier phases, a 60 mil liner would be employed. It would be covered
with 2 feet of sand to protect it and enhance drainage. The liners are connected to one another
with either solvent or heat treatment to eliminate open seams.
19. Phase *06 would include the final cut-off wall, Wall #3 which would connect with Wall 02 in
the vicinity of the single-family homes.
20. The final closure would provide a two -foot cap, six inches of topsoil, and grass. Larger
vegetation would be avoided since larger root systems could breach the cap.
21. The Seattle/King County Health Department requires a Post -Closure Trust Fund Agreement for
solid waste landfills to ensure maintenance for 30 years. The applicant has sought a variance
for the site since it contains inert demolition debris. The applicant has set aside approximately
$180,000 in an interest -bearing account to provide funding if the variance is denied.
22. The applicant proposed importing approximately 117,000 cubic yards of material to fill the site.
After compaction, the material would fill approximately 83,000 cubic yards of the site.
23. The activity, including construction activities, filling, capping and landscaping, should be
completed within six to twelve months.
24. The original traffic analysis was based on the smaller volume, the 83,
the number of dailytrips 000 cubic yards, although
ps will still be appro cimately 250 to 300 trips per day over the six month
to one year duration of the permit. Staff expressed some concern with potential traffic
problems if the operation coincides with I-405 S-curve reconstruction.
25. Hauling would occur between the hours of 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. On -
site grading of the debris would occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to IO:OC althougi,
the applicant indicated that they could limit the hours to between 7:00 a.m. and .m.,
Monday through Friday. 00 p.m.,
26. The ERC required that the proposed fill be pulled back 15 feet from Blaine Avenue to provide
both a reasonable setback and adequate area to provide reasonable slopes. Staff indicated that if
Blaine were used to serve the proposed Eradco complex, it would be limited to emergency
access and that the right-of-way would not be enlarged at the expense of landscape screening.
27. The applicant originally proposed a cut-off wall that was approximately 11 feet tall, stepping
down to 7 feet tall. The increased setback required by the ERC has caused the applicant to
recalculate the area and height vis a vis the volumes needed to fund the closure. The
modification would supposedly require a cut-off wall twelve (12) feet in height. This
information was repealed at the public hearing.
28. Landscaping was originally required in front (street side or public view aspect) of cut-off walls
*1 and #2. The stop -work order prevented installation under the prior permitting.
29. The record was unclear about the distinct demarcation of the various earlier phases since they
are interconnected as one mound. The mound has reached a maximum elevation of 33S feet
above sea level. The record is confused but it appears that the addition of more material will
not bring any further portions of the site to the 335 foot elevation. The 'plateau" or terrace at
that level would not be expanded. What would happen is the mound would be given more
i •
Fiorillo Northwest, Inc.
SP-074-91
April 14, 1992
Page 12
rounded contours resulting in increa:td bulk at elevations below 335 feet, tapering/melding into
the top of the respective cut-off walls. The proposed slopes would be modified down to a 3:1
(horizontal to vertical) grade along the west and east instead of the steeper 2:1 slopes that
currently exist. A 2.5:1 slope would be created along the south margin of the landfill adjacent
to Mt. Olivet Cemetery.
30. The applicants remain undecided about reusing the site although an expansion of the adjacent
Mt. Olivet Cemetery is the most mentioned idea. The underlying land is owned by American
Memorial Services. One proposal has the south slope or wall being incorporated into a cemetery
building in that location. The wall in the area would be 20 feet tall.
31. Fill sites such as the subject site usually undergo a settlement process as the materials further
compact under their own weight and as decomposition of organic materials occurs. .Any reuse
of the site wouid depend upon how much settlement occurs. If differential settlement is
extreme, reuse could be a problem.
32. Reuse of the site would also have to respect the cap that has been placed over the materials on
the site. The cap is intended to isolate the materials from percolating water. This is intended
to minimize the intrusion of water into the fill materials which could increase potential leaching
of dangerous substances.
33. The site is located in Zone 2 of the City's Aquifer Protection Area. Zone 2 :s the zone of
capture where rain water hitting the ground percolates down and recharges the underlying
drinking water source.
CONCLUSIONS
The review of this project requires making some distasteful, albeit practical. tradeoffs. Either
the site could get mired in legal disputes that would dewy safely closing the site or the City can
close its eyes and hold its nose and approve the tradeoffs of losing additional single-family
homes, providing reasonable setbacks and accepting higher retaining walls, more traffic and
more potentially unsound debris. While lateral expansion to encompass the four additional
homes seems reasonable, this office feels that a vertical line must be drawn and it is not
appropriate to increase the height to twelve (12) feet at the western edge of the site.
2. Therefore, this office will accept some of the tradeoffs and hold its figurative nose and approve
them. But some of the requests require holding one's breath too long - basically in perpetuity.
The applicant should not be permitted to increase the height of the retaining/cut-off walls
beyond the originally proposed wall demonstrated in Exhibit *8.
3. It is probably obvious that this decision is troublesome but the site is troublesome. A waste site
with potentially dangerous by-products has been established in close proximity to residential
areas and over a drinking water aquifer recharge area. This office is not unmindful of the need
to close this site in an environmentally sound manner and subject to some economic constraints,
but since this site will be with the community and the City for a very long time, r,.onsiderations
about appearance cannot be overlooked. Further, it is time that all the issues were raised and
dealt with. The applicant cannot divorce 'reuse' of the site from the current operations.
Dancing around or vague proposals to create a cemetery expansion on the site need to be
addressed, at least as they have been in this decision. If closure now results in a 335 foot
mound, a potential reuse that would require additional deposits is absurd.
Fiorillo Northwest, Lac• •
SP-074-91
April 14, 1992
Page 13
4. While the lots of the single-family homes is not a perfect solution, their location at the edge of
this ever expanding fill has made them less than desirable locations for single-family or any
residential purposes. Therefore, their removal and the lateral expansion onto the property they
now occupy is appropriate given some limitations. The increase in capacity is being justified as
a method of paying for the sound closure of the dump. That is understandable. But the
expanded buffer required by the ERC has pushed against the capacity of the site resulting in
the applicant rising the stakes by raising the height of the margins from approximately 7 feet to
approximately 12 feet. If the site were viewed as a balloon, the ERC requirement pushed
against the edge forcing the balloon to stretch in the vertical dimension. The applicant
maintains this is ec,)nomically justified. In order to fund the closure's improvements the
applicant must sell sufficient "waste' space to pay the costs of building and maintaining the
infrastructure.
5. This office did not examine the financial records of this operation but it is obvious that the
applicant intends to make some profit, however miniscule or large, and that American Memorial
Services is going to reap some monetary return from what this office now views as an entirely
utilitarian operation - to effectively close this solid waste site with as little additional
environmental and aesthetic harm as possible. Since there are some sticky issues regarding the
legal responsibility for soundly managing a waste site, this office is reluctant to upset the many
delicately balanced positions, but the vertical expansion was not clearly defined prior to the
hearing, the public was not well informed about it, and it appears unjustified.
6. This is ore of those cases where one is required to kill the patient to save the patient. In order
to close the site, it must be expanded. While this office reluctantly accepts this tenuous premise
it is very difficult to allow more expansion in a vertical direction, particularly when the
softening of the edges was provided as an aesthetic justification. Softened edges do not
precipitously end in 12 foot drop-offs, even when screened by landscaping. Seven foot walls
are not insignificant but 12 foot walls are unacceptable. And beyond, the mound would quickly
attain its looming height. At least the originally proposed descending wall did not provide an
excuse for an even higher mound behind it. Tapering presumably would have broadened or
lengthened the slope creating a less imposing backdrop. The applicant shall restore the wall
dimensions to those originally proposed even with a potential loss of income.
