Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA87-033 November 30, 1987 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON • SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND DECISION: APPLICANT: M.A. Segale, Inc. File No. SP-033-87 SUMMARY OF RE-OPENED HEARING: The applicant requested a Special Permit to continue filling an existing former borrow pit with approximately 1,050,000 cubic yards of fill. The public hearing was opened on September 15, 1987 and continued on October 6, 1987. The Hearing Examiner's Report and Decision was issued on October 20, 1987 and granted approval for a five year period with conditions. As a result of a letter of reconsideration that was received on November 3, 1987 from Seth Fulcher, party of record representing Mt. Olivet Cemetery, the Hearing Examiner re-opened the public hearing on November 17, 1987. The sole purpose of re-opening the hearing was to receive testimony on the types of materials that should or should not be permitted into the pit, and the potential effects of such materials on the quality of surface and ground water. At the re-opened public hearing, the King County Department of Public Health was represented by Mr. Greg Bishop. Although the Health Department belatedly was made aware of the fill application, the department did respond by letter to Ron Nelson of the Building and Zoning Department. This letter was entered into the record as Exhibit #7. Mr. Bishop testified about the potential harmful impacts that could result if improper materials were allowed as part of the fill in the Segale pit. Mr. Bishop elaborated upon the serious concerns of the Health Department regarding the introduction into the pit of asphalt, demolition wastes, dredge spoils or any possibly hazardous soils because of the presence of an exposed ground water table. He asserted that ground water from the site eventually percolates to the Cedar River aquifer which supplies much of Renton's drinking water. Referring to the City of Renton Well Field Protection Study of August 1984, Mr. Bishop reiterated the City's concerns about protecting the recharge basin for the Cedar River wells. At the request of the Examiner, Mr. Bishop explained King County Health Department Regulation No. 8 which would take effect if the site were to receive demolition wastes or other solid waste materials. He also addressed the difficulty of monitoring the types of fill materials and the need for additional leachate wells to effectively monitor ground water quality. Finally, Mr. Bishop stated that the State Department of Ecology had been notified and requested to examine the pit to determine if ground water degradation was already occurring. Mr. M.A. Segale and Ms. Laurie Pinard, representing the applicant, also testified. They stated that no demolition wastes or dredge spoils were intended to be placed in the pit. Further, they noted the applicant's willingness to abide by the ERC and Hearing Examiner condition prohibiting the placement of asphalt in the pit. Mr. Segale and Ms. Pinard expressed concern for protecting the quality of the ground water and indicated that the applicant would not employ materials that might threaten such ground water. Mr. Don Erickson of the Building and Zoning Department introduced for the record a copy of a letter from the consulting firm of CH2M Hill to Bob Bergstrom of the City of Renton Public Works Department regarding the potential harmful impacts to ground water from asphalt leachate. The letter - was entered as Exhibit #8. As a result of this additional testimony, the Hearing Examiner now enters the following new or revised Findings, Conclusions and Decision. To wit: FINDINGS 1. through 11. No change to Findings of original report. 12. Retain existing paragraph and add new paragraph: The City of Renton Well Field Protection Study (August 1984) clearly identifies the site of the subject application as being located within the recharge area for the Cedar River aquifer. The City operates five potable water wells in this aquifer. "Protection of these wells is crucial to the health and safety of the public because they are the source of approximately 85 percent of the City's total water supply. Other sources of water are not readily available to meet the demands for potable water." (Well Field Protection Study (WFPS) at page 1-1). The WFPS also asserts that "the wells are vulnerable to contamination..." and identifies the Segale pit as one of three upland pits that represent potential threats of subsurface contamination to the Cedar River aquifer. Earlier excavation at the subject site has intruded into the actual ground water table so that significant ponding from ground water has occurred. According to the King County Health Department, exposure of the ground water table in the pit has created a substantially greater risk of contaminating the ground water, and ultimately the City's water wells, than would be present if the ground water table were located some depth below the proposed fill activity. The existing situation raises the possibility of introducing pollutants directly into the ground water. 13. Retain the existing paragraph, but strike the last sentence and add two new paragraphs. The Well Field Protection Study (at page 4-18) recommends that fill operations be controlled to assure that "no materials containing soluble poisons, paints, cleaners, waste oils, or other leachable compounds are incorporated into these fills." At the same time, the WFPS recognizes that the origin and content of all fill materials may be unknown and, therefore, some contaminants may be present in the fill. The King County Health Department also indicated the difficulty of monitoring the content of all fill materials and suggested that the geotechnical engineer should conduct pollutants tests whenever the origin and content of fill material was unknown. The Health Department further stated that effective monitoring of ground water quality would require at least two leachate monitoring wells, one upslope and one downslope from the Segale pit. King County Health Regulation No. 8 establishes authority over all solid waste fill operations in the county. If the Segale pit accepts solid waste materials or demolition wastes, then regulation of the filling activity would also fall under the jurisdiction of the King County Health Department. According to Regulation No. 8, demolition waste is defined as "solid waste, largely inert waste, resulting from the demolition or razing of buildings, roads and other man-made structures. Demolition waste consists of, but is not limited to, concrete, brick, bituminous concrete, wood and masonry, composition roofing and roofing paper, steel, and minor amounts of other metals like copper." The Health Department identified other possibly contaminated fill sources, such as dredge spoils, as not appropriate for sites like the Segale pit where ground water is exposed. Clean dirt, sands, gravels, and native soils with some concrete (which is relatively inert) and minor amounts of organic matter were identified as acceptable fill materials. The applicant testified that demolition wastes, dredge spoils and other solid wastes would not be included in the fill material for the subject site. 14. Retain existing paragraph and add following sentence. The State Department of Ecology has been notified of the concerns of the King County Health Department and requested to investigate if the ground water quality is already contaminated as a result of previous activity at the site. 15 through 18. No change to original Findings. CONCLUSIONS 1 through 4. No change to original Conclusions. 5. Delete existing paragraph and substitute the following new paragraphs. Because earlier excavation on the subject site was deep enough to cut into and expose the ground water table, any activity on the site which involves placing material directly into contact with the ground water or which will result in runoff into the ground water has a grave potential for contaminating the aquifer and, ultimately, the City's drinking water. (The City would do well to recognize and avoid this problem at any other excavation sites within the Cedar River recharge basin.) Therefore, extreme care in selecting and monitoring fill materials placed in the subject pit should be exercised. In order to protect water quality at this sensitive site and to protect downslope water uses, the conditions imposed by the ERC should be implemented. Materials containing soluble poisons or leachable compounds, including asphalt and waste oil, should not be permitted in the fill material. Further, no demolition wastes, dredge spoils or any other materials meeting the definition of solid wastes regulated by King County under Regulation No. 8 should be permitted. Specifically, allowable fill materials should be limited to clean dirt, soils, sand and gravel, and other similar clean materials, provided that rock and broken concrete smaller than 8 inches in diameter and minor amounts of organic matter may be included. These limitations are necessary because much of the fill activity within the five year life of the permit will occur in direct contact or close proximity to the ground water table. A geotechnical engineer should be retained to monitor the site and fill materials and to report to the City. Monitoring should be regular and at frequent enough intervals to ensure that each layer of material is inspected for contaminants before being permanently covered by subsequent layers. Whenever the source and content of fill materials is unknown and/or there is reason to suspect contamination, the engineer should conduct tests to identify pollutants. At least two leachate monitoring wells should be installed, one upslope and one downslope. Any remedial actions recommended by the Washington DOE to improve present conditions on the site should be implemented by the applicant prior to proceeding with filling of the site. When and if the elevation of the fill reaches 325 feet during the five year life of this permit, complete drainage and erosion control plans should be submitted. The restrictive covenants filed as a condition of the previous application should remain in effect to ensure recharge of the aquifer by surface water injection wells. To prevent indiscriminate dumping of materials in the pit, all gates should be locked at the end of each working day and on weekends. 6. No change to original Conclusion. DECISION The Special Permit to fill and grade is approved subject to the following conditions: a. through g. No change from original decision. Add new conditions: h. Prohibition of all materials containing soluble poisons or other leachable compounds, including all petroleum based substances such as asphalt and waste oil, from fill material. Prohibition of demolition wastes, dredge spoils, or any other materials meeting the definition of solid wastes regulated by King County under Regulation No. 8. Limitation of acceptable fill materials to clean dirt, soil, sand, gravel, and other similar clean materials, provided that rock and broken concrete smaller than 8 inches in diameter and minor amounts of organic matter may be included; i. Testing of fill materials for pollutants whenever the source and content of the fill is unknown and/or there is reason for the geotechnical engineer to suspect contamination; j. Installation of at least two leachate monitoring wells, one upslope and one downslope; and k. Implementation of any remedial actions recommended by the Washington DOE. ORDERED THIS 30th day of November, 1987. L 21, Gt ti// G'ENE N. WILLIAMS HEARING EXAMINER PRO TEMPORE TRANSMITTED THIS 30th day of November, 1987 to the parties of record: James Colt American Memorial Services P. O. Box 547 Renton, Wa. 98057 Laurie A. Pinard P. O. Box 88050 Tukwila, Wa. 98138 Seth Fulcher 2300 Smith Tower Seattle, Wa. 98104 Mario Segale 18010 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, Wa. 98138 Greg Bishop Seattle-King County Health Department Room 201 - Smith Tower Seattle, Wa. 98104 TRANSMITTED THIS 30th day of November, 1987 to the following: JOB Z3S.L Pa Rk ER FU D oF )IrE sS SHEET NO. ' OF JOHN R. EWING & ASSOCIATES ��� 3/7/37 622 S Central CALCULATED DV DATE KENT, WASHINGTON 98032 CHECKED BY DATE • SCALE i •I ; I f I I ' — 9 a L I I 1 s).v= ............ ........ ss ...._ J t .... ' I : i ; .. ,...54.. .. • RIM i i ! NV� i i i i , 1 j 1 I • 1 i • ' l. `i • i .... i ' i.... i __,..f_:::_ ::�:: .__ -_...... ..... .:.• I , .. . I .......... z�..H` ...... it -....= __ .. slur: s4i�r0Rr —: i 1. of i 1 i j _ .. i ._ f ._._. 1 ,..._.._...... s ` °n /° ....... - confNFot........ 1rrc......�W.arc, rs................ .._._._..f......._. ! oa -ro Ec1Sr. L-GC,]MS 1`I 1'11.TYQ ,R. ' • 1 �.1 .. .....,...... : I I r . i a..._ E rl1 ! i III! . m ro i I 3m IM1 in' I pi —. i ,�. I (it _..; . . f I I ; I ; j ti l _ ... ,St.LP E T...... _. hr I 1 ! • i i I a ,,p i 1 1 . f f 1 ......... ..... ► ......PldGotil4 —8 /.lM 2�TY 1 i . It. . . • H 1 i •- i _ j ,t i .l'. i s , j 14 : • ' 1 i • --. -- - - -- _ s • • • I ; { i .... .......................................... ...... ..... ...... ........�.................. i :�. I .. i ' • 1 ! V � i Q q p . • , i @ [-L �.... ; a Z ..D'i R • . nil! I • 7ii RlM i i L. k i- • i 4 ! 0U nrtl�ar4Lli.;if'v.�;Ut�T. N i i • i f i : : : i • JOB 2P�5,c OF SHEET NO. Z S JOHN R. EWING & ASSOCIATES 622 S Central CALCULATED BY SL P DATE Sit/�7 KENT, WASHINGTON 98032 CHECKED BY DATE i SCALE I I I , i f j j ! j ' i I, I I 1 i !! j i I i I I.. j I I I j ! 1 I ' i ! i I crE.I�ITR sr �t Ni • •(•s iI. i i I . 1 • I� ! S • o I ..... -�.�- ; i • }. ......................... : .. i a t j i �. i • 1 `• j• j I ! it �I �� \�' T .i:. ice- .... ......... 1. j I ? .._._ i f...........................;.............. ........................... ..... J .. N.N AMp ...SLAM? a • j ` ............... i I I } ! i I 1 j i ? i . 1 I ? ! . i 1 i i i I, I I i + ! ! I i , t i 1 ? ! • i 1 i I , ! I i ! : : b _ I 1 ! i ' i i i i 1 i I i , i • • ! 1 i I j , I ? ! i ! i i i 1 i i j............. ?. ...........................i ............_? ............ ............. ............� ! ._.. I I 1 j ! I i ? I . j I I 1 i I > 1..............1.............. {... I • • I j I I • 1 ! i j j I i 1 1 ! I ! ! ; 1 I JOB ZBS,o3 - SHEET NO. 3 OF S JOHN R. EWING & ASSOCIATES / 622 S Central CALCULATED BY S� DATE .�/�! S7 KENT, WASHINGTON 98032 CHECKED BY DATE SCALE G I i i ? I • ? ! i I i i I 1; f f ! I I I ; i f i ' { ' t• 1 t • I ...i... ...3. 1 i ,...........{.................. t j I t } S}4" Ssi.�Pnr; 'g.L.c,TIo{t (SIDF view, E i ...... '• ..............._.. I : i i. 1 t + �� ..... ... i ...._. } 1 i 1 i ! i i 1 I it I 1 ; . I di t I • 1= i I ! ; ! 1 1 1 I ? i I I • i ? i I I I i ! ! I { i i 1 1 i I I I I i s i . ! ? I I t i • I ; . .i I 1 , i , : i E ! t E !••• I I ; i • 1 1 I j , : t i I i 1 { i t { ' i I { i 1 i I I ; I ; I i I { t i......... i 1 { 1 i . 1 I I i I ? + 1 ! i ' 1 I I t (.... t ' ' 1 i I �......... .................. .............................................. P I I 1 ! I i I I i I I i ! i i.._' tii 1 ..... i • r. I , 1 ;.. ! ; i ! I i I I I I I ? i i 1 ; ..:,,..�.....cam.- _ .. . • . . • . . . . _. .. . . . am- •�,&..."0, CL . . 3SRRSW P I T SITE sEGALE ,.....„.„.. . . • ... . . F. r.t,__:,.....,.... -,....._•;. „,„,,,,,,...,,,Li 1,4 ' cz,.. 0 . . . ' II L L ,•�• •R E C L AI-9 o) N con,,..,..........,. . . L, PLA ,.' ••••• = .Y„ • N • WO 0 E �! 0 k \1; . ,1•1\ . Aol . - 0 R�,dr oH'NERr M.A.SEc acts T.Lr .cE&AL DESCR/PT/ow+ 01 .M /80/o Sevrvrsvrrr Alex Me E,/1f of/.k Ad,/A,./..feeof/k Nv71F L Y .�• h P.A Bar 88050 0//ee/ion /a., Xasar•p Fl N.ah, Rrn,'JES•N.N Y�/,/ ./. 7 ww,A, Mvs .. feria*/feria* • e w.-r /.!r .mi/.f JJe frrf;ma'«<car i16r ear/ • 1 575-3200 JO le/he/ip i/�,✓ey s a .04.fr Re C••,f• Ren/n, kwny of,og,,_44.1,64,ny �I �� • PREPARED BY, - • and 6 V onatruolfon 1 urrera,Inc. • • \ } ' is 03 1.Mal Are.N.E. • Rirk6.ne,wash.28073 • EXHIBIT I- VICINITY MAP • • reoi e'•eaU' . S//EET 1 0/3 4+ " , rs' w q�+ /r � w A /s•• �v 'No-' �B Z�(f�}I��ai °��� uo.on _ ; 1 4�0. f:•••• .,.-w.....• 1• jai, �4) ,�� Q''� • ,c'- G.b ri ,>^iod-� >'''` /s70if/rQOE r4//E. /(/ �rl �t —' G9 f /-_ __4. /V 0/'L�•47 E - 99J.00 -' _ II i - _-1--_ ---- - �° - - - ---- -- \ \ ri hI _�_- ��;. --�_1 ( —_` - fro - _ - • -- —— --- \1 ' �,11 t 1 --��,:1' CL �� —_rya -- — — — — \ At...±..L.H, w—_ � ^`\ __ �- boo b� L1 I 1 ( (....____ __ (r-------- -�_�� — - \.,yo �� rra,.,Yd.t I.,q`i n .r yl�..a • I I � � ✓riyx � 1 y II I •I��—. � C'� \ \ I - -__ N-1.--1 I i . . I __ \ 1 I / �, J . i 1 e ,y Lt 1" I t �� �3eo- �• I �d ✓k + / o I ( - -• 10*L \ \ I I IE 441 • I • ` I 1 • \• •' `0 'J% ' V n° / I ,J I l \ . /°�� / / ae(A., — °'- \•.v I t 1 M I el • /lie if/ /A / '� } 1 I I o nr ``0 0I I I �� / / x I �' I I C Oil e i j I I ��A / •1. ..../ / ��0 • - , I I I NOTES: k I .. '- "D 1 / /rni I / /.Prnprr/y heinof6ren C I I :-^ m ,As I I I Irs,ryrd eba inys and 1 I a r _. // i/ / I i .I I d//C Nrl J/IONn�ntirM �_- r: _ -j •• , ;/ I/I I ore re/ru/a/rd fia+ • _—_ -- " 1'4 r �u' \ / 1 . / I aroi%w4/r rrrfian rrmivFd• I _� J / ;/ inFar�ron rrov,ron welt,r.I _ '/ /� \ wa,/ :/ / / 1 Sir Sfre/Ja/i rCr ill \ f,lowtolt°.trn•c: 0 / / I 3.Sur/xr.v�r r/e//sE \ �_1f l3to� I" �_ �� —_ AO - t.......• ' x.. ....•..•'/ // Itfi/drrr/aFnren/ xru•r. '`y ___ of 'e -- r✓ i....... _��_ fdc Loco,er, SA•,..,... I u .'ro•... we//,f°OC uvJ/✓/rr/ � .7.1.C.e t _ r:- w-'=. .. •-nr•.c -4'.�'�'n-^�t-+-_Y+- eo}eaes.+.�._..r'i 1,z' •7'' -- �v..r,.,+.a.a^•+rYm re.+�.,a...x.r w °` I � 4 ' ,// yrf y . A tt s __Icre r Ad4 v- r r - .•-w..r. ..---- .. ,: •t;nirwr..47,.w..r1\.^. .-.:•ra`J'4m. yrweM: •.pA'''''''''''"'"'" t/y-,robvilrr'--Sn MN1 "Z :I .� w,n-•r- M.A•SCOALE,INC. • • ,.Li w4. and d ;., r 4gALl C A �, �on:lru°Ilan S/TE PLAN Fn e .4. - 4 y.,.....'.. r /T RECLAMAT/0A/ /rrir�aka', m •h (.. 1r,• r urve a,Inc.Ine. • . E- AM..Srb4 koZrr ) I'y � 1, r. r'r ' NW /6-li•5 • ^�;�,ut!`%�� 1 •t• � ,!- • Iv0i1.12111 Ave,N.E. 'ea'.11•fl,cOh% 1.,7e, ao>16t Belt •,'"i'ii .ebha Kirkland,Wash. /�•1D' GSC r /O'CtYr/aw /nferrd� .r ,/..$ ) • . . . . . . . gla ----' . ,I • I . I . — . --Th • I . . .330 \ .1 ---Z :grixt,r-ooe,:-1.'no• . • .1. .. • •. • I r- \ . I I \ • \ 1 . ' 320 \ . 1 \ • . I \ 1 • I - • 'CU \ I 3/0 I / —* \ . . 00 \ . ,64.436445, r 0 WI 0-.0 3•r,)......1 I \ . • . / —---••• • 3 13 0 '... I \ • ' / ...... 270 \ ' I • / ...............___._--1 • • \ I • / ive • \ • . 280 \ . I . \-- I proand(.;!/40.0) // goo "• • -------------L'....-- I / 270 . I / 6- 0 / 2 I ...9 4(" • ,1 .6 7 8 9 go . • Seer/oil 8-8 . . . A . • • I . . ,fir....7.7.r'• :ebr 350 N • I---- 1,—,_--K '--li... : F.—..-....1 . . „irr,,,..2-L.11 .1.4,,,, IL. i \ • \ L ,er 0 . ph .5442 \ ---.--., ._- t • . \ "Cirti4ed pnial- hixr . • c,...c.r.L.., -- C--":7> cr.... • \ `g:T. ga---- ::_-• 310 \ —._._____________ t:• :•----,--- z•-•••••.. r•-.z_'2.--' -a=3, ON ; \ • ---. \ / . C.,i':' rff. 0 \ • / . ':-..1:7•:----• a•- ... 320 \ • . ,....., i•---..-.. ."1 r--z...-t- \ -- 3 0 'Cif'''' \ • • . ....."........"..... ....,/o \ . • t.ishmi 9.0wei 0-4747) .----....------ -v----'•- ....., % \ ..--' 340 (( 4, 3'..-•f,--- --'--?' N., \ ............. • I 1...--,_.,..-.3 • ..vo -- • . .... . \ . • / 3.0 \ / • lia . \ / • . // gv. \ . • Aso \ _— _ -- — / _ • _... eeo • . . . M.A,SCOALE,INC, • I IA, - • . 0 end A , .,.'41:i'''''''''''''' ensfruetion iPR OP&LCS el secriays • v. .,,h • 1 . I A::4,...:,%7Sli) "'I.'. AI i 8-g/Ant fizz sirs 0 / e .9 ..% . 6" 6 7 /?. )'' I 4 0 3/•1211,A•.N.4. 4'.3.I 1 3',AY 1'.'''';4;;.; :{:47;I 7 Kik" r e , • .. . 5E-er/oN ..1-A . >, eIrklend.wash.e803.7 'Wee.,<ent.'''''''''' _ ."."• GSC. 13945 8 31•7373 • •_ ©. . Charles of County - foyer,Mayor Tim Hill, cull• I%".1 ' ,O 55 • • Seattle-King County Dep� f• �' ' 'c Health Bud Nicola,M.D.,M. 3� ,Directota�® November 9, 1987 ��J ,�4es* w A , V4 r" Ron Nelson, Director �Q�g�,� Building and Zoning v City of Renton20 No �`� ON Fce�ton11WAVey8u55nue South `� 4 Ala Re: Renton Hearing Examiner Decision on Segale Pit Dear Ron: This office only recently received a copy of the above-noted document outlining the conditions under which applicant (Segale) can operate his fill site. The Health Department has several concerns relative to this matter. The first concern pertains to the issue of regulatory authority. The City of Renton presently regulates the site via a special permit. However, if the Segale pit is receiving materials that fit the definition of demolition wastes, then it would also fall under the regulatory authority of the Seattle-King County Department of Public Health per RCW 70.95. Enclosed is a page from the King County Board of Health Rules and Regulations #8 that defines demolition waste. It is important to limit the materials acceptable in your special fill permit from overlapping with those constituting demolition materials. Another concern relates to the Hearing Examiner's observation that substantial amounts of asphalt may have been disposed of in Segale's pit. Asphalt is capa- ble of leaching petroleum products into the region's ground water. This fact, coupled with the general filling activity into the exposed water table, provides a direct route for potential ground water-contamination. The implications of such a possibility are critical given that the pit appears to be located within the Cedar River Drainage Basin. According to CH2 M Hill 's Well Field Protection Study of 1984, Renton's water supply emanates from Cedar River ground water. By copy of this letter, I am notifying the Department of Ecology of the ques- tions we have. That agency has authority over ground water protection and will be interested in whether past disposal practices have contaminated the ground 'water and whether future filling of the site will present an unacceptable risk to the ground water. The Health Department is concerned that the restrictions on materials acceptable for disposal at the Segale pit lack sufficient specific- ity to protect the exposed water table. Environmental Health Division Room 201 Smith Tower Seattle, Washington 98104 (206)587-2722 • • ,• Nel.s.oni • -(1N.ovimbar 9• 19• .87 . 'Page`.?.? •-• ••••.:7:wklp " Please contact me at 587-2285 if you have questions or would like further infor- mation concerning this'matter. Sincerely,... Greg Bishop, Supervisor Solid Waste Program GB:mw Enclosure cc: Paul Murakami/Larry Kirchner Southeast District Service Center Gary Brugger N.W. Office, Department of Ecology Gene Williams, Hearing Examiner Pro Tempore City of Renton.. Bill Lasby, Supervisor Water Quality Program • .�' ,.1 • 2. A statistically significant increase in the concentration of that substance in the ground water where, the existing concentration of that substance exceeds the maximum contaminant level specified in Part VI, Section 1.0. 3. A statistically significant increase above background in the concentration of that substance which: a. Is not specified in Part VI, Section 1.D, b. Is present in the solid waste, end c. Has been determined to present a substantial risk to human health or the environment in the concentrations found at the point of compliance by the health officer in consultation with the Department of Social and Health Services. T. "COVER MATERIAL" means soil or other suitable material that has been approved by the health officer as cover for wastes. SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS "D" THROUGH "F". Except as otherwise specifically provided in this Section, the "definitions" set forth in WAC 173-304 and WAC 173-303 are hereby incorporated by reference. A. "DANGEROUS. WASTES" means any solid waste designated as dangerous waste by the Department of Ecology under Chapter 173-303 WAC. • B. "DEMOLITION WASTES" means solid waste, largely inert waste, resulting from the demolition or razing of buildings, roads and other man-made structures. Demolition waste consists of, but is not limited to, concrete, brick, bituminous concrete, wood and masonry, composition roofing and roofing paper, steel, and minor amounts of other metals like copper. Plaster (i.e., sheet rock or plaster board) or any other material, other than wood, that is likely to produce gases or a leachate during the decomposition process and asbestos wastes are not considered to be demolition waste for the purposes of these Rules and Regulations. C. "DETACHABLE CONTAINERS" means reusaBle containers that are mechanically loaded or handled such as a "dumpster" or drop box. 0. "DISPOSABLE CONTAINERS" means containers that are used to handle solid waste such as plastic bags, cardboard boxes and paper bags. E. "DISPOSAL" or "DEPOSITION" means the discharge, deposit, injection, dumping, leaking, or placing of any solid waste into or on any land or water. F. "DISPOSAL SITE" means the location where any final treatment, utilization, processing, or deposition of solid waste occurs. See also the definition of interim solid waste handling site. G. "DROP BOX FACILITY" means a facility used for the placement of a detachable container including the area adjacent for nrcessary entrance and exit roads, unloading and turn-around areas. Drop box facilities nor-ally serve the general public with loose loads and receive waste from off-site. - H: "ENERGY RECOVERY" -means-the recovery of- energy in a useable form from mass burning or refuse derived fuel incineration, pyrol%sis or any other means of using the heat of combustion of solid waste that involves h:..h temperature (above twelve hundred degrees Fahrenheit) processing. I. "EXISTING FACILITY" means a facility which is owned or leased, and in operation, or for which construction has begun, on or before the effective date of these Rules and Regulations and the owner or operator has obtained permits or approvals necessary under federal, state and local statutes, regulations and ordinances. A facility has commenced construction if either: 1. A continuous on-site physical construction program has begun; or 2. The owner or operator has entered into contractual obligations which cannot be cancelled or modified without substantial financial loss for physical construction of the facility to be completed within a reasonable time. Lateral extensions of a landfill's active area on land purchased end permitted by the . health officer for the purpose of landfilling before the effective date of these Rules end Regulations shall be considered existing facilities. J. "EXPANDED FACILITY" means a facility adjacent to an existing facility for which the land is purchased and approved by the health officer after the effective date of these Rules • • -3- • .gab' s 'F { Engineers Planners •U#11§17 11);19 Hh Economists : +AMEN Scientists ®� a_ITEM tiv&: • October 7, 1987 520080•BO Ce°�4Y R ECIdv'�G�3 REGEOVED 1311301 Mr. Bob Bergstrom �, , City . of Renton BUILDING ZONING DEPT. 