HomeMy WebLinkAboutKing County Library System, Site Plan and SEPA Appeal1
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
SITE PLAN
& SEPA APPEAL
1
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
RE: King County Library System
Site Plan and SEPA Appeal
LUA13-000255, ECF, SA-H, SM
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
FINAL DECISION
Summary
The site plan application is approved and the State Environmental Policy Act (“SEPA”) appeal is
denied. The library is a historical and cultural resource subject to protection under SEPA, but the
relocation of its primary entrance is not a probable significant environmental impact that requires an
environmental impact statement (“EIS”) or SEPA mitigation.
The King County Library System (“KCLS” or “applicant”) has applied for site plan approval for the
remodel of the existing library located at 100 Mill Ave. S. The library serves as a unique city
landmark in that it has spanned the Cedar River since 1965. The applicant is undertaking the
remodel in order to provide for seismic upgrades and other improvements that will bring the building
into better compliance with current code requirements. The remodel will be built within the existing
footprint and would reduce the size of the library by 2,720 square feet. The remodel would also
result in an approximately 50 foot relocation of the primary entrance to the library from the midway
point of its southern face as it spans across the river to the southeastern corner of the library.
The City of Renton issued a mitigated determination of nonsignificance (“MDNS”) for the project.
Citizens to the Save the Cedar River Library…Again! (“SEPA appellants”) filed a timely appeal of
the determination. The SEPA appeal was consolidated with the site plan application.
The primary focus of the SEPA appeal is the relocation of the primary entrance. The SEPA
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
SITE PLAN
& SEPA APPEAL
2
appellants contend that the library is a historical and cultural resource and that the relocation of the
entrance would create a probable significant adverse environmental impact. The appellants contend
that this impact needs to be assessed within an EIS or a SEPA mitigation measure should be imposed
to mitigate the impact, most likely a condition requiring the entrance to remain at its current location.
The SEPA appellants successfully established that the library overall is a historical and/or1 cultural
resource subject to review and protection under SEPA. However, the SEPA appellants did not
establish that the proposed relocation of the primary entrance will create a probable significant
environmental impact. The City’s SEPA responsible official has concluded that the relocation does
not create probable significant adverse environmental impacts. Legally, substantial weight must be
given to this conclusion. That weight is determinative in this case. The arguments for and against a
finding of significant impacts are highly compelling and the factors are highly subjective. Under
these circumstances, the “substantial weight” legal standard leaves no choice but to sustain the
conclusions of the SEPA responsible official. Since the proposed entrance relocation does not
constitute a probable significant adverse environmental impact, the relocation does not trigger a
requirement for an EIS or any mitigation to keep the entrance at its current location.
Testimony
Note: This hearing summary is provided as a courtesy to those who would benefit from a general
overview of the public testimony of the hearing referenced above. The summary is not required or
necessary for this final decision. No assurances are made as to completeness or accuracy. Nothing in
this summary should be construed as a finding or legal conclusion made by the Examiner or an
indication of what information is significant to this decision.
Site Plan
Staff Testimony
Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, stated the project is a rehabilitation of the Renton library which
includes associated landscaping and structure improvements. The structure is located at 100 Mill
Avenue S and spans Cedar River. The site is zoned Urban Center-Downtown; however, Cedar River
does not have zoning. The City is using the zoning from the main access area which is adjacent to the
structure. The building crosses 3 separate parcels which totals 7.2 acres. The area of impact from the
project on the structure is 37,630sqft. The project would reduce the structure from 22,000sqft to
19,680sqft. The overwater reduction would be approximately 7 percent. The upgrades will bring the
building up to current code with particular emphasis on seismic hazards. The site is located in a
seismic hazard area. The upgrades include a concrete abutment that will be down-grade. To install
1 The courts use “cultural” and “historical” resource interchangeably in SEPA decisions and there is no need to
distinguish between the two in this decision, especially given that no Washington court or regulation defines the
terms.
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
SITE PLAN
& SEPA APPEAL
3
the abutment, 900 cubic yards of material would be excavated and 260 cubic yards of fill added. The
existing building is considered to be a legal non-conforming structure. Alterations are permitted to
non-conforming structures as long as they will restore the building to city standards. In its current
condition, the building does not meet seismic safety standards. The site is also located in the aquifer
protection zone, the flood plain, and the flood way of the Cedar River. The section of the Cedar
River along the site is deemed Shoreline High Protection. No work on the project is proposed below
the ordinary high water mark or below the base flood elevation. Upland of the river there is below
grade work, but not within the river channel.
According to Ms. Dolbee, access to the site will remain the same, with 2 locations at Mill Avenue S
and through Liberty Park. Public sidewalks along Mill Avenue will be updated as part of Renton’s
2013 Park Improvement Project. Landscaping will primarily remain the same except for in areas
where it is disturbed during construction. On June 17, the Environmental Review Committee issued
a decision of non-significance mitigated which included three mitigation measures. An appeal was
filed. The City received several public comments, comments from the Muckleshoot Indian tribe, and
statements from city agencies.
The proposal is consistent with relevant comprehensive plan policies. Staff recommendations include
an archaeological survey, a detailed refuse and recycling plan, and a final detailed landscape plan.
The existing building does not comply with setback standards because it crosses several parcels;
however, the proposed rehabilitation of the structure does not increase the non-conformity. All
development in the Urban Center Downtown zone is exempt from landscaping street-tree
requirements. A landscape plan was submitted with the application which includes eight new trees .
One street tree would be replaced during construction. At its highest point, the building would be 18
feet which is compliant with height restrictions. The proposed structure would require an 818sqft
refuse and recycling area with screening. The existing parking lot would be retained. All trees on site
would be retained except for one cherry tree which would be replaced by a river birch tree. Proposed
elevations meet design standards. Staff does not anticipate any adverse impacts on surrounding
properties and uses as result of the project. Access and circulation to the site has not been changed.
Existing pedestrian facilities are considered to be sufficient and safe. Views of the Cedar River will
be maintained. Lighting will be balanced with environmental concerns. Police and fire have
identified sufficient resources to provide for the restoration. A drainage plan was submitted with the
application that complies with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual. Staff recommends
approval of the site plan with five conditions listed in the staff report.
In regard to the glass windows, Ms. Dolbee clarified that design standards can either be met or the
intent of the standard met. There is enough glass on several of the walls to meet the intent of the
glass window standard. The shoreline permit will be issued after the hearing examiner decision. This
will have its own appeal process. Shoreline permits are noted as staff decisions. It is subject to
consolidation, but the applicants have to ask for this consolidation. Under questioning by Beth
Asher, Ms. Dolbee noted that “visually accessible” means the river is visible. In regard to access to
the site, the vehicular access will not change. A traffic study was not submitted that addressed the
change in entryway to the physical building.
Applicant Testimony
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
SITE PLAN
& SEPA APPEAL
4
Greg Smith, King County Library System, stated that the applicants agree with the City’s findings
outlined in the staff report. King County Library System agrees to follow all mitigation measures set
in the SEPA decision. The main structure of the building and part of the roof framing will not be
demolished during restoration.
Public Testimony
Beth Asher stated she has lived in Renton for 37 years. No traffic or pedestrian studies were
conducted for the site. The historic patterns of use will be changed with this restoration because the
library will be losing one of its entries. People will not utilize parking on the side by the park of the
building after the restoration. She is also concerned with the removal of the stop sign at the entrance
to the library. The main entrance should be on the bridge.
Paul Ouellette testified that he has raised three children in Renton since 1970. His family used the
library weekly, especially when the salmon were running. His five grandchildren also utilize the
library often. The river view is a huge draw for children along with the proximity to Liberty Park. As
a civil engineer, he has spent many years representing the Postal Service around Washington and
Oregon. One of the main issues he handled in this position was dealing with land use agencies and
SEPA regulations.