7. Whatever else is unclear, clearly the site was filled beyond its potential in terms of actual
permits and aesthetic considerations. The 335 foot height does not match surrounding
topography and the proposed 12 foot retaining wall at the western edge of the site certainly
belies any attempt to "smooth off the rough edges" of the site. The site is too visible from too
many areas of the City, never mind the immediate residents. Whatever other compromises are
required, the wall should not exceed the originally proposed maximum heights demonstrated in
Exhibit Number 8. In a case such as this, an applicant should not be permitted to hide behind
the shield of proprietary information. Again, at this time, this closure is considered solely
utilitarian, profits and leasing fees should not be permitted as justification to further expand the
site unnecessarily. Sound closure is required by law and requirements by the City to close the
site in a safe manner cannot be sidestepped.
8. The record indicates that the site should not have exceeded the 310 foot elevation. Besides
being visible from wide areas of the City, it is a voluminous eyesore in its own neighborhood.
Therefore, since the site was filled too high and has created significant visible blighting of the
area, no additional actions shall be permitted on the site that would raise the level of th? site
above what should have been its maximum 310 feet. To make sure all parties are aware of
what this means, there can be no preparation of the site to serve even cemetery uses if the land
0
Fiorillo Northwest Inc
SP-074-91
April 14, 1992
Pace 14
contours will be raised above elevation 310 fat. If the site settles sufficiently to permit
additional filling that will not take it over 310 feet than such preparation would be permitted.
9. Further, to maintain the supposedly smoothing effect of the tapered slope, no additional
materials after capping and landscr..ping shall be deposited on ',he site which will raise the 'final
contours' above the finished height. The applicant shall be required to provide a detailed
topographic survey and mapping of the site to provide control information about the final
height of the site. Once this information has been ascertained, nothing shall be deposited on
any area of the site which shall elevate any portion of the site above the control statistics
provided by the closing survey.
10. In addition, this office cannot ignore geotechnical information that has been submitted for both
this site and other landfill sites, including those adjacent to Greenwood Memorial Cemetery.
The information is that such sites may not even be appropriate for cemetery uses due to the
potential for ex►reme differential settlement, at least for an imprecise but potentially lengthy
number of years. Obviously the site may eventually reach a state of repose and stability which
permits reuse, but until that can be assured, reuse shall be subject to careful review and further
geotechnical evaluation.
11. The traffic which will be generated by the operation supposedly will be acceptable as it will not
surpass the amount currently generated. The only real issue is the potential interference of I-
405 reconstruction. Traffic may be re-routed, diverted or completely curtailed. Staff should
have the power to limit access to the site if such actions are necessary to preserve the public
health, safety, or welfare.
12. It appears that the measures the applicant has undertaken as well as those proposed, including
the liners, the sand and soil protection system, the leachate collection system, the leachate
treatment facilities, the storm drainage system and the various conveyance systems will provide
a reasonable measure of safety. The continued monitoring of accepted materials, the
impermeable cap and the long-term environmental monitoring also appear to provide reasonable
assurance that the site is finally being appropriately handled. All plans shall remain subject to
review and approval by the various agencies with jurisdiction including the City and its various
departments, the Seattle/King County Health Department, the state, Metro, and federal
agencies.
13. No permits or operating licence shall be granted until all other required permits lave been
granted, and until the applicant has either received the variani-e from the closure bonding
requirements or has posted the appropriate bonds or other guarantees.
14. Noting that this decision presents the applicant or property owner with some additional and
possibly unacceptable conditions that may generate an appeal to the City Council, this office
will suggest that after thorough review of the issues it would be appropriate for the City
Council to carefully review the existing ordinance. The review should probably center or uses
such as this and similar uses and explore a moratorium until specific safeguards on bonding,
locations, physical and geotechnical attributes, and safety features can be explored. With the
advances in environmental and technical knowledge that have occurred recently and with wide
areas of the City providing recharge waters for the City's drinking water supply, the Council
may even want to explore removing entirely those provisions from the ordinance which permit
such uses.
Fiorillo Northwest, Inc
SP-074-91
April 14, 1992
Page 15
DECISION
The proposed SPECIAL PERMIT TO FILL AND GRADE the subject site is approved subject
to the following conditions.
The applicant shall restore the wall dimensions to those originally proposed and
demonstrated by Exhibit Number 8, even with a potential loss of income.
2. Whatever other compromises are required, the wall shall not exceed the wall height
originally proposed in Exhibit Number 8.
3. No additional actions shall be permitted on the site that would raise the level of the site
above elevation 310 feet. If the site settles sufficiently to permit additional filling that
will not take it over 310 feet then such preparation would be permitted.
4. After capping and landscaping, no additional materials shalt be deposited on the site
which will raise the 'final contours' above the finished height. The applicant shall be
required to provide a detailed topographic survey and mapping of the site to provide
control information about the final height of the site. Once this information has been
ascertained, nothing shall be deposited on any area of the site which shall elevate any
portion of the site above the control statistics provided by the closing survey or elevation
310 feet, whichever is less.
S. All reuse shall be subject to review and further geotechnical evaluation by engineers
certified in soil and construction techniques.
6. .,,4i1 plans shall remain subie t to review and approval by the various agencies with
jurisdiction including the City and its various departments, the Seattle/King County
Health Department. he state and its agencies, Metro, and federal agencies.
7. No permits or operating licence shall be granted until all other required permits have
been granted, and until the applicant has either received the variance from the closure
bonding requirements or has posted the appropriate bonds or other guarantees.
8. Haul routes and traffic control shall be subje:;t to review and approval of the City. In
the event the City determines, in its sole discretion, that further operations involving
truck traffic will potentially jeopardize the public health, safety or welfare it shall have
the power to limit or completely curtail such hauling.
9. The City and other agencies with jurisdiction in matters related to this site shall have
the right to enter the premises for inspection purposes at all times.
10. The applicant shall comply with the conditions imposed by the ERC.
11. The City shall retain the right to curtail the entire operation if such operation is
determined by the City to be a nuisance or otherwise jeopardizes the public health,
safety, and welfare.
Fiorillo Northwest, I a
SP-074-91
April 14, 1992
Page 16
12. The applicant shall post a revolving cash bond in the amount of $10,000 which the City
shall use to correct any dust or noise problems brought to its attention by neighboring
property owners. Dust, noise, and off -site impacts shall be kept to a minimum.
13. The on -site operating hours shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday.
ORDERED THIS 14th day of April, 1992.
FRED J. KAPIFMAN
F� RING EXAMINER
TRANSMITTED THIS 14th day of April, 1992, to the parties of record: -
Jennifer Toth Henning
Planner
Zannetta Fontes
Assistant City Attorney
Don Erickson
Zoning Administrator
John L. McKenna, Jr.
P.O. Box 66826
Seattle, WA 98166-0826
Len Zickler
705 2nd AVE, Hoge BLDG, Suite 910
Seattle, WA 98104
Randy Rockhid
141 Capri AVE NE
Renton, WA 98056
Randy Rockhill
President
Monterey Terrace Club
141 Capri AVE NE
Renton, WA 98056
Pete Hackett
83 Monterey PL NE
Renton, WA 98056
Robert Moore
58 Monterey PL NE
Renton, WA 98056
0 0
Fiorillo Northwest, Inc.