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Dear Bob: Subject: Landfilling of Asphaltic Debris As you requested last Thursday afternoon, we have. quickly evaluated the advisability of allowing asphaltic debris to be landfilled in the gravel pits north of_ your Cedar River wellfield. In the short time available,Fwe have uncovered almost no existing information regarding the potential hazards associated with asphaltic debris. I attached a memorandum from Mike Tilchin in our Reston, Virginia office summarizing his telephone calls to several asphalt trade associations and highway materials researchers. Some of the pertinent facts we have uncovered include: o Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania are currently: considering treating asphaltic debris as either hazardous or dangerous wastes. No final • regulations, however, have been published by these states. o The State of Washington specifically exempts asphaltic debris from their hazardous/dangerous waste regulations. o The National Asphalt Paving Association is I currently conducting leaching tests of asphaltic debris to evaluate potential problems. Their results will not be available for several months. 03 o The USEPA is not conducting research on asphaltic jja debris. . • p/ippowl(44 CH2M HILL Seattle Office 777 108th Avenue,N.E.,Bellevue,Washington ' "frl 'T 206.453.5000 P.O.Box 91500,Bellevue, Washington 98009-2050 Mr. Bob Bergstrom • Page 2 October 7, 1987 S20080.B0 • o The kinds of contaminants that could leach from asphaltic debris can be grouped into four categories: "native" organics (eg., polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons "PNAs" ) and inorganics (eg. , _ antimony, nickel and iron) ; and "man deposited" organics (eg. , motor oil, automatic transmission fluids, and miscellaneous greases)_ and inorganics (eg. , lead, zinc, and cadmium) . All ofthese ;contaminants can adversely impact human health and the environment, but are relatively immobile in soil and groundwater. o The three dimensional geology and groundwater flow system in the Y gravel pits area and the inter- connection between groundwater in the pits and welifield areas are all unquantified. The unknowns associated with leachate composition and hazards from asphaltic debris and the hydrogeology combine to make specific recommendations based on facts (especially those related to prohibition of disposal) virtually impossible. it has been our experience in similar situations that it is best to follow a conservative. approach. As a minimum we recommend the following: o Each site should be characterized (a geohydrological assessment) 'and monitored as specified in WAC 173-304-600-3bi and WAC 173-304- 490, respectively. Owners of each site should be required to provide 14 radequate financial assurance for long-term monitoring and potential corrective action if a ;14 4/V0 problem develops in the future. The next level of control would be to require a bottom liner and leachate collection' system. This alternative would be very effective if designed, operated and maintained properly, but could be very expensive. Mr. Bob Bergstrom Page 3 October 7, 1987 S20080.B0 We appreciate this opportunity to assist you. If you have any questions •le• .e call me. Si =r- Jef Randall, Ph.D. , P.E. Northwest Director Geohydrology se/JMM/001/323/WTR Attachment i MEMORANDUM TO: Jeff Randall/EA FROM: Mike Tilchin/NDC : DATE: October 9, 1987 PROJECT NO.: S20080.BO.CO SUBJECT: Asphalt Disposal-Potential Impacts on.Groundwater Quality In pursuit of some information on the potential for hazardous substances to leach from asphalt rubble,I made several calls to aspha:t trade associations and researchers concerned with the properties of highway materials. This memo summarizes what I learned. My first contact was with Ed Harrigan,Assistant Director for Research at the Asphalt Institute (301"4SPHALT'). .Harrigan knev of only one relevant study that had been conducted for the Federal Highway Administration. The study is titled"Environmental and Safety Aspects of the Use of Sulfur in Highway Pavements". 'The study involved leaching experiments with sulfur-extended asphalt and normal asphalt. The results, according to Harrigan., were that no organic compounds were detectable in the leachate. As we have not seen the study, and don't know what their eiperimental procedures were, we should view the report ourselves before we comment definitively on the results. The report has been ordered, and I expect it to arrive today. Thereport is coming from Brian Collar, the technical officer at FHWA (703-285-2342)overseeing the project. I picked up a few asphalt facts in this conversation. Asphalt is produced by vacuum distillation of crude oil, which removes most of the light hydrocarbon fraction. Important trace metals include vanadium,nickel, copper, and iron. Aromatic compounds contain nitrogen and sulfur compounds. The specifc composition of any asphalt depends on the properties of the crude oil from which it was produced. The principal researcher on the asphalt leading study was Dr.Don Saylack, Texas A&M (409-845-7511). I called to ask about the , ults of the study, but he is out of the country until next week. I have requested that he cane when he returns. I spoke with Katherine Cunkel,Director of Environmental Research for the National Asphalt Paving Association (NAPA-- 301-779-4880), NAPA is planning to conduct EP and TCLP tests on asphalt materials very shortly, and felt that they might have results in three to four months. NAPA's motivation for undertaking this research is that a few states are considering regulating used asphalt as a hazardous material. NAPA believes that the states are operating with no data. There are several questions that NAPA hopes to address in its research. These questions include whether new asphalt,reclaimed (used) asphalt, or both new and used asphalt pose a leaching rroblem. If only used asphalt poses a problem, then the source of the contaminants is not the asphalt itself, but the materials that have dripped, spilled,or otherwise accumulated al it over time. The other quesd.Qn is whether asphalt is any different than other highway construction materials. They intend to run parallel leaching tests using samples of newand used concrete to address this. I mentioned to Cunkel that I would like to task to the various state environmental agencies that are considering stricter management practices for used asphalt, explaining that I was interested in finding out if the states had anydata upon which they are basing their decisions. She requested that I first talk to the Asphalt Institutes regional representative, F'1 / Carlos Rosenburg (717-432-5965) in Harrisonburg, PA, who has been dealing directly with the states. I have called and left a message at his office. I also spoke with Henry Haxo of Matrecon in Oakland,CA,(415.521.1762), Haxo is a leader in research on the properties of liner materials. He has not done any work on the leaching properties of asphalt. He directed me back to Don Saylack of Texas A&M and to Ed Harrigan. I also spoke to Mike Krisoff,Executive Director of the Asphalt Recycling and Reclaiming Organization (301-267-0023). Krisoff did not know of any relevant leaching studies, and recommended that we put the client in touch with asphalt recyclers in the area. He recommended that the client contact Valentine Surfacing (Charlie Valentine--206.574-2313) of Vancouver,WA. Recognizing that the City of Renton is somewhat on the outside of the decisionmaking process, they may still want to raise the recycling option to the parties involved. As we discussed over the phone,it seems unlikely that USEPA has addressed this issue. I base this assumption on the fact that none or the representatives of the key industry groups, the researchers, or the FHWA has had any communications with them I will forward any new information that cones in. Please call if you have any questions. L • ' sty ' 633,13 ANDREA BEATTY RINIKER Director #41 zee. ° STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY 4350-150th Ave. N.E. • Redmond, Washington 98052-5301 • (206) 867-7000 CITY OF RENTON November 24, 1987 f DEC 2 -1987 Greg Bishop .3U,!.D, Jf 1 ZONING Dr.PI Seattle-King County Health Department 400 Yesler, Mail Stop 15L Seattle, WA 031G4 RE: Placement of asphaltic waste as fill in the Segale Gravel Pit Dear Mr. Bishop: On consultation with John Conroy of our Hazardous Waste Regulation section, I have determined that the wastes deposited in the Segale pit may not be dangerous wastes. The difficulty detecting and documenting water quality degradation is considerable. In general , the primary contaminant of concern from asphalts would be polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH's, PNA's) which are highly immobile in the absence of carrier solvents and/or highly active emulsifiers. PCB's may be present , depending on the source of the asphalt , and sane slight heavy metal contamination might also be present. In and of itself, the asphalt deposited at this location does not appear to be a problem of high or even moderate magnitude fran a water quality, or in our estimation, a public health standpoint. The future utilization of the site, however, in light of the materials landfilled there to date, has the potential to create substantial contamination of the City of Renton well aquifer. Any future materials placed in this landfill which have the potential to mobilize PAH/PNA's, such as organic solvents, surfactants or other carriers might cause movement of potentially dangerous constituents into the groundwater. Asphaultic materials which are verified to contain only PAH's are specifically excluded fran the dangerous waste designation by WAC 173-303-071 (3(e)) . These materials may, however, be problem wastes subject to regulation by the Seattle-King County Health Department , .0Z i 3 z � _ Greg Bishop November 24, 1987 Page 2 Solid Waste Management section. These wastes must be subjected to analysis prior to final disposal by the generator to assure that they do not qualify as dangerous wastes under the criteria established in WAC 173-303, as authorized by ION 70.105. Sincerely, Norman Peck District Inspector NP:cd cc: John Conroy, NVTIO Gary Brugger, N6IRO Jean Williams, Hearings Examiner Ron Nelson, Renton Bldg & Zoning Department Wally Swofford, Seattle-King County Health Dept. jc J . =y3—`033-67 c ag$[Atg o 9 j -, t�t LJ 0 ANDREA BEATTY RINIKER Oy Director �1;eea STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY 4350-150th Ave. N.E. • Redmond, Washington 98052-5301 • (206) 867-7000 CITY OF RENTON November 24, 1987 DEC 2 1987 - 0 Greg Bishop BUILDING I ZON,IJ _G DE v.. Seattle King County Health Department 400 Yesler, Mail Stop 15L Seattle, A 98104 RE: Placement of asphaltic waste as fill in the Segale Gravel Pit Dear W. Bishop: On consultation with tohn Conroy of our Hazardous Waste Regulation section, I have determined that the wastes deposited in the Segale pit may not be dangerous wastes. The difficulty detecting and documenting water quality degradation is considerable. In general, the primary contaminant of concern from asphalts would be polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH's, DNA's) which are highly immobile in the absence of carrier solvents and/or highly active emulsifiers. P(B's may be present depending on the source of the asphalt, and some slight heavy metal contamination might also be present. In and of itself, the asphalt III deposited at this location does not appear to be a problem of high or even moderate magnitude from a water quality, or in our estimation, a public health standpoint. The future utilization of the site, however, in light of the materials landfilled there to date, has the potential. to create substantial contamination of the City of Renton well aquifer. Any future materials placed in this landfill which have the potential to mobilize PAH/PNA's, such as organic solvents, surfactants or other carriers might cause movement of potentially dangerous constituents into the groundwater. Asphaultic materials which are verified to contain only PAH's are specifically excluded from the dangerous waste designation by WAC 173-303-071 (3(e)). These materials may, however, be problem wastes subject to regulation by the Seattle King County Health Department, 4E34" Greg Bishop November 24, 1987 Page 2 Solid Waste Management section. These wastes must be subjected to analysis prior to final disposal by the generator to assure that they do not qualify as dangerous wastes under the criteria established in WAC 173-303, as authorized by IW 70.105. Sincerely, K-7/ Norman Peck District Inspector NP:cd cc: John Conroy, NE Gary Brugger, NWRD Jean Williams, Hearings Examiner Ron Nelson, Renton Bldg & Zoning Department Wally Swofford, Seattle King County Health Dept. 4: a• �{+ City of Seattle King County Charles Royer,Mayor Tim Hill,Executive Seattle-Kong County Department of Public tlHcealtb -'._, „ Bud Nicola, M.D.,M.H.S.A.,Director - ' November 9, 1987 "' in) I!..;I ,,;,ri 1o, 1':;27 I I Ron Nelson, Director "' Building and Zoning r � �.•'- ' -.�' • City of Renton.. 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 • Re: Renton Hearing Examiner Decision on Segale Pit Dear Ron: This office only recently received a copy of the above-noted document outlining the conditions under which applicant (Segale) can operate his fill site. The Health Department has several concerns relative to this matter. The first concern pertains to the issue of regulatory authority. The City of Renton presently regulates the site via a special permit. However, if the Segale pit is receiving materials that fit the definition of demolition wastes, then it would also fall under the regulatory authority of the Seattle-King It1� County Department of Public Health per RCW 70.95. Enclosed is a page from the MA -1)'"�" King County Board of Health Rules and Regulations #8 that defines demolition waste. It is important to limit the materials acceptable in your special fill permit from overlapping with those constituting demolition materials. Another concern relates to the Hearing Examiner's observation that substantial amounts of asphalt may have been disposed of in Segale's pit. Asphalt is capa- ble of leaching petroleum products into the region's ground water. This fact, coupled with the general filling activity into the exposed water table, provides a direct route for potential ground water contamination. The implications of such a possibility are critical given that the pit, appears to be located within the Cedar River Drainage Basin. According to CH2 M Hill 's Well Field Protection Study of 1984, Renton's water supply emanates from Cedar River ground water. By copy of this letter, I am notifying the Department of Ecology of the ques- tions we have. That agency has authority over ground water protection and will be interested in whether past disposal practices have contaminated the ground water and whether future filling of the site will present an unacceptable risk to the ground water. The Health Department is concerned that the restrictions on materials acceptable for disposal at the Segale pit lack sufficient specific- ity to protect the exposed water table. Environmental Health Division Room 201 Smith Tower Seattle, Washington•98104 (206)587-2722 fir �fY ' . .7• Ron Nelson f., November 9, 1987 Page 2 Please contact me at 587-2285 if you have questions or would-like further infor- mation concerning this matter. Sincerely, • Greg Bishop, Supervisor Solid Waste Program GB:mw Enclosure cc: Paul Murakami/Larry Kirchner Southeast District Service Center Gary Brugger N.W. Office, Department of Ecology Gene Williams, Hearing Examiner Pro Tempore City of Renton Bill Lasby, Supervisor Water Quality Program • • �.t • b' 2. A etatietically significant increase in the concentration of that• substence in the ground water where the existing concentration of that substance exceeds the maximum contaminant level specified in Pert VI, Section 1.D. • 3. A statistically significant increase above background in the concentration of that substance which: a. Is not specified in Part VI, Section l.D, b. Is present in the solid waste, and c. Has been determined to present a substantial risk to human health or the environment in the concentrations found at the point of compliance by the health officer in consultation with the Department of Social and Health Services. T. "COVER MATERIAL" means soil or other suitable material that has been approved by the health officer as cover for wastes. SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS "D" THROUGH "F". Except as otherwise specifically provided'in this Section, the "definitions" set forth in WAC 173-304 and WAC 173-303 are hereby incorporated by reference. A. "DANGEROUS WASTES" means any solid waste designated as dangerous waste by the Department of Ecology under Chapter 173-303 WAC. B. "DEMOLITION WASTES" means solid waste, largely inert waste, resulting from the demolition or razing of buildings, roads and other man-made structures. Demolition waste consists of, but is not limited to, concrete, brick, bituminn,'A concrete, wood and masonry, composition roofing end roofing paper, steel, end minor amounts of—tither-metals like copper. Plaster (i.e., sheet rock or plaster board) or��an�� thar material, other than wood, that is likely to produce gases or a leachate during e decomposition process and asbestos wastes are not considered to be demolition waste for the purposes of these Rules and Regulations. C. "DETACHABLE CONTAINERS" means reusable containers that are mechanically loaded or handled such as a "dumpster" or drop box. D. "DISPOSABLE CONTAINERS" means containers that are used to handle solid waste such as plastic bags, cardboard boxes and paper bags. E. "DISPOSAL" or "DEPOSITION" means the discharge, deposit, injection, dumping, leaking, or placing of any solid waste into or on any land or water. F. "DISPOSAL SITE" means the location where any final treatment, utilization, processing, or deposition of solid waste occurs. See also the definition of interim solid waste handling site. G. "DROP BOX FACILITY" means a facility used for the placement of a detachable container including the area adjacent for necessary entrance and exit roads, unloading end turn-around areas. Drop box facilities nor-ally serve the general public with loose loads and receive waste from off-site. H. "ENERGY RECOVERY" means the recovery of energy in a useable form from mass burning or refuse derived fuel incineration, pyrol,sis or any other means of using the heat of combustion of solid waste that involves h:.h temperature (above twelve hundred degrees Fahrenheit) processing. _ I. "EXISTING FACILITY" means a facility which is owned or leased, and in operation, or for which construction has begun, on or before the effective date of these Rules and Regulations and the owner or operator has obtained permits or approvals necessary under federal, state and local statutes, regulations end ordinances. A facility has commenced construction if either: 1. A continuous on-site physical construction program has begun; or • 2. The owner or operator has entered into contractual obligations which cannot be cancelled or modified without substantial financial loss for physical construction of the facility to be completed within a reasonable time. • Lateral extensions of a landfill's active area on land purchased and permitted by the health officer for the purpose of landfilling before the effective date of these Rules and Regulations shall be considered existing facilities. ' J. "EXPANDED FACILITY" means a facility adjacent to an existing facility for which the • land is purchased and approved by the health officer after the effective date of these Rules -3- ANDREA BEATTY RINIKER Y Director ago+° STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY 4350-150th Ave. N.E. • Redmond Washington 98052-5301 • (206) 867-7000 �s November 24, 1987 `0), ,WIC®N Os fol-(44 Greg Bishop Seattle-King County Health Department 400 Yesler, Mail Stop 15L Seattle, WA 98104 • RE: Placement of asphaltic waste as fill in‘ the Segale Gravel Pit Dear W. Bishop: On consultation with John Conroy of our Hazardous Waste Regulation section, I have determined that the wastes deposited in the Segale pit may not be dangerous wastes. The difficulty detecting and documenting water quality degradation is considerable. In general, the primary contaminant of concern from asphalts would be polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH's, PNA's) which are highly immobile in the absence of carrier solvents and/or highly active emulsifiers. PCB's may be present depending on the source of the asphalt, and some slight heavy metal contamination might also be present. In and of itself, the asphalt deposited at this location does not appear to be a problem of high or even moderate magnitude from a water quality, or in our estimation, a public health standpoint. The future utilization of the site, however, in light of the materials landfilled there to date, has the potential to create substantial contamination of the City of Renton well aquifer. Any future materials placed in this landfill which have the potential to mobilize PAH/PNA's, such as organic solvents, surfactants or other carriers might cause movement of potentially dangerous constituents into the groundwater. Asphaultic materials which are verified to contain only PAH's are specifically excluded from the dangerous waste designation by WAC 173-303-071 (3(e)). These materials may, however, be problem wastes subject to regulation by. the Seattle King'County Health Department, 421* 3 Mayor Barbara Y. Shinpoch Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Richard Houghton, Public Works Director Larry M. Springer, Policy Development Director Members, Renton Planning Commission Ronald Nelson, Building & Zoning Director Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator Glen Gordon, Fire Marshal Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Renton Record-Chronicle Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 P.M. December 14. 1987. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific errors relied upon by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Section 3016, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. 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 made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. 1 LAW OFFICES OF ;ETH (KELLY) FULCHER, JR. n Suite 111111 280p Smith Tower Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 292-9333 ��S 3� (206) 622-5100 c� ; November 3, 1987 �� 1*1 • Nod ON Gene N. Williams 004 t41 g 54 Hearing Examiner Pro Tempore \-1 RANG Municipal Building Ci M 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Re: Special Permit Application of M.M. Segale, Inc. ; file #SP-033-87 • Dear Mr. Williams : As you know, I represent Mt. Olivet Cemetery. This is to • request review of your decision in the above-referenced matter to approve a special permit without imposition of conditions calculated to assure the exclusion of leachable compounds having the potential to contaminate ground water. Applicant' s previous permit forbad incorporation of material containing soluble poisons or other leachable compounds . You have found (Findings 13 and 14) that the pit contains substantial 1 asphalt. The ERC required there be no leachable compounds, including asphalt, as a condition of their environmental determination of DNS-Mitigated; you adopted this position at Conclusion 5 . It appears from the record that due to the city' s illegal use of this fill to dump asphalt, "pollution has become a potential problem" as you put it in Finding 13 and King County Health Regulation 8 compliance should be made a condition to the renewal of activity at this site. Thank you for your consideration of the foregoing. Very truly yours , S Fulcher, Jr. SF/jj cc: Mt. Olivet Cemetery OF.. R�� `� �; o THE CITY OF RENTON U �� 0z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 nseLL ° BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 090 Pam' FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 9"EC SEP'S' November 10, '1987 Seth Fulcher, Jr. = 1 i Suite 2300 --Smith Tower Seattle, Washington 98104\ Re: Segale Special Permit SP-ON7-87 • 033-67 Dear Mr. This is in response to your letter of November 3, 1987 requesting reconsideration of the conditions for the Segale special permit application. The hearing record indicates that the proposed fill is not a "solid waste" fill as defined in Section 4-2317 of the Mining, Excavation and Grading Ordinance. The conditions imposed by the Environmental Review Committee and by the Examiner's decision are intended to ensure that all fill material will be clean, and that substances that might contaminate the ground water will not be permitted. Under these restrictions, it appears that King County Health Regulation No. 8 should not apply. However, there is not a clear distinction in City Code between fill and solid waste fill. Moreover, how much construction debris and demolition waste can be included in a fill is not specified. Therefore, this office is not able to determine from available information if the King County regulations might apply. In an effort to clear up these uncertainties, especially considering the potential relationship between the Segale site and the Cedar River aquifer, it seems prudent to re-open the public hearing. The re- opened hearing will be limited only to the issues of fill materials and surface/ground water. Accordingly, the public hearing for Special Permit SP-033-87 will be reconvened on November 17. 1987 at 9:00 A.M. in the City Council Chambers on the second floor of the Renton Municipal Building. All parties of record will be notified. • If you have any questions please contact this office. Sincerely, 7..9,.L.i.444,•,a,,/ , GENE N. WILLIAMS HEARING EXAMINER PRO TEMPORE • GWW/dk cc: City Attorney All Parties of Record All Parties of Staff OF R4 . o THE CITY OF RENTON ♦i , z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER .0 `o- FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 O9,4, SEP1 'e�P November 10, 1987 Seth Fulcher, Jr. Suite 2300 - Smith Tower Seattle, Washington 98104 Re: Segale Special Permit SP-037-87 Dear Mr. Fulcher. This is in response to your letter of November 3, 1987 requesting reconsideration of the conditions for the Segale special permit application. The hearing record indicates that the proposed fill is not a "solid waste" fill as defined in Section 4-2317 of the Mining, Excavation and Grading Ordinance. The conditions imposed by the Environmental Review Committee and by the Examiner's decision are intended to ensure that all fill material will be clean, and that substances that might contaminate the ground water will not be permitted. Under these restrictions, it appears that King County Health Regulation No. 8 should not apply. However, there is not a clear distinction in City Code between fill and solid waste fill. Moreover, how much construction debris and demolition waste can be included in a fill is not specified. Therefore, this office is not able to determine from available information if the King County regulations might apply. In an effort to clear up these uncertainties, especially considering the potential relationship between the Segale site and the Cedar River aquifer, it seems prudent to re-open the public hearing. The re- opened hearing will be limited only to the issues of fill materials and surface/ground water. Accordingly, the public hearing for Special Permit SP-033-87 will be reconvened on November 17. 