Judy Milligan stated that she is concerned with the current pedestrian and traffic pattern. The pattern
is a hazard because the intersection at the entrance to the library no longer has a stop sign, only a
blinking yellow light.
An unidentified speaker noted that the Renton library system was signed over to the King County
Library System. Since this time, furniture and artwork have been declared surplus by the applicant
and have gone missing.
Susie Ure testified that she is a member of the Renton Library Advisory Board but is speaking as a
private citizen. She is concerned that people with mobility issues will be kept from visiting the
library because of the new entry system.
David Beedon stated that exhibit 6 depicts an entryway and the bridge portion of the structure. He
wonders if the area between these two sections will be filled in during the project. The documents
supplied by the applicant do not make the final plans clear.
Staff Rebuttal
Kayren Kittrick, Community and Economic Development, stated that the new building will have a
smaller footprint than the previous structure, thus it does not require a traffic study. The intersection
at the entrance is constantly being re-evaluated by Renton. Recently, it was determined that the
intersection was not being used enough to warrant a red-light because there was not enough traffic.
The intersection will continue to be evaluated. The new pedestrian access doorway is fifty feet to the
south of the previous entrance. Handicap parking standards have been met. Nothing on the site has
been degraded. The building is still accessible from both sides. City traffic engineers reviewed the
site plan.
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
SITE PLAN
& SEPA APPEAL
5
Vanessa Dolbee added that the public artwork is regulated by the Municipal Arts Commission. In
regard to the shoreline permit, RMC4.9.190b discusses administrative decisions.
Applicant Rebuttal
Ruth Baleiko, Project Architect, testified that the renovation must bring the structure up to all current
codes. Seismic abutments are necessary to meet the code. The pilings in the river will not be
touched. The concrete base structure and much of the roof will be retained. The existing structure
does not meet Renton’s energy code. In regard to the entry, the design team has reviewed various
configurations. Having multiple points of entry creates security issues. In regard to the blank walls,
the energy code stipulates 50 percent glazing as the maximum. Adding more glass will cause the
structure not to meet energy standards. Views to the river were imperative for the public, thus more
solid portions of the wall were put towards the parking lot and Liberty Park. There are some areas of
glazing near the corners facing the park. Many of the blank walls are hiding the structural support. In
regard to modulation, concrete columns on the outside of the building and curtain walls will provide
relief. Metal siding will be encased to provide relief within the fenestration. The concrete columns
are 24’ apart on the parking lot side and 44’ apart along the river. In regard to the area between the
entryway and bridge, the applicant is proposing to hardscape this section to better engage the entry to
the bridge. The site plan depicts this hardscape plan.
SEPA Appeal
David Keyes stated that the appeal is broken into three parts. First, the master land use application
has multiple deficiencies. Second, the environmental review was improperly executed by the City of
Renton. The City failed to handle the deficiencies presented by the applicant. Finally, Renton’s
notification process failed multiple times throughout the application process.
Dennis Ossenkop testified that he has lived in Renton for over forty years. The public comment
process was not properly carried out. He worked as the regional environmental specialist for the
Federal Aviation Division for 26 years. He handled the preparation and defense of many
environmental documents during this period. He has great knowledge of the review process for these
documents. According to him, in regard to the library project, some special agencies were given
advanced information before receiving the SEPA decision for review. These agencies met with the
City and King County Library System representatives before the decision was mailed. “Non-special”
agencies did not receive advanced information and only had the 15-day appeal period. One of the
“non-special” agencies was the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation. Other “non-special” agencies could also have provided comments on the historic nature
of the site. Some agencies never received the decision package. Many local citizens did not receive
the package materials that the City claimed to have sent. Preferential treatment allowed some
agencies to provide more specific comments. The unequal time provided to comment on the library
restoration is a breach of the SEPA process. The comment period should be reopen to all agencies for
a period of 21 days for the specific purpose of identifying any historic or cultural issues associated
with the application.
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
SITE PLAN
& SEPA APPEAL
6
Under questioning by David Keyes, Vanessa Dolbee stated that the Environmental Review
Committee is made up of four members: Greg Zimmerman (Public Works), Terry Higashiyama
(Community Services), Mark Peterson (Fire Chief/Emergency Services), and Chip Vincent
(Community and Economic Development). At this project’s ERC meeting, all four members were
present. She is unaware of these four people’s backgrounds in historic preservation, but Terry
Higashiyama runs the written museum.
David Keyes noted that he is unaware of any of the four members of the ERC have backgrounds in
historic preservation. The City should have utilized agencies with more knowledge of historic
preservation to combat this missing knowledge. Under the City’s environmental review procedures
(4-9-070), review of site historical importance is required. Section 13 of 4-9-070 provides three
questions regarding cultural and historical impacts. The city answered “no” to the restoration having
these types of impacts.
Assistant city attorney Gary Newsom stated that staff believe the checklists were answered correctly
based on the knowledge gathered during the application process.
David Keyes commented that the City is responsible for providing officials, such as the hearing
examiner, with the necessary information to make proper decisions. The city failed to gather
sufficient information for this project. The City’s Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) provides great
detail on what information must be provided for a land use application. SMP subsection D notes
development standards along the shoreline, requiring that they meet city standards. The SEPA
checklist was insufficient in the answers it provided. The SEPA checklist provides the background
information for zoning and shoreline management, thus if the SEPA checklist is inadequate,
subsequent decisions will be inaccurate. The SMP also notes that changes cannot affect “ecological
functions.” “Ecological functions” can be interpreted to include historical preservation of a site.
SMP section 6, “Archaeological, Historical, and Cultural Resources,” provides that detailed cultural
assessments may be required on sites based on the probability of cultural resources. In addition, it
states that coordination between agencies, public, and groups (such as tribes) is encouraged well in
advance of the application for development. The applicant and the City failed to do any early
coordination with the Departments of Archaeology and Ecology. Section 6 also notes that the
detailed cultural assessment should be conducted by an archaeologist in advance of approval.
Mr. Keyes met with the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, specifically Michael
Houser, State Architectural Historian, on March 28. According to Mr. Keyes, the Department did not
believe the structure being less than fifty years old was an obstacle to its protection. Mr. Houser is
responsible for making recommendations to the federal government in regard to historical
preservation status. According to Mr. Keyes, exhibit 17d is a letter from Mr. Houser noting the
historical details of the site and the characteristic elements that allow its nomination for historical
significance. This letter gives expert opinion and cannot be ignored when reviewing the structure.
The Department of Archaeology is referenced in the SMP, but the Department was not contacted until
late in the application process. The SMP protects a site even if has not been listed as a historical
preservation site. The SMP requires an assessment if it is possible the site could meet this historical
status. The subject site will be reviewed for historical status in August, 2013. The site is an
identified historical resource and must be protected. The public testified in front of the King County
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
SITE PLAN
& SEPA APPEAL
7
Library System (“KCLS”) Trustees in an attempt to protect the site, but their concerns were not
addressed. The City never recognized the cultural importance of the site even when there was a large
turnover at elections. KCLS and the City must realize the significance of the existing structure.
KCLS’s site plan does not properly illustrate what is being kept and what demolished. The drawings
are not properly annotated. Moving the entry is a very significant design change.
Nicola Robinson stated that she spoke with the principle architect for the original project, David
Arthur Johnston. Mr. Johnston is 93 years old and unable to attend the hearing but provided phone
comments during a conversation with Ms. Robinson. Mr. Johnston told Ms. Robinson that the library
was one of the most important buildings he ever designed. It was a controversial building from the
beginning, and many people fought building it. It was the first design of its type because it spanned
the river. When designing the building, they spent a long time planning the entrance so that it was
active with the environment. The library was built to compliment the river, and the river provided a
unique experience for library guests. Mr. Johnston’s comments were submitted as exhibit 29.