SP-074-91
April 14, 1992
Paso 17
Rich DeCample
I I I Capri AVE NE
Renton, WA 98056
Clinton Morgan
Development Services
Gregg Zimmerman
Plan Review Supervisor
James Colt
President Mt. Olivet Cemetery & Mausoleum
100 Blaine AVE NE
Renton, WA 98057
Robert Connell
129 Capri Ave
Renton, WA 98056
Dave Hickok, R.S.
Solid Waste Program
Seattle -King County Department of Public Health
201 Smith Tower
Seattle, WA 98104
Jon B. Swanson
152 Monterey PL NE
Renton, WA 98056
Harold Seventh
114 Monterey PL NE
Renton, WA 98056
Chris Wright
120 Monterey PL NE
Renton, WA 98056
Versie Vaupel
P.O. Box 755
Renton, WA 98057
TRANSMITTED THIS 14th day of April, 1992, to the following:
Mayor Earl Clymer
Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator
Members, Renton Planning Commission
Gary Gotti, Fire Marshal
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Transportation Systems Division
Utilities System Division
Councilman Richard M. Stredicke
Lynn A. Guttmann, Administrator
Jim Hanson, Development Services Manager
Ronald Nelson, Building Director
Jay Covington, Mayor's Executive Assistant
Valley Daily News
0
Fiorillo Northwest. Inc
SP-074-91
April 14, 1992
Page 18
Pursuant to Title `.V, Chapter 8, Section 15 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed
in writing on or before 5:00 P.M. April 28, 1992. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the
Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or
the disco,, ery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a
written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the
Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such
appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper.
An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title W, Chapter 8, Section 16, which requires that such
appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of S75.00 and meeting ether specified
requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the rinance
Department, first floor of City Hall.
The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications
may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may
not communicate in private with any decision -maker concerning the proposal. Decision -makers in the
land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council.
All communications concerning the proposal must be n►ade in public. This public communication
permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and wouid allow them to
openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the
request by the Court.
The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as
well as Appeals to the City Council.
a
ft. 9.
q; ACC.>R4?6^" I*--
. . ...... ...... .....
A ZwC C -0 Of
r,CAA tS L01% -NWA- CZJ26AS
e4l go rOWS A&4C-PtO 3" 3OW
mcqwrot r
P.-4 J'ANCLaft
5d r
34," 4FLIWOV
AS IMIP Ca
Jr
WALL
APAP
111W
ALI tr 0 V!fto 0), fne"tp
- -----------------
wy ow"" rA- ftcoAmjnlowl sm FINAL CLOOLWA TOPOGRAPHY ci
1� vvw
ALA
tTL7
c
SG[ Acre i
w
Sri?1 It,7si
Ta _
- . - v. u OTT
tNf
LAI Mal
I
1�_ — ._._�.._ a. �• — - ►wat e�onr.r . llA, rtDe�ln r,On ,N
LY-___ I u�1riT ntCl Y��lly1
ERC CONDITIONS
(t) The applicant shall limit the height of the proposed construction debris landfill, me ,.;;,rig cap and closure materla;
per the applicant's plan, to a height which does not exceed 335 feet above sea leve, These recommendations are
made in order to protect the public health and safety through timely completion the landfill operation, while
considering economic feasibilltres of the proposed project
(Note to The applicant shall include all soils for landscaping purposes (per Recommendation #2, below) within
the 335-foot height limitation )
(2) The applicant shall submit landscape plans to the City s Development Services Division for review and ipproval o'
the design, installation and maintenance of landscaping butte,; and planting beds Plans shall tie submitted pnc,,
to issuance of the Special Permit for grade and fill This measure is imposed in order to mitigate the significar'
adverse visual impact of the landfill and cut-off walls on the community Landscape buffer areas and planting bec,-,
shall be designed by a licensed Landscape Architect under contract with the applicant. The applicant shall t•.;
responsible for financing the design, installation and maintenance of the landscaped areas Appropriate installatio`
and maintenance techniques shall be Implemented In addition, the applicant shall Include landscaped plantln;
beds in front of all cut-o" walls, as proposed, and subject to the review and approval of the Clt / T he f6lowing an
the minimum buffering requirements
• 0
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER _ Mt Olivet Land Reclarnatior
March 17, 1992 Page c
r Cut -Off Wall No 3 shall be set back a minimum of 15-feet from the west property line to allow inclusion of a
significantly treed landscape buffer within the setback in order to mitigate the significant adverse visual
impacts of the landfill and to screen the side slopes and overall height of the project. The applicant shall
submit plans for this landscaped buffer area to the City's Development Services Division for review and
approval prior to issuance of the Special Permit for grade and fill. Hardy native and ornamental plant
materials suited to the Pacific Northwest region shall be utilized in the landscaped planting beds and buffer
areas. A hardy vine plant material shall also be installed, such that the vine grows to cover the wail in order
to screen views of the wall from off -site locations. An irrigation system shall also be installed in the buffer
area to provide water for plant materials. Planting and the installation of the irrigation system shall occur
immediately upon completion of construction of Cut -Off. Wall 3 and prior to final closure of the landfi.
operation.
E; The applicant shall be responsible for establishing a landscaped buffer strip (minimum width 10 feet) along
and behind Cut-off Walls No 1 and 2, (as measured from the inside of the walls to the interior of the subject
site) and along the north perimeter property line and the east perimeter property line (to a point
approximately 275 feet south of the intersection with the north property line), up to, but not including, the
locations capped and closed by the previous operator (as indicated or.. Sheet C-3, Mt. Olivet Reclamation
Site Final Closure, dated 10/18/90, of the project submittal packet). Hardy native Pacific Northwest plant
species shall be planted and drip irrigation shall be installed in this buffer area within sixty (60) days of the
completion of filling of each of Pnases 4 and 5. The applicant shall be responsible for the design.
installa'ion and maintenance of the landscaped buffer area. Installation and maintenance of this buffer strip
shall be accomplished such that the leachate collection and treatment system or the cap and liner are not
compromised. A vine plant material shall also be installed along Cut -Off Walls No. 1 & 2, such that the vine
covers the walls in order to screen views of the walls from off -site locations
Note 2a: If the applicant can not meet the buffer requirements of Recommendations 2.A) and 2.B) above, then the
applicant shall be responsible for submitting an alternative plan to the City of Renton Development Services
Division, for the design, installation and maintenance of ilternative landscaped buffer/setback areas that provide
"as good or better" visual screening potential for offsite areas. This submittal must be approved by the City prioi to
issuance of the Special Permit for grade and fill and/or the annual fill and grade license. Landscaping plans for
buffer/setback areas must include adequate plantings to screen views of the landfill from off -site locations
;3) The applicant s all, in order to ensure completion of landscaping requirements and replace plant materials that do
not survive, provide to the City's Development Services Division jet -aside funds, letters of credit, or other security
devices equal to 10% of the value of site landscaping as indicated below it 3 A and 3.B These security devices
shall be submitted to, and be approved by. the City Attorney prior to the i' ,uance of the Special Permit for grade
and fill
A) The applicant shall provide to the City a security device to ei'sure completion of site landscaping and
maintenance as specified under Recommendation 2 (above)
B) The applicant shall provide to the City a security device in order to replace dead or dying plant materials in
landscaped buffer zones, planting strips and along the top of cut-off walls for a minimum period of three (3)
years from the time of installation.