1987 at 9:00 A.M. in the City Council Chambers on the second floor of the Renton Municipal Building. All parties of record will be notified. • If you have any questions please contact this office. Sincerely, GENE N. WILLIAMS HEARING EXAMINER PRO TEMPORE GWW/dk cc: City Attorney All Parties of Record All Parties of Staff LAW OFFICES OF SETH (KELLY) ULCHER, JR. Suite . 2300 Smith Tower Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 292-9333 % -�'" 11. i„w (206) 622-5100 - '+ a,3f November 3, 1987 .- ND 014 ��N� Gene N. Williams VLFM Hearing Examiner Pro Tempore �`cN� N�' • Municipal Building - 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Re: Special- Permit Application of M.M. Segale, Inc. ; file #SP-033-87 - ' Dear Mr. Williams: As you know, I represent Mt. Olivet Cemetery. This is to request review of your decision in theabove-referenced matter to approve a special permit without imposition of conditions calculated to assure the =exclus-ion of leachable compounds having the potential to contaminate ground water.- Applicant 's. previous permit forbad incorporation of material containing soluble poisons or other leachable compounds. You have found (Findings 13 and 14) that the.. pit contains substantial asphalt. The ERC required there be no leachable compounds, - including asphalt, as 'a condition of their environmental determination of DNS-Mitigated; you adopted this position at Conclusion 5. It appears from the record that due to the city' s illegal use of this fill to dump asphalt, "pollution has become a potential problem" as you put it in Finding -13 and King County Health Regulation 8 compliance should be made a condition to the renewal of activity at this site. - - Thank you for your consideration of the foregoing. Very truly yours, S Fulcher, Jr. SF/jj . cc: Mt. Olivet Cemetery - - • November 2. 1987 Renton City Council Minutes - Page 356 Citizen Comment: Norman Peterson, 3402 Park Avenue N., Renton, indicated distress at Peterson - Campaign campaign letter maligning his opponent. He also asked Council members to Mailing speak into microphones or wear lapel mikes to assist audience in hearing proceedings. Citizen Comment: Porter Les Porter, 1021 Olympia Avenue NE, Renton, requested copy of - Good Shepherd Group correspondence submitted by Darlene Lang at meeting of 10/12/87, regarding Homes Good Shepherd group home meeting on 10/14/87, noting that meeting was called by neighbors, not Good Shepherd. Mr. Porter was directed to contact the City Clerk for a copy of the letter. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the Consent Agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Appeal: E & H Properties Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision filed by Richard Aramburu, attorney, Site Approval for Park regarding E & H Properties request for site approval for Park Plaza, located Plaza, SA-055-87 on the west side of Park Avenue North, 350 feet north of N. 6th Street, File No. SA-055-87. Refer to Council for consideration at public hearing scheduled on 11/5/87 to consider associated rezone. Appeal: E & H Properties Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision filed by Richard Aramburu, attorney, Site Approval for Garden regarding E & H Properties request for site approval for Garden Plaza, Plaza, SA-017-87 located on Park Avenue N. and Garden Avenue N. between N. 5th and N. 6th Streets, File No. SA-017-87. Refer to Council for consideration at public hearing scheduled on 11/5/87 to consider associated rezone. MOVED BY TRIMM, SECONDED BY CLYMER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. CORRESPONDENCE Letter from Darlene Lang, Secretary of Good Shepherd of Washington, was Parks: 1988 H&CD Block read reporting community meeting at Highlands Community Center on Grant Program, Good Wednesday, 11/4/87, at 7:00 p.m. to discuss proposed Good Shepherd group Shepherd residence for six mentally retarded adults on 19th between Union and Shelton. Also read were names of administrators and addresses of currently established homes inviting interested parties to call or visit. Public Works: Segale Mayor Shinpoch presented letter from Public Works Director Richard C. Fencing. SP-033-87 Houghton on decision of Hearing Examiner Pro Tempore Gene Williams regarding M. A. Segale request for special permit to continue filling an existing pit at the 300 block of Monroe Avenue NE, File No. SP-033-87. Noting that the Examiner had required installation of a chain link fence along the Monroe Avenue frontage of the subject site, Mr. Houghton advised that the City is obligated by a 1978 deed to install this fence, and, therefore, Council authorization is requested to appropriate $20,000 for the project. , Moved by Stredicke, seconded by Clymer, Council refer this matter to Ways and Means Committee. SUBSTITUTE MOTION BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY CLYMER, TO REFER THIS MATTER TO WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE AND INSTRUCT THE COMMITTEE TO PRESENT A RESOLUTION TO COUNCIL TO ALLOW CONTINGENCY MONEY TO BE SPENT FOR THE FENCE. CARRIED. OLD BUSINESS Utilities Committee Chairman Clymer presented a report concurring with the Utilities Committee Public Works Department staff request and recommendation for voluntary Utility: Water water conservation by City of Renton customers effective immediately. Conservation Program MOVED BY CLYMER, SECONDED BY HUGHES, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. Upon inquiry, Chairman Clymer explained that residents will be asked to use their discretion in voluntarily conserving water in view of area-wide shortages and possible future ground supply shortage in Renton. Step one of the program will be implemented. *MOTION CARRIED. Plannine and Planning and Development Committee Chairman Stredicke presented a report Development Committee indicating that the Committee had considered an amendment to the Planning Board/Commission: Commission Ordinance which would permit one commissioner to live outside Planning Commission the city limits and represent citizens of the city's potential annexation area. Residency The Committee recommended that no change be made to the ordinance. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY REED, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. • . t Greg Bishop November 24, 1987 Page 2 Solid Waste Management section. These wastes must be subjected to analysis prior to final disposal by the generator to assure that they do not qualify as dangerous wastes under the criteria established in WAC 173-303, as authorized by RQN 70.105. Sincerely, /�� -1 /rQ ! 'Yee g7 Norman Peck District Inspector NP:cd cc: John Conroy, NWI() Gary Brugger, NWIO Jean Williams, Hearings Examiner Ron Nelson, Renton Bldg & Zoning Department Wally Swofford, Seattle King County Health Dept. 1 • $i Co CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Barbara Y. Shinpoch, Mayor Richard C. Houghton, Director MEMORANDUM October 28, 198 LI LE TO: Banbana Shinpoch FROM: R.ichand Houghton OCT -. 9 ;-`^:s SUBJECT: Het: ing Exami.nen Requ xement net. Fence Wea.t Side of Mon/we Ave. N.B. N.B. 2nd St. to N.B. 4.th St. The Hean.ing bxaminen hat n.equ,itted a. -screen ence be p.2aced a,2ong the west .side o f Movvwe Avenue N.E. adjacent to the Sega,ee 4.i te. The City .v., obti.ga.ed by a 7 978 deed to .inzta to the ence. (See attached deed. ) Then.eione, we are teque)st.ing that $20,000 be appn.opn fated .into a PubV.c. WoAkis Expend.i tune account io we can Uu,2iLeL the C,c ty'4 ob.e.igat Lon. RCH:pmr Attachment 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2569 ' r ra.,.. '• . _ ry' • '?;$EP,r7=18;.::: :a.J' ;7.5, 71 ' •P 71071i LS a; 1''• i ,I :��• 16,ti Date- ,I.Serial No;• �Amouni � : Receiving Numbe���Cfass�fiootio� �'�;a�'jai,, . �� A ,:`�:SE•G,ALEt{r`4'•'�'rSr. • f5:;`•:'.;d � ,•i l `i''d• • .•.. . •, . , •.:,ii • 0. t . +;: :.QUI•T:''•CL IMi DEED. - W. QUIT CLAIM DEED The Grantor herein, M. A. Segale, Inc. , a Washington v. corporation, for and in consideration of mutual benefits and r— other valuable considerations , conveys and quit-claims to the Q City of Renton, a municipal corporation of the State of Wash- y,,, ington, all interest in the following described real estate : a colP The East 30' feet of the NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 Dom.. of Section 16 , Township 23 North, Range 5 East , W.P . , EXCEPT the North 330 feet thereof. Situate in King County, Washington. Reserving unto the Grantor herein, and to its successors and assigns , the right to reasonable vehicular and pedestrian access , and the right to run utilities over, upon, under, and across the described property for the benefit of Grantor' s ad- joining lands . Grantee agrees that utilities will be available to Grantor without "late comer" or other special charges other than the direct cost of the installation and connection to the Grantee' s facilities . Grantee agrees to provide and maintain a six foot high chain link fence for the full length of the property herein conveyed adjacent to the Grantor' s property. Said fence will be erected with two forty foot gates , each having two twenty foot hinged leaves , at locations agreeable to the Grantee and the Grantor. The Grantee agrees that sloping and associated grading required for the construction of this project shall be subject to the prior approval of the Grantor. Grantee agrees to defend and hold harmless the Grantor, and Grantor' s successors , assigns , employees and agents against any and all claims associated with the construction and use of the road to be constructed by Grantee on the described property. ' Dated this Jc IL dayof 7-i_,,, , 1978 . M. A. SEGALE, INC. , • Grantor By: .-' ,,, 1 _ , /- President Attest : �a' _U_ ,I , Secretary CITY OF RENTON, CA n,• Wir S. Grantee 141, �. 'b$•; • By • ,,. .r • , ....... ES DELA N •I,• May-or %• Attest : i • •y• ��` 1% EXCISE TAX NOT RI:QIJIRED3 ' %�' ���, L, ' ity ler 'rig Co. Records Division ' '• , • , .` . By.. .:• e-. • ' .; Deputy.. , ' ` k October 20, 1987 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPLICANT: M. A. SEGALE, INC. File No.: SP-033-87 LOCATION: 300 block of Monroe Ave. N.E. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Special Permit to continue filling an existing former borrow pit of approximately 14.4 acres that will accommodate approximately 1,050,000 cu. yds. of fill over a requested 10- . year period. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Building and Zoning Department Recommendation: Approval for five-year period with conditions. Hearing Examiner Decision: Approval for five-year period with conditions. BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT REPORT: The Building & Zoning Department Report was received by the Examiner on September 16, 1987. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Building and Zoning Department Report, examining available information on file with the application, and field checking the property and surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The hearing was opened on September 15, 1987, at 9:00 A.M. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The Hearing Examiner confirmed that the applicant had read the staff report. The following exhibit was entered into the record: Exhibit #1 - Yellow File containing application, proof of posting and publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. The Hearing Examiner recognized a member of the audience. Responding was James Colt, American Memorial Services, 100 Blaine Avenue N.E., Renton, Washington; mailing address P.O. Box 547, Renton, Washington. Mr. Colt said he respectfully requested that the hearing be continued for a period of two weeks to give his firm an opportunity to review the documentation. He explained that he had not received a copy of the decision by the Environmental Review Committee concerning the project until September 10, 1987, and had not had adequate time to review the record. Explaining that they were a party of record and notification was not timely, he said they request continuation to allow that opportunity. Mr. Williams stated that, while he understood, he noted that Mr. Colt had been in contact with the City and was aware of the matter as indicated by his comments and letter dated July 27, 1987. Mr. Colt replied that the response he had received to his letter from the City included only a copy of the Environmental Review Committee environmental determination of non-significance but without the mitigation measures and that they had not received a formal notice. Mr. Williams requested comment from the Zoning Administrator concerning when the notices we're sent out and the normal lead time for a public hearing. Mr. Erickson responded concerning notification requirements and typical procedures concerning an environmental determination and public hearing. He also advised of specified appeal dates, posting and publication practices, and written notifications to parties of record. He said he assumed that Mr. Colt had been notified; however, he did not have the yellow file available for reference to make that determination. The Examiner then recognized Laurie A. Pinard, representing Mr. Segale. She stated that they did not oppose the proposed continuance. She said, for the record, that although the preliminary hearing documentation was dated September 8th, it had not been received in their offices in Tukwila until September 10th. She added, as they had considerable concern about having sufficient time to review the departmental comments, they did not oppose the proposed continuance. • ''M. A. SEGALE, INC. SP-033-87 October 20, 1987 Page 2 The Examiner requested response from the Zoning Administrator concerning the requested continuance. Mr. Erickson noted potential conflicts with other public hearings and advised regarding forthcoming schedules. Mr. Williams commented that he would not normally wish to continue a hearing. t However, since the applicant had also indicated that they were not given sufficient notice for preparation, he believed continuance was appropriate. He then called for discussion concerning an acceptable date. After consideration of forthcoming scheduled hearing dates, Mr. Erickson said that they would be willing to add this application to the public hearing of October 6, 1987. A brief recess followed for further review of the Hearing Examiner's calendar. Mr. Williams advised that October 6th was available for the continued public hearing. Noting agreement from the applicant, the Hearing Examiner declared that the public hearing on file SP-033-87 was t continued until October 6, 1987, at 9:00 A.M. He explained that, as no further notification was required, there would be no additional notice. Continued public hearing: The continued public hearing resumed at 9:03 A.M. on October 6, 1987. It was confirmed that parties wishing to testify, Donald Erickson, Zoning Administrator, and Laurie A. Pinard, representing the applicant, had been affirmed by the Examiner on September 15th. The Examiner also confirmed that Ms. Pinard had read the staffs preliminary report to the Hearing Examiner. The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by the Zoning Administrator, Donald Erickson, who noted that the request is to continue operation of filling an existing former borrow pit of 14.4 acres that will accommodate approximately 1,050,000 cubic yards of fill over an extended period. It was noted that this was a continuation of an original application to fill the site over a 15 year period. He reviewed the seven criteria to be considered for approval of a Special Permit. These criteria relate to size and location of the activity; traffic volume and patterns; unsightliness, noise, and dirt; surface water; storm water runoff; and use of the site. He pointed out the site on the Comprehensive Plan and zoning maps, noting the zoning and character of the area and other fill operations in the vicinity. He added that because the site is substantial, they are recommending that the application be approved in five year increments and that the operation be evaluated at the end of those periods. Mr. Erickson continued with a discussion of traffic volume and patterns. He noted that there will be 22 to 30 average truck trips a day, that the applicant proposes to use N.E. 3rd and 4th Streets to access the site, with actual ingress and egress primarily on the County shop access road. He pointed out that there are two signalized intersections which facilitate the operation. He said staff recommends that the hours of operation be from 9:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. because of nearby proposed projects, a proposed recreational facility, congestion on N.E. 3rd and 4th Streets as well as Sunset, and potential bodily harm and damage from runaway trucks. He noted correspondence received September 14, 1987, from the Public Works Director indicating that they consider 7:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. satisfactory. He pointed out that earlier comments from Traffic Engineering staff had recommended 8:30 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. Mr. Erickson referred to the Environmental Review Committee's mitigation measure relating to unsightliness which requires that a row of coniferous trees be planted along Monroe Avenue N.E. The applicant reports there is insufficient space to meet this request. The Zoning Administrator also noted staff concern regarding safety. Because of neighboring residential areas, they believe that a fence, or something that a fence, or something similar, should be provided. He advised Department has indicated that the City is supposed to place a fence in this area; however, that has not occurred. The Zoning Administrator then entered the following exhibits into the record: Exhibit #2 - Site Plan showing contours. Exhibit #3 - Profiles of sections showing the elevations at the end of ten years. Mr. Erickson explained that these exhibits show contours indicating the bottom of the pit to be approximately 270 feet at the lowest point and that when the fill reaches 325 feet rehabilitative recommendations should occur. With regard to dirt, Mr. Erickson advised that the applicant has agreed to clean the vehicles before entering City streets and to retain washed-off material on site. Also, the proposed operation must comply with City ordinance requirements concerning allowable noise. M. A. SEGALE, INC. SP-033-87 October 20, 1987 Page 3 Regarding surface water and leachate, he noted concern regarding fill materials, especially asphalt, and the size of the materials. They recommend no asphalt to,protect the City's aquifer. They are also concerned about plasterboard. Relative to stormwater being contained on the site, he said they have no concern until an elevation of 325 feet is reached. The Zoning Administrator concluded with a discussion of the conditions imposed by the Environmental Review Committee in their mitigated determination of non-significance. He added that the site is not at issue as it is currently being used as a pit. He noted also that the applicant may have some questions regarding the fence, as he had heard only recently that it was the City's responsibility. The Hearing Examiner called for testimony in support of this proposal from the applicant or their representative. Responding was Laurie A. Pinard, corporate counsel for Segale, P.O. Box 88050, Tukwila, WA 98138. Ms. Pinard distributed a copy of a prepared synopsis of her comments, titled "Upper Balch Pit," to the Hearing Examiner and Zoning Administrator. She provided a brief historical background concerning the pit. She added that during the past thirty years they were unaware of any complaints or violations concerning their operation. Ms. Pinard advised that they have reviewed the mitigated determination of non-significance issued by the Environmental Review Committee and the staff's preliminary report to the Hearing Examiner. They are in agreement with the departmental recommendations with the following �. exceptions: 1. Duration of the permit: Ms. Pinard noted that the site will accommodate more than one million cubic yards of material and indicated that with the current market needs, it would not be possible to complete the fill within the next five years. She said they feel that the City's concerns are adequately addressed within the mitigated DNS. These involve the hours of operation and traffic routes, materials to be placed in the fill, and other matters of continued management. She pointed out also that other concerns, such as surface and subsurface drainage, erosion control and hydroseeding, are not capable of being addressed until the site reaches approximately elevation 325 feet. This is anticipated in approximately ten years. They, therefore, would like to forego review again in five years as they feel it would be unwarranted. She added that not returning would save needless review, save both the City and the applicant time, and save fees for the applicant. She noted that the City has already anticipated its future concerns, and the applicant remains ready, willing and able to address those concerns as they arise. Ms. Pinard said they also respectfully requested and suggested that specific language be incorporated into the Final Decision of the Hearing Examiner calling for an informal review by the City after five years. 2. Asphalt: Ms. Pinard noted the applicant's concern regarding condition #1 of the Determination of Non-significance, which reads "that no material which contains soluble poisons or other leachable compounds (including all petroleum based substances such as asphalt) which have the potential for contaminating the ground water is to be filled into the site." They recognize the necessity for protecting the ground water from substances which may leach into it. However, they would like to have the opportunity to present information from a licensed geotechnical professional which would indicate to the City that certain quantities of broken pieces of asphaltic concrete pavement are not leachable compounds which have the potential for contaminating the ground water. They suggested revised language to permit further information on asphalt. 3. Coniferous trees - "late comer" charges: Ms. Pinard referred to condition #2 of the Mitigated DNS, which reads, "That a row of coniferous trees be planted along Monroe Ave. N.E. for long- term screening of pit operation insuring that the trees are set back from the road so as not to create a site distance problem." She said that would be an impossibility at this time, that they do not foresee that being a possibility until the elevation rises to the street level. She advised that they had reviewed their files and located a Quit Claim Deed dated June 20, 1978, recorded under King County Recorder's No. 780907 1074, from M. A. Seagle, Inc. as the Grantor to the City of Renton, as Grantee, for the western thirty feet of Monroe Avenue N.E. She cited the conditions of the deed, in which the City was required to provide utilities to M. A. Seagle, Inc. without "late corner" or other special charges other than the direct cost of the installation and connection to the Grantee's facilities and provide a six foot high chain link fence for the full length of the deeded property. Also, the deed requires that the fence be erected with two forty foot gates, each having two twenty foot high hinged leaves, at a location agreeable to the Grantee and the Grantor. She then submitted a copy of the deed to the Examiner. At this time the Examiner entered into the record the following exhibits: Exhibit #4 - Synopsis of Applicant Comments Exhibit #5 - Quit Claim Deed #780907 1074 M. A. SEGALE, INC. ;: SP-033-87 October 20, 1987 " ' • Page 4 . Continuing, Ms..Pinard referred to the Utility Engineer's comments, which indicate that in the future there would be charges if the applicant is connected to City services. She requested that the Final Decision of the Hearing Examiner reflect that pursuant to the Quit Claim Deed, "late corner" fees not be required. She advised that they had not become aware of the deed until September 14th. 4. Hours of operation: 0 Ms. Pinard said they - take exception to the hours of operation, 9:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M., as recommended in the Departmental Recommendations. She noted that they had requested 7:00 A.M. to 3:30 P.M., the Environmental Review Committee had recommended 7:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M, Traffic Engineering had recommended 8:30 A.M. to 3:30 P.M., and that the Public Works. Director had agreed to 7:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. She said they agree with Mr. Houghton's position and request that the language of the Hearing Examiner's decision reflect that. She explained that 9:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. would be unduly difficult for the applicant and noted that the predicted number of truck trips per day would approximate three or four trucks per hour, which they did not consider to be an unreasonable burden on traffic volumes. • She then responded .to comments that their trucks occupied the space of three to five vehicles, advising that they were in various combinations - solos, solos with pup trailers, and double trailers - and not all would occupy that much space. She commented that it costs Segale approximately $2,000 to $3,000 to license each of these entities for the roadway and that they pay diesel fuel taxes. . ' She also responded to the matter of five runaway trucks since the beginning of the year, advising that she had tried unsuccessfully to obtain confirmation regarding them from the City's Police Department. She noted that none involved the Segale operation and said they would take exception to constraints being placed on them due to someone else's negligence. Concerning broken windows, she said they are familiar with that kind of complaints and said it would be acceptable for anyone registering them to the City to call their company; and they would• take care of it. • Concluding, she indicated that they would prefer operating hours of 7:00 A.M. to 3:30 P.M. but would be willing to accept 7:00 A.M.'to 3:00 P.M, She clarified that they-had requested the use of the King County access road with Monroe Avenue N.E. as an alternate. She noted, however, that the mitigated DNS had not indicated that they should not use Monroe. She pointed out that both intersections are signalized, which they feel should resolve any concerns of. the City regarding traffic flow. 0 She explained that in fire •permit SPO-3287, there was concern about a signalized intersection, and they had requested that they be allowed egress onto Monroe to take advantage of the signal light because at that time there was none at Jefferson. 