David Keyes also spoke with Mr. Johnston. According to Mr. Keyes, Mr. Johnston considered the
library a celebration of the river. The entry coming in over the water was the most important element
of the design. Previous adversaries to building the library changed their opinions when they saw the
unique design.
Richard Bray testified that he has lived in Renton for 22 years. He has raised five children in the city,
and the library has been an important part of their lives. The entryway is a unique feature because it
provides a scenic view for guests. Salmon migrations can be viewed from the bridge. The entryway
encourages appreciation for the environment while providing access to a learning facility. During
Renton River Day Festivals, the entryway is a main hub of activity. In 2001, Renton celebrated its
100th anniversary. In a play celebrating this anniversary, the decision to build the library was one of
the main scenes. No other library in the region has the same cultural and historical aspects as the
Cedar River Library. This decision should not be made solely by KCLS. Renton citizens have the
right to demand accountability for the cultural aspects of the library.
Judy Milligan commented that she has lived in Renton for 29 years. Despite living closer to a
different library, she always went to Cedar River because her children preferred it for the unique
experience. The river entrance is very inviting for children. People of all ages enjoy the entrance and
the chance it gives to commune with nature. Time with nature can provide lower blood pressure and
better cognitive function. The library entrance is a site of community action. It is a gathering point
because of the high pedestrian traffic. The observation deck has space for educational opportunities.
KCLS could add a second door to the site. Ms. Milligan read a statement from her daughter, Heather.
Heather Milligan spent many days at the library growing up and worked there as a page during high
school. She noted that the bridge was never meant to just walk across; instead, the bridge provides an
experience for all who visit.
Jeannie Greene-Crook stated that she is a longtime resident of Renton. Her family has used the
library for three generations. Her family uses the library year-round so they can experience the view
of the river in all its states. A door is necessary on the bridge-deck to provide easy accessibility.
KCLS should embrace the uniqueness of the library and preserve its current setup. The bridge
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
SITE PLAN
& SEPA APPEAL
8
provides easy access to the nearby park for picnics and play. Ideally, the entrance will remain at the
center of the observation deck, but she accepts that it may be moved to one side or the other. People
who cannot access the bridge-deck can utilize the new Highlands Library.
Beth Asher submitted a poll from The Renton Reporter which showed that 85 percent of respondents
felt the Cedar River Library has cultural significance. The library is unique, and the entrance is the
most important part of this uniqueness. The library is both a park and a civic campus. KCLS does
not own the building, but Renton does. The City must protect the historic and cultural value of the
site. The library is part of the heart of Renton and needs to be saved for future generations.
David Keyes noted that the entry off the bridge makes the Cedar River Library special. There is one
other library over a river in the nation, but it does not have the entry on the bridge. The entry is being
changed significantly by KCLS. The planned new entry would change the historic use patterns and
alter the community value.
Paul Ouellette restated that he was a civil engineer and planned postal service buildings throughout
the northwest. For the subject site, the SEPA checklist was inaccurate and incorrect specifically in
regard to the historical and cultural impacts. On page 18 of the checklist, in regard to structure, the
applicant states that the existing building would remain compatible with Liberty Park; however, no
direct access will be provided with the new design. Circulation will be changed because there will
not be direct access, but the applicant did not make this clear in the SEPA checklist. There is
inconsistency between the many drawings submitted by the applicant. Exhibit 5 and exhibit 6 show
two different plans for the area between the entryway and the bridge. Additionally, KCLS has
misinterpreted requests by the public in regard to the wedge in the plaza. The public wants the wedge
to provide access to the bridge into the vestibule to provide an entrance from the bridge. The interior
door should be moved to column B to accomplish this task. KCLS claim the bracings do not allow
this, but, based on Mr. Ouellete’s review of the plans, it is possible. KCLS has denied all requests for
a bridge entrance and has failed to provide reasons for their decisions. KCLS has failed to properly
address citizen concerns. The citizens did not want to file an appeal, but KCLS’s refusal to consider
possible alternatives drove the decision.
David Keyes testified that, if the design is revised to have the main public entry be from the deck, the
vestibule could have two sets of doors. There is space for a pair of 8’6” doors as long as they are
adjacent to column B. This is reasonable, sufficient mitigation. The citizens will accept the changes
to the library space, if KCLS will protect the historically and culturally important entryway. The
current circulation pattern must be maintained. Mr. Keyes submitted a recording of public comments
from a March 19 KCLS Trustees Board Meeting where citizens commented on the new library plans.
Citizens express their concern over the removal of the bridge entryway.
Applicant Testimony
Ruth Baleiko, Project Architect, stated that the building was originally built in 1965 and remolded in
1986. The building has already been significantly changed from its original state. The planned
improvements would remove an addition that was added in the 1986 remodel on the park side. The
glazing and solid panels would be returned, in large part, to their positions held in 1965. In regard to
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
SITE PLAN
& SEPA APPEAL
9
the entryway, the proposal is the most functional for library use and safety. Having to create new or
larger vestibules for a different entryway takes from library space. Entryways require lighting, and
lighting over rivers is a difficult process with strict standards. KCLS will be able to provide better
lighting with the current plan. The bridge will be one of the first places to gather ice in the winter,
thus it is a safety hazard for people traveling to the door. The bridge is staying as is, except for the
removal of the entryway. The added wedge will help join the bridge and proposed front entryway. In
regard to the citizens’ door proposal, doors in a sequence must have specific paths of travel in egress
situations. The proposal would not meet all of the clearance standards. It would not meet code
minimums, nor have sufficient standards of care necessary in renovation projects.
City Testimony
Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, noted that the comment letters from the Department of Archaeology
and Historic Preservation were received following the decision on the SEPA review. After reviewing
the comments, the City added a condition of approval as part of the site plan process. The public
notice procedures have been addressed in the summary of judgment.
Appellant Rebuttal
David Keyes testified that the structure was superficially renovated in 1986. These changes do not
prevent the building from having historical significance. Many other projects that had undergone
significant renovation have been marked as historically protected. KCLS has failed to address safety
concerns from the site line of the park. In regard to ADA standards, the library does not have to meet
the same requirements as a hospital or other facility. The distance from the parking space to entrance
does not have to be as close as other types of facilities. In regard to the bridge freezing, the new
vestibule will also be over open air (a bank) so there is the same potential for freezing. The travel
distance from the park to the entry in the new design is approximately 120ft. The lack of entryway
from the bridge creates confusion and insufficiency. The vestibule could be arranged differently to
provide for the bridge entry. In regard to the efficiency of library space, KCLS always uses this
reason for decisions. The library will have plenty of space (20 percent more area in the support
spaces) with the new plan and would not suffer from creating bridge entry.