(4) The applicar t shall, in order to mitigate significant adverse aesthetic impacts of the proposed project, limit finished
slopes to a maximum slope of 3 1 (horizontal to verticL,), except as may be otherwise allowed by the City alor,q the
common boundary of the subject site with the Mt Olivet Cemetery to the south The applicant shall agree to ro0nd
a-)d feather finished slopes into the natural grade where possible, especially on highly visible slopes, in order to
blend the project in with the natural appearance of surrounding landforms.
Note 4a The applicant, in his letter of October 25, 1991 to the City, has agreed to incorporate a 2 5 1 slope at the
south fill of the reclamation project, adjoining the north property line of the cemetery, in the event that the permits
PRELIMINARY REPORT To THE HEARING EXAMINER
• Vi Otrvet land Raclamat,o�
Page 1C
March 17, 1992
for the mausoleum wall (south wall) are ilot procured by the landowner. The applicant also noted in the October
25. 1991 letter that the south wall is to b(, considered as a part of their overall closure of the site. It has beer
represented to the City that the south wall is expected to be a mausoleum. That requires a conditional use permit
from the City of Renton However, the landowner has not yet applied `or a Conditional Use permit )
(5) The app;icant shall install impermeable membrane liners in all on -site and off -site conve' ance swales in order to
protect the City's sole source aquifer from potential contari:rlation These liners shall be installed as appropriate
prior to commencement of further grade and fill activities cr immec, ately upon the com..:-etion of conslruct!cn c'
Cut -Off Wall 3
Note 5a. Swales shall be ;fined and topsoil and grass seed,r) shall b;, installed above the liner.)
(6) The applicant shall, in order to protect the existing trees on the adjacent Mt Olivet Cemetery site, avovd
construction activity, stockpiling of materiais, and/or the use of hear; equipment within the drip line and root zone
area of the group of coniferous trees on the southern bo.:ndary of the property throughout the duration of the
project The applicant shall replace trees damaged or destroyed as a result of the project or project constructic^
activities, subject to the approval and satisfaction of the City s Development Services Division.
(7) The applicant shall, in order to mitigate stormwater and eros on impacts both on and off -site, submit temporary, and
permanent stormwater facility plans and erosion control plans to the City's Development Services Division for the
proposed project activity. The applicant shall also provide ;he City with a permanent erosion control system ar1i
slope stability analysis for post -closure activities These plans shall be submitted prior to issuance of the Special
Permit for grade and fill and issuance of the annual Grade and Fill license in order to prevent or diminish potential
erosion, stability or stormwater impacts.
Lote 7a All plans shall be completed in compliance with the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual, in
particular, the core requirement for off -site analysis and for an erosion/sedimentation control plan In addition, a
conceptual drainage plan shall be submitted to the City for approval prior to site plan approval, per City Code 4-22.
5.)
(8) The applicant shall, in order to protect the City's sole source aquifer, pay for professional geotechnical engineers-;
testing services to be performed by a qualified engineering firm approved by the City of Renton. Approval of tn,e
geotechnical engineers by the City shall occur prior tic issuance of the Special Permit for grade and fill and the
annual license for grade and fill. The aforementioned firm shall conduct and perform water quality/well monitoring
leachate and soil sampling and testing required under Recornmenaations 9 through 11 and report to the City s
Development Services Division, on a quarterly basis through the life of the project
(9) The applicant shall, in order to protect the City's sole source aquifer. ensure that all of the groundwater wells on t-e
project site are monitored by the applicant's engineer oo a quarterly basis during the project and for one year
following closure, and annually thereafter. The annual monitoring shall be accomplished per requirements of WAC
173.200 Well monitoring shall include, but not be limited to ammonia, nitrite, nitrate, COD, chloride, total coldorm
bacteria, conductivity, iron, manganese, zinc, sulfate, TOC, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel and VOC's
(EPA method 8240).
The applicant's consultant shall submit well logs and results of ,.ell groundwater monitoring to the Seattle/K!rg
County Board of Health in a timely manner following quarterly testing Copies of the reports sha; also be subm•ttWs
by the applicant's consultants to the City's Development Services Division in a timely manner
(10) The applicant shall, in order to protect the City's sole source aquifer, ensure that quarterly leachate monitoring ;
conducted by the engineering consultant as specified in Recommendation 8 (above). Leachate monitoring sr -al,
include, but not be limited to TOC, BTEX, TOX, total coliform bacteria, turbidity, specific conductance nitrate j:..
VOC, heavy metals, and other probable contaminants The leachate testing shall be performed quarterly by t ..:•
approved consultant and paid for by the applicant Results of testing shall be submitted to the Seattle/King Coin tj
Board of Health, Metro, and ti fie City's Development Services Division in a timely manner
• •
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER _ Mt. Olivet Land Pec:a-rnatc^
March 17, 1992 Page r
(11) The applicant shall. In order to protect the City's sole source aquifer, ensure that all fill material deposited on the
site is cerified as 'clean' (i.e., below Model Toxics Control Act limits) by visually inspecting fill and cap material of
each load delivered to and deposited on project site. This inspection E141 be performed by a representaluve of the
appiicant who is has completed the Solid Waste Association of North America certification course and Is certified
by the `Nashington State Department of Ecology in addition, off -site soil material delivered to the site must meet
one of the conditions 'A" or "B' belor-.
A; The applicant shall submit results of analyses conducted on soils sampled from each off -site area where
material has been collected. Sampling of fill material shall be performed on a random bas:s by the
applicant's engineering :_-c,ns:atanls as specified in, Recommendation 8 (above) Only material certiried as
`clean" will be accepted as HI !or the felt Oi vet landfill operation
B) Soils sampling shall take place in areas where off -site sods fill or cap matenal was placed dunr;g tha*
quarter The number of samples and spacing shall be adequate to cover the area filled and to determine
quality of the fill In that area. Any samples found to exceed the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) I,mi*..z
shall be tested again If the second round of testing for on -site materials shows that the limits are st .
exceeded, then the material shall be removed such that the remaining soil is below stated MTCA limits _:s
determined by follow-up tests If unsuitable fill material is found, the applicant shall ensure that the mater a
is removed and properly disposed of at the operator's expense within ten (10) working days of notiflcatie-
by the City. Soil tests shall Include, but not necessarily be limited to heavy metals, TOC. VOC, TPH ar.
other potential contaminants.