0 She said that completed her comments and suggestions, and she offered to'respond to any questions. Mr. Williams indicated that, while he had a number of-questions, he preferred to defer them until after all of the testimony had been accepted. The Hearing Examiner then invited any further testimony in support of the application. Responding was Seth Fulcher, attorney for 'Mt. Olivet Cemetery, 2300 Smith Tower, Seattle, WA 98104. Mr. Fulcher was then affirmed by the Examiner. 0 Mr. Fulcher submitted a written statement indicating that Mt. Olivet has no objection to the issuance of a permit for reclamation of the M. A. Segale pit at Monroe Avenue and N.E. 4th so long as there is compliance with all provisions of the Renton City Code and all'permits required by King County Health Department Regulation 8. The Examiner then entered into the record: - 4 Exhibit #6 - letter from Mt. Olivet Cemetery As there were no others present to testify, the Examiner then directed comments and questions to the applicant and the Zoning Administrator, with responses and discussion as indicated below. The Examiner directed comments and questions relative to the duration of the permit to the applicant. Mr. Williams noted that they were requesting ten years, as it will take at least that long to fill the pit, and the City is recommending five years. Noting that the applicant 'has also suggested informal review after five years, he said it seems to suggest that they are aware that conditions do change over a period of time. He asked for further response in support of a ten year permit. Ms. Pinard replied that their operation and need to use the pit will not likely change in ten years. She noted that during the last five year period, this pit did not even reach partial completion and that they had not indicated any intent, or have any plans, for an organized trucking effort with dozens of vehicles in any one day to cause any traffic impacts to the city. She advised that if ,M. A. SEGALE, INC. ,.0 SP-033-87 October 20, 1987 • Page 5 , restricted to a five year period, and the City expects them to fill the pit, they would have to step up their trucking effort. She commented, however, that they have no intention of doing that as they don't see a market need. Responding to an awareness that conditions ,change, she said they are aware that conditions do change but feel that the City's concerns are adequately addressed and that the constraints that the City has placed on them include requirements for the applicant to fend as necessary already. She noted that the City 'has a street cleaning bond, required hours of operation, compliance with Regulation 8 which could change, compliance with all of the City's ordinances which could change, and in addition the language of the DNS that says the applicant shall work with the City regarding traffic and source of fill. She noted also that concerns regarding truck traffic and source of fill are addressed by requirements that the applicant work with the City's departments. She said that several of the concerns which Mr. Erickson had raised must be deferred until elevation 325 and, therefore, it seemed unnecessary to have a review in five years, when they are far from reaching . that point. The Hearing Examiner referred to the time of the operation as well as the overall length of the permit. He noted that they had estimated an average of fifty round trips per day and about six per hour based on an average day. Mr. Williams said he recognized that there would be fluctuations in the number of trips, but he was concerned that could vary quite a bit with substantial sources of fill. Ms. Pinard said limitations on the type of fill are economic and also depend on the market need. As far as the number of truck trips per-day, she said any limitation would also be economic. Mr. Williams noted his continuing concern regarding days when there were quite a few trucks, particularly during the rush hour, and stated that he was not sure anyone had addressed the matter of monitoring. He asked for any suggestions on how that could be approached. Ms: Pinard replied that she was not aware of how that was monitored in the past. The Examiner asked if all the filling was done by M. A. Segale or if there were others. Ms. Pinard responded that at this point the filling has been done.by M. A. Segale, Inc., that they did permit the City to place some of its street sweepings in the pit, but that she had no information that anyone else had been allowed to use this pit. The Examiner advised that he had observed from site inspections that there was some evidence of filling activity which included substantial amounts of asphalt, which the City is recommending not be allowed. He also noted concern that their access is via the road to the County's transfer station and asked what is to prevent private individuals or other companies who normally go to the transfer station,to relieve their trucks at the pit. Ms. Pinard explained that they have their own agreement with the County for the use of that roadway and that she 'understood that it was a very difficult road to travel down into the pit. She said she was not familiar with any constraints but that it was her understanding that they had not had any problem with that kind of activity. Mr. Williams said he knew 'there was a gate at that location and suggested'there was opportunity for using the gate to limit the possibility of extraneous activity. With relation to the asphalt, the Examiner said he was directing questions to both the applicant and the Zoning Administrator. He noted that the Environmental Review Committee had required that there be no leachable compounds including petroleum based substances such as asphalt as a condition of their environmental determination, and that determination had not been appealed. He said this condition was in place unless the Examiner, found some reason to change it, such as an error in fact or law. Therefore, at this point he felt there would have to be substantial evidence that asphalt shall be allowed to overturn that limitation. He asked if anyone wished to address that •and noted that the applicant had stated that there may be some information but it was not yet available. •- ' Responding, Ms. Pinard said that was correct, but they had the ability to remove asphalt from streets and needed to put it somewhere. She said that they are also capable of producing recycled asphalt. She explained that in the past this is what was done; however, they realize that those kinds of fills are presently more restricted and they would recognize the limitation. She said there wasn't sufficient time for anyone to determine what kind of effect including asphalt in certain amounts in fill is going to have, but it was their plea to see if there was something that could be done about it if such information became available. Mr. Williams observed that it appeared that the.ERC was trying to be cautious in the matter because of the site's proximity to Mt. Olivet Cemetery and the City's wells. ' Mr. Williams said he had some confusion about the issue of-placing the trees along Monroe Avenue N.E. He noted that the ERC had already set the condition that there be some coniferous trees and that they be set back, but that he wondered about the site distance problems. ' M. A. SEGALE, INC. •+; SP-033-87 October 20, 1987 Page 6 , • , Ms. Pinard explained that it was not possible to place trees there at this time. She said the difference between the curb and the place where the fill goes down to seventy feet would not accommodate those trees. She noted the presence of trees in the pit whose height exceeds the level of the street at this time, but she did not know if it solved the City's concerns. She advised that on September'14th, they met with representatives of the City and discussed the issue of the trees, and it was suggested that there be a fence instead. She noted, considering that .the City has an obligation to place,a fence, perhaps that should be done. She said they estimate that it will be ten years before there will be sufficient material to plant the trees. ' . . Mr. Williams observed that it appeared that the fence had been at issue before. However, he had concerns that a chain link would not screen the property unless it had wooden slats. Ms. Pinard said that was a possibility which they would be willing to discuss with the City. Mr. Erickson said the whole fence issue was of major concern to them. He said the Mining and Grading Ordinance includes requirements regarding fencing for safety reasons. He said the safety issue is one of the reasons for having a security barrier. He said in the meeting with the applicants, it came'to their attention .that there was no fence, that it was the City's responsibility from-Monroe to provide a fence but that it had not been put in. He added that they are talking now of combining the safety issue with the buffering, esthetics, screening and, in lieu of the trees, placing wooden slats in the fence. The Examiner asked for clarification if they were suggesting screening on all sides of the property for the safety issue. Mr. Erickson explained that other similar operations are finding that they should have a fence, or they are faced with higher insurance premiums for liability." In any event, he felt the applicant was at risk and would want the area fenced as soon as possible. Ms. Pinard added with regard to the placement of the fence, that there had, never been any problems with safety on the north, southern, and western portions of the site. She said they were in agreement that there should be screening along Monroe Avenue N.E. She said they were also in agreement that a fence would be fine and'that wooden slats be added. She said, however, if they were discussing fencing the entire property, she would have to consult with her employer. .She pointed out that was not discussed in the mitigated DNS. ' Responding to the, Hearing Examiner and Ms. Pinard regarding the'section of the code referred to, Mr. Erickson advised that Section 4-2311 related to fence and gate requirements. Ms. Pinard commented that with regard to screening, considering that the pit is seventy feet deep, she felt that was not as strong an issue as with an open gravel pit that would attract visitors. _ She added that, in view of the depth, there would not be any dust or noise to invite that much attention. ' Mr. Williams'asked if the intention regarding access was that the,normal access be from the King County road but that Monroe be approved as a secondary access. Ms. Pinard confirmed that was the request, but if it became difficult during other circumstances, such as an organized trucking effort, they would like the ability to use Monroe for access as well. She .'noted that. the .use• of Monroe was also'a part of the Quit Claim Deed. She emphasized that the intent was to_use.Monroe only as an,alternate,"not necessarily as a loop, although that might be necessary. The Hearing Examiner noted that one of the issues is the protection of ground water I quality downstream and the City's aquifer. Therefore, the ERC has required that this be monitored by a geotechnical engineer and also one monitoring well on site. Addressing the Zoning Administrator, he noted that in his introduction it had been suggested that the Health Department can require three monitoring wells for individual sites. He asked for clarification regarding the requirement for monitoring wells. ' In response, Mr. Erickson said the Health Department addresses monitoring, pertaining primarily to solid .waste and fills, and he discussed their. requirements. The City is very concerned, however, about protecting the aquifer, is studying the fill issue, and feels that there is a need for continuous monitoring.. Therefore, the ERC established a minimum recommendation for one monitoring well. He explained further that the geotechnical engineer requirement is basically a monthly reporting process that certifies that they looked at the site and did not find any basis for concern. Mr. Williams confirmed that'at this time the ERC condition is that there will be a monthly repqrt from a geotechnical engineer and there will be one monitoring well. The Examiner added a note ' that, if this application is approved, this would be in place and would not be overturned unless there is some significant error. 'Mr. Williams also noted for the record that this property, based on the earlier approval through file SP-032-82, was required to file restrictive covenants so that after the complete filling and rehabilitation of the property, ground water injection wells would be required that will be able to retain all the natural rainfall and precipitation to allow it to percolate back into th'a aquifer. Ms. • .M. A. SEGALE, INC. SP-033-87 • October 20, 1987 • Page 7 Pinard'agreed and noted that the applicant has been filing monthly engineering reports to the City in the past, including the statement that the ground water is being able to percolate down to the • aquifer. V The Examiner noted that also under application SP-032-82, there is a requirement for a $3,000.00 street clean-up bond. In this case, however, the ERC has required $2,000.00, and the City recommends the same. He asked for clarification. Mr. Erickson suggested that it was probably a similar amount to that applied to one of the other sites. Ms. Pinard suggested it could have been because in the past there was only one traffic light in the area, and yet there might be two ways of entering onto N.E. 3rd and 4th. Mr. Williams said he had further questions concerning the hours of operation. He noted that Ms. Pinard had indicated in her summary the different recommendations that had been made. He pointed out that it appeared that originally Traffic Engineering had recommended 8:30 A.M. to 3:30 P.M. He asked if the Public Works recommendation of 7:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. superseded the Traffic Engineering information. The Zoning Administrator explained that the letter from the Public Works Director came, out on September 14th, and the comments received from Traffic Engineering were dated June 11th, so they were considered to be superseded. Mr. Erickson said their concern and recommended hours were predicated upon the cumulative impacts of the Mt. Olivet Cemetery pit, the King County pit, • Cugini pit, and this pit on truck traffic. He noted,"in addition, proposals for substantial residential development in the vicinity. He also explained that the report on the runaway trucks came from the City's Traffic Engineer, as reported to him via the Police Department. Ms. Pinard pointed out that the staff recommendations that were made concerning the hours of operation were related to the truck incidents. She also noted that in his letter Mr. Houghton had indicated that the hours of 7:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. coincided with similar operations. She advised that, in discussing this matter with Mr. Segale regarding how they operate their pits, she found out that it is extremely difficult when hiring union employees to put them on at 9:00 A.M. Typically, they start them out first thing in the morning and run them through their eight-hour day. She pointed out that 9:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. is only a six-hour day, which would be considered onerous and difficult and make it necessary to relocate these people from operating somewhere else to go to this pit. She added that the 7:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. would be acceptable, although they had requested 7:00 A.M. to 3:30 P.M. She also noted that the six-hour day would make it more difficult to accomplish the fill and make the duration of the permit more crucial& She reiterated that the incidents of runaway trucks and accidents had not been cited with respect to the Segale Company. She noted that in addition the City has a street cleaning bond, which they anticipate will continue, and with washing facilities on the site they feel that adequately 'addresses the City's concerns about traffic and dirt. Mr. Williams asked for confirmation regarding the City's final recommendation on the hours of operation. The Zoning Administrator indicated that the staff recommendation was for the hours 9:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. He noted also three reasons: the increasing congestion on Third and the displacement of commuting traffic during peak hours, the danger of runaway trucks regardless of the source, and the trucks returning in the.afternoon blocking off one lane going up the hill. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak and no further comments from staff. The hearing was closed at 10:27 A.M. FINDINGS: " 1. The applicant, M.A. Segale, Inc., has requested a special permit to continue filling and grading an existing gravel pit with approximately 1,050,090 cubic yards of material over a ten year period. 2. The subject proposal has been reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's Responsible Official, issued a Declaration of Non-Significance--Mitigated for the proposed action. 4. The subject property is located west of Monroe Ave. N.E. just north •of King County's maintenance facilities. The property is about 14.4 acres in size and is now occupied by a 70 foot deep pit that is the site of a former gravel extraction operation: Limited re-filling of the pit has occurred under the authority of Special .Permit-032-82, which expired in June 1987. Currently, there is a fairly large body of water ponded on the floor of the pit. Growing along the sides of the pit and over the previously placed fill there are small to medium size scrub plants, such as cottonwood. - 5. Surrounding land uses consist of mixed commercial and light industrial to the north near N.E. 4th Street, Greenwood Cemetery and a gravel pit to the east across,Monroe Ave., the King County V M. A. SEGALE, INC. SP-033-87 October 20, 1987 Page 8 shops to the south, and to the west a King County storage yard, the Southeast District Health Center and the access road to the King County transfer station. In the current situation, the deep pit is not clearly visible from these surrounding uses. However, as the pit is filled, activity on the site will become more and more visible. 6. The property was annexed into the city in 1966 by Ordinance 2249. The current zoning of G-1 was applied at that time. 7. The Map Element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the site is located as appropriate for the development of Public/Quasi-Public uses, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the plan. - 8. The Mining, Excavation and Grading Ordinance (Chapter 4-23), under which this special permit application is reviewed, contains policies and criteria guiding the regulation of grading and filling operations (Sections 4-2301 and 4-2303-2). 9. Approximately 1,050,000 cubic yards of material will be required to entirely fill and rehabilitate the site. Based on the truck sizes proposed by the applicant, about 65,000 round trips or 130,000 one way truck trips will be necessary. Because of the large capacity of the site and the changing availability of usable material, the applicant estimates that complete re-filling of the site will take at least ten years. This works out to about 25 round trips per,work day. However, work of this nature may vary considerably from day to day depending on the availability of material. Some days there will be few truck trips; other days there may be a substantial number of trips. Therefore, the applicant suggests that an "average" day will be about 50 round trips per day, or about 6 per hour. 10. The original special permit was approved subject to a five year limitation and the,current application is for continuation of that approval. The applicant has requested approval of the special permit for the full ten years anticipated to fill the site. Staff has recommended limitation of the permit to five years in order to re-evaluate the operation and conditions of approval,in light of any new or changed circumstances in the area. It must be noted that the area surrounding the subject site is undergoing considerable growth and more is proposed. N.E. 3rd/4th Street is the major arterial serving the plateau ,to the east. Residential growth is continuing in this area and a large multi-family development of over 1000 units is proposed near to the site. Commercial and other higher intensity development such, as Renton Vocational Tech is located in the area. 11. There was a considerable 'difference of opinion over appropriate hours of operation for the proposed fill activity. The ERC has required as a condition of the DNS--Mitigated that the hours of operation for trucks entering and leaving the site be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. The Traffic Engineering division originally recommended hours of,8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. The final Building and Zoning staff recommendation is to limit the hours even further to 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. because of the potential for run-away trucks on N.E. 3rd Street during morning rush hour and because of the large amount of lane stacking space that must be used by tandem trucks. Comments from the applicant and a memorandum from the Public Works, Director suggested that the ERC condition on hours of, operation was sufficient to mitigate circulation impacts and in line with the limitations on similar grading and filling activity in the area. 12. The site is in an area of permeable sand, and gravel deposits (the reason for, the earlier excavation activity) which serve as a recharge basin for downslope aquifers. It appears that water falling on the site and percolating to the water table helps to feed the creek near Mt. Olivet Cemetery and some of the water eventually helps recharge the Cedar River aquifer. Mt. Olivet Cemetery holds a valid water rights claim to 72 acre feet of water per year. The City of Renton takes a major portion of its water supply from the Cedar River aquifer. Interference with either the quantity or quality of water percolating from the subject site may impair the rights and welfare of one or both of these water users. The previously approved special permit recognized this situation. To mitigate potential adverse impacts, a number of conditions were applied to the permit, including' restrictive covenants to require injection wells to facilitate on-site percolation even after the site is filled and developed. 13. Related to the water quality issue is the question of the type of materials contained in the fill. The ERC has required as a condition of the DNS--Mitigated that materials which contain "soluble poisons or other leachable compounds (including all petroleum based substances such as asphalt) which have the potential for contaminating the ground water" shall not be allowed within the fill. The applicant would like to include some.old asphalt as part of the fill material but was unable at this time to provide any scientific information demonstrating that this practice would not be potentially harmful for the water quality in the aquifer. Further, the ERC has required the installation of a leachate monitoring well and retention of a licensed- geotechnical engineer to monitor the site and report on the fill material. King County Health Regulation No. 8 may also be invoked to monitor and regulate the site if pollution becomes a potential problem. M. A. SEGALE, INC: SP-033-87 October 20, 1987 , Page 9 14. There is current evidence on the site that substantial amounts of asphalt is being dumped in the pit. Moreover, the gate and entrance ramp to the site is located on the County access road not far from the entrance to the transfer station. This situation may invite the illegal dumping of unsuitable materials by private parties passing by the pit. 15. Main access to the site is proposed off of the County road. However, the applicant would like to secure secondary access from Monroe Ave. N.E., especially as the pit becomes full and loop circulation is more feasible. Both of the potential access points lead to signalized intersections on N.E. 3rd/4th Street. 'The ERC has required that clean-up facilities be provided on site to prevent mud and debris from being transported onto public streets. Further, a clean-up bond has also been made a condition of the DNS. 16. One of the issues that must be considered by the Examiner'in reviewing special permits for fill and grade is "screening, landscaping, fencing and setbacks" (Section 4-2303-2). The ERC has required as a condition of the DNS that a row of coniferous trees must be planted along Monroe Ave. N.E. to help screen the visual impacts of the proposed fill operation. This row of trees was also required to be setback from the street to prevent a sight distance problem for turning vehicles. Unfortunately, on the east side of the subject property there is not enough land that is adjacent to , the street right-of-way and level with it for placing such trees. Even if the trees were to be placed on public right-of-way, they would have to be directly adjacent to the curb line and would potentially interfere with use of the public street. Fencing is sometimes used in lieu of or in addition to landscaping for visual screening of'objectionable uses or activities. The applicant and City staff have discussed the possibility of'using a chain link fence with slats 'as a screen along the Monroe Ave. frontage as an alternative to a row of conifers. Fencing may also be required 'as a condition of the special permit to protect the public from any potential safety hazards of the fill operation (Section 4-2311-1). A large multiple family housing development is located just across N.E. 4th Street on Monroe Ave. N.E. Properties both to the north and south of the site are already fenced. Pursuant to quit claim deed No. 780907 1074 for a portion of the right-of-way for Monroe Ave., the City is apparently obligated to install a chain link fence with gates along the east side of the subject property adjacent to Monroe Ave. 17. As a condition of the DNS, the ERC required that detailed drainage and erosion control plans be submitted when the fill elevation reaches approximately 325 feet above sea level. This is somewhere between 5 to 20 feet below the finished grade level. Prior to this time, all surface drainage and soil erosion will be contained within the closed pit. 18. No plans have been proposed for re-use of the site after the filling activity is completed. CONCLUSIONS • , ,. 1.. The special permit to fill and grade, the Segale pit appears to serve the"public interest and welfare. In its current condition the former gravel pit is not,useful. Careful filling and grading will restore the site to its natural contours and provide a usable site for future urban development in the city. However, certain conditions discussed below will be necessary to, avoid potential problems with filling and grading activity at this site. . 