Exhibits
Exhibit 1-21 listed on page 2 of the staff report
Exhibit 17a 6/25/13 letter to Greg Smith from Gretchen Kaehler
Exhibit 17b 6/21/13 email from Chris Moore to Vanessa Dolbee
Exhibit 17c letter from Michael Houser to Nicola Robinson dated June 20, 2013
Exhibit 17d letter from Michael Houser dated July 30, 2013
Exhibit 22 July 5, 2013 filed Appeal
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
SITE PLAN
& SEPA APPEAL
10
Exhibit 23 letter to Greg Smith from Ruth Baleiko
Exhibit 24 Motion from city w/ 4 attachments
Exhibit 25 Declaration from Dr. Elizabeth Stuart
Exhibit 26 Correspondence between applicant, appellants, City, and Hearing Examiner
Exhibit 27 City Powerpoint
Exhibit 28 Paul Ouellette Package of Materials
Exhibit 29 David Arthur Johnston Phone Comments
Exhibit 30 Judy Milligan Written Comments
Exhibit 31 Richard Bray Written Comments
Exhibit 32 Renton Reporter Survey July 26, 2013
Exhibit 33 City of Renton SMP excerpts
Exhibit 34 Excerpts from SEPA checklist and Ossenkop comments
Exhibit 35 Environmental checklist
Exhibit 36 Renee Fabre Written Comments submitted July 29, 2013
Exhibit 37 Recording of March 19, 2013 KCLS Trustees Meeting
Exhibit 38 Statement and Appeal Letter from July 28, Ouellette
Exhibit 39 Jeannie Greene-Crook Written Comments
Exhibit 40 Kathy Ossenkop Written Comments
Exhibit 41 SEPA Appellant Summary Judgment Response Brief
Exhibit 42 City Summary Judgment Reply Brief
Exhibit 43 SEPA Appellant Sur-response
Exhibit 44 City Sur-reply
FINDINGS OF FACT
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
SITE PLAN
& SEPA APPEAL
11
Procedural:
1. Applicant. King County Library System (KCLS).
2. Hearing. The Examiner held a hearing on the subject application on July 30, 2013 at 1:00 pm
in the City of Renton Council Chambers. The record was left open for a response and reply to a
motion for summary judgment filed by the City of Renton a week prior to the hearing, with a final
reply due August 8, 2013. The record was extended to August 14, 2013 to give the parties an
additional opportunity to respond to new information provided in the City’s summary judgment2
reply.
Substantive:
3. Project Description. KCLS has applied for site plan approval for the remodel of the existing
library located at 100 Mill Ave. S. The library serves as a unique city landmark in that it spans the
Cedar River. KCLS is undertaking the remodel in order to provide for seismic upgrades and other
improvements that will bring the building into better compliance with current code requirements.
The remodel will be built within the existing footprint and would reduce the size of the library by
2,720 square feet, reducing it to a footprint that is closer in area to the library when it was originally
built in 1965. The remodel would also result in an approximately 503 foot relocation of the primary
entrance to the library from the midway point of its southern face as it spans across the river to the
Cedar River to the southwestern corner of the library.
The City of Renton issued a mitigated determination of nonsignificance for the project.
Citizens to the Save the Cedar River Library…Again! (“SEPA appellants”) filed a timely appeal of the
determination. The SEPA appeal was consolidated with the site plan application.
Overall the area of work would impact 37,630 SF and the remodeled library would be 19,680
SF following renovations. The proposed improvements to the building would include seismic
upgrades, demolition of existing building envelope and installation of new envelope and associated site
improvements. The existing vehicular access and parking is not proposed to be changed.
2 The summary judgment was submitted by the City a week in advance of the hearing. The City’s motion was timely
filed under City regulations, but the examiner provided the SEPA appellants with an opportunity to respond to the
motion after the hearing. The reason was that there was insufficient time for the examiner to provide a reasonable
response time to the moderately lengthy motion while also ruling upon it within a we ek’s time. The summary
judgment motion essentially put the SEPA appellants in the unfair position of having to defend their entire appeal
within a few days’ time before the scheduled hearing date. Of course, by allowing for responses to the motion after
the hearing, the summary judgment motion was no longer a summary judgment motion but rather just constituted
legal briefing for the City and SEPA appellants. For this reason no ruling is being issued on the summary judgment
motion. The arguments of that motion have simply been considered in the issuing of the final decision.
3 This figure is highly approximate and could range anywhere from 40 to 60 feet, depending upon how the distance is
measured.
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
SITE PLAN
& SEPA APPEAL
12
The subject site is bordered on the north by Liberty Park; the east by the Cedar River and old
City Hall; to the south by the existing parking; and to the west by Mill Ave S and the existing parking
lot.
4. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate
infrastructure and public services as follows:
A. Water and Sewer Service. Water and sewer service is provided by the City of Renton.
Since the proposal will actually reduce the size of the current library and there has
historically been adequate sewer and water service to the building, no issues as to
adequacy of water and sewer are anticipated.
B. Fire and Police. Police and Fire Prevention staff indicate that sufficient resources exist to
furnish services to the proposed development provided the existing use has not changed
and the site of the building is primarily the same.
C. Drainage. A drainage plan and drainage report was submitted with the site plan
application. City staff determined that the report complies with the 2009 King County
Surface Water Manual and the 2009 City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM,
Chapters 1 and 2. A final Technical Information Report is required with the building
permit.
D. Transportation. The existing vehicular access and parking is not proposed to be changed.
The current vehicular access to the site is via Mill Ave. S at two locations. Additional ly,
the building can also be accessed via Liberty Park. Because the building is currently a
public library, there are no anticipated changes in impacts to the existing street system as a
result of the facilities upgrades. Traffic is anticipated to remain the same as under
existing conditions.
Comments were made at hearing that the relocation of the entrance to the library could
result in changes to parking lot circulation as well as off-site impacts, most notably
creating a potential need for a signal light at an adjacent intersection. City engineering
staff testified that these issues had been considered and it was concluded that parking was
still adequate. The staff also noted that traffic at the adjacent intersection will be routinely
monitored to determine if changes in traffic merit a traffic light.
E. Open Space. The applicant has incorporated an entry plaza to the building, located on the
south side near the main entrance. This entry plaza serves as a distinctive project focal
point. The plaza is proposed to incorporate benches and landscaping to allow for passive
activities. In addition, the existing library spans the Cedar River which allows for visual
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
SITE PLAN
& SEPA APPEAL
13
access to the river via the building’s windows and the pedestrian bridge which provides
access to Liberty Park. Liberty Park provides both active and passive relational
opportunities for the users of the library, including a playground, skate park, baseball
fields, and access to the Cedar River trail among other amenities. The combination of the
upgraded plaza space, pedestrian benches, landscaping, and the associated Liberty Park
would provide for the recreational needs of the users.
5. Adverse Impacts. There are no probable significant adverse impacts associated with the
project. Few adverse impacts are anticipated since the proposed remodel will be within the existing
footprint and result in a reduction in size. Impacts are more specifically addressed below:
A. Cultural and Historical Resources. The primary focus of the SEPA appeal was the cultural
and historical impact of moving the primary access of the library from its central position over
the river to the southeastern corner of the building. The location of the library entrance is of
environmental significance, but its relocation does not qualify as a probable significant
environmental impact under SEPA.
Many persons could reasonably conclude that moving the entrance 50 feet has little or no
historical or cultural significance. With the limited (but compelling) exception of testimony
from the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (“DAHP”) and
the architect of the building, the historical and cultural significance of the door location is
almost entirely a matter of highly subjective personal taste. In the absence of any objective
standard or formal historical or cultural designation of the door location, there is limited
factual or legal basis to conclude that the relocation has a probable significant adverse impact.
When the substantial weight given to the SEPA responsible official is factored into the
analysis, there is no choice but to conclude that relocation will not create probable significant
adverse environmental impacts.
As discussed in the conclusions of law, the door location does not have to be formally
designated as a historic or cultural resource in order for the relocation to qualify as a probable
significant adverse environmental impact. However, in the absence of that designation there
should be some very compelling evidence that would convince most reasonably minded
persons that the feature in question is historically or culturally significant. Evidence of this
nature could be expert testimony on the fact that the door has historically served as a focal
point for views up the river; that the door is a focal point in the City’s logo; or that it
otherwise features prominently in recurring representations of the City.