(12) The applicant shall, in order to protect the public health and safety, pay for professional geological engineering
services to be performed by a qualified firm selected by the applicant and approved by the City's Development
Services Section. The aforementioned firm shall conduct and perform tests and calculations as necessary to
determine the stability of slopes both on -site and off -site (directly adjacent to the subject site), and they shall also
recommend mitigation measures as necessary for the project site throughout the life of the project
(13) The applicant shall, in order to mitigate potential impacts to the City's sole source aquifer, agree to meet all state
federal, regional and Ic,:al requirements for the disposal of leachate via connections to sanitary sewer mains The
applicant shall obtain letters of approval from the City and Metro sanitary sewer utilities for discharging leachate tc,
the sanitary sewer system over the life of the project into each agency's respective conveyance/treatment system
The letters of approval must be submitted to the City's Development Services Division prior to issuance of the
Special Permit for grade and fill and the annual license for fill and grade
(14) The applicant shall, In order to rnitlgate air quality and dust Impacts, work with the adjacent and surrounding
property owners/residents to provide for clean-up or other mutually agreed compensating action If the applicant
is unable to work out a mutually agreeable plan with city residents, the City will consider a bond or cash reserve
fund to mitigate air quality/dust impacts to local residents The applicant shall also agree to require truck operators
to use effective covers to reduce wind-blown dust and debris throughout construction activities
(15) The applicant shall, in order to provide for street clean-up as needed during fill of,erations, provide the City with a
letter of credit or otner security devi -e approved by the City Attorney, to cover the cost of street cleaning along haul
routes This security device shall be ,rovlded to the City prior to the granting of the Special Permit for grade and
fill
(16) The applicant shall, in order to repair wear or damage to roads which can be attributed to the project, provide the
City with a refundable cash deposit, or the City Attorney with a letter of credit or similar guarantee in the amount
$3,000 for repair or patching of damaged roads This letter shall be submitted prior to granting of the Spec,ai
Permit for grade and fill
• 0 M• Dr,et Land Rec!arnanon
PRELI:dINARY REPOF.T TO THE HEARING EXAMINER
March 17, ' 792
-aye 1:
(17) The applicant shal!, in order to assure adequate response to emergency services, agree 10 maintain appropriate
emergency access to the project site during and following construction activities. The applicant shall meet with
representa",es of the City's Fire Department and obtain a letter of approval to be submitted to the Deve'lopment
Services Division prior to issuance of the Special Permit for grade ar.d fill
(18) The applicant shall, in order to mitigate construction traffic impacts in the area, agree to limit the hours of hauling
and fill delt:�-, to between 8:30 a m. to 3 30 p m , Monday through Friday. Hours of on -site fill operations stall be
limited to 7.G-' a nri to 10-00 p -n., Monday through Saturday (per Court Order No 87-2-03724-0 (July 24 1,9871) in
order to dim -sh construction impacts on the adjacent residential community The agreement shall be suomittea
in the form ,)4 a letter to the City's Development Services Division for approval prior to issuance of the Special
Permit for grade and f,,i and the annual grade and fill license
(19) The applicant shall, in order to diminish construction traffic impacts on surrounding roadways, instruct haulers tc
travel on truce! hauling : outes approved by the City's Transportation Division during trips to or from the land h;l
DEP&ENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBSORKS
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICANT: FIORILLO NORTHWEST, INC.
PROJECT NAME: MOUNT OLIVET LAND RECLAMATION
FiLE 'UMBER: ECF; SP-074-91
LOCATiON: 2235 North Third Street
A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST: The applicant seeks to obtain a Special Permit to complete the fill anc
grade operation for the landfill site begun under previous special permits. A Special Permit fix Grade and Fill (SP-
034-77) was issued to American Memorial Services (AMS) for site fill and grade operations in 1977. AMS appliec
for a second Special Permit (SP-047-80) whicn was approveo subject to conditions. AMS appealed the Condition:
of Approval to the City Council resulting in changes to some of the conditions. Special Perrin 047-80 was issued it
March 1981
In 1984, Special Permit SP-116-84 was applied for The Zoning Administrator requested additional information o*
the applicant (AMS). AMS appealed this administrative decision (AAD-028-85) and the Administrative Decision was
affirmed.
Another permit was applied for by American Memorial Services (AMS) in 1986 (SP-111-86) which resulted in the
issuance of a Settlement Stipulation by Judge Noe of the King County Superior Court on July 24, 1987. Thc.
Settlement Stipulation was intended to resolve numerous issues between the parties. The Stipulation stated (ir
part) that AMS: 'shall complete its land reclamation project, by the excavation of material from the site described it
said permits, and by the completion of its planned filling and reclamation of that site.' Numerous conditions wer(
imposed.
In May, 1987, McKenna Construction Company, Inc. entered into a contract with AMS to reclaim the nruperty arx
close the landfill. McKenna Construction Company, Inc. transferred its irterest to Fiorillo Northwest, li,c. in July o
1988 Fiorillo Northwest had the ability to pay for capaal improvements prior to collecting revenue from dumping
fees.
The Court retained jurisdiction to resolve disputes arising from the Stipulated Settlement with regard to it:
implementation. Several issues were raised regarding the height of the project and whether the Stipulatec
Settlement had intended to apply to the four residential lots located to the west of the site. These matters wens
before the Court to resolve the intent of the parties at the time of the settlement
On May 21, 1991, a Memorandum Opinion was issued by Judge James Noe stating that the inclusion of the four
residential lots and a proposed 25-foot increase in landfill height was considered to be an expansion of the projec'
requiring SEPA review by the City of Renton The Court also stated that 'although the environmental issues mus7
receive priorfty, the decision based on a SEPA review must also be balanced, reasonable and fully aware o'
economical feasibilities With these t'ioughts in mined, it is time to implement the State Environmental Policy Act
and not use SEPA as an obstru.,fon or shield '
Fiodlo Northwest, inc. submitted a Master Application and SEPA Environmental Checklist to the City of Renton or
June 12. 1991, for the construction of a third cut-off wall and expansion of the site to include the `our reWeiA4 lots
and proposed 25-foot increase in height (SP-074-91)
PREUtMINARY ! IEPORT TO THE HE..9INALINER Mt. OGwt land Padamation
March 17, 1992 Page 2
B. GFNERAL INFORMATION'
1. Owner of Record: American Memorial Services
2. Applicant: Fiorillo Northwest, Inc. (John McKenna)
3. Existing Zoning: General (G-1)
4. Existing Zoning in the Area: Residential (R-1) to the west; General (G-1) to the south; Residential (R-4)
to the north; G-1 and R-4 to the east.
5. Comprehensive Land Use Plar•: Public/Quasi-Public, and Single Family Residential
6. Size of Property: Approximatley 10.15 acres
7. Access. N.E. 3rd Street/N.E. 4th Street (S.E. 1281h Street -- King County), Blaine
Avenue N.E.
8. Land Use: Former Gravel Pit, currently partially -filled construction debris landfill: four
single family residential dwellings.
9. Neighborhood Characteristics: North: N.E. 3rd Street -- a City arterial; Group Health Hospital Clinic;
Single family residentia! domes, vacant land.
Eft Mt. Olivet Cemetery, King County Refuse Transfer Station, former
gravel pit operations.
a�Qth Maple Valley -- rural lands and open space, largq lot single family
residential neighborhoods.
West: Monterey Terrace single family residential subdivision; downtown
Renton.
C. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND:
&11 n
File
Annexation
Special Permit
SP-034-77
Grade and Fill
Special Permit
SP-047-80
Grade and Fill
Appeal to Council
SP-047-80
Special Fermit
AP-116-84
Grade and FRI
Appeal Admin.
AAD-028-85
Determination
Special Permit
SP-111-86
Grade and Fill
S:ippuiated Settlement
Case Number
K..C. Superior Court
87-2-03724-0
Memorandum Opinion
Case Number
K.0 Superior Court
87.2-03724-0
Ordinance
1549
�B
June 14, 1956
April 12, 1977
March 13,1981
March 25, 1981
Dec 27, 1984
May, 1985
AD Affirmed
Court Action
July 28, 1987
May 21. 1991
It
PREUMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARINIMINER • Mt. Olivet Land Radamatfon
Much 17, 1992
Page 3
D. PUBLIC SERVICES:
Utilities
a. Water: An 8-inch water line runs from west to east along a property easement in the Monterey
Terrace subdivision, to the west side of Blaine Avenue. A 3/4-inch water line ties into the 8-inch
line and serves the four existing homes located along Blaine Avenue N.E. The landfli site has
access to water via a 1 -and-3/4-inch line that ties into the 3/4-inch meter line. In addition, a water
truck is available on -site for fire suppression.