2. The subject site is, located near a major arterial (N.E. 3rd/4th) that is heavily congested during peak commuting hours. The large number of truck trips needed to transport the fill material, even when stretched over a ten year period, will exacerbate the traffic problem. The ERC addressed this issue, at least for the afternoon commute, by limiting operating hours from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. weekdays. The Building and Zoning staff recommended reducing the hours further to avoid problems during the morning rush hours. As long as the number of truck trips anticipated by the applicant as a workday "average" is.not exceeded, the hours indicated by the ERC appear to be an adequate means of mitigating traffic problems. Moreover, this restriction is in line with limitations for similar grading operations and will provide the applicant with a reasonable working day. However, if the pattern of truck trips to and from this site exceeds the average of six round trips per hour during the period of 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., the Public Works Department through the Traffic Engineering Division should be empowered to modify the hours or intensity of operation as necessary to mitigate traffic impacts. 3. The large number of truck trips also may create mud and debris problems on public streets. Therefore, in accord with the ERC condition, on-site cleaning facilities should be provided and a renewable cash bond should.be posted to cover clean-up by the City if necessary: The bond amount should be $3000, as required in the 1982 permit. 4. Because of the rapidly developing nature of the plateau around the subject site, the already congested condition of the arterials to be used -by truck traffic to the site, the fluctuating nature of fill availability, and the presence of a potentially sensitive groundwater aquifer, the special permit should be limited to five years. This will allow the City an opportunity to review the project and . modify conditions of the permit as necessary. The applicant recognizes that there may be a need to modify the permit as a result of changing conditions, however, there is no provision in City code to M. A. SEGALE, INC. SP-033-87 October 20, 1987 Page 10 • permit informal review as requested by the applicant. Therefore, another special permit application will be necessary to continue the filling activity beyond five years. 5. Surface water from the subject site percolating and infiltrating to the groundwater may have a significant effect on the quality and quantity of water in downstream creeks and aquifers. Careful selection and monitoring of fill materials will help to avoid such problems. In order to mitigate these potential impacts of the proposed activity to surface and ground water and protect downslope water users, the conditions imposed by the ERC should be implemented. Materials containing soluble poisons .or leachable compounds, including asphalt, should not be permitted in the fill material. Further, a geotechnical engineer should monitor the site and at least one monitoring well should be installed. When and if the elevation of the fill reaches 325 feet during the five year life of this permit, complete drainage and erosion control plans should be submitted. The restrictive covenants filed as a condition of the previous application should remain in effect to ensure recharge of the aquifer by surface water injection wells. To prevent indiscriminate dumping of materials in the pit, all gates should be locked at the end of each working day and on weekends. 6. It is clear that condition No. 2 of the DNS--Mitigated requiring a row of coniferous trees cannot be met because of the limited setback on the east side of the pit. Therefore, pursuant to Section 4-2822(D) of the SEPA ordinance, this office finds that there is a substantial,error in this condition and such condition shall be deleted. However, it appears that a fence with wooden slats could be installed. Such a fence will serve to visually screen the activity within the pit and will serve as a safety barrier to pedestrians who may be inclined to enter the site from Monroe Ave. N.E. Gates may be installed as part of this fencing to allow secondary access from Monroe Ave. to the pit, however, provision should be made to provide adequate sight distance for trucks using such gates. Determining which party is responsible for installing such a fence and providing for wooden slats is a matter that is beyond the purview of this office. That will have to be worked out between the parties involved. DECISION The special permit to fill and grade is approved subject to the following conditions: a. ' All mitigating measures of the Declaration of Non-Significance, with the exception of Condition No. 2; b. Limitation of the duration of the permit to not more than five years; c. Restriction of trucks entering or leaving the site to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. weekdays, with the provision that if the number of trips leaving the site exceeds six per hour between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and the Traffic Engineer determines that such truck traffic interferes with the arterial function, then the allowable hours of operation or , the number of trips may be further reduced by the Traffic Engineer; d. Provision of a renewable cash bond in the amount of $3000 for the purpose of street cleaning in the event the applicant fails to clean the streets of debris' from the filling operation; e. Installation of a chain link fence with wooden slats along the Monroe Ave. frontage of the subject site; f. Locking of all gates at the end of each working day and on weekends; and • g. Continuation of the restrictive covenants requiring installation of injection wells when the property is redeveloped. OR'ERED THIS•20th day of October 1987. . GENE N. WILLIAMS HEARING EXAMINER PRO TEMPORE - ' TRANSMITTED THIS 20th day of October 1987 to the parties of record: James Colt American Memorial Services P.O. Box 547 Renton, WA 98057 - L •M. A. SEGALE, INC. SP-033-87 • October 20, 1987 Page 11 Laurie A. Pinard P.O. Box 88050 Tukwila, WA 98138 Seth Fulcher 2300 Smith Tower Seattle, WA 98104 TRANSMITTED THIS 20th day of October, 1987 to the following: Mayor Barbara Y. Shinpoch Councilman Richard M. Stredicke • Richard Houghton, Public Works Director Larry M. Springer, Policy Development Director Members, Renton Planning Commission Ronald Nelson, Building & Zoning Director Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator Glen Gordon, Fire Marshal Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Renton Record-Chronicle Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 P.M. November 3, 1987. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific errors relied upon by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Section 3016, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. 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 made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. FE escs•It• •.‘ 4"C.' .4,,,,,••1 011 WY ,M q ff X 9 .9 -r ivoa..zgg vvras. ‘„, • ra.,9 a'a IT: 3 M•••V MIS•I CO I I /,../..."..‘7,14? t 9 i / 0 —miss this ' =LT I .. . . • 9/Y0/..1.2-7.9./0 .9.77.1.10cYcl uotsamisuu ,e;:y,..,:!;.'.,°‘•-- _ -- — all 'ON1.31313.1-i:V•rt Is p -(1.,),zzLj ' • I o 0 1 / I i . r ----\\] oil / ‘ • O / a . \ 0 es. . i ,.... — I • ..•••• \ ) oat • • ..-- • • ..... - \ k • cmt 1-.2 1 ! -.. ........ . . ...... 1 ,._. , Olf I - -- • • 1 // 1 j , *Y.::• . C.:-) ;;;••_j ,--- . ' / • 1 is,`,..i c=1 -...-.-...•:1-.f Off „,..,,-: ....:.=.—.;•; •• '1, ••-•••.---.......,____..........,.......„ \ \ ; . 27. •••• -..... . . 1 • •Pk./ 0.00• 0044Y-fee -e."--. C..0) r''' ::.--..1 • • ....___ \ OFF 0 1 '''-....5 i':-..--::77." kt • • • -•...----1 . ID .. -ITI iklbs OCr I.I.. . . . ''.0 ....-......... .'7 . . - • ... , = . ..,===...,./ . ,. • , , k..,-• '.41/4 . • . • • . . . k , Nt; ., 9 A vuo.g 5 67 6 8 Z ?. S . X''' 9 e / o . . I 1 1 1 • I I oL.1 • 1-......— .i.--....---....-—— '—...._____.....,_....__................_ 1........ . . . . . - ea?. I/ 1 Prii/V F•v•44,4 ;;;;;-7----- ___.._.‘ - . . . •...,......,..: I . - . . . -. •, //1 . \ 042 c;.Z.•:..f . • • Al I 1 . \ r .... ._ . • 1 ... ....$ ./ I - • 4~ . - 1 . . • \ `. .--- off .• . .. .., 1 . ... . . pa r . , m 1 , , • . , . 1 , ON • - \ . . _ I. . . . 1 . / . 1 . _ . . 't . . .- . cit . .— 1 • . • / • ; , • \ • • • . Orr- 1.,,..., 1 .. - - • I -,4" • / - 4747"i'A.:"4:f"'Wire,'2.7 16,4.. ..... . ........, • .....-i I I .... , . I - 1 7 1 .-1 I I - 7 . 1.--• ......„.:. . . ••. •. ,.... • . . ...,_,......... . • ... - • ______ .1•1•Mmi - • . . 1 . . py 0,it ,.,e e,r ......, ,„ OICI•1811 . . . . Vi-- .0,../ no.,',41.4t.0.1,1,1)1 6...1•71;::?,... • 'I illie, • /,"drY'f. •••15449.GY . ,,•,,,e ...!!,.., •, f...I a 0....1.161•1[0,1 . iivs•-•z i .. E.,-"z4.,,,/ NOUVNV7.232/ ..1/d 'Goo .0.10.411, "iq .f./r I , I'!"t..- 71. 071e)/'41-'''Y'''7 f'Xir OW -7.••=frir ..• /•-) . ,.• - vetv NP74, R-1/.5* uoitonm...0 .1t;!,.,7.7i.,;;;4* ' ',',..:'"••1;:, !'.........'S Pt, 4 _ 9 • . '9141'.91b,022'V•tv . '... . '-------'' •"41`141/ 41 ""J"a1P--7- -----------t---- ............... ,...era•Gdf...,...•r...:..11.............,.......,.. ..1,•:...7i........................e...••••........--......• ' 0 V .61 V/4N., 444V1V-r 01 ..6 . -z, _ ......0.,A,tuee r.............bet,.......... ••••..0.k.s.l.,449,,C41.-Ws....V.-4,1.1:1ZAf,•,16*.,...;‘,A.,,,47.1%,..,......'"Iz.....:;•••• •V:...L.u.". .raNeco.........04 - ..a.•••-•• ••......:•::•orv... ....!! ...1..:;_._.•,_,...,..,,,_. .. ........_...----- .-.._ .•• •• , ,......; ---. "........._-..--1-..--...___....... :::::-......_......_.. .....1................•...•.•• ••,........•7.t.:-Z., AV 74.4.chr -74,,...Pec,>1...,../(2....___..../V _..C....,_...._,•"_„..•:;.L.2...‹... ...77•_,.... ______.__..._,___._.._._._.____...... .._____ *go•r],s---'.•'......._..__....__. . ........ ...... -....---..-`-- -`1.--..--.---..---- '-,---, --' • ---,---.-..---- - —.... ....0,-"I/ -. 'A...vs? S.01,0.2.7')54 •af IT•i 44.V.AVer V e..•town ........, - ... „, //..............-; ..... .-77777.7.-..... . ....._.-- ..-_,...-.....--.•-...-........ \\ 1 • si..p...$249,‘"fr ! ,•ir .__..... _. rul .........................' .... t........!::00-. :'''•r•'^IP 9'f1•4..,/.P4 i1e."i,e:p6c/g04y.i.,7e i"/g,A,2,,,,,1rroa i.y/gfVOg.rr.p/it r.r:w4.•s 0,r 11I / / .•1••",:....i..fd.••••.'am • . •....... ,.. _•a ay_--•,••O•-..-.r""3 a. .<...... ...----.-..-...•.-.-..--....—. •__. ------ .-..-."--------_---__--" .- -.p.=eoe WM....V.Js...-/11-•--07.. / /7roic , 1 -- / • / _- - 0 7 1 . _ — - ,1\.•-- .-•-.--%\ 1I . . _ ,----7, ...... •././....ote,yp,iye.,.. 1 I . 1 4.;; ./.. / L.cee,I,:;•yele..,/ed d."17 1 I 1 /.. ' \\ “Zi- -- .:,14.... ./7.. ----::: • •••-,.5.c... ....-.....""--- 6171.41,ilA,•54.37-,041.50 I I ( ...•'''''''' • 7 - ''...:% .... f,.r.ip Aleezor.,Pir•„e.eled-rzx : I II i 1 roc • FP I / ...........- ...e'........./ ''''-. . .z.. ,2. 4•••... ' "47/1"AI'0.1•4'1:29.1 11 I l'i r: . f al • , ..... -- .... •--.... ......, 1 ti:•N i • ----------w-------2, I vl..' ci4 ...•t! *,,,• :, . .: :$8.10/1, ' HI q , 1 I 'I 7 /' s•sa ............_ ______ ...c.. ''.4.... I I • 1."C.'":;- V / / .... •••••<- ..— ''•••••;.' ''''- • -' .•• k I 1 1 1 % ,\ I - .' . -"--:=3- • v19 • I . . ...1 ill ''''Zi:•' - - • - ' • . 11 1 • r- •CI1.,\ 1 . . . . - • \ ' • ., - :. . / /P /9‘9,/-N' ''•••, - I 4 1 • " ',: en\ 1 _ OS_. ri / / f,1.3/ • \ , ell . )1 i : •Z=.'!.:. - : % I i I . / .'' • /'. I . , / /'776Q? j . •-.. 2..t.,./"' . ' / i 4, I %...‘..‘'.. t.. ,..ii-4.f_•-•--4:-:..i.4:-:: .5.-- , I 1 : lea .,; • . . "E..•!•,7.„!;_-.,.:', !.•,.' - % , II , I i `7:. • . '1 \ 1 ( . ,'-=.•-•--,-:.• -._.‘,2._.....- fel 0. 1 : -.\ • 4 (‘.. I I 1 %.' . . . _..ae ', w . 1 Ni\ lii.'''l - TV_ _ Oa ) \ . • %*N.N.,......N...s..s.( 1 ':--r.r_.--:--:' •••i...:V j % -;:'::. ..'-_-.,i,.:.17.; • "ill I I I ! • %.,, .0.1!? • "........ ,yoS'/ l„„„ ,..1 i . \ ,.1 i _. i-7:'"-!r.:.:-EP-' - •,,r-- --Iiii . ii . . . - ,//, Iv-I ,,....„ ..„..,::::,•,, , 9 'lit 1 \:1 s..... \ • .. . • . •• 0 • • -1 I • • • • 1 1 . • .' .• •. \ 1 1. / N. . . 1 n..:- V' 1 • ..-- ......._ ---,..... ,........ , :,:::•:,, c, . 1 . ,, . ,-_,,-;•. i,— 27C-..1 K-7-_: 14 It •.. I , ‘ -'.' "--- .;--„,...._ . .,.... L . .. • •',,:::" ...., e: -i ---,_*-- a C-:f-.; ..1 :, I \ \•............- • . '-'-,i.:- --•-•!-"J- • ,,,,,,J ........--- --. --,-......... -.....-----; --.... ..‘ I • ,:--„-•--.,•:_t-..-4...,:'.. c!---- , .! , „,,o- ---- • , ....." ...f'•:-..V-1:-.5 1\1 r ,-1-1!* •• -'.0. ....s`"••••- I I • . .. . ._ • •:-rf•-•--':-••;,:0 ,';'-.•'•:::• • _.•- ,...„..\ -, , • ----.... • -;•- ....„, ---!":. , . •••.. -. :--- .3 • • , ,......N.,....N,...s::......„:::>:_*_e.od'0-_-.. .... .....,,... ... ...,._ L,...,__101-:; ',..,„ . *''.......... ...-............. ................... ................... e>,.. ............... \ CT ' ' .....4/....... .. ... .............. ................ ..............,............)) I I . --...--.—................---------."--- eq. ..---....... *".........'.....................„,..,..... .. . ... ,...... -.............. ''-'.....,.................. ' . - „ . ................... ...--.. -,-.- , •••• - i ) 1 11 • ---___-- ---- ----. ,-.--•.,,,f.. ' 117 4.."..- ---=-% 1 - . \ --- ...-......__......- --"".- -"---.....- -......... ..... .....-........ ....—..-....„...................... ... ':-.C_. - .-.1„ -- ? -...,....., ..........,_ .....-"-.."-.----...--ea'---_ ......... ,...._ .......-......._____.--_ _.............., , 1 , Th -----,,,,'•-•,•,•,••V ‘ - __ ------------- -- ea---_____ _ ...-%''',..........s.v. --.--.- _...... .../ ; I . -__.- • :•-•-•..--.-,-..:-. -.--i':,•:- .__---1.----_-- --.-------,„ -___ ______ -___.. ,- -------:-.--,) : ..........----..., . . 7" -_.i...Iti:•-Y--..-;:3' j.7:'' .''' ,.. .1 ".-' 0.• ...... . .--.......,•, ...,... ....- -,--.---....._..-.*. . .-•-•- ••.--- r 0.9:red — -in.1 7•10./0/le . -; . - -' ...' • • - - -:• , -.....k,'- --:._..,,,-ig ;i11 1 1,,. bp --....., 0 ‘.4 :PW .Mfr. ..-70Writ24, 4 1......;_Aerie "warp.r,c7^ )- • b „0 yl . . . . . . . . _.. . . . ...—.. .. ....._.-4.........._.•____.. --...s, ..0 g 4 I ...- meat v.14 ,,_.,••...-_.. fr.:--,,,i&ipt...0.1,;,t, • -4:4 .ri J7 •3,.- :.::-.'1-t....'.-, -.*..9 1 • . v_ 2-1--— 0.44 . . :.;••-:- -.:..--:, r,„-.,.---,- - . . . . • • ril 1 95 ..,•(( ....---.,-.F.,, ,.......E.:.<.-.......,:.-:-..-; - •:-._. ..,.- 7.2:: !.!=' ,.,,..:_:,.•:.:.• -..1,•.;i14.>..1-5 '.:*-"ft.5:0-,.•••i''.. •`..t.','7;:r5,....s.'.:, .- ,,c. , , • 0......, ...• 0 . •-••na, .1'3 ••• •.•••e• ;0.-_,..t-.•-tc„_•..„. . --.'c:e.c.,•:.,,.:c '- 1' % \MI I 1 • ‘c.:,<..1...t.r ,.:.-.0.....e...p-,.1 ,,...• • - ...-;•,:-. ..,:% .. , ,,,„_,•.,••••.„...., , ,..-. 1\i,, . 4.. -0-,-,...,...,.,4• :::::. .7.,5"' 1 .%•,. 7(1,t ____ ___ a'1•• •... . (dr " .000000000• . 408%s •.-... Am • ---s...".,.', '.,::: ' '............., N. :-..• -- .- • , . . .........• . . 2---;: ,•-q.,,to . 1 ....,g... IL, ' . -..,ib Ili::i ' •.' i•..,,,,s-:-.,-., i - ) j 11111 1 r••r.Z.ti.:•,'.1:4 • ..'''''•';$•,, ',i''. 1 ,":4:, c,'.-;,....A.n, , •. f.**•:•..:......e:i.::::!!!!...:4:::it..!...,..L.::1,.......• .;:.....,:;•:?:-..,.10:.11.1.; r,:.!'.°'/:!)...':::°•°::'1A. :::9::.:::1::::.:::::::i:;ric:..:! :,c.. :.1.:;%.,,' ir.111. • i ••,;,-00 , _ -k.: il vki.: • . • 1 LAKE ,d,' ,46 ' SI, '!--t4,<•• NT ;1.. I.. ;•)< to-00-0-..;-,,,1:4;;;;', ...,.. . SHINGTON t „ , t .. . _ •ii 70''1.,.0j,sr',.•...••.,__,,,.,,Y 1.,.('1'.,,ir.i'1,,'. ..,i.•Li 1i.1.• ' s • :. 1 ANI...I.I..aIVi1ml:as.A,o:o:r:, „....1.,..,-',' liI-MoMiiI"i.nMp:i.7p.MIiIro.I.,iIOs--eIM-.is../..•::.':„i::':.•::.:...i..:.::.:..::,.:..::/.:.,A:„:'..,.,tdi.•UNp--ai.eOu.M-,a.Md 1 = rs •M11...- • Eta .: .......:•,:.:.:.:.:..'::i.:i:1:i:;.;'iltillrla I :,'Y' ° ° ° * '\IP", ",(S.ri•fi• t,....440644 I -1 ,e,a:::::::*i•.:*:::•••••••,•....• Ammo for t .A.11111112tit,,!....::i . .. Ini ..., ___ .••••• 0 o 0 0 o o itt, 1 • ::::::.;.:-.,. t.„..„_. .:*::i:::::::::: 15,1,02:roi," .;:::::: .--•- _,..i000000tt o.I. ,,. ,:::*:::•::::::i::::::-•Egitor, -..-_ ••:::::::::::: ..Akinipior, ::::......•'''... -../.5. 000000 woo 'r,-,tt)t ,' ::i:::::::: ''''• 7 lila ;:i:!*i::: '114 , •• *\...':::)ii •..." , .40 r. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * 0 0 0 ...., '' %:::::::::: Aft5.21...1 ,•,:::::.• , 1,0!.., .•,.. •i:., Ill: . gAll I, . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 10 0 P‘..'' :;:iiii.: ....- _Mir' '..:.:..:iibr„,7,:g0• 9..... *7•,gotc,'ci,gt-ti'o o o o o o o o o o o o\_o o ,: „,. .iii:ii:§: : .____sis ‘,.:.:•::::yrb acme Fr 0..0000. 0 0 , e , 0 0 0 0 .. 0 0 0 0 :. \ ...---- ......::::•:. 1.11, .1.., . ..m . . sis: ::gogogog. P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \0 0 00• , , '*:.::::::'irint i''' %IR, I L....,...,,I 14. 2,gg?,gg0,; • 000000000000000000 0000•\ 00 ..,r. ,...:::.:::.::i.:::.:::.::.; :.... , , 611111111111MIIM .,, •:.: ..... _. I .0 0 00 0 0°O°:W. o o o o 4 o o o . o o o e * :•:• :::::'1 limp...4. to, IL ,,..:,. 0 0 . . . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .. . • 00 .0.::,. .... . • . 0 . 0 . . . 000 ., , :::. . ca -• oo, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0• 0',.,' , ' I MI ' 'IS'.. - l'?" II" \ c..c..,. •c, 0 0 0 0 .4 0 CI 0 .% ..... IC,__0__D , '... ‘. AMIN 1 ''..,;',. .°0°.001.04,0 ., 1 ,, . ec:::,r•-44:,‘ 0:0 00 0.0000..0 0:..00 0,_:2.00:4 •••••• . , oc,.0000.0., • • 000000000 0000 , k•cve...°0°..ogle'.4 •' 4 . .:.;:i •:••.:•:::::::•::,: ,•• • • '.c?,.. (0•,g02,te,2.•: i oe000000f 0000000.400.000000000 k.,•.,..:?.. . IIIIIIIIOMI,m....,,T'Y 0000 mge 11111P14. .1,1 ggl0)_-.. \, ho'... .ia. ':.•:•:::•::'::•:.............. -- ....0',300\?,0,CjO.!;T: ,. . r. '20g0°0°0°0 At 0 0 0 0 "0::Co';fr. • 0 0 0 0 0,.•,4.; :.' life - 111111 Ir.: 'ffilli' III •:•:•::::::::'' .•:•::::::::::::::::::Ls: •.•.• .•.....•............ • ., 1.,..,ogoogo,:7,4 0 0 0 s.00000 ii , 0000bo .,:".. ,•.• '2,.. '..ifi:r 0;3020,20g°„..,•.3 o o o ac0000 t.;. u . 0 0 0 0 0 .i..!‘,.. , 'NI 1 L .,. 1 . i ,..... , C'cq,ogogog.• 4. 0 0 0 4 44, 1 ,0.0000000000 ',,,-:;..;. :t kt, 41..,gggg,,A3(C))•:(,r:: 0'0'0' rj.:1::::414:,11 0 0 0 0 ,0 ?'',:',,', .1.1 illik I ' Mil t ; '0.:* I,C.7:7.:77.777.7.7.,' gm ,40:4•• o o 0 -%:•45'ef,',!:;',,J. .• 0 r.:1 0, o 0 , h„.. '.1111 ..itAggg(Og '0)07,C . .:1.-6%%air. ''Ili Th*Cva..C)g,°6°$1. 0,je ..;,i Ask --tik /0°..0° •::::::: : .:...1.1. ..11 - ,-;;•,...iiriggi',,,gg -,s.':.,c'•°-°-° ..•ii.:ii11.111,4 0 0 r-0 0 9 './ A' a'••1p i ,. • ,0•tcr•,0-, R if:. /"A ' 1 r .,. .0•0. :::::::::::::.......::::::::::::::. esdnup imullown 0. 000 ::::,.:::N.:,..:.:. ..:.z.::., -_-- --_---- .0000. x.x.' .:.....:.:, ,...4P . E..2!_.._....!!! & .:.:•:,W.. 4. •* II. AMON * ....TS! --,..... . ..----:---„, ' o o •0 • •.• ::::::: . ! - 4' ' 4 ::.ii, h , 4,,l'IF ti: a; ''.. .i:i:i:iiii::iiil,', ..:.:.: .:°0°0°0°kip '1,0°0°0°0°0°0°0°0°0°0‘' L.:111L::::::".11.1111071:11•11•0112111111 iiiiii:•:,1i.i:C.:ii: . ?2, gogeclog0c°000 ;:i..•• ..:0;30g.to isio L 7.--Ayrr :::,..,:i:i.::,,,,.:.:,.. i....:"....,....:..:...::::::.i::.i::.,,i::.7r...:.:.:.:....•••• 0: ,if:ii.11..:.c0.00000.000i00.000:00.-000-0. 00 ilif ‘,),,g°g(o'gg`gg°ggg- •'4°g' , .- Mill i I :1 Ni% .a if .. ' t'''''s,:<:• `., .:::::::."':;./.:.:::::iili!i.::iii ..,;°3'0%°;it 1;..00%°0%%°0°0%%°0' ,:::*:.:-:::.:::7.k71:11ary. .-:::.i:i:..::.iii,,,g) (.0goge,),0;30";0,6,0;?, .k 1.,e)c.' Nii i .:..._.:.:. jo, .f:tits,'4, ..::,:.;,s, •:-.. ..:.,:i:iiii.:1:;,.g,..coom:.•.',100.00.0.000.009,00-4 :::::::::::::.:i:::: ::....:.;:77.-„Ai.:.mk law ,;402.%gggsgg%..,,,,,,,..„, ,,, . 1 ,1 :-::: ::.::.,,ti.,,,i..,p, . , ;01. . . '1,•••,',A•3:,;‘,";:,,..,, :::;:;:;:::;::::;:i:;;::::i:i::::*i:r00003000 ./..':°0°0°0°0°0°0°0°0°0°.i ...- „.' ,::::::i:if;:i.::: "•••:.:•:.:.:.:•:•:.:.:::::: sli 0 0 0 , r A, 0000000000;, :•:•:•:. .0-6' •---. . , - . ' r 1-1 111717 0 0 0 0.0, ' \''''' I ...AEI ' r .,. ,• . .`•• : 14) .rilirP--I. . ..s ' ; --',:i)vouc, ..: .: i;.:. Mi •:] ;"000000.0.000.0..0.0000000Roozo°10.01. ,-41411 :erL.,°) Wik:ti.4,1 •:11..s-6„.. ' •7 .,' ........................... i.00.0 .,.., i ...ry :....,A ,:i 9 1000°00, • : •:::..., ill e arir i r 00000 ' :•:•:•:.:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:. •0 0.0 it.,..11..,!.0„...,,,:. ,0 ( • ;,--'4 4 •0000c,.... :::::::::::::::::::::;::::::: 4,•;,•;••••47, •o a,.4.44..4,••••'• • ..,•••#v4vhico i i•••: .1 - .....•••••••1%„whanak7ro„, „°ogogo°o , ,.11:11.1,m, -' I.•, •••••,..•-•l'/ ,•. ..cf :,. !., i %%0.00000.;Z' :::::::::::::::::::::::::::: , .,, ! .a..,..11.11 .;g8,.,..6nosg600gg . •....iiii.,.\•=',,--•„:1,14. ," "' ..,,,,• t.,-, - . = -- v... :i:i*i:i:i:i:::i:i: :::i •-t .0.0.,.•• 4:: I ,• .:::,11,-Alp 0,56000..000 411k'%112.1:11;111rfNfen' v 44..;cw.7.' .':'• cl- ,,,,,.....,. ., :i:i:i:i:i:::i:i:ir:::,::,*i ,.'.•y, .0,0_0_0„.0aok• A .-_,,,,-,:r,...,. 1 t •,fo ,,,,, . ..,.. .•( , . .i,,..••1--.:.: .•..,. , ..:•••, , ,, .:::::::::::::::::::::::::: J;03.r3 . '.. ,,,`b&WA :, •:.•fr.,.0.•::.: , - ...,1 c :::::::::::::::: .- -.', ,,,..., ..;•',. rimetrummo as ems ism& taialitti's °°.° ? - . . " '-ssi•••' '•••`. s ,U1'• , ::::::::::::*::::::::i*: ...(3`1';01*.,t.,j4?7:',-;'•:., ••••.i'i'••'.• •::•:•:::::•••:•:-::.: ,. 1 inmum elmem%mpg, fiedeps ° ..,, ... ',4111.1114: ‘,, .,' ..:•,• ' Vt' • ::i: iii::i:i.:i::•'. a:,-,1:1,'.?,;`..1r:',.:;'.5.,:',.cf,..!',Si:rei: ,::::::::::':':':::: : .....;,,• ''•Apia _.a ,le %IT NH? 4. 11 din k, ,.10,h.4,.... -'141'It?,-1/4"'; ''''. ;;‘• " .''j'•4,-...';••:,,,,''.0,,%•-•''',.,-,,..;9,'+'),‘''. , :.:.:•:.:::::::•:•... 0. : •- al!,-11411W41-• • lin 11 IP 11 ly . ..„,,„ ,„, .... .,. . ..4...,:.;,„,,.. .,..,,, ,,...,0).;,..,...,;, ,;...1„1..,,,,,:....,.,,,,:e?.;,/;,,01.,•>,%;•re,,..;,,,-., ::::::::::.::.:i:'..::.:: t „vitiate imut ,,,,ip 0-0; s lama et P!de , i .`, 1).:.:.'• '',,a,c;f...t.,•r.N.,‘,„ .k. .,,,..f,•:„,. ..;„,,,,, •, ..•-•,?.„,..,.•..0,-..,.-••• .,.-...•6,0947',1, .......".'•'•,•'• ! . Il• • ralis .°P'.111. .: r kligi lir •' ,• • ..,,,,,,,,.,,,,, ‘-i-4,,,,•,•-.,-i.,4....,",:•.!...,;:?,,.;..,:::,.,,,, .-,,,.dsj.Y.•!;:,;i:1;C:r/ri i-ji Of. ..:::.::::::::::: 111.1 V.I"a8.118M1.01111.1111.111 ." ....4.-,- _int, . \ ..,),:'.:c6',-,•-',,,i'::;.T,(:-....riNs.,,,e,.8.,_,..,,r.f,: kihri..1.,•;:,?„..., .,...,:.6.,..),....:,,,,,,,„Y.r. • •,..,..,:,..,„s..,•,,,,,„),.,,, ,..,,.i, .•.... : "Iiiimmenini: ' -:.'•-- Iluis' ' ..';'''''..c::•t•k.. ''•`-'4.1.:;4';' 'Rum., •7'1?ifi''' -"'" mi,strudirans a ••••-.11'1gf; ‘0 jii .••-,',:-.,*t 1.'4 Y.: c:',•:c4',..,(t. .••,..•-,, ••:,,,,,•••,.. Al, ••••1-,7•1)‹.-rt. ',qt. ,,,..,......,,,_ ,, ,..,,,;., • , wilsolamile-r .., .4,,,,.14.• , .....„. ' ."• 0,,,,,i...^1:4-.;7 ••',..e. ANA ,,- -",‘ "irt-N-ClisMib ,:c• ( cil•p• ,....?,.-,...,',.,...',...-•,.•••••••-• sailufarif ,14.;•:E.:.•;.;:i.:us,•, PI ',"4"i•c'...;(1.:':!..•••'-„I;(:..$"(i•,1 •• ---.. r.,.`.17„.°Yor,"••'•.:.2N-\,,..„,,,,-1,41,7k, 60.- ,.,,, .0,t7ri. .. tr, .: ,. , 1 . , 6 _..,1........;4:-!,:.--, ' t , ''.;:'';;?i,v;C:;,4:;.-2•1,;;;),vi, ...,:;..'d;,it(4-',) ;-,. ,, .......6 e'r-et. -0 - , • , , us nnnn S'm its•'....,:,:4:fe VA, 'ell' 1 kA-0.44;fer4.‘ ,...•••• - , ' rakimmir.aw ....•.•'',n'". .",:tV k -(4r,:,,..7;•gr,:;',2i.*.LoAtk',...e.z.;70E•:!..t?„Yl:•,..'"..).V..,' ''.s'-,:',...---',..filik.,-,,•-..--,•r• .s.c• .:•:,<*t .•' •.• ; ., . nommoo.....j.e_.9.",,,t„,,,,h.- '......... -.,..... ,,,, , , t ' ...... -A y2.,„...t.• r.t• ;• Z • •N AN 4 4.1,:.:.P..:..,:sli.t:1:4,..;!!\•01:20.6:S,;(;:.:4•(..g.,•:'.<0.:,'41Z.!,,,i l'?‘103„,44....... ------. ...\..,.. ,,,•1 .4.t%...crVe.T..!)4&.:0;.:.-S1.;.,.:(:(1.14:14(6.4.4,0.7',.,.444,...,..Zt;.?; lummarfronti, ovo ammissinir' %. :. 7,..0000000.0., MENU writikas/.00. Elliall4VAMOIRMI .oco I' •. 0000 examitirmoin .000 1:minknamf . : . 4.,,..„ ..0.0... ,• .0;.0• A,1.:c.,•.;,,,,.,..., Ian ,ret • . •:\ ''...., ,„....r...,,Ar .,., ,•••,?,, .0,, s. NM= RIMOI 0 py, 11111.11. f*.• •0 0 r.:::irse::..:'°.414::::1 Jit,...c.e. ..,• •„tc,-•(.•';-..p,i;.,f*-,,•,.,,1,,,,,,,.',.•;:-•,&. 4,,'..,., . ,..(:?,,, .\\....--. ,.,••..,, i,„0,.&. • . :-„,•et: .,;••••,..i,1 3...,.6:-.,,...,c-"•`i-...:Pc%•.'3i3'''''''il?VY'...`" .?:tr,.7...,/ . .• ' -4,,T;at,. A. 0. _ e.J.r.4•••...4•'i-to-!..::..•:....-.4.!0dia:..0 4.'2°....rlii-V o•a.9.!`021-47.6)....o;.,'•,,b,'.,r,.•...z;'•.::%:,_1. .. I . . . c 6. ;L....P- ains 1 .=" ..:::.:•:::•:::•:::•:::•:::•:...... .z...i.,...1.,,,,1: mom '‘ ,,tr ..::i:i:i:::i::::::::;X:i:i::. 3 _ MIRO MilatigMOW '&10,.:::::X0::::0::".:::: : - 148 so ._ _.,.....„51, ::i;i:::::::::.:_::::::.:.: :•:.::•••.,...,,,,,. LAND USE ELEMENT „.. .......40....... .1., 04'•••'•t, ,i--:.:.,,.An.......:.‘41'..:..,..,. .it....; -- ',... . . *•:•••:::::::::::::•*.::::::::::::.: i.. •MMMMM-.7-_-=---1 ':• till '.. ::',.::i:,.i:i '..• : . Sing Fam Cmnecia0 I ----- f ••• . 'N' r:"",-:::::''i;i.. .: i • 1 9.44.441M..4414i 0.. ...... „.:.:.:„.. .._... . .:.:.:.:.:.:... ..„. ..,... 00„.0 Low fisty en ...................; ioffice / Office Park 551 °_?,°.% ,:.::.::.:::::::::::.:.,...- •:::::::::::::::::::::. Multi-Famuiy ,._, . .... - ._:_-_-_=iii ,5:-•••s-....N. .:!r.74re.:1 •••• e'''''''' M dim Density 000.....- 1.00°.0.°000°.°) Public/Quasi-Public ___ •,..., 1.-?.....99.......: KI --- o -- -\'''''' c000.-er.:,-.e. : 0 0 0_ 00 00 t _ - ‘.-:. ,:. •• - rind-nil:IT . ; :0° ,k*:::,..,-.• cign Density ......j...... Light industriai , ,.. _ ..• .....i Multi-Family 000.00 ..„. . , ,,....„,....,,,,, i WS/14%P, .- E: . -_-a .-_--:_--, .i. ....„, -.,_ a `.t. --_-_..- _--i••-,-.• .4 - ..... . --__T --- ,-- .:-. .,,,, .. . ,• t:.,a..,„„. • i - -0. 7 7--• -----.1 r:.";. /'!A•, rle -ik ).'''' ''''I'4 Recreation. !% ooi Heavy industrial . . .*-_, ..i • ..,,,,.„<....k: ' - 5 ! • r....*Y.'' GreerBbeSt i ! Manufacturing Park .. • -- 'SI •• ' .' / lifluOtiple Optoon I.:. .,. _ - ._ ill,- 1 . • 23:=712CES23rX2,... . ',f,'4...."'‘'', :•fir :-:::..::*i:i:::':'::**::i::•,:. .. Revised Aprul 1085 -, . • i .:. .......__ .....,.......c.......„._oen . .::::: :::/ iii:iiii...:::::,___ . - 'ti. i ✓• H 7 — .n •1 nee t_,• e �-\ o1it 5 • • c .— ��' "` -_ . ;• � i ll_ . i\ 8 6 .• , E '4 1-1Tlm -1 1 , E aZ�1ht • • r� N.. o • wa• . 1 r e : 1 1i'l ,. O .. Q . • 2. . , 2 _ • x • I �� 1° • 1—., ' 7+, . , • •c •watt >...• a a�•/It a %v ' !� .• t.l L•". '/'c' 'a j• :2414 ^ `j I _' a • ., . ew 1.M1� L.1•. as _111 1� t 1 —I ^J .� I I R— 1 i 7 • `.gip . °.�� • I riTITTII 1 1 I 1 ✓ ' 1 1 ,, i I • I put � _ % ,. uec ta•. •1 El _•mil 1 !k : T: U ��,� �' -., ♦; is r r ^Ih i e' ° 0 1 17 4 if y1 1 •W \y,.. !, i PIt, ,3 . . . . 17"C i ! , . 1, -�1 L �'�; i /OC,Ai,o,,,,I . I P N I I $ !� S-�( 1 • L �,, i , 1 a 1 i —� r ` / C7 1 I I I r(^r °`� 7•,r..l • ..E EH OOD i 1 11 / f , �4.i' �- 1E. TERYL. I '� *� s, r 14 G I 1 r • / C. //4 / • / ;I '' r vt - j f I /\ / 1',le- 2^IG 5-�. // -...' .,, , I I Yi sf , /// ,6 ••7il. a ��'� '/e I I - , i I . I i /. - I I . i I I • M.A. SEGALE, INC.