Instead of providing evidence that the door location is central to the identity of the City or is
otherwise culturally or historically significant, the SEPA appellants largely focused upon the
fact that many city residents like the location of the door. They enjoy the views along the
bridge as they access the library and find the central location optimal for people accessing the
library from the western side of the building. This type of testimony is largely overshadowed
by the fact that the new location is optimal for the parking lot (from which the majority
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
SITE PLAN
& SEPA APPEAL
14
patrons presumably arrive) and more readily accessible for persons with disabilities. The
overwater experience is reduced somewhat by the relocation, but that view is easily recaptured
by anyone who simply takes a stroll across the bridge or takes in the views from inside the
building.
The most compelling testimony supporting the SEPA appeal is Ex. 17(D), the July 30, 2013
letter from DAHP. In that letter DAHP notes that the library is eligible for listing on the
National Historic Register or Historic Places, that the building “has significance in terms of its
direct connection to the growth and development of the City of Renton in the post WWII era ”
and that one of its “character defining features” is “the public access to the building on the
Cedar River side via a bridge”. In short, an expert on historical buildings who has likely
reviewed hundreds or thousands of such buildings has found the entrance location to be a
unique and character defining architectural feature. The written statement from the architect of
the current building, David Johnston, Ex. 29, somewhat supports the findings of DAHP. In
his written statement Mr. Johnston notes that the building as a whole was “important” and
from a historic design perspective the building is a “first”. However, Mr. Johnston did not
expressly single out the location of the entrance as historically or culturally significant, but
only that it would be poor design to locate it on the land side of the building.
The DAHP and Johnson testimony establish that the location of the entrance has some
significance, but the question remains whether the location is significant enough to qualify as
a probable significant adverse environmental impact. It is a close question. Ultimately, the
answer has to be no because of the deference that must be provided to the determination of the
SEPA responsible official.
The determinative factor in assessing the DAHP and Johnston testimony is the focus of
DAHP and Johnston on the overall integration of the library building into the river as opposed
to simply the building itself. DAHP does not advocate the retention of the building, but rather
notes in Ex. 17(A), its June 25, 2013 comment letter, that the applicant should “capture the
building’s contribution to local history into planning of the new building.” Similarly, when
discussing the importance of the building Mr. Johnston focuses on the functional aspects of
the building design and does not state that the building itself should be preserved. Under
Johnson and DAHP, the relevant inquiry in assessing significance is how much the relocation
of the door detracts from the functionality of its design, specifically whether the relocation
will significantly detract from the building’s integration into its river setting. This puts us
back into the subjective assessment of degree – the relocation detracts somewhat from the
visual experience of the river as one enters the building, but as noted previously this is easily
recaptured by simply walking across the bridge or enjoying the views through the windows of
the library. Reasonable minds could easily differ on whether the relocation creates a
significant reduction in river integration. When faced with such a debatable point, the
deference required of the SEPA responsible official prevails.
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
SITE PLAN
& SEPA APPEAL
15
B. Geologically Hazards. The building is located in a seismic hazard area. A geotechnical
report, Ex. 21, was prepared to evaluate the seismic risks and contains numerous
recommendations to ensure building integrity and stability during a “design level
earthquake”. The recommendations of the geotechnical report are imposed through the
MDNS.
C. Views. The proposal will reduce view impacts by reducing the size of the existing
building.
D. Lighting. The conditions of approval require a lighting plan subject to approval of City
staff as consistent with all applicable lighting standards and also in consideration of
impacts to the environmental resources of the river.
E. Natural Features and Landscaping. The existing site is currently vegetated with
ornamental landscaping and lawn areas in the vicinity of the existing structure. Scattered
around the site are deciduous and coniferous trees/shrubs (see Wildlife and Stream
sections for riparian vegetation information). The existing site contains 16 trees of which
all will be retained with the exception of one 12-inch diameter Cherry tree located in the
southeast corner of the site. The removed Cherry tree is proposed to be replaced with a 2-
inch caliper River Birch tree. In addition, to the 12-inch Cherry tree, one street tree along
Mill Ave. S is proposed to be removed. This is a result of the sanitary sewer line
improvements required for the project. This tree would be replaced in the same location
with a 2-inch caliper Northern Red Oak. A conceptual landscape plan was submitted
with the project application. The landscape plan includes a planting plan including 8 new
trees. The proposed tree species consist of Vine Maple, Northern Red Oak, River Birch
trees. The shrubs proposed largely consist of: Maidenhair Fern, Deer Fern, Sward Fern,
False Solomon’s Seal, Subalpine spiraea, and white spirea. The new landscaping is related
to restoration of areas that would be disturbed to install the augercast piles and concrete
abutments. The new landscaping defines the entrance, would provide shade and generally
enhances the appearance of the project. Existing landscaping is proposed to be retained in
the parking lot and along the perimeter of the parking lot. In addition, the street trees
along Mill Ave. S would remain, with the exception of one tree which would be replaced
following utility installation. The land scape land plan submitted by the applicant was
conceptual; as such staff recommends as a condition of approval that a final detailed
landscape plan shall be submitted for review and approval prior to building permit
issuance.
The applicant provided a Stream Study and Habitat Data Report prepared by Talasaea
Consultants, Inc., dated February 28, 2013. The Stream Study concludes that there would
be no direct impacts to the Cedar River, adjacent riparian habitat or State Shoreline area
anticipated during or after construction, resulting in no net loss of ecological functions.
This conclusion is based on the following reasons: 1) all work would occur within the
footprint of the existing development for the library and would stay above the 100-year
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
SITE PLAN
& SEPA APPEAL
16
flood plain and above the OHWM; 2) the footprint of the existing disturbed/developed
area within the shoreline zone would not be expanded as a result of the project; 3) all
existing shoreline vegetation would remain intact; 4) portions of the existing library
structure would be demolished which would result in a net reduction of approximately
1,700 square feet or 7 percent of the library structure’s building itself and adjacent
pedestrian bridge; 5) Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be implemented during
construction to minimize temporary construction impacts to the aquatic environment; and
6) the project would comply with all applicable City ordinances including, but not limited
to, stormwater management requirements, and those related to traffic, noise and aesthetics
during and after construction. The applicants will also be required to apply for an
administrative shoreline substantial development for the permit, which will ensure
compliance with the City’s shoreline regulations.
The existing site topography consists of steep slopes along the north and south edges of the
river channel. The grades of the river banks range from elevation 45 at the top of the slope
to elevation 26 at the river bottom. Beyond the river banks, the site grades to the north and
south of the buildings is relatively flat. The proposed grading is primarily a result of the
requirement to install the below-grade concrete abutments, which would require 900 cubic
yards of excavation and 360 cubic yards of fill. The concrete abutments avoid impacts to
the existing natural features and do not impact existing site topography. All areas
disturbed during construction are proposed to be restored with new pathways, landscaping,
and/or plaza space.
In addition to its location over the Cedar River, the site is located in a seismic hazards area
and the Aquifer Protection Zone 1. There is also a 100 year flood plain and a floodway
associated with the Cedar River and the banks of the river have been identified sensitive
and protected slopes. Based on the project application material, no work is proposed below
the ordinary high water mark of the Cedar River and therefore no work would occur in the
flood plain or floodway, or on the steep slopes i.e. the river bank.
Conclusions of Law
1. Authority. RMC 4-9-200(D)(2)(a) authorizes the hearing examiner to hold public hearings on
site plan applications when the environmental review committee determines that the public has raised
significant unresolved issues.
2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The property is zoned Center Downtown as
detailed in FOF No. 6 of the staff report. The comprehensive plan map designation is Urban Center
Downtown in Design District A.