5f,w-q;- The four existing homes utilize on -site septic sy,.tems and drain fields for wastewater
diskosal. The adjacent Monterey Terrace subdivision (to the west) is served by City sewers.
The applicant completed an extension to the 8-inch sanitary sewer line within N.E. 3rd Street in
1988 and received approval from the Department of Ecology for the internal components of the
leachate pre-treatment facility. A permanent leachate disposal permit has been obtained from
Metro. The applicant completed the installation of the interior components of the leachate
pretreatment facility and made a final tie-in with the 8-inch sanitary sewer line in N.E. 3rd Street in
November 1991. The E.:-inch line connects to a 10-inch line in Cedar River Park, then graduates to
a 12-Inch line and a 15-inch line under Interstate 405 and north on Houser Way.
Storm Water Drainaae: An 18-inch stormwater line runs along N.E. 3rd Street to convey
stormwater from the area. Existing drainage features include a W" ditcl i with straw bales on the
east side of Blaine Avenue N.E., natural ravines along N.E. 3rd Avenue, rock check dams and sOt
fencing perpendicular to the flow to trap sediment. At the intersection of Blaine Avenue N.E. and
the haul road, there exists a 12-inch concrete culvert to convey runoff to the northwest, terminating
within a natural ra,.ine along N.E. 3rd Street. Along the south side of the haul road is another ditch
system with rock check dams and silt fencing perpendicular to the flow to trap sediment. The ditch
system drains to the east and is conveyed to the natural ravine by the same 12-inch concrete
culvert noted above. Another ditch system is in place along the east property line. This ditch
system drains to the north and terminates at an existing pond. This pond drains to another pond
and releases to the natural ravine. A settling pond releases to the roadside ditch system along the
south side of the haul road. This pond intercepts runoff occurring form the northeast area of the
site.
Sits drainage has been designed to utilize grass -lined channels to convey approximately one-half
of Cle , inoff to an on -site pond. The remainder of the runoff would be conveyed to a natural
ravi n a
Fire °rotection: Provided by the City of Renton as per ordinance requirements.
Transit: The subject site is not directly served by transit. However, (METRO) provides service along N.E.
3rd Street/N.E. 4th Street, further east of the site.
4. Schools:
a. Elementary Schools: N/A
b. Middle Schools: N/A
High Schools N/A
Recreation. No parks or recreation facilities are located within 1,000 feet of the project site
PREUMIINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING a INER W Ot+vat Land fib°^
s
March 17. 1992 Pap
E. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE:
Se�,.an 4-31-1, General (G-1)
Section 4-31-27, Mining, Excavation and Grading
Section 4-31-34, Landscaping
F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR OTHEP OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENT:
City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Compendium, Northeast Renton Plan, 1986, (pp. 55-60).
City of Renton City Code, Chapter 9, Land Clearing and Tree Cutting Ordinance.
City of Renton City Code, Chapter 10, Mining, Excavation and Grading Ordinance.
G. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS:
BACKGROUND
The applicant is seeking a Special Permit to continue, expand, and complete grade and fill operations on
the subject property. A third Cut -Off Wall would be constructed to retain the fill, inhibit methane migration
and control leachate. The site would be filled using construction debris and capped with site cover.
Mt. Olivet is considered to be a 'Demolition Waste Landfill.' Accnrding to the applicant, demolition waste
includes: "solid waste, largely inert, resulting from the demolition of razing of buildings, roads and other
man-made structures. Demolition waste consist of, but is not limited to, concrete, brick, wood masonry.
composition roofing and roofing paper, and steel.' (Letter of January 16, 1992 from John McKenna to the
City of Renton)
2. Representatives of the various City departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and
address land use impacts anticipated from the proposed action. Comments have been attached and the
content has been integrated into the text of this report.
SPECIAL PERMIT
The applicant is seeking a Special Permit (under the Mining, Excavation and Grading Ordinance (Chapter
4-10 of the City Code) and the Mining, Excavation and Grading Section of the Zoning Code (Section 4-31
27) in order to reclaim and close the subject site.
Presently, the site is occupied by four single family residential dwellings, and the partially completed landfill
operations. Two cut-off walls, a haul road and leachate control facility are located on the site.
The landfill site was cioseu to fill operations in August, 1990, so that the applicant could proceed with site
improvements. The Pretreatment Building and Cut -Off Walls 1 and 2 were completed in November, 1990
In May of 1991, the applicant and AMS were notified by the City that they were not able to place fill in the
area of the four residential lots, and that expansion of .he operation would require SEPA review by the City
of Renton. The site has been closed since then, with the exception uf pumping of leachate.
The proposed project consists of six phases, comprising an a,ea approximately 10.15 acres in size
According to the Plan of Operation for the Mt. Olivet site, Phases 1 and 2 are currently at capacity and have
received final cover. A 20 mil PVC line was installed on the excavated and compacted floor of the fill area
A leachate collection system was placed above the liner along the western and northern ends of the liner
Phases 3 and 4 have also reached capacity and received two feet of fir- l cover A 20 mil PVC liner
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARINCINER • Mt. Owvqrt LXW peciamiw
Much 17, , M Page
installed on the Phase 3 area floor and is connected to the liner located in Phases 1 and 2. A leachate
collection systern has been installed along the northern end of the Phase 3 area Leachate collected on the
Phase 4 liner drains to the Phase 3 leachate collection pipe. Both Phase 3 and Phase 4 liners have beer
covered with 1.5 feet of sand and 1.5 feet of earth for drainage enhancement and protection.
Phase 5 development involved c nouction of CtR-CM Walls 1 and 2 and the Leachate Pre-Treatmen:
Buidin>g. A stripping system has been completed to strip hydrogen sulfide out of the leactwe lbw before
is discharged to the City of Renton sewer system. A 60 mill liner and 2 feet of sand will be installed for fine
protection. Phase 6 would include proposed Out -Off Wag 3. Phase 6 would be excavated and lined in the
same manner that is proposed for Phase 5. Proposed fill activities would be concentrated in the Phase
and Phase 6 areas.
Closwe of all sox phases would include two feet of cap material, six inches of topsoil and grass whict
would be planted and maintained. The Seattle/King County Department of Public Health requires a Pos:
Closure Trust Fund Agreement for solid waste landfills between the agency and applicants to ensurE
maintenance of landfill sites for 30 years. The applicant has stated that they are negotiating wilt
Se-'Ue/King County for a possible variance because there are no specific outlines for inert demoldior
landflls. Meanwhile, approximately $180,000 has been set aside in an interest -bearing account to in the
event that funding is necessary for post closure activities per Seattle/King County requirements.
Once underway, site operations including construction of the Cut -Off Wall 3, filling with 83,000 cubic yard
of construction/demolition debris, grading, capping, closure and landscaping would take from sox to two-,
months to complete. The site owner has indicated that eventual use of the subject property may be as ar
expansion of the adjacent Mt. Olivet Cemetery', however, this would require separate SEPA review anc
permitting, and that potential use 0 not considered as part of this application.
Under Section 4-31-27 of the Zoning Ordinance, and, the Mining, Excavation and Grading Ordinance (4
10(13)(2)), a series of criteria is established to determine whether the proposed excavation and fillinc_
operations are compatible with existing/planned future land uses. These criteria include:
a. Size and Location of the Activity
The applicant is proposing to expand and finish filling an area approximately 10.15 acres in size
(Phases 1 through 6). The proposed project would include the impurtation of abo.A 83,000 cubic
yards of construction and demolition debris to the site as fill rrat?rial. Excavated fill from the area
of the site where the four existing houses are located would b:: stockpiled until needed as cover for
the landfill debris. Filling and grading operations on the project site would take from sox (6) tc
twelve months to complete following initiation of protect activity under the proposed action.
b. Traffic Volumes and Patterns
During the filling operation (approximately six to twelve months), R is anticipated that between 25C
and 300 trips per day will occur at the site. This is the same number of trips as averaged during
past landfill operations on the site. Traffic now of North 3rd Street and N.E. 4th Street may be
impacted, especially if the filling occurs during the same time as the 1-405 S-Curves
reconstruction/remodeling project, or other approved fill projects in the area (i e , Greenwooe
Cemetery)
Poten• .I impacts were +dentified by staff with regard to future widening of Blaine Avenue. If Blaine
Avenue were widened for future development, the proposed cut-off wall could be affected
However, this issue was determined not to be significant. since the proposed ERADCO project
(proposed to the south) proposed the use of Blaine Avenue for secondary/emergency access
o"y The ERADCO project wou'l not result in the substantial widening of 31aine Avenue
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING *INEA ML Q11N2 Land AOdtmalion
Mlarch 17.1992 P" fI
In order to ddminish the potential impact on future development potential of Blaine Avenue N.E.
and to accommodate site screening landscaping, the Envirorunental Review Committee
recommends that Cut -Off Wall No. 3 be relocated a minimum of 15 feet from the west property line.
In order to reduce impacts during existing periods of vehicular congestion, the applicant has
proposed to limit the hauling and delivery of construction and debris f1 to between the hours of
8:30 a-m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday dwough Friday. Furthermore, !t is rem,wriended that the appiicart
instruct haulers to travel on truck hauling routes approved by the City's Transportation Division
during trips to and from the tandit7i.
C. Screening, Landscaping, Fencing and Setbacks
The project would include hydroseeded slopes, and planting cf native trees, shrubs ar4l
groundcover in front of Cut -Off Wall No. 3. The applicant has verbally agreed in conversatkm with
City staff to relocate the third cut-off wall 15-feet back from the property line in order to
accommuclate a significantly treed landscape buffer within the setback.
The applicant has previously submitted landscape plans for plantings in front of Cut -Off Walls No. 1
and 2. These plans were approved under earlier permits, although the installation of plant material
has not yet occurred. As par, of this special permit application, the applicant is expected to
complete the installation of plant materials in front of the wall. In addition, staff and the ERC have
recommended a landscaped buffer strip 10-feet in width in back of the existing walls and along the
northern and eastern perimeter property lines. This recommendation has been suggested to
diminish the impact of the project on views from off -site areas. The applicant has indicated his
willingness to comply with this recommendation as well.
The applicant has also agreed to install a hardy vine to visually soften the view of the cut-off walls.
Staff and ERC recommendations call for installation of an irrigation system within the landscaped
areas.
d. Unsightliness, Noise and Dirt
Under the applicant's proposal, the landfill would be finished and closed at a maximum height of
335 feet above sea level A portion of the landfill currently reaches a height of 335 feet Under the
proposed action, this area would increase in volums and expand laterally to the west and east.
Site slopes are currently finished at 2 : 1 (horizontal to vertical); under the proposal, slopes would be
finished at 3:1 with the exception of the south fill slope (north property line of the Mt. 01K 3t
Cemetery) which would be finished at 2.5 1
The landfill site is located on top of a plateau that sits above the valley floor. The existing
appearance of the site creates an angular and imposing view The subject parse! is, and would be,
highly visibla from off -site areas, including public parks and major traffic arterials within Renton,
and especially within the downtown and West Hill neighborhood The Environmental Review
Committee has recommended for aesthetic reasons that the landfill not exceed the current height
of 335 feet. Also, limiting finished slopes to 3 1 (and 2 5 1 on the south side) would also soften the
imposing appearance of the landfill
Slopes are currently approximately 2 1 with some slopes being more steep or less steep
Recommendations proposers by staff and the ERC call for the rounding and feathering of slopes
into the natural grade to diminish visual impacts.
Site landscaping that is proposed as part of the project would include hydroseeding on slopes and
the planting of native trees. shrubs and groundcover in front of the proposed Cut -Off Wall No. 3
The Environmental Review Committee has suggested that the proposed wail be relocated
appro;_rnateiy 15 feet behind the west property line to allow a significantly treed landscape buffer
within the setback The intent of thi; recommendation is to allow the establishment of native trees
PRELM101"RY REPORT TO THE HEARNE" W OWm land P=Wrnsw
March 17, 1992 Page
which would screen the side slopes and overall height of the project In addition, a
recorivnendation was made to establish a landscaped buffer strip parallel to and behind CAA -Ott
Wallis 1 and 2 and along the north perimeter property line to help screen the project site from off
site areas.
Site operations would create noise and dust during the term of project operation. The applicant
has agreed to limit the hours of filling and grading to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Monday ftougt
Saturday, per a Court Order on the property (Order No. 87-2-03724-0, Jufy 24, 1987). In addition
the applicant is wiling to work with the adjacent property owners in order to mitigate air quality anc
dust impacts, and provide for dean -up or other mutua Iy agreed upon compensating action.
e. Surface Water
The subject property is lucated in the Mt_ Olivet Drainage Basin. The project site is within Zone
of the Aquifer Protection Area The Storm Drainage Report submitted for the proposed projec'
states that the existing ditch system would be extended to the south to the property comer for the
Mt. Olivet Cemetery. The existing 'V' ditch would be cleaned and reshaped as necessary due tc
the on -site retaining wall construction activities. Rock check dams would be installed to decreasE
water velocity in the grass -lined drainage ditch.
An existing ditch system along the haul road would be maintained, cleaned and re -shaped
needed. Both ditch systems (east side of Blaine and south side of the had road) would
conveyed to the natural ravine by the existing 12-inch concrete culvert.
Along the south and east side of the site, a grass -lined W" ditch system is proposed. Surface floe.
from the site would be intercepted and conveyed to an existing pond (Pond #3). As much of the
flow from the ditch on the south side of the site woulu oe graded to Pond #E3. The portion of the
ditch that cannot be conveyed to Pond #t3 would be conveyed westerly to the ditch system alonc
Blaine Avenue N.E. Pond #3 would drain to Pond #2 and release into the existing 12-inch pipe
that drains to the ditch system located on the south side of the haul road. The 12-inch c- pert;
would have rip rap installed at the inlet and outlet, and the culvert would be cleaned upon final site
construction Pond #1 would be removed due to the proposed grading and filling within this area.
The Length of Time the Application of an Existing Operation has to Comply with Non-Safeh
Provisions of this Ordinance.
Not applicable.
9. Reuse of the Site
As part of the proposal, the applicant intends to cap and close the site, hydroseed site slopt:s
install landscaping and maintain the site for a period of 20 to 30 years as required by King Count,
Health Department. The applicant has expressed in written correspondence, that the owner of the
property (American Memorial Services) intends to eventually expand the Mt. Olivet Cemetery ontc
the landfill site The current application for a Special Permit for grade and fill does not include
conversion of the site to a future use. Site reuse as a cemetery would require a separatE
Conditional Use Permit from the City The use of the site as a cemetery would necessitate the
addition of an undeterminad amount of material on top of the closure material for burial plots arc
landscaping. This could increase the overall height of the site, uNess settling over time equals the
amount of anticipated fill
h. Protection of the Public Trust.
The project site is located within Zone 2 of the City's Aquifer Protection Area. Zone 2 is considerec
to be the Zone of Capture for water that recharges the C4's sole source drinking water supply
PRELIM ARY REPORT TO THE HEARING41LNER ML Oliva Land Reclarnabor
M&CA 17, 1992 Page c
leachate conveyance system, truck wash or drainage facilities are improperly designed, installed or
operated.
The project includes the installation of an impermeable liner to prevent leachate from entering the
aquifer. A leachate collection and pre-treatment facility has been installed at the project site and is
currently tied in with the regional (Metro) sanitary sewer system. The continuation of the project
as now proposed and its closure, would protect the public trust to a greater degree than no actior
at the site, because the project site would be closed and capped, and leachate would be collected
treated and conveyed off -site.
As noted above, the Environmental Review Committee has stipulated thai the height of the landfil
be limited to 335 feet (including cap and closure) to address environmental, public health anc
safety, and economic concerns. Any exceedance of this height would potentially endanger the
public trust, as the site is located within a Zone of Obstruction for the Renton Airport A waiver fo
the 335 toot height has been obtained by the applicant from the Federal Aeronautic
Administration.
H. DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommend that the Hearing Examiner determine in favor of the proposed Special Permit for Fiorillo
Northwest (File No. SP-074-91), subject to the following conditions:
That the recommendations of the Environmental Review Committee (as stated below) be applicable to the
proposed project.
The applicant shall, in order to mitigate dust impacts, provide the amount of $10,000 in a set -aside fund tc
cover dust removal and noise abatement, if determined to be necessary by a Project Monitorinc
Committee comprised of two representatives from the Monterey Terrace Homeowners Association and two
members of the City of Renton staff. The City members shall be appointed by the Administrator of the
Planning/Building/Public Works Department, and the Monterey Terrace representatives shall be appointee
by the President of the Monterey Terrace Homeowner's Association.
ERC CONDITIONS
(1) The applicant shall limit the height of the proposed construction debris landfill, including cap and closure materia
per the anplicant's plan, to a height which does not exceed 335 feet above sea level. These recommendations arE
made in order to protect the public health and safety through timely completion ui the landfill operation, whilE
considering economic feasibilities of the proposed project.
(Note 1a: The applicant shall include all soils for landscaping purposes (per Recommendation #2, below) within
the 335-foot height limitation.)
(2) The applicant shall submit landscape plans to the City's Development Services Division for review and approval o*
the design, installation and maintenance of landscaping buffers and planting beds. Plans shall be submitted prior
to issuance of the Special Permit for grade and fill. This measure is imposed in order to mitigate the signi(ican:
adverse visual impact of the landfill and cut-off walls on the community Landscape buffer areas and planting beds
shall be designed by a licensed Landscape Architect under contract with the applicant. The applicant shall bE
res,-)onsibie for financing the design, installation and maintenance of the landscaped areas. Appropriate installatior
and maintenance techniques shall be implemented. In addition, the applicant shall inr,ude landscaped plantinr
beds in front of all cut-off walls, as proposed. and subject to the review and approv;.; of the City The following ar
the minimum buffering requirements.
PREUMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARIN&INER
Mardi 17, 1992
0 W Olivet land Redamabon
Pape 9
A) Cut -Off Wall No. 3 shall be set back a minimum of 15-feet from the west property line to allow inclusion of a
significantly treed landscape buffer within the setback in order to mitigate the sigrnific ant adverse vis ml
impacts of tie landfill and to screen the side slopes and overall height of the project. The applicant shah
submit plans for this landscaped buffer area to the City's Development Services Division for review and
approval prior to issuance of the Special Permit for grade and fill. Hardy native and ornamental plant
materials suited to the Pacific Northwest region shay be utilized in the landscaped planting beds and btaffor
areas. A hardy vine plant material shall also be installed, such that the vine grows to cover the wail in order
to screen views of the wall from off -site locations. An irrigation system shall also be installed in the buffer
area to pr'uvide water for plant materials. Planting and the installation of the irrigation system shall occur
immediately upon completion of construction of Cut -Off Wall 3 and prior to final closure of the landfill
operation.
B) The applicant shall be responsible for establishing a landscaped buffer strip (minimum width 10 feet) along
and behind Cut-off Walls No. 1 and 2, (as measured from the inside of the walls to the interior of the subject
site) and along the north perimeter property ':ne and the east perimeter property line (to a point
approximately 275 feet south of the intersection with the north property line), up to, but not including, the
locations capped and closed by the pr-vious operator (as indicated on Sheet C-:i. Mt. Olivet Reclamation
Site Final Closure, dated 10/18/90, of the project submittal packet). Hardy native Pacific Northwest plant
species shall be planted and drip irrigation shall be installed in this buffer area within sixty (60) days of the
completion of Riling of each of Phases 4 and 5. The applicant shall be responsible for the design,
installation and mainten�', ce of the landscaped buffer area. Installation and maintenance of this buffer strip
shall be accomplished z,4' ;h that the leachate collection and treatment system or the cap and liner are not
compromised. A vine p+lint material shall also be installed along Cut -Off Walls No. 1 & 2, such that the vine
covers the walls in order` to screen views of the walls from off -site locations.
(Note 2 : If the applicant can not meet the buffer requirements of Recommenestions 2.A) and 2.B) above, then the
applicant shall be responsible for submitting an alternative plan to the City of Renton Development Services
Division, for the design, installation and maintenance of alternative landscaped buffer/setback areas that provide
'as good or better' visual screening potential for offsite areas. This submittal must be approved by the City prior to
issuance of the Special Permit for grade and fill and/or the annual fill and grade license. Landscaping plans for
buffer/setback areas must incEIde adequate plantings to screen views of the lar afill from off -site locations.
(3) Tie applicant shall, in order to ensure completion of landscaping requirements and replace plant materials that do
n0? survive, provide to the City's Development Services Division set -aside funds, letters of credit, or other security
devices equal to 10% of the /due of site landscaping as indicated below in 3.A and 3.B. These security devices
shall be submitted to, and be ,approved by, the City Attorney prior to the issuance of the Special Permit for grade
and fill.
A) The applicant shall provide to the City a security device to ensure completion of site landscaping and
maintenance as spacO-q under Recammendation 2 (above).
B) The applicant shall provide :o the City a security device in order to rey,'� dead or dying plant materials in
landscaped buffer zones, planting strips and along the top of cut-off walls for a minimum period of three (3)
years from the time of i-istallation.
(4) The applicant shall, in order to mitigate signfiicaot adverse aesthetic impacts of the proposed project, limit finished
slopes to a maximum slopo of 3:1 (horizontal to vertical), except as may be otherwise allowed by the City along the
common boundary of the subject site with the Mt. Olivet Cemeter,., to the south. The applicant shall agree to round
and feather finished slopes into the natural grade where possible, especially on highly visible slopes, in cider to
blend the project in with the natures appearance of surrour•_ ng I,- ndforms.
(Note 4,;: The applicant, in his letter of October 25, 1991 to City, has agreed to incorporate a 2.5.1 slope at the
south fill of the reclamation project, adjoining the north prcpeM line of the cernetery, in the event that the permits