-0 • • SPECIAL PERMIT: SP-033-87 APPLICANT M.A. SEGALE, INC. TOTAL AREA 14.4 ACRES PRINCIPAL ACCESS . COUNTY 'SHOP ROAD OFF N.E. 3rd STREET. . EXISTING ZONING G-1, GENERAL—SINGLE FAMILY EXISTING USE THE :SITE 'IS::CURRENTLY A BORROW SITE BEING REFILLED. . PROPOSED USE CONTINUATION OF FILLING OPERATION OF FORMER BORROW PIT. ' • • COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN PUBLIC/QUAIS—PUBLIC . COMMENTS THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE' OF MONROE AVENUE N.E. • AT THE 300 BLOCK. . sEG ,t-,LE . . , ,,,......_..,,,....... . ...• _ _ . _. • _ , . _•,••., :„., ,..•, • _ is L.t_s-._ I. • . r. __ _ . .: .. _. _ . .. .....,:: '. 9:.._ _ . .. . . . . ,, ______,.,.• •- : - .,!.::•::::-;-..111...:71.-:-1-1::t.!'C"Lr'31.,_:4:7,-; eit9t77...:1'''."1:;::::_,!.::':::::.?:::._::7:':'":;:l:';::::''I-- -7':::':'j . . ,. . 8 ORRCOW .,.. _ ..._„ . . • . s [T E . . . ta ti l.._ . .,•-•-_.•. . _ • . .. . • . . ... . . . c:,,, ,._ . #. _ , . .., . ,-•._.....„.,..„,,, FII LL RECLA• ATllON . . ..__. (.•,, ._:„..,"„......,..._:„.,„... ..,., _ . . s • - •fi ==_ -\; • P L A 6._... . c • I • .. .. a •._.'- .� -•..'tip -' - -.• 1,--c::::__.:.1 ., 1 - .. . , .:.:..„......: . stTa. ; 'r. 1, . . . • • . . . . . • . . . , . . . . • ....: ...,...„,:_•„;•„,„:..•,,,...:. . . . :. • ... . . . . . . . . . ,.....•?...„,,_,............ . . . • - --„_.,., ...„,.„.„.„..,.:. . • • • . ..,-„,..„-,„..-„,,,,_--,.:___.• „„. . . . . . ...,,,,--.7:,,r.'Ci'X'''.;--- �t i`_ %.` • 47, i 11 S ciii,ALI - .1\ • . P':--`•'.-•:-. .L-..--rf-.•--',..•:-%•,';;E • IV A' AIL__ t • . : \ '.,J , o0iblirs•1 :1:,;; '61;: f1 . . • t . • rr ' Q �) �` O�s'NE�• M.A.Sccece, T. ' 64Z DFSO.C/Pr/aN. : ,,/1 lea/O Savra wra4 Arse,: ree !.d!f IF Al." t/./dne f% ../ff ,s s.>!f> P' �'"0� / : flar 68050 d/c fed /c, r. ,A' F3,1..e., .imps 6!<:!NN, - Turf ice, /✓err 96/6B • ereir /4 cur/! y70 Fie/;a �rccor L e7r1 575-.5200 :10 4,./ kr sip,4/"weft . / r�a Si/esi,sii Ms a* of ofen/ef,loony of XiT.s,itt4.4.4kiieo - *fie . `1, onsfruellon CCQ���/// urrorf,fro. :J� • • \ g 1.OJ1•fJlrf Art,,.e. _ _ . I � Rlllll•ne.Ms&DBOJJ _ `— ? :. BJI./Jf8 -• 1 • t • _- - • . EX T : ' V/c/iv/rY Mg1 ' Sheer / 13` tyha •• ! •r • . - ... AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss. County, of King ) DOTTY KLINGMAN , being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states: That on the 20th day of October , 1987 •affiant deposited in the mails of the United States a sealed envelope containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition. 4(6/ .r-.,nor.✓ • SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this off_ day of Vc-r b , 1987. z''-uLoy.Q:_-_ - Notary Public n d r the State of: Washington, residing at i , therein '` Application, Petition, or Case #: SP-033-87 - M. A. SEGALE, INC. ' (The minutes contain a list of the parties of record.) y _ • { 4 ti October 20, I987 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPLICANT: M. A. SEGALE, INC. File No.: SP-033-87 LOCATION: 300 block of Monroe Ave. N.E. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Special Permit to continue filling an existing former borrow pit of approximately 14.4 acres that will accommodate approximately 1,050,000 cu. yds. of fill over a requested 10- year period. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Building and Zoning Department Recommendation: Approval for five-year period with conditions. Hearing Examiner Decision: Approval for five-year period with conditions. BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT REPORT: The Building & Zoning Department Report was received by the Examiner on September 16, 1987. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Building and Zoning Department Report, examining available information on file with the application, and field checking the property and surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The hearing was opened on September 15, 1987, at 9:00 A.M. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties. wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The Hearing Examiner confirmed that the applicant had read the staff report. The following exhibit was entered into the record: Exhibit #1 - Yellow File containing application, proof of posting and publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. The Hearing Examiner recognized a member of the audience. Responding was James Colt, American Memorial Services, 100 Blaine Avenue N.E., Renton, Washington; mailing address P.O. Box 547, Renton, Washington. Mr. Colt said he respectfully requested that the hearing be continued for a period of two weeks to give his firm an opportunity to review the documentation. He explained that he had not received a copy of the decision by the Environmental Review Committee concerning the project until September 10, 1987, and had not had adequate time to review the record. Explaining that they were a party of record and notification was not timely, he said they request continuation to allow that opportunity. Mr. Williams stated that, while he understood, he noted that Mr. Colt had been in contact with the City and was aware of the matter as indicated by his comments and letter dated July 27, 1987. Mr. Colt replied that the response he had received to his letter from the City included only a copy of the Environmental Review Committee environmental determination of non-significance but without the mitigation measures and that they had not received a formal notice. Mr. Williams requested comment from the Zoning Administrator concerning when the notices were sent out and the normal lead time for a public hearing. Mr. Erickson responded concerning notification requirements and typical procedures concerning an environmental determination and public hearing. He also advised of specified appeal dates, posting and publication practices, and written notifications to parties of record. He said he assumed that Mr. Colt had been notified; however, he did not have the yellow file available for reference to make that determination. The Examiner then recognized Laurie A. Pinard, representing Mr. Segale. She stated that they did not oppose the proposed continuance. She said, for the record, that although the preliminary hearing documentation was dated September 8th, it had not been received in their offices in Tukwila until September 10th. She added, as they had considerable concern about having sufficient time to review the departmental comments, they did not oppose the proposed continuance. • M. A. SEGALE, INC. SP-033-87 October 20, 1987 Page 2 The Examiner requested response from the Zoning Administrator concerning the requested continuance. Mr. Erickson noted potential conflicts with other public hearings and advised regarding forthcoming schedules. Mr. Williams commented that he would not normally wish to continue a hearing. However, since the applicant had also indicated that they were not given sufficient notice for preparation, he believed continuance was appropriate. He then called for discussion concerning an acceptable date. After consideration of forthcoming scheduled hearing dates, Mr. Erickson said that they would be willing to add this application to the public hearing of October 6, 1987. A brief recess followed for further review of the Hearing Examiner's calendar. Mr. Williams advised that October 6th was available for the continued public hearing. Noting agreement from the applicant, the Hearing Examiner declared that the public hearing on file SP-033-87 was continued until October 6, 1987, at 9:00 A.M. He explained that, as no further notification was required, there would be no additional notice. Continued public hearing: The continued public hearing resumed at 9:03 A.M. on October 6, 1987. It was confirmed that parties wishing to testify, Donald Erickson, Zoning Administrator, and Laurie A. Pinard, representing the applicant, had been affirmed by the Examiner on September 15th. The Examiner also confirmed that Ms. Pinard had read the staff's preliminary report to the Hearing Examiner. The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by the Zoning Administrator, Donald Erickson, who noted that the request is to continue operation of filling an existing former borrow pit of 14.4 acres that will accommodate approximately 1,050,000 cubic yards of fill over an extended period. It was noted that this was a continuation of an original application to fill the site over a 15 year period. He reviewed the seven criteria to be considered for approval of a Special Permit. These criteria relate to size and location of the activity; traffic volume and patterns; unsightliness, noise, and dirt; surface water; storm water runoff; and use of the site. He pointed out the site on the Comprehensive Plan and zoning maps, noting the zoning and character of the area and other fill operations in the vicinity. He added that because the site is substantial, they are recommending that the application be approved in five year increments and that the operation be evaluated at the end of those periods. Mr. Erickson continued with a discussion of traffic volume and patterns. He noted that there will be 22 to 30 average truck trips a day, that the applicant proposes to use N.E. 3rd and 4th Streets to access the site, with actual ingress and egress primarily on the County shop access road. He pointed out that there are two signalized intersections which facilitate the operation. He said staff recommends that the hours of operation be from 9:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. because of nearby proposed projects, a proposed recreational facility, congestion on N.E. 3rd and 4th Streets as well as Sunset, and potential bodily harm and damage from runaway trucks. He noted correspondence received September 14, 1987, from the Public Works Director indicating that they consider 7:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. satisfactory. He pointed out that earlier comments from Traffic Engineering staff had recommended 8:30 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. Mr. Erickson referred to the Environmental Review Committee's mitigation measure relating to unsightliness which requires that a row of coniferous trees be planted along Monroe Avenue N.E. The applicant reports there is insufficient space to meet this request. The Zoning Administrator also noted staff concern regarding safety. Because of neighboring residential areas, they believe that a fence, or something that a fence, or something similar, should be provided. He advised Department has indicated that the City is supposed to place a fence in this area; however, that has not occurred. The Zoning Administrator then entered the following exhibits into the record: Exhibit #2 - Site Plan showing contours. Exhibit #3 - Profiles of sections showing the elevations at the end of ten years. Mr. Erickson explained that these exhibits show contours indicating the bottom of the pit to be approximately 270 feet at the lowest point and that when the fill reaches 325 feet rehabilitative recommendations should occur. With regard to dirt, Mr. Erickson advised that the applicant has agreed to clean the vehicles before entering City streets and to retain washed-off material on site. Also, the proposed operation must • comply with City ordinance requirements concerning allowable noise. M. A. SEGALE, INC. • SP-033-87 October 20,, 1987 Page 3 Regarding surface water and leachate, he noted concern regarding fill materials, especially asphalt, and the size of the materials. They recommend no asphalt to protect the City's aquifer. They are also concerned about plasterboard. Relative to stormwater being contained on the site, he said they have no concern until an elevation of 325 feet is reached. The Zoning Administrator concluded with a discussion of the conditions imposed by the Environmental Review Committee in their mitigated determination of non-significance. He added that the site is not at issue as it is currently being used as a pit. He noted also that the applicant may have some questions regarding the fence, as he had heard only recently that it was the City's responsibility. The Hearing Examiner called for testimony in support of this proposal from the applicant or their representative. Responding was Laurie A. Pinard, corporate counsel for Segale, P.O. Box 88050, Tukwila, WA 98138. Ms. Pinard distributed a copy of a prepared synopsis of her comments, titled "Upper Balch Pit," to the Hearing Examiner and Zoning Administrator. She provided a brief historical background concerning the pit. She added that during the past thirty years they were unaware of any complaints or violations concerning their operation. Ms. Pinard advised that they have reviewed the mitigated determination of non-significance issued by the Environmental Review Committee and the staff's preliminary report to the Hearing Examiner. They are in agreement with the departmental recommendations with the following exceptions: 1. Duration of the permit: Ms. Pinard noted that the site will accommodate more than one million cubic yards of material and indicated that with the current market needs, it would not be possible to complete the fill within the next five years. She said they feel that the City's concerns are adequately addressed within the mitigated DNS. These involve the hours of operation and traffic routes, materials to be placed in the fill, and other matters of continued management. She pointed out also that other concerns, such as surface and subsurface drainage, erosion control and hydroseeding, are not capable of being addressed until the site reaches approximately elevation 325 feet. This is anticipated in approximately ten years. They, therefore, would like to forego review again in five years as they feel it would be unwarranted. She added that not returning would save needless review, save both the City and the applicant time, and save fees for the applicant. She noted that the City has already anticipated its future concerns, and the applicant remains ready, willing and able to address those concerns as they arise. Ms. Pinard said they also respectfully requested and suggested that specific language be incorporated into the Final Decision of the Hearing Examiner calling for an informal review by the City after five years. 2. Asphalt: Ms. Pinard noted the applicant's concern regarding condition #1 of the Determination of Non-significance, which reads "that no material which contains soluble poisons or other leachable compounds (including all petroleum based substances such as asphalt) which have the potential for contaminating the ground water is to be filled into the site." They recognize the necessity for protecting the ground water from substances which may leach into it. However, they would like to have the opportunity to present information from a licensed geotechnical professional which would indicate to the City that certain quantities of broken pieces of asphaltic concrete pavement are not leachable compounds which have the potential for contaminating the ground water. They suggested revised language to permit further information on asphalt. 3. Coniferous trees - "late corner" charges: Ms. Pinard referred to condition #2 of the Mitigated DNS, which reads, "That a row of coniferous trees be planted along Monroe Ave. N.E. for long- term screening of pit operation insuring that the trees are set back from the road so as not to create a site distance problem." She said that would be an impossibility at this time, that they do not foresee that being a possibility until the elevation rises to the street level. She advised that they had reviewed their files and located a Quit Claim Deed dated June 20, 1978, recorded under King County Recorder's No. 780907 1074, from M. A. Seagle, Inc. as the Grantor to the City of Renton, as Grantee, for the western thirty feet of Monroe Avenue N.E. She cited the conditions of the deed, in which the City was required to provide utilities to M. A. Seagle, Inc. without "late corner" or other special charges other than the direct cost of the installation and connection to the Grantee's facilities and provide a six foot high chain link fence for the full length of the deeded property. Also, the deed requires that the fence be erected with two forty foot gates, each having two twenty foot high hinged leaves, at a location agreeable to the Grantee and the Grantor. She then submitted a copy of the deed to the Examiner. At this time the Examiner entered into the record the following exhibits: Exhibit #4 - Synopsis of Applicant Comments Exhibit #5 - Quit Claim Deed #780907 1074 M. A. SEGALE, INC. SP-033-87 October 20, 1987 Page 4 Continuing, Ms. Pinard referred to the Utility Engineer's comments, which indicate that in the future there would be charges if the applicant is connected to City services. She requested that the Final Decision of the Hearing Examiner reflect that pursuant to the Quit Claim Deed, "late corner" fees not be required. She advised that they had not become aware of the deed until September 14th. 4. Hours of operation: Ms. Pinard said they take exception to the hours of operation, 9:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M., as recommended in the Departmental Recommendations. She noted that they had requested 7:00 A.M. to 3:30 P.M., the Environmental Review Committee had recommended 7:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M, Traffic Engineering had recommended 8:30 A.M. to 3:30 P.M., and that the Public Works Director had agreed to 7:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. She said they agree with Mr. Houghton's position and request that the language of the Hearing Examiner's decision reflect that. She explained that 9:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. would be unduly difficult for the applicant and noted that the predicted number of truck trips per day would approximate three or four trucks per hour, which they did not consider to be an unreasonable burden on traffic volumes. She then responded to comments that their trucks occupied the space of three to five vehicles, advising that they were in various combinations - solos, solos with pup trailers, and double trailers - and not all would occupy that much space. She commented that it costs Segale approximately $2,000 to $3,000 to license each of these entities for the roadway and that they pay diesel fuel taxes. She also responded to the matter of five runaway trucks since the beginning of the year, advising that she had tried unsuccessfully to obtain confirmation regarding them from the City's Police Department. She noted that none involved the Segale operation and said they would take exception to constraints being placed on them due to someone else's negligence. Concerning broken windows, she said they are familiar with that kind of complaints and said it would be acceptable for anyone registering them to the City to call their company, and they would take care of it. Concluding, she indicated that they would prefer operating hours of 7:00 A.M. to 3:30 P.M. but would be willing to accept 7:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. She clarified that they had requested the use of the King County access road with Monroe Avenue N.E. as an alternate. She noted, however, that the mitigated DNS had not indicated that they should not use Monroe. She pointed out that both intersections are signalized, which they feel should resolve any concerns of the City regarding traffic flow. She explained that in fire permit SPO-3287, there was concern about a signalized intersection, and they had requested that they be allowed egress onto Monroe to take advantage of the signal light because at that time there was none at Jefferson. She said that completed her comments and suggestions, and she offered to respond to any questions. Mr. Williams indicated that, while he had a number of questions, he preferred to defer them until after all of the testimony had been accepted. The Hearing Examiner then invited any further testimony in support of the application. Responding was Seth Fulcher, attorney for Mt. Olivet Cemetery, 2300 Smith Tower, Seattle, WA 98104. Mr. Fulcher was then affirmed by the Examiner. Mr. Fulcher submitted a written statement indicating that Mt. Olivet has no objection to the issuance of a permit for reclamation of the M. A. Segale pit at Monroe Avenue and N.E. 4th so long as there is compliance with all provisions of the Renton City Code and all permits required by King County Health Department Regulation 8. The Examiner then entered into the record: Exhibit #6 - letter from Mt. Olivet Cemetery As there were no others present to testify, the Examiner then directed comments and questions to the applicant and the Zoning Administrator, with responses and discussion as indicated below. The Examiner directed comments and questions relative to the duration of the permit to the applicant. Mr. Williams noted that they were requesting ten years, as it will take at least that long to fill the pit, and the City is recommending five years. Noting that the applicant has also suggested informal review after five years, he said it seems to suggest that they are aware that conditions do change over a period of time. He asked for further response in support of a ten year permit. Ms. Pinard replied that their operation and need to use the pit will not likely change in ten years. She noted that during the last five year period, this pit did not even reach partial completion and that they had not indicated any intent, or have any plans, for an organized trucking effort with dozens of vehicles in any one day to cause any traffic impacts to the city. She advised that if M. A. SEGALE, INC. SP-033-87 October 20, 1987 Page 5 restricted to a five year period, and the City expects them to fill the pit, they would have to step up their trucking effort. She commented, however, that they have no intention of doing that as they don't see a market need. Responding to an awareness that conditions change, she said they are aware that conditions do change but feel that the City's concerns are adequately addressed and that the constraints that the City has placed on them include requirements for the applicant to fend as necessary already. She noted that the City has a street cleaning bond, required hours of operation, compliance with Regulation 8 which could change, compliance with all of the City's ordinances which could change, and in addition the language of the DNS that says the applicant shall work with the City regarding traffic and source of fill. She noted also that concerns regarding truck traffic and source of fill are addressed by requirements that the applicant work with the City's departments. She said that several of the concerns which Mr. Erickson had raised must be deferred until elevation 325 and, therefore, it seemed unnecessary to have a review in five years, when they are far from reaching that point. The Hearing Examiner referred to the time of the operation as well as the overall length of the permit. He noted that they had estimated an average of fifty round trips per day and about six per hour based on an average day. Mr. Williams said he recognized that there would be fluctuations in the number of trips, but he was concerned that could vary quite a bit with substantial sources of fill. Ms. Pinard said limitations on the type of fill are economic and also depend on the market need. As far as the number of truck trips per day, she said any limitation would also be economic. Mr. Williams noted his continuing concern regarding days when there were quite a few trucks, particularly during the rush hour, and stated that he was not sure anyone had addressed the matter of monitoring. He asked for any suggestions on how that could be approached. Ms. Pinard replied that she was not aware of how that was monitored in the past. The Examiner asked if all the filling was done by M. A. Segale or if there were others. Ms. Pinard responded that at this point the filling has been done by M. A. Segale, Inc., that they did permit the City to place some of its street sweepings in the pit, but that she had no information that anyone else had been allowed to use this pit. The Examiner advised that he had observed from site inspections that there was some evidence of filling activity which included substantial amounts of asphalt, which the City is recommending not be allowed. He also noted concern that their access is via the road to the County's transfer station and asked what is to prevent private individuals or other companies who normally go to the transfer station to relieve their trucks at the pit. Ms. Pinard explained that they have their own agreement with the County for the use of that roadway and that she understood that it was a very difficult road to travel down into the pit. She said she was not familiar with any constraints but that it was her understanding that they had not had any problem with that kind of activity. Mr. Williams said he knew there was a gate at that location and suggested there was opportunity for using the gate to limit the possibility of extraneous activity. With relation to the asphalt, the Examiner said he was directing questions to both the applicant and the Zoning Administrator. He noted that the Environmental Review Committee had required that there be no leachable compounds including petroleum based substances such as asphalt as a condition of their environmental determination, and that determination had not been appealed. He said this condition was in place unless the Examiner found some reason to change it, such as an error in fact or law. Therefore, at this point he felt there would have to be substantial evidence that asphalt shall be allowed to overturn that limitation. He asked if anyone wished to address that and noted that the applicant had stated that there may be some information but it was not yet available. Responding, Ms. Pinard said that was correct, but they had the ability to remove asphalt from streets and needed to put it somewhere. She said that they are also capable of producing recycled asphalt. She explained that in the past this is what was done; however, they realize that those kinds of fills are presently more restricted and they would recognize the limitation. She said there wasn't sufficient time for anyone to determine what kind of effect including asphalt in certain amounts in fill is going to have, but it was their plea to see if there was something that could be done about it if such information became available. Mr. Williams observed that it appeared that the ERC was trying to be cautious in the matter because of the site's proximity to Mt. Olivet Cemetery and the City's wells. • Mr. Williams said he had some confusion about the issue of placing the trees along Monroe Avenue N.E. He noted that the ERC had already set the condition that there be some coniferous trees and that they be set back, but that he wondered about the site distance problems. • M. A. SEGALE, INC. SP-033-87 October 20, 1987 Page 6 • Ms. Pinard explained that it was not possible to place trees there at this time. She said the difference between the curb and the