3. Site Plan Review Criteria. Site plan review standards are governed by RMC 4-9-200(E)(3),
which are quoted below and applied through corresponding conclusions of law.
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
SITE PLAN
& SEPA APPEAL
17
4. SEPA Review Criteria. There are only two reasons to overturn an MDNS: (1) there are
unmitigated probable significant adverse environmental impacts; or (2) the SEPA responsible official
has not undertaken an adequate review of environmental factors as required by SEPA regulations.
Each grounds for reversal will be separately addressed below.
A. Probable Significant Adverse Environmental Impacts.
The primary relevant inquiry for purposes of assessing whether County staff correctly issued an
MDNS is whether the project as proposed has a probable significant environmental impact. See
WAC 197-11-330(1)(b). If such impacts are created, conditions will have to be added to the MDNS
to reduce impacts so there are no probable significant adverse environmental impacts. In the
alternative, an EIS would be required for the project. In assessing the validity of a threshold
determination, the determination made by the City’s SEPA responsible official shall be entitled to
substantial weight. WAC 197-11-6 (3)(a)(viii).
B. Adequate Environmental Review
The second reason an MDNS can be overturned is if the SEPA responsible official did not adequately
review environmental impacts in reaching his threshold determination. The SEPA responsible
official must make a prima facie showing that he has based his determination upon information
reasonable sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal. The courts have never actually overturned
a decision for inadequate review. These results provide some insight as to how deferential the courts
have been in applying the adequacy standard, but do not serve to eliminate the oft-repeated judicial
requirement that environmental factors must be adequately considered to support a threshold
determination.
As recently as 2010, the courts have ruled that an agency’s threshold determination is entitled to
judicial deference, but the agency must make a showing that “environmental factors were considered
in a manner sufficient to make a prima facie showing with the procedural requirements of SEPA.”
Chuckanut Conservancy v. Washington State Dept. of Natural Resources, 156 Wn. App. 274, 286-
287, quoting Juanita Bay Valley Community Ass’n v. City of Kirkland, 9 Wn. App. 59, 73 (1973). In
applying this adequacy standard, on several occasions the courts have examined how thoroughly the
responsible official reviewed environmental impacts in addition to assessing whether a proposal has
probable significant adverse environmental impacts. See, e.g., Boehm v. City of Vancouver, 111 Wn.
App. 711 (2002), Moss v. City of Bellingham, 109 Wn. App. 6 (2001). In Moss, for example, the
court recited the prima facie rule and then applied it as follows:
The record indicates that the project received a great deal of review. The
environmental checklist was apparently deemed insufficient, and therefore the SEPA
official asked for additional information in the form of an EA. The City gathered
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
SITE PLAN
& SEPA APPEAL
18
extensive comments from agencies and the public, held numerous public meetings, and
imposed additional mitigation measures on the project before finally approving it.
Notably, although appellants complain generally that the impacts were not adequately
analyzed, they have failed to cite any facts or evidence in the record demonstrating
that the project as mitigated will cause significant environmental impacts warranting
an EIS.
109 Wn. App. at 23-24.
WAC 197-11-335 provides that a threshold determination shall be “be based upon information
reasonably sufficient to evaluate the environmental impact of a proposal”. The standard of review on
adequacy, therefore, is that the SEPA responsible official must make a prima facie showing that the
determination is based upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal.
A somewhat confusing facet of the standard requiring adequate review is WAC 197-11-680(3)(a)(ii).
This WAC provision prohibits the appeal of intermediate steps of SEPA and only allows
administrative appeals of threshold determinations and the adequacy of an EIS. SEPA appellant
arguments such as the SEPA checklist is incomplete or inaccurate arguably seeks a ruling on
intermediate steps of SEPA review, i.e. the adequacy of the checklist. The judicial standard requiring
adequate environmental review was formulated before the adoption of WAC 197-11-680(3)(a)(ii) in
1984, but as demonstrated in the Moss case quoted above it was still applied to SEPA threshold
appeals well after 1984. The courts have yet to address the arguable conflict between WAC 197-11-
680(3)(a)(ii) and the judicial adequacy of SEPA review standard. The ultimate resolution may be that
WAC 197-11-680(3)(a)(ii) prohibits administrative agencies from assessing adequacy of review but
the courts are still free to do so. Unless and until the issue of whether adequacy of review is germane
to an administrative appeal is judicially resolved, the prudent approach is to consider the issue as is
done currently with cases such as Moss. Doing so will avoid the need for an evidentiary remand
should a reviewing court determine that adequacy is something the Examiner should have considered.
Practically speaking, a consideration of the adequacy of review rarely results in a reversal of a
threshold determination. In order to meet its burden of proof on adequacy, the SEPA appellant must
often present the information the SEPA responsible official should have considered at the SEPA
appeal hearing. After the information is presented, the SEPA responsible official is often asked
whether he or she still believes the project has no probable significant adverse environmental impacts.
If the responsible official responds that he or she does not see any reason to change the threshold
determination, the issue of adequate review becomes moot. This result is allowed because th e courts
will consider information or mitigation supporting a determination that wasn’t reviewed or imposed
until after issuance of the threshold determination.
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
SITE PLAN
& SEPA APPEAL
19
Again, the Moss decision is instructive on the allowance for this type of post hoc rationaliz ation. In
Moss, the City of Bellingham added SEPA mitigation measures after the SEPA responsible official
issued the MDNS. The court sustained the MDNS on the basis of subsequently imposed mitigation
measures as follows:
Although the DNS was issued prematurely, it is difficult to see how the appellants were
prejudiced. The city council imposed many additional mitigation measures on the project
before approving it, thereby making it more environmentally friendly than the version in the
DNS. Appellants suggest that the DNS misled the city council into believing that all of the
impacts were capable of mitigation, but the record indicates that the project received a
considerable degree of scrutiny. Furthermore, WAC 197-11-350 requires an EIS where a
proposal continues to have a significant adverse environmental impact, even with mitigation
measures. While all of the required mitigation measures should have been imposed before
the DNS was issued, the appellants still have not shown that the approved project, as it was
mitigated, remains above the significance threshold.
109 Wn. App. at 25.
5. Library Qualifies as a Historical and Cultural Resource. The library as a whole has cultural
and historical significance that qualifies as an element of the environment protected by SEPA. SEPA
rules and Washington court opinions provide surprisingly little guidance on what qualifies as a
cultural or historical resources. However, formal designation by a legislative or administrative body
is not required as argued by the City to qualify a building for cultural or historical significance under
SEPA. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(A), the integration of the library into the Cedar River
is a historically unique and distinctive architectural feature that qualifies the design of the building as
a whole as a historical and cultural resource.
As discussed in the preceding conclusion of law (“COL”), an EIS is required for a proposal that
creates “probable significant environmental impacts”. Of central importance to this SEPA appeal is
whether the impacts cited by the appellants qualify as “environmental”. WAC 197-11-740 defines
“environment” as limited to the elements identified in WAC 197-11-444. WAC 197-11-444(2)(vi)
identifies “historic and cultural preservation” as an element of the environment.
There is no WAC definition or Washington court opinion that defines historic or cultural resources or
preservation, nor is there any readily accessible National Environmental Policy Act decision
addressing the issue. However, as determined in FOF No. 5(A), the architecturally unique features of
the building and its relationship to Renton’s development as a community qualifies it as a historic and
cultural resource.
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
SITE PLAN
& SEPA APPEAL
20
In its motion for summary judgment, the City argues that since the building has never been formally
designated as a historic or cultural building, it is not historically or culturally significant for purposes
of SEPA. The City provides no legal authority for this position. In point of fact, the one Washington
court opinion that indirectly addresses the issue supports a contrary position. See Concerned
Taxpayers v. WSDOT, 90 Wn. App. 225 (1998). The Concerned Citizens case involved the adequacy
of a final environmental impact statement in its assessment of the potential removal of a farm for a
highway project. According to the decision, the farm “appeared” eligible for inclusion in the National
Register for Historic places but no formal designation by any government agency was identified.
Despite this, the farm was found to be historically and culturally significant because it was built in
1925 and was “one of the few, if not the only, complete assemblages of historic-era farm buildings in
the project area”. The parties to the Concerned Citizens case did not contest the SEPA responsible
official determination that the farm had cultural significance, so the issue was not directly addressed
by the appellate court. However, it is noteworthy that the issue of cultural significance was
completely uncontested simply because the farm was several decades old and unique to the area. As
determined in the Finding of Fact (“FOF”) No. 5(A), the library is also unique and of historical
importance4.
6. Relocation of Entrance not “Significant” Under SEPA. Although the building as a whole
qualifies as a historical and cultural resource, as determined in FOF No. 5(A) the proposed relocation
of the front entrance does not qualify by itself as a “significant” environmental impact. WAC 197-11-
794(1) defines “significant” as “a reasonable likelihood of more than a moderate adverse impact
[on] environmental quality.” As demonstrated by the City’s opinion and the testimony of others at
the hearing, there is a difference of opinion on whether the relocation significantly impacts the
building as a historical and cultural resource. This difference of opinion is reasonably based, since
the most prominent feature of the building by far is its location across the river and not the centrally
located entrance. Visual access of the river to library patrons is arguably not significantly affected by
the relocation since the river can still be viewed by walking across the pedestrian bridge or through
the library windows.
Once it is established that the significance of an impact as subjective as the one at hand is reasonably
debatable, the issue is out of the examiner’s hands and no further environmental review can be
required. There are two reasons the historic and cultural impacts cannot be interpreted as significant
4 The fact that a building can qualify as having cultural or historic significance without any formal designation to that
effect does not mean that everyone with an old building has to worry about restrictions being imposed through
SEPA. As required by RCW 43.21C.060, any mitigation imposed by SEPA has to be based upon adopted SEPA
policies and the mitigation must be reasonable and capable of being accomplished. The fact that “unlisted” building
may sometimes qualify as a historical or cultural license does not give a municipality unfettered discretion to impose
as many restrictions as it desires. It simply means that the historical/cultural significance of the building must be
evaluated as part of the SEPA review process.
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
SITE PLAN
& SEPA APPEAL
21
in this case. First, an ordinance which requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men [and
women] of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application,
violates the first essential of due process of law. Anderson v. Issaquah, 70 Wn. App. 64 (1993).
Requiring further environmental review or mitigation on the characterization of the historical/cultural
impacts as significant arguably violates the due process rights of the applicant. Second, and far more
conclusive, the determination of the SEPA responsible official must be given substantial weight. The
arguments for and against significance in this case are equally compelling and reasonable. The
required deference is completely determinative in the resolution of this issue.
The City also argues in its summary judgment brief that the impacts are not significant when balanced
against other competing environmental interests, citing Overlake Fund v. Shoreline Hearings Board,
90 Wn. App. 746 (1988). The Overlake case was based upon the application of shoreline regulations
for a shoreline permit application. It did not deal with an assessment of environmental impacts under
SEPA. More importantly, WAC 197-11-330(5) requires that “[a] threshold determination shall not
balance whether the beneficial aspects of a proposal outweigh its adverse impacts, but rather, shall
consider whether a proposal has any probable significant adverse environmental impacts…” To be
clear, the conclusions of this decision were not based upon any balancing of environmental impacts.
The significance of the door relocation was assessed entirely on its own impacts.
7. Reduction in Building Area Not Significant. The SEPA appeal notes on its grounds for
appeal (Ex. 22) that the proposed 7% reduction in building area results in a loss of public shoreline
access and recreational use. To the extent the SEPA appellants were arguing this loss is a probable
significant adverse environmental impact, there is nothing in the record to support such a
determination. The pedestrian bridge does not appear to be reduced to any meaningful degree and
visual access for library patrons is fully maintained through the extensive amount of windows
included in the proposal.
8. Environmental Review Adequate. The level of environmental review conducted by the SEPA
responsible official was adequate as required by SEPA.
The SEPA appeal (Ex. 22) is primarily focused upon assertions that information contained in the
environmental checklist is either incomplete or erroneous. Most of these assertions were based upon
the premise that the library is a cultural and historical resource. Ideally, the environmental checklist
or other documents used for SEPA review should have recognized the historical and cultural
significance of the library. However, the information reviewed by the SEPA responsible official
before issuance of the MDNS did include the fundamental reasons why the library qualifies as a
historic and/or cultural resources, i.e. its architectural features, its integration into the Cedar River and
its date of construction. Further, as discussed in the review of the Moss court decision in COL No. 4,
information considered after the issuance of an MDNS can also be considered in assessing adequacy
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
SITE PLAN
& SEPA APPEAL
22
of review. In this regard, comments from DAHP and the SEPA appellants were submitted for review
prior to the site plan hearing along with the staff report. The SEPA Appellants also provided a
significant amount of information on the historical and cultural significance of the proposal during
the hearing on their SEPA appeal. In short, a significant amount of information on the cultural and
historical significance of the proposal was considered prior to the issuance of any development
permits. In this regard, the purpose of SEPA, to provide for informed environmental decision
making, has been served.
The only remaining legal issue is whether the information provided by DAHP and the SEPA
Appellants is legally adequate for purposes of environmental review. That issue is easily resolved by
the Concerned Citizens discussed in COL No. 5. As noted previously, Concerned Citizens involved
the adequacy of an EIS analysis of the potential removal of a historic farmhouse for a highway
project. On this issue the court found the level of environmental review adequate in the EIS on
impacts to the farm even though it was just a paragraph long. That paragraph simply noted the age of
the farm, its distinctive architectural features and that its features were unique to the area. The SEPA
appellants have succeeded in presenting more environmental information than that found adequate in
the Concerned Citizens case.
9. Notice Adequate. The SEPA Appellants’ allegations of improper notice are dismissed as
abandoned or in the alternative the appellants have failed to establish improper notice by failing to
provide any evidence to support their claim.
The SEPA appellants assert in their SEPA appeal that improper notice was provided for the “Land
Use Master Application” as well as the SEPA threshold determination. The appellants did not
identify any code section that the City allegedly failed to follow. The appellants also did not
specifically identify who should have received notice, other than to generally note that unspecified
persons who have already been identified as parties in interest in a document not in evidence had not
been notified and that unspecified persons had provided public comment to the City Council and had
not been notified. Beyond5 these generic comments in the SEPA appeal statement, no further
evidence was provided by the SEPA appellants. Given a complete absence of any evidence beyond
unsupported allegations, the SEPA appellants notice claims are dismissed as abandoned or in the
alternative it is determined that they have failed to provide any evidence to establish that notice was
inadequate.
Site Plan
5 The SEPA appellants also asserted that it did not appear that DAHP had been timely notified, but abandoned that
contention once DAHP clarified that it had received timely notice of the threshold determination.
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
SITE PLAN
& SEPA APPEAL
23
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3): Criteria: The Administrator or designee must find a proposed project to be in
compliance with the following:
a. Compliance and Consistency: Conformance with plans, policies, regulations and approvals,
including:
i. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan, its elements, goals, objectives, and
policies, especially those of the applicable land use designation; the Community Design
Element; and any applicable adopted Neighborhood Plan;
ii. Applicable land use regulations;
iii. Relevant Planned Action Ordinance and Development Agreements; and
iv. Design Regulations: Intent and guidelines of the design regulations located in RMC 4-
3-100.
12. The proposal meets the City’s comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance and design guidelines as
detailed in pages 6-18 of the staff report, adopted by this reference as if set forth in full. The proposal
is not subject to a planned action ordinance or development agreement as noted in the staff report.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(b): Off-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and
uses, including:
i. Structures: Restricting overscale structures and overconcentration of development on a
particular portion of the site;
ii. Circulation: Providing desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets,
walkways and adjacent properties;
iii. Loading and Storage Areas: Locating, designing and screening storage areas,
utilities, rooftop equipment, loading areas, and refuse and recyclables to minimize views
from surrounding properties;
iv. Views: Recognizing the public benefit and desirability of maintaining visual
accessibility to attractive natural features;
v. Landscaping: Using landscaping to provide transitions between development and
surrounding properties to reduce noise and glare, maintain privacy, and generally
enhance the appearance of the project; and
vi. Lighting: Designing and/or placing exterior lighting and glazing in order to avoid
excessive brightness or glare to adjacent properties and streets.
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
SITE PLAN
& SEPA APPEAL
24
13. The remodeled building will be located in the same location as the existing structure resulting
in no change to the existing concentration of development at any particular location of the site. As
determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, no significant changes to vehicular or pedestrian circulation are
anticipated, so existing road and trail linkages are adequate. As proposed, the roof top equipment
would be screened with a metal grating system. Loading areas will remain unchanged by the
proposal. The refuse and recycling is proposed to be approximately in the same location as under
current conditions; however the new proposal would add screening elements to the design which are
not currently provided. The proposed screen would be made of metal grating and 12-foot wide self-
closing doors. The screening is proposed to be 6 feet in height. For views, the proposal will
maintain visual access to the Cedar River as detailed in Finding of Fact No. 5. The relocation of the
door will reduce visual access to patrons accessing the library, but this is offset by improvements in
accessibility and visual access is still readily available through the library windows and for those
who traverse the pedestrian bridge. The project site is already fully landscaped and a landscaping
plan will be required to assure compliance with all applicable standards as outlined in FOF No.
5(E). New building and entry lighting would be included with the buildings rehabilitation. Lighting
at the location needs to be balanced with the environmental considerations associated with the
critical habitat provided in the Cedar River and the safety needs of a public library. As a part of the
SEPA Environmental Review, a mitigation measure was required that balanced the safety needs of
lighting with the potential for impacts on the salmon. Conditions of approval require shielded and
cutoff lighting. A final lighting plan shall be submitted by the applicant as a condition of approval
prior to building permit issuance.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(c): On-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to the site, including:
i. Structure Placement: Provisions for privacy and noise reduction by building placement,
spacing and orientation;
ii. Structure Scale: Consideration of the scale of proposed structures in relation to natural
characteristics, views and vistas, site amenities, sunlight, prevailing winds, and pedestrian
and vehicle needs;
iii. Natural Features: Protection of the natural landscape by retaining existing vegetation
and soils, using topography to reduce undue cutting and filling, and limiting impervious
surfaces; and
iv. Landscaping: Use of landscaping to soften the appearance of parking areas, to provide
shade and privacy where needed, to define and enhance open spaces, and generally to
enhance the appearance of the project. Landscaping also includes the design and
protection of planting areas so that they are less susceptible to damage from vehicles or
pedestrian movements.
14. The proposal is largely surrounded by public and uses and its placement, structure and
orientation would have no discernible impact on privacy or noise and its scale is compatible with
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
SITE PLAN
& SEPA APPEAL
25
these adjoining public buildings. Further, the proposal involves a remodel substituting a building of
smaller scale within an existing footprint, so that the remodel will have no adverse impact on
natural characteristics, views and vistas, site amenities, sunlight, prevailing winds, and pedestrian
and vehicle needs. The proposal does not involve any appreciable increase in impervious surface,
includes restoration of all affected vegetation and involves a minimum cutting and filling as
necessary to stabilize the structure from earthquake activity. The proposal will not adversely affect
natural features as determined in FOF No. 5.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(d): Access and Circulation: Safe and efficient access and circulation for all
users, including:
i. Location and Consolidation: Providing access points on side streets or frontage streets
rather than directly onto arterial streets and consolidation of ingress and egress points on
the site and, when feasible, with adjacent properties;
ii. Internal Circulation: Promoting safety and efficiency of the internal circulation system,
including the location, design and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian access points,
drives, parking, turnarounds, walkways, bikeways, and emergency access ways;
iii. Loading and Delivery: Separating loading and delivery areas from parking and
pedestrian areas;
iv. Transit and Bicycles: Providing transit, carpools and bicycle facilities and access; and
v. Pedestrians: Providing safe and attractive pedestrian connections between parking
areas, buildings, public sidewalks and adjacent properties.
15. As determined in FOF No. 4, the proposal will not appreciably change any vehicular or
pedestrian circulation and access to the project. The proposal will also not result in any physical
changes to existing access and circulation, which as noted in the staff report is adequate. For these
reasons no changes to vehicular or pedestrian access is necessary.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(e): Open Space: Incorporating open spaces to serve as distinctive project
focal points and to provide adequate areas for passive and active recreation by the occupants/users
of the site.
16. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4(E), the proposal includes
open space focal points and includes and adjoins areas used for passive and active recreation.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(f): Views and Public Access: When possible, providing view corridors to
shorelines and Mt. Rainier, and incorporating public access to shorelines.
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
SITE PLAN
& SEPA APPEAL
26
17. The proposal provides physical and visual access to the Cedar River shoreline. The proposal,
as a replacement of a building with larger scale, will not adversely affect any view corridor to Mr.
Rainier.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(g): Natural Systems: Arranging project elements to protect existing natural
systems where applicable.
18. The proposal will not adversely affect the natural systems of the site, as determined in FOF
No. 5.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(h): Services and Infrastructure: Making available public services and
facilities to accommodate the proposed use.
19. The project is served by adequate services and facilities as determined in Finding of Fact No.
4.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(i): Phasing: Including a detailed sequencing plan with development phases
and estimated time frames, for phased projects.
20. The project is not phased.
DECISION
The SEPA appeal is denied and the SEPA threshold determination made by the City of Renton on
Renton Permitting File No. LUA13-000255, ECF, SA-H, SM is sustained. The site plan application
for the same file number is approved as proposed in Exhibits 3-13 and described in this decision,
subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall comply with the three mitigation measures issued as part of the
Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated, dated June 17, 2013 (Exhibit 14).
2. The applicant shall conduct a professional archaeological survey of the project area prior to
any ground disturbing activities. Such survey shall be provided to the Planning Department
and any recommendations which are included in the survey results shall be followed by the
applicant.
3. A final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted for review and approval of the Current
Planning Project Manager prior, to building permit issuance.
4. A detailed refuse and recycling plan shall be submitted with the building permit application
identifying compliance with the minimum standards. The plan shall be reviewed and
approved by the Current Planning Project Manager, prior to building permit issuance.
5. The applicant shall submit a site lighting plan for review and approval by the Current
Planning Project Manager that includes shielded and cutoff lighting, prior to building permit
issuance.
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
SITE PLAN
& SEPA APPEAL
27
DATED this 21st day of August, 2013.
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
RMC 4-8-110(E)(14) provides that the final decision of the Hearing Examiner is subject to appeal
to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(14) requires appeals of the Hearing Examiner’s
decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the Hearing Examiner’s
decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing e examiner may also be filed within this 14
day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(13). A new fourteen (14) day appeal period
shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information regarding the
appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk’s Office, Renton City Hall – 7th floor, (425)
430-6510.
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
notwithstanding any program of revaluation.