place where the fill goes down to seventy feet would not accommodate those trees. She noted the presence of trees in the pit whose height exceeds the level of the street at this time, but she did not know if it solved the City's concerns. She advised that on September 14th, they met with representatives of the City and discussed the issue of the trees, and it was suggested that there be a fence instead. She noted, considering that the City has an obligation to place a fence, perhaps that should be done. She said they estimate that it will be ten years before there will be sufficient material to plant the trees. Mr. Williams observed that it appeared that the fence had been at issue before. However, he had concerns that a chain link would not screen the property unless it had wooden slats. Ms. Pinard said that was a possibility which they would be willing to discuss with the City. Mr. Erickson said the whole fence issue was of major concern to them. He said the Mining and Grading Ordinance includes requirements regarding fencing for safety reasons. He said the safety issue is one of the reasons for having a security barrier. He said in the meeting with the applicants, it came to their attention that there was no fence, that it was the City's responsibility from Monroe to provide a fence but that it had not been put in. He added that they are talking now of combining the safety issue with the buffering, esthetics, screening and, in lieu of the trees, placing wooden slats in the fence. The Examiner asked for clarification if they were suggesting screening on all sides of the property for the safety issue. Mr. Erickson explained that other similar operations are finding that they should have a fence, or they are faced with higher insurance premiums for liability. In any event, he felt the applicant was at risk and would want the area fenced as soon as possible. Ms. Pinard added with regard to the placement of the fence, that there had never been any problems with safety on the north, southern, and western portions of the site. She said they were in agreement that there should be screening along Monroe Avenue N.E. She said they were also in agreement that a fence would be fine and that wooden slats be added. She said, however, if they were discussing fencing the entire property, she would have to consult with her employer. She pointed out that was not discussed in the mitigated DNS. Responding to the Hearing Examiner and Ms. Pinard regarding the section of the code referred to, Mr. Erickson advised that Section 4-2311 related to fence and gate requirements. Ms. Pinard commented that with regard to screening, considering that the pit is seventy feet deep, she felt that was not as strong an issue as with an open gravel pit that would attract visitors. She added that, in view of the depth, there would not be any dust or noise to invite that much attention. Mr. Williams asked if the intention regarding access was that the normal access be from the King County road but that Monroe be approved as a secondary access. Ms. Pinard confirmed that was the request, but if it became difficult during other circumstances, such as an organized trucking effort, they would like the ability to use Monroe for access as well. She noted that the use of Monroe was also a part of the Quit Claim Deed. She emphasized that the intent was to use Monroe only as an alternate, not necessarily as a loop, although that might be necessary. The Hearing Examiner noted that one of the issues is the protection of ground water quality downstream and the City's aquifer. Therefore, the ERC has required that this be monitored by a geotechnical engineer and also one monitoring well on site. Addressing the Zoning Administrator, he noted that in his introduction it had been suggested that the Health Department can require three monitoring wells for individual sites. He asked for clarification regarding the requirement for monitoring wells. In response, Mr. Erickson said the Health Department addresses monitoring, pertaining primarily to solid waste and fills, and he discussed their requirements. The City is very concerned, however, about protecting the aquifer, is studying the fill issue, and feels that there is a need for continuous monitoring. Therefore, the ERC established a minimum recommendation for one monitoring well. He explained further that the geotechnical engineer requirement is basically a monthly reporting process that certifies that they looked at the site and did not find any basis for concern. Mr. Williams confirmed that at this time the ERC condition is that there will be a monthly report from a geotechnical engineer and there will be one monitoring well. The Examiner added a note that, if this application is approved, this would be in place and would not be overturned unless there is some significant error. Mr. Williams also noted for the record that this property, based on the earlier approval through file SP-032-82, was required to file restrictive covenants so that after the complete filling and rehabilitation of the property, ground water injection wells would be required that will be able to retain all the natural rainfall and precipitation to allow it to percolate back into the aquifer. Ms. , • M. A. SEGALE, INC. SP-033-87 October 20, 1987 Page 7 Pinard agreed and noted that the applicant has been filing monthly engineering reports to the City in the past, including the statement that the ground water is being able to percolate down to the aquifer. The Examiner noted that also under application SP-032-82, there is a requirement for a $3,000.00 street clean-up bond. In this case, however, the ERC has required $2,000.00, and the City recommends the same. He asked for clarification. Mr. Erickson suggested that it was probably a similar amount to that applied to one of the other sites. Ms. Pinard suggested it could have been because in the past there was only one traffic light in the area, and yet there might be two ways of entering onto N.E. 3rd and 4th. Mr. Williams said he had further questions concerning the hours of operation. He noted that Ms. Pinard had indicated in her summary the different recommendations that had been made. He pointed out that it appeared that originally Traffic Engineering had recommended 8:30 A.M. to 3:30 P.M. He asked if the Public Works recommendation of 7:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. superseded the Traffic Engineering information. The Zoning Administrator explained that the letter from the Public Works Director came out on September 14th, and the comments received from Traffic Engineering were dated June 11th, so they were considered to be superseded. Mr. Erickson said their concern and recommended hours were predicated upon the cumulative impacts of the Mt. Olivet Cemetery pit, the King County pit, Cugini pit, and this pit on truck traffic. He noted, in addition, proposals for substantial residential development in the vicinity. He also explained that the report on the runaway trucks came from the City's Traffic Engineer, as reported to him via the Police Department. Ms. Pinard pointed out that the staff recommendations that were made concerning the hours of operation were related to the truck incidents. She also noted that in his letter Mr. Houghton had indicated that the hours of 7:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. coincided with similar operations. She advised that, in discussing this matter with Mr. Segale regarding how they operate their pits, she found out that it is extremely difficult when hiring union employees to put them on at 9:00 A.M. Typically, they start them out first thing in the morning and run them through their eight-hour day. She pointed out that 9:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. is only a six-hour day, which would be considered onerous and difficult and make it necessary to relocate these people from operating somewhere else to go to this pit. She added that the 7:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. would be acceptable, although they had requested 7:00 A.M. to 3:30 P.M. She also noted that the six-hour day would make it more difficult to accomplish the fill and make the duration of the permit more crucial. She reiterated that the incidents of runaway trucks and accidents had not been cited with respect to the Segale Company. She noted that in addition the City has a street cleaning bond, which they anticipate will continue, and with washing facilities on the site they feel that adequately addresses the City's concerns about traffic and dirt. Mr. Williams asked for confirmation regarding the City's final recommendation on the hours of operation. The Zoning Administrator indicated that the staff recommendation was for the hours 9:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. He noted also three reasons: the increasing congestion on Third and the displacement of commuting traffic during peak hours, the danger of runaway trucks regardless of the source, and the trucks returning in the afternoon blocking off one lane going up the hill. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak and no further comments from staff. The hearing was closed at 10:27 A.M. FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, M.A. Segale, Inc., has requested a special permit to continue filling and grading an existing gravel pit with approximately 1,050,000 cubic yards of material over a ten year period. 2. The subject proposal has been reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's Responsible Official, issued a Declaration of Non-Significance--Mitigated for the proposed action. 4. The subject property is located west of Monroe Ave. N.E. just north of King County's maintenance facilities. The property is about 14.4 acres in size and is now occupied by a 70 foot deep pit that is the site of a former gravel extraction operation. Limited re-filling of the pit has occurred under the authority of Special Permit-032-82, which expired in June 1987. Currently, there is a fairly large body of water ponded on the floor of the pit. Growing along the sides of the pit and over the previously placed fill there are small to medium size scrub plants, such as cottonwood. 5. Surrounding land uses consist of mixed commercial and light industrial to the north near N.E. 4th Street, Greenwood Cemetery and a gravel pit to the east across Monroe Ave., the King County , M. A. SEGALE, INC. SP-033-87 October 20, 1987 Page 8 shops to the south, and to the west a King County storage yard, the Southeast District Health Center and the access road to the King County transfer station. In the current situation, the deep pit is not clearly visible from these surrounding uses. However, as the pit is filled, activity on the site will become more and more visible. 6. The property was annexed into the city in 1966 by Ordinance 2249. The current zoning of G-1 was applied at that time. 7. The Map Element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the site is located as appropriate for the development of Public/Quasi-Public uses, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the plan. 8. The Mining, Excavation and Grading Ordinance (Chapter 4-23), under which this special permit application is reviewed, contains policies and criteria guiding the regulation of grading and filling operations (Sections 4-2301 and 4-2303-2). 9. Approximately 1,050,000 cubic yards of material will be required to entirely fill and rehabilitate the site. Based on the truck sizes proposed by the applicant, about 65,000 round trips or 130,000 one way truck trips will be necessary. Because of the large capacity of the site and the changing availability of usable material, the applicant estimates that complete re-filling of the site will take at least ten years. This works out to about 25 round trips per work day. However, work of this nature may vary considerably from day to day depending on the availability of material. Some days there will be few truck trips; other days there may be a substantial number of trips. Therefore, the applicant suggests that an "average" day will be about 50 round trips per day, or about 6 per hour. 10. The original special permit was approved subject to a five year limitation and the current application is for continuation of that approval. The applicant has requested approval of the special permit for the full ten years anticipated to fill the site. Staff has recommended limitation of the permit to five years in order to re-evaluate the operation and conditions of approval in light of any new or changed circumstances in the area. It must be noted that the area surrounding the subject site is undergoing considerable growth and more is proposed. N.E. 3rd/4th Street is the major arterial serving the plateau to the east. Residential growth is continuing in this area and a large multi-family development of over 1000 units is proposed near to the site. Commercial and other higher intensity development such as Renton Vocational Tech is located in the area. 11. There was a considerable difference of opinion over appropriate hours of operation for the proposed fill activity. The ERC has required as a condition of the DNS--Mitigated that the hours of operation for trucks entering and leaving the site be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. The Traffic Engineering division originally recommended hours of 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. The final Building and Zoning staff recommendation is to limit the hours even further to 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. because of the potential for run-away trucks on N.E. 3rd Street during morning rush hour and because of the large amount of lane stacking space that must be used by tandem trucks. Comments from the applicant and a memorandum from the Public Works Director suggested that the ERC condition on hours of operation was sufficient to mitigate circulation impacts and in line with the limitations on similar grading and filling activity in the area. 12. The site is in an area of permeable sand and gravel deposits (the reason for the earlier excavation activity) which serve as a recharge basin for downslope aquifers. It appears that water falling on the site and percolating to the water table helps to feed the creek near Mt. Olivet Cemetery and some of the water eventually helps recharge the Cedar River aquifer. Mt. Olivet Cemetery holds a valid water rights claim to 72 acre feet of water per year. The City of Renton takes a major portion of its water supply from the Cedar River aquifer. Interference with either the quantity or quality of water percolating from the subject site may impair the rights and welfare of one or both of these water users. The previously approved special permit recognized this situation. To mitigate potential adverse impacts, a number of conditions were applied to the permit, including restrictive covenants to require injection wells to facilitate on-site percolation even after the site is filled and developed. 13. Related to the water quality issue is the question of the type of materials contained in the fill. The ERC has required as a condition of the DNS--Mitigated that materials which contain "soluble poisons or other leachable compounds (including all petroleum based substances such as asphalt) which have the potential for contaminating the ground water" shall not be allowed within the fill. The applicant would like to include some old asphalt as part of the fill material but was unable at this time to provide any scientific information demonstrating that this practice would not be potentially harmful for the water quality in the aquifer. Further, the ERC has required the installation of a leachate monitoring well and retention of a licensed geotechnical engineer to monitor the site and report on the fill material. King County Health Regulation No. 8 may also be invoked to monitor and regulate the site if pollution becomes a potential problem. • M. A. SEGALE, INC. SP-033-87 October 20, 1987 Page 9 14. There is current evidence on the site that substantial amounts of asphalt is being dumped in the pit. Moreover, the gate and entrance ramp to the site is located on the County access road not far from the entrance to the transfer station. This situation may invite the illegal dumping of unsuitable materials by private parties passing by the pit. 15. Main access to the site is proposed off of the County road. However, the applicant would like to secure secondary access from Monroe Ave. N.E., especially as the pit becomes full and loop circulation is more feasible. Both of the potential access points lead to signalized intersections on N.E. 3rd/4th Street. The ERC has required that clean-up facilities be provided on site to prevent mud and debris from being transported onto public streets. Further, a clean-up bond has also been made a condition of the DNS. 16. One of the issues that must be considered by the Examiner in reviewing special permits for fill and grade is "screening, landscaping, fencing and setbacks" (Section 4-2303-2). The ERC has required as a condition of the DNS that a row of coniferous trees must be planted along Monroe Ave. N.E. to help screen the visual impacts of the proposed fill operation. This row of trees was also required to be setback from the street to prevent a sight distance problem for turning vehicles. Unfortunately, on the east side of the subject property there is not enough land that is adjacent to the street right-of-way and level with it for placing such trees. Even if the trees were to be placed on public right-of-way, they would have to be directly adjacent to the curb line and would potentially interfere with use of the public street. Fencing is sometimes used in lieu of or in addition to landscaping for visual screening of objectionable uses or activities. The applicant and City staff have discussed the possibility of using a chain link fence with slats as a screen along the Monroe Ave. frontage as an alternative to a row of conifers. Fencing may also be required as a condition of the special permit to protect the public from any potential safety hazards of the fill operation (Section 4-2311-1). A large multiple family housing development is located just across N.E. 4th Street on Monroe Ave. N.E. Properties both to the north and south of the site are already fenced. Pursuant to quit claim deed No. 780907 1074 for a portion of the right-of-way for Monroe Ave., the City is apparently obligated to install a chain link fence with gates along the east side of the subject property adjacent to Monroe Ave. 17. As a condition of the DNS, the ERC required that detailed drainage and erosion control plans be submitted when the fill elevation reaches approximately 325 feet above sea level. This is somewhere between 5 to 20 feet below the finished grade level. Prior to this time, all surface drainage and soil erosion will be contained within the closed pit. 18. No plans have been proposed for re-use of the site after the filling activity is completed. CONCLUSIONS 1. The special permit to fill and grade the Segale pit appears to serve the public interest and welfare. In its current condition the former gravel pit is not useful. Careful filling and grading will restore the site to its natural contours and provide a usable site for future urban development in the city. However, certain conditions discussed below will be necessary to avoid potential problems with filling and grading activity at this site. 2. The subject site is located near a major arterial (N.E. 3rd/4th) that is heavily congested during peak commuting hours. The large number of truck trips needed to transport the fill material, even when stretched over a ten year period, will exacerbate the traffic problem. The ERC addressed this issue, at least for the afternoon commute, by limiting operating hours from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. weekdays. The Building and Zoning staff recommended reducing the hours further to avoid problems during the morning rush hours. As long as the number of truck trips anticipated by the applicant as a workday "average" is not exceeded, the hours indicated by the ERC appear to be an adequate means of mitigating traffic problems. Moreover, this restriction is in line with limitations for similar grading operations and will provide the applicant with a reasonable working day. However, if the pattern of truck trips to and from this site exceeds the average of six round trips per hour during the period of 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., the Public Works Department through the Traffic Engineering Division should be empowered to modify the hours or intensity of operation as necessary to mitigate traffic impacts. 3. The large number of truck trips also may create mud and debris problems on public streets. Therefore, in accord with the ERC condition, on-site cleaning facilities should be provided and a renewable cash bond should be posted to cover clean-up by the City if necessary. The bond amount should be $3000, as required in the 1982 permit. 4. Because of the rapidly developing nature of the plateau around the subject site, the already congested condition of the arterials to be used by truck traffic to the site, the fluctuating nature of fill availability, and the presence of a potentially sensitive groundwater aquifer, the special permit should be limited to five years. This will allow the City an opportunity to review the project and modify conditions of the permit as necessary. The applicant recognizes that there may be a need to modify the permit as a result of changing conditions, however, there is no provision in City code to M. A. SEGALE, INC. . ' SP-033-87 October 20, 1987 Page 10 • permit informal review as requested by the applicant. Therefore, another special permit application will be necessary to continue the filling activity beyond five years. 5. Surface water from the subject site percolating and infiltrating to the groundwater may have a significant effect on the quality and quantity of water in downstream creeks and aquifers. Careful selection and monitoring of fill materials will help to avoid such problems. In order to mitigate these potential impacts of the proposed activity to surface and ground water and protect downslope water users, the conditions imposed by the ERC should be implemented. Materials containing soluble poisons or leachable compounds, including asphalt, should not be permitted in the fill material. Further, a geotechnical engineer should monitor the site and at least one monitoring well should be installed. When and if the elevation of the fill reaches 325 feet during the five year life of this permit, complete drainage and erosion control plans should be submitted. The restrictive covenants filed as a condition of the previous application should remain in effect to ensure recharge of the aquifer by surface water injection wells. To prevent indiscriminate dumping of materials in the pit, all gates should be locked at the end of each working day and on weekends. 6. It is clear that condition No. 2 of the DNS--Mitigated requiring a row of coniferous trees cannot be met because of the limited setback on the east side of the pit. Therefore, pursuant to Section 4-2822(D) of the SEPA ordinance, this office finds that there is a substantial error in this condition and such condition shall be deleted. However, it appears that a fence with wooden slats could be installed. Such a fence will serve to visually screen the activity within the pit and will • serve as a safety barrier to pedestrians who may be inclined to enter the site from Monroe Ave. N.E. Gates may be installed as part of this fencing to allow secondary access from Monroe Ave. to the pit, however, provision should be made to provide adequate sight distance for trucks using such gates. Determining which party is responsible for installing such a fence and providing for wooden slats is a matter that is beyond the purview of this office. That will have to be worked out between the parties involved. DECISION The special permit to fill and grade is approved subject to the following conditions: a. All mitigating measures of the Declaration of Non-Significance, with the exception of Condition No. 2; b. Limitation of the duration of the permit to not more than five years; c. Restriction of trucks entering or leaving the site to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. weekdays, with the provision that if the number of trips leaving the site exceeds six per hour between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and the Traffic Engineer determines that such truck traffic interferes with the arterial function, then the allowable hours of operation or the number of trips may be further reduced by the Traffic Engineer; d. Provision of a renewable cash bond in the amount of $3000 for the purpose of street cleaning in the event the applicant fails to clean the streets of debris from the filling operation; e. Installation of a chain link fence with wooden slats along the Monroe Ave. frontage of the subject site; f. Locking of all gates at the end of each working day and on weekends; and g. Continuation of the restrictive covenants requiring installation of injection wells when the property is redeveloped. ORDERED THIS 20th day of October 1987. GENE N. WILLIAMS HEARING EXAMINER PRO TEMPORE TRANSMITTED THIS 20th day of October 1987 to the parties of record: James Colt American Memorial Services P.O. Box 547 Renton, WA 98057 • M. A. SEGALE, INC. • SP-033-87 • October 20, 1987 Page 11 Laurie A. Pinard P.O. Box 88050 Tukwila, WA 98138 Seth Fulcher 2300 Smith Tower Seattle, WA 98104 TRANSMITTED THIS 20th day of October, 1987 to the following: Mayor Barbara Y. Shinpoch Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Richard Houghton, Public Works Director Larry M. Springer, Policy Development Director Members, Renton Planning Commission Ronald Nelson, Building & Zoning Director Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator Glen Gordon, Fire Marshal Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Renton Record-Chronicle Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 P.M. November 3, 1987. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific errors relied upon by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Section 3016, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. 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 made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. CP C .,,"1:-'"';'- i.,-;i:- 01[2•lei --- ...ye,,••, CCM VI.,t1•purim, ..0!,vv...,. (.....67.,' 1 9 .9 r-v ileov..zo_gg . ! .1 ti 4,..,1.III•ICOPI r ,./t.. ,z,,, / 0 - —2.1..u: . •••=i '•=2 (..• 'e•)- 1 • • . _ . .:7.15' 77Z/ ads9 .9*,/rr '''""' '. 6/(11.)..:, o'e? 9/Y01.1,2910 .9_77/..10cYc/ uglonm.0 -,t.,.....›.•., . —V Oa 'ON1'31VWS'V've 1 0 . • . . • o 0 7 / —, —....,........ F . as, . . ' ---\ • / \ eir / \ Oil . / • / \ / \ ..- \ NI-- oar . I • -- --- . \ k ...- . • \ oa ohs ...--r..--f...(ea 42,•s77—...0-4 twycn,r \ 0/1" \ r•-• 7 \ . otrs -z------- \ 02,1 .a ./.77.- i r". . / /-7,-- / \ - (-7) 7.---) 7 .'• . . 1 ''•.:......,- -....„ — r:=7, 0 -.) ,.::-. ...,-,:-_-:...., . 4.0 .. . '" '"... ...m...... \ I ..—--I:4 • q --- OFT .p L 2: C.c.) i• • 7.-: ., . . 1 \ \ ! • N . . .... --- .. '.. Ill • --a ----1 - I . -. ,-.-..7...-=,.•.-....v \.. . - . . k , • 9-9 0110/tois _—--_i___ . - ?. s . .e• i o . I I. 1 I cea, i •r . i 1 P-0-0")f-vlaA 49,7 1 ....7 -- --___ • ---\ • / \ OR • e'•?:-. • / . \ i I \ / . \ r -._ -.. / . • \ i -.. •••.... i • • . eos I t..:(71.4.7..$) tr.- Cri / - \ \ ...I ••••••. • / Oa / l Z11 / . 1 \ Oir . . I: . \ / / ‘ / ‘ • / . \ / • ..1 \ oic- . ..: . I.;1- 10-,4 fry......,,2 ; ......f 1 7-•• . ... 1 • 1 . I 7 .I 1 I [.. ". 0.er . . . • . ••••••• . . • . . . .... 1 - I . I. . . . r-1,,� 'Y A ,• `o4r0 Pa ` —A a• w 63-.s � M• o6pr 1��� • ` 1 t,T..�c�o . a,a••—� tJ0'�' id• . p' , �X:i rO. Ji' rrr/ ��v n � A rk • AVE: '1; iir�/q� �j \\. \ :(1!„. C1'.-. .1. . I . � . •j'Li I r-------- -----.7!`."Bov 'J-r` - - ._ ------------=---=--_.._rn-- _ --- ---"---- - 1�- ` r__ — __ _—.'x, ---— ---— _ --� �\ ;j. 1 �—• —�� ``\ ---✓0a _— -- - - -- —�� \ ` ^� L'J • . II ( I.---;.... -...-..-.•••.-.....-"-----.............. ' I 1 I (r -,... . e......\.""e\ ..\...."1'Llii 17:::::; il.:.... 87 ..; • -- -----; ,..,,,,,,--------7--,1%.::'--• ._ • I i ...,,.:‘,.. -.'s-- ...-- f! -'- :::-.f-..i y •;...4_ \I I \ I \ \\ 1 \Ii - a- 112.4 I if \ ; I I, B `Al f ,� f,, R o 1 \ n 1N 1 a.1 _1r.t N. • I • • 1 \ b ei II C, \ b LjNJ �\,_ ' 9 - •� still I 1 •'. • • .. i s � b I , 1 { 1 t , / / jet I f II� r. • �r� \• •%o o\ �O D i.3j0 1�\r+° ;I I I I I 1 O ;� 1Ill la . ....V • \\ \\ 1�L / /yr,. / i I ` n '�':o r,sc / / // 1A� ► I 111 I I 1 I NOres } a, ^e I I � • / t,.1 / ' I I /.PrrperJp hit/w/6rrn �i:c:. 1 �'"p aS I ✓cv ryts Franol ra �� c• / / t t i i ' I Sih xr✓rlo vn d+ira, I me I �f I oiP rotrn/aJrt'�a H �xs____...../��.t'- 7a^ \ J ,®o / l 0,0a2.14 ax/ian ereveret, 1 !nluinv/bez _ ' / / / / I/ P.Srr Sore/JdJrrr 1 ~rail m:u m.l '\ yo/� \b p,./�adon �% I avr/%am .4/ 8•B' II ` O —��J-- N.y // .t.a eee.ttn•e..' o// / I 9.5v�ae r,,fr✓/eUle II � ."" ea/"a/dmr/o/vnan/cr°cas I - • . . D Ur r!ea "rrQp✓/hv.w e/ OP YK'\6 y--- 99/G:9 `— .—_ . - ayixr. -+•rmo..ay- .r — ......'� a::. v .•�....v.ra+.� � .�,,;r.-� .vso ...,�.....•....-..var.�.e•v�dM•'/J �r t:wM1.,;... -,...."'.•'= y• ., rd.»...r1N__•"sscaVam a v."'"." w r3 ='�4:...,. . �CYL7ry 0O �_ '''s'•. i ...-,...o........z.........e..�%.1 �:5r� --Ctt7�s7'-M`SIN.J, '"-�S'�1Ms.✓ ��. M.A.5COALE.INC. nna a f' 0�4 5:'4�ie ..ofn c, Dnalruc Hon S/TE PLAT/ Foe • - y:•ia:*-. -1 •;� ' .' �' u,,er..ins. - Pir RECIQMArioN . • Z ' &•*,`- -- A:704 S44.lon6i//•Gr o/(.fr-4) jI• Id d"ti.✓ �,(t a.. .-__. , /. .� 4/ 4 /6-a-5 iI'ar.i:{� %�•r 1 Lo11.121.1 A...N.l. rr/A// G/1 Z:J"n41••r1R/7•d • /O•Clv,/vv/aJsrrei aut ;,,i11..rti• Kirkland.wale.Da013 /••/o` 654 Del.►1 O ,.a,.eel4r...1 N .2 Of. /4I 11/I' X11 __ . . . . , -, . • . _-, . . . . 7,i...-..,'• - - - • • ", ,.:'s, - -• •: • ., ... ,_.: . . . . . . . . SE ' ALE .,... , .ALE . „.... . . . __ .. . ., . • 00_ --: .... ... ._ L.1.7 - . . . - -• . • . . . 340) R Rows ii T E . . PET (r,--..,.:_ •,:, t-...„,:;::: .c._::), .„••• „... • f.' 17-....::::i L.,...... e.:. , .-. . • . & FllLi R ,.. (--.., L A m AT{0 N . • . . . ...._ . ......., . . . :._.;. ...---, cl- ---- . . - . • . U • .,P 4„ k I ... . -- . . .,......,..-.7A. L A „....„ .... • . • . ...„. ...... .. . „, • • . . . . ..„.• , ..„, • • • • . . . • . • . .. . • . . . . • _ . . . • • • ,. . • . . . . 2.•••. . , • . • • . .. • . . • • • . . . N • . ''. - • . • . , -__ 1/4 . ' . .• • -.• . .. -__ :• t W -E N • • . -- .• r . . 0 0 N1/4 •. S rek'sb 11 A Ni - . i .• _ .4:26:..rv.,., kb_ • . • . , . . Ir ":;•,. ,, . . , , ••"*. :•,/ '. cfr•0° . \ ',Ii/ 0 thdfrio •‹.(,,• col - . . . • .• i---) ..•;;A „ OWNER. MA. r .• i LEGAZ OFSC,AVAr7o,N,iO4 /80/0 iraw Pvy Mr tkrlif,//1 /4-1 1i kit,*f 4f,..7g....ri.f l P.a. ear 89o5o ./ 4-/.., a417 e4if Xfie.9C ,y r Tiwiva", Me.r,41. ge/Gref • e.reewr lir 41,/4 -990 KS;en/greefir Or fad • • 575-J200 JO ,,1 1.,eipil .$41 a 44/ek el Idt a* .f trod.",6.4. ./..s7...e.1.4.1,0f174. i / ___.1..— rrY.../ . • .1'.4-o• PRZPAREO gra . • . V . .. . . . ; . .5unroys,Mo. • . . .. • • •. -9- . I.03 •Illsf Are.ti.E. ' . . .& Itit Alad. osh.DOM • . 1 . ........... -. • • . 4,.., • ' i \ •••r, ....,.....d2...cr...... . . . . ! .,. • • EXHIBIT .....T... . V/C/A//TY AMP - • - . . . 4-.4 /•.e.x,' • ' . , . . i • . . ' sweer / a,..7- - 1 , . • • . . - _ ,- t- , - .s.� j•1 r ___I+ -1 J .I. -1 1 .t't_ ._ J -.=—_,— bT Q a • 7,..4............ ; �i�::� � � �1 y ..✓•1 �' I L nie<N EIj L "��� 't•Si° al y��'1� _1 B� ie - • E 1 ii L�! i..._v` `o 'e ' I I ylrt�1 1 I ��; e�> z _7 S_ QM., / '""�' - __�nJ . 7 , ,` ,� , •I • ,1•,_ Fs• f Y I, !"%l , '71'17- o' '' • . , zzr1 �' y `_1yt.,71 Pit' n,HR • .,1 + A I I A 1., .• ELI*H1J _. oa _1J +ftiJ1JifL. .a I ail — _ , e, P //'' INL•J --! CC i . ',.... 1 I , , . ( ,, .--.i I I !FITT:11.111 si i , _,,z; , ,z,..i ::—,--e-,;-1 ..._ , , i 1 R-1 i . 4 4.. I 1 I ..., ..• ,,,..,... „,.....,.., ,........ , 1,44"1"6"". ' ,,t!' T— r,4,. ....ij • ',..V:C F pu D-031451 1 • y�4 ~'! • 4 ' r t D J , •"E1- t- 1• `��/� • �\\\\) 1I , .. 1 tr _1: O` ,_...... .,..,....,,. t,..., _ u ii , -:;T:!1,-.,1..'-'?-1-,.,, •-: ? • ,_:J.-7 —1' 'NJ-710,4 ; g S t "�' G�?E EN`✓VJOD I I I I I r / r' //� /to// ., ,r . .„„ C. D 1 t --11- 7� ' 1 } / /�' 1 i I I i i I T I � 9jEco I /� I I i II ; I 1 I . M.A. SEGALE, INC. - SPECIAL PERMIT: SP-033-87 APPL I CANT M.A. SEGALE, INC. TOTAL AREA 14.4 ACRES PRINCIPAL ACCESS COUNTY SHOP ROAD OFF N.E. 3rd STREET. EXISTING ZONING G-1, GENERAL-SINGLE FAMILY EXISTING USE THE SITE IS1CURRENILY A BORROW SITE BEING REFILLED. PROPOSED USE CONTINUATION OF FILLING OPERATION OF FORMER BORROW PIT. COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN PUBLIC/QUAIS-PUBLIC . • COMMENTS THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF MONROE AVENUE N.E. AT THE 300 BLOCK. • 'a PUBLIC HEARING • UPPER BALCH PIT October 6, 1987 • [Continued from September 15, 1987] Laurie A. Pinard for M. A. SEGALE, INC. Upper Balch Pit - Brief Background Has been operated by M. A. Segale, Inc . since March 28, 1962 when the subject property was part of unincorporated King County. The subject site was annexed into the City of Renton by Ordinance 2249 of June 22, 1966. On September 25, 1974 M. A. Segale, Inc . purchased 'the property. From June of 1982 until June 4, 1987 M. A. Segale, Inc . operated the Upper Balch Pi't under Special Permit No . SP-032-82. In April of this year, the applicant applied for a new Special Permit. During the past 30 years, when the site has been excavated and filled by the applicant, we are unaware of any complaints or violations of any kind . The applicant has reviewed the mitigated DNS decision of the Environmental Review Committee, the departmental comments and the Preliminary Report 'to the Hearing Examiner . The applicant accepts the Departmental Recommendation set forth on Page 4 at Paragraph H. of the Preliminary Report, with the following exceptions : EXBEITH ITEM NO s P- o 3 3 -S 7 �:, 1 . Duration of permit — As you are aware, the subject site will accommodate more than one million cubic yards of material. The applicant does not intend to complete this fill during the next five years and has requested that it be permitted to continue its operation for ten years. The activity on this site has not changed since the filling operation first began, and under the Special Permit requested herein the applicant will merely continue to fill the site. Until the subject site is nearly filled , or until it reaches elevation 325, impacts and concerns of the City are limited to : a) hours of operation and traffic routes ; b) materials to be placed in the fill; and c) other matters of continued management (such as ground well monitoring) . These concerns have been carefully considered by the City and its staff. Other concerns, such as surface and subsurface drainage, other protective devices to be constructed , erosion control and hydroseeding are not capable of being addressed until the site reaches approximately elevation 325. This fact is acknowledged in the mitigated DNS and in the Preliminary Report which you have before you. Elevation 325 will not likely be reached until approximately ten years hence.. The Departmental Recommendation (by virtue of incorporating the Environmental Review Committee's mitigated DNS) requires submission of appropriate plans in order to address concerns of the City which will arise at or about elevation 325. Therefore we do not feel that a five year permit is in the best interest of the applicant or the City, in that it will require needless review of the subject activity. The City has already anticipated its future concerns, and the applicant remains ready, willing and able to address these concerns as they arise. We respectfully request and suggest that the following language be incorporated into the Final Decision of the Hearing Examiner. "The subject application shall be approved for a five (5) year period , and applicant shall have the option to accept automatic renewal of the Special Permit granted herein for a period of five (5) additional years, subject to any different or additional conditions or requirements which the City may impose after a performing an informal review of this Special Permit. Such review will be conducted by the City upon applicant ' s written request and not less than four (4) months prior to the expiration of the five year permit granted pursuant hereto. In the event that applicant is unwilling to accept any different or additional conditions or requirements applicant will be required to submit a new application for Special Permit. " PUBLIC HEARING - UPPER BALCH PAGE 2 2. Asphalt — The Mitigated DNS indicates that "no material which contains soluble poisons or other leachable compounds (including all petroleum based substances such as asphalt) which have the potential for contaminating the ground water is to be filled into the site" . The applicant recognizes the necessity of protecting the ground water from substances which may leach into it, however, we would like to have the opportunity to present information from a Licensed Professional (E.g. Geotechnical Consultant) which will indicate to the City that certain quantities of broken pieces of asphaltic concrete pavement are not leachable compounds which have the potential for contaminating the ground water. Accordingly, we respectfully suggest and request that the Final . Decision of the Hearing Examiner recite the language from the Mitigate DNS with the following qualification. If however, applicant can provide the City with a report from a Licensed Professional Geotechnical Engineer indicating that certain quantities of broken pieces of asphaltic concrete pavement do not have the potential for contaminating •the ground water, that applicant be permitted to place said quantities of such material in the subject site. PUBLIC HEARING — UPPER BALCH PAGE 3 t ' 3. Coniferous trees — "late comer" charges Along Monroe Avenue Long term screening Set-back ----to avoid sight distance problems The Applicant agreed with representatives from the City in a meeting on Septe,mber 14, 1987, that a cyclone fence, perhaps with wooden slats, and approved by the City's landscape architect would be sufficient for these purposes and could properly be substituted for the coniferous trees suggested by the ERC. We have reviewed our files and have located a Quit Claim Deed dated June 20, 1978 and recorded under King County Recorder's No . 780907 1074, from M. A. Segale, Inc . as Grantor to the City of Renton as Grantee. The deed is for the Eastern 30 feet of Monroe Street. As conditions of this Deed , the City was required to do the following: 1 ) provide utilities to M. A. Segale, Inc . without "late comer" or other special charges other than the direct cost of the installation and connection to the Grantee 's facilities; and 2) provide a six foot high chain link fence for the full length of the deeded property. The deed further requires that the fence be erected with two forty foot gates, each having two twenty foot high hinged leaves, at location agreeable to 'the Grantee and the Grantor . With respect to the City's concerns about long term screening of the site, and with reference to •the discussion on September 14, 1987 between the applicant and City representatives that a fence would be an acceptable substitute for the coniferous trees suggested , the applicant respectfully requests that 'the decision of the Hearing Examiner reflect that the City shall cooperate with the applicant toward the City' s compliance with the requirements of 'the June 20, 1978 Quit Claim Deed, and that complaince with the requirements of said Quit Claim Deed will satifsy both the Deed and the City's concerns about long term screening of the site. With respect to any "late comer" charges which are referenced in the Utility Engineer's comments, the applicant respectfully requests that the Final Decision of the Hearing Examiner reflect that pursuant to the . referenced Quit Claim Deed , "late comer" fees are not required. PUBLIC HEARING — UPPER BALCH PAGE 4 • 4. Hours of Operation [We are informed that Richard Houghton, Public Works Director for the City of Renton has prepared a letter regarding hours of operation. ] We are in receipt of a letter from Richard C. Houghton, Public Works Director for the City of Renton regarding hours of operation. We agree with Mr. Houghton' s position, and request that the language of the Hearing Examiner 's Decision reflect same. M. A. Segale, Inc . 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. ERC 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.. Traffic Engineering 8: 30 a.m. to 3 : 30 p.m. Departmental Recommendation 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING — UPPER BALCH PAGE 5 , s . The files for this application include an analysis by the applicant of the average number of truck trips which would be required on a daily basis in order to complete this fill during the requested 10 year period. Although the demand for a fill site such as this one is increasing, it is anticipated that the applicant will be filling the site during approximately only 50% of the permit time. E.g. every other day. This use would result in approximately 6 exit trips per hour. 1 , 050,000 cubic yards/10 years = 105,000/year 105,000/12 months = 8,750/month 8 hour work days, Monday - Friday = 176 hours/month 49.71 cubic yards/hour 400 cubic yards/day Use the pit 50% of 'the time 800 cubic yards/day Thirty (30) semi or truck + pup @ 20 cubic yards each = 600 Twenty (20) solos @ 10 cubic yards each = 200 50 exit, trips/day = 6 exit trips per hour . PUBLIC HEARING - UPPER BALCH PAGE 6 e` 1 1• , pF R � THE CITY OF RENTON 7 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 2'� I obi 0 CHARLES J. OELAURENTI MAYOR • DELORES A. MEAD .0 `� CITY CLERK 041- ,�4TEo SEPTEItS September 25 , 1978 M. A. Segale, Inc. RECEIVED 18010 Southcenter Parkway.. Tukwila, Washington SEP 2 7 1978 ATTENTION: Mr. M. A. Segale, President RE: Quit Claim Deed, Recorded: 7809.07 1074 CAG-061-78 M. A. Segale - City of Renton Dear Mr. Segale: Enclosed for your records, is fully executed Quit Claim Deed, which constitutes a legal contract, binding between the City of Renton and your firm. The Deed has been recorded and documented as above-referenced. Thank you for your courtesies in the matter. Yours very truly, CITY OF RENTON apti,Let Delores, A. Mead, C.M.C•. City Clerk DM:jeb Enclosure • EXHIBIT NO. ITEM O. - 0 3 3- 1 CAG 061-78 QUIT CLAIR DEED The Grantor herein, M. A. Segale., Inc. , a Washington corporation, for and in consideration of mutual benefits and other valuable considerations , conveys and quit-claims to the . City of Renton, a municipal corporation of the State of Wash- ington, all interest in the following described real estate :. The East 30 feet of the NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 16, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M. , EXCEPT the North 330 feet thereof. Situate in King County, Washington. Reserving unto the Grantor herein, and to its successors and assigns , the right to reasonable vehicular and pedestrian access , and the right to run utilities over, upon, under, and across the described property for the benefit of Grantor' s ad- joining lands . Grantee agrees that utilities will be available to Grantor without "late comer" or other special charges other than the direct cost of the installation and connection to the Grantee' s facilities . Grantee agrees to provide and maintain a six foot high chain link fence for the full length of the property herein conveyed adjacent to the Grantor' s property. Said fence will be erected with two forty foot gates , each having two twenty foot hinged leaves , at locations agreeable to the Grantee and the Grantor. - The- Grantee agrees that sloping and associated grading required for the construction of this project shall be subject to the Prior approval of the Grantor. Grantee agrees to defend and hold harmless the Grantor, and Grantor' s successors , assigns , employees and agents against any and all claims associated with the construction and use of the road to be constructed by Grantee on the described property. Dated this Zc- day .of ��,. _ , 1978 . M. A. SEGALE, INC Grantor President—,- Attest : Cela. I I „ay. Secretar • CITY OF RENTO , Grantee By ZMuh..(4:2112 ARLES D LAURENTI , Mayor Attest : City C er • Atedit.4%; PO ?a 0902 /O7y STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss COUNTY OF KING ) On this 2 ctday , 1978 , before me personally appeared 11. A. Segale and Donna A. Segale, to me known to be the President and Secretary of the corporation respectfully, and who executed the within and foregoing instru- ment and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that they were auth- orized to execute the said instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and ye r first above written. NOTARY PU IIC in and for th State of ashington, residin • at ,.s- • Quit Claim Deed Segale - City of Renton . R/W 377 flee. 78O7o7 /07/ . tong. co. A tt.i re,. -2- . RJcords DtV• i • SEC. 16,T. • p 23 N.. R 5 E.,W.M. • NW4NE4 Ns �• • • • VOL.22,PG.35. rr NI . 21 NJ N . C tI N • • } A g : C "' ' �I U • N u) .I � kKy01 , • I .oc ;I (MONROE ST) I24th AVENUE SE. a dIr IJ•N Q `M MII7 [x 13 14 13 14 ; .. a/ 'e ,9 110 • u �1z 13 ....44.. .280' ass.*s: i�r _ SO'e454.er -- \ .4 ... . . .. _ ..,7 4' it S' ill-...7Th. LU- • \ • P2oPossz ic.s/N./ . . . --'—'''"-%\.\ \\'f: 3G L. O 1 �t� W> ijklk I LEGAL DESCRIPTION Q ' \� A 30 foot strip of- land described as follows: 3 L _ ! ; . d. \ 4 \, I The East 30 feet of the NE quarter of the NW V quarter of Section 16, Township 23 North, I ` Range 5 East, W. M. , 1King County, Washington,• • . \ less the North 330 feet. . i \ NNN::N' N' . ..NN , f \ . N.E4N WI4 I • 1 CG -1-i-) • i 22 F71= 77 .LDC: LAW OFFICES OF SETH (KELLY), FULCHER, JR. Suite 2300 Smith Tower Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 292-9333 (206) 622-5100 October 5, 1987 Hearing Examiner City of Renton Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Re: Mt. Olivet Cemetery comment on fill permit application of M. A. Segale pit at Monroe Avenue and N. E. 4th. Dear Sir: Please be advised that Mt. Olivet has no objection to issuance of a permit for reclamation of the M. A. Segale "pit at Monroe Avenue .and N. E. 4th so long as compliance with-all provisions of the Renton City Code and compliance with all permits required by King County Health Department regulation 8 is required. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, S h. E'ulc er,lr. jo cc: Mr. Olivet EXHIBIT NO 6 6 ITEM BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING SEPTEMBER 15, 1987 APPLICANT: M.A. Segale, Inc. FILE NUMBER: ECF-28-87, SP-033-87 LOCATION: Property located at 300 block of Monroe Ave. N.E. A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST: Application for special permit to continue operation of filling existing former borrow pit of approximately 14 .4 acres that will accommodate approximately 1, 050, 000 cu. yds. of fill over a requested 10 year period. B. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner of Record: M. A. Segale, Inc. 2 . Applicant: M. A. Segale, Inc. 3 . Existing Zoning: G-1, General Residential 4 . Existing Zoning in the Area: L-1. Light Industrial, P-1, Public Use, G-1, General Single Family • 5. Comprehensive Land Use Plan: Public/ Quasi Public 6. Size of Property: / 14 .4 acres. 7. Access: County shop road (private) off N.E. 3rd Street. 8. Land Use: Existing borrow pit site, being filled under prior permit which expired on June 4, 1987. 9 . Neighborhood Characteristics: North: Commercial/ Light Industrial East: Greenwood Cemetery South: King county shop facilities West: Undeveloped C. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND: Action File Ordinance Date Annexation 2249 6-22-66 Zoned G-1, General, Single Family at time of annexation. , BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT - PRELIMINARY REPORT THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING SEPTEMBER 15, 1987 M.A. SEGALE PAGE 2 D. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Utilities a. Water: Not applicable. b. Sewer: Not applicable. c. Storm Water Drainage: Surface water is proposed to be retained on site until the fill elevation has reached 325 feet and development is ready to occur. At that time, the applicant will submit detailed drainage plans to include all surface and subsurface drainage devices and other protective devices. 2 . Fire Protection: Provided by the City of Renton as per ordinance requirements. 3 . Transit: N/A 4. Schools: a. Elementary Schools: N/A b. Middle Schools: N/A c. High Schools: N/A 5. Recreation: N/A E. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE: 1. Section 4-732, Mining, Excavation & Grading. 2 . Section 4-704, G-1, General Zone. F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR OTHER OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENT: 1. Surface Drainage Objective, Environmental Goal - Policies Element, City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Compendium, March 1986, p. 9. 2 . Water Bodies Objective, Environmental Goal - Policies Element, City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Compendium, March 1986, p.9- 10. 3 . Chapter 23, Title IV, Mining, Excavation and Grading Ordinance. G. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1. The applicant M.A. Segale Inc. , has filed for a special permit for the filling and grading of approximately 1, 050, 000 cu. yds. of non-putrescible material over a ten year period. 2 . The Environmental Review Committee reviewed this application at its regular meeting on June 17, 1987, and under the substantial authority granted it under SEPA, issued a Determination of Non- Significance - Mitigated, with conditions. (See attached Mitigation Measures) . 3 . Under Section 4-2303 (2) of the Mining and Grading Ordinance, seven criteria are established to determine whether the excavation or filling operation is compatible with existing and future land uses. The following analysis demonstrates that the BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT 'PRELIMINARY REPORT ' rHE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING SEPTEMBER 15, 1987 M.A. SEGALE PAGE 3 special permit should be granted if certain conditions are placed upon the proposal. a. Size and Location of the Activity: The proposed activity is not a new use but rather a continuation of an existing filling operation on a 14.4 acre site that was a former gravel borrow pit. The site is located on the west side of Monroe Avenue N.E. , approximately 330 feet south of the intersection of Monroe with N.E. 4th Avenue. The site is next to the King County Transfer Station on its southwest corner. Because the site is already existing, as is the existing plus or minus 70 foot deep pit, the question of the appropriateness of the operation at this site is not at issue. It clearly is in the public's interest to get this site filled and rehabilitated assuming that certifiably clean fill materials are used, hours of operation are not disruptive, and other associated impacts are adequately addressed. b. Traffic Volume and Patterns: It is estimated that there will be 22 to 30 average truck trips a day for the duration of the requested ten year permit. If work was expedited this number obviously would increase. The applicant proposes to use N.E. 3rd Street and N.E. 4th Street to access the site with actual ingress and egress occuring on Monroe Avenue N.E. and the County shop access road. Both these intersections with N.E. 4th Street are currently signalized. Staff believe both the levels of traffic and routes themselves are acceptable. Other than noting the impacts of truck traffic on streets in terms of premature wear, the Public Works Dept. did not comment on these routes. This is probably because there are no • alternatives. In order to lessen traffic impacts during peak traffic periods, the Committee did limit hours of operation from 7: 00 a.m. to 3 p.m. Because of it recently coming to 3° Staff's attention that since the first of the year there have been five incidents of run-away trucks on N.E. 3rd Avenue, mostly during peak hour traffic, plus the fact that they take up a lot of circulation space, staff belive that consideration should be given to limiting their hours of operationof trucks on City streets to, between 9: 00 a.m. and 3 : 00 p.m. , Monday through Friday. c. Unsightliness, Noise, and Dirt: The Environmental Review Committee, in developing mitigation measures for this site, did require that a row of coniferous trees be planted along Monroe Avenue N.E. for the long term screening of the pit operation. This should help address the unsightliness issue. In terms of noise, the applicant states on their Environmental Checklist that there will be "none" as a result of this operation. Staff believe there will be noise associated with this operation but note that the proposed operation must comply with Section 4-2312 . 5. (Allowable Noise) which sets limits on sound pressure measured in decibels at various sound frequencies. The applicants state that dust will be controlled on site using water, and the Environmental Review Committee decided to mitigate potential road dirt by requiring the applicant to provide vehicle cleanup facilities on site. BUILDING AND ZONING UPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT iv THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING SEPTEMBER 15, 1987 M.A. SEGALE PAGE 4 d. Surface Water: Surface water is intended to accumulate on site and percolate to lower ground water levels including potentially the City's acquifer. When the fill reaches the 325 foot elevation the applicant has indicated that they will submit detailed drainage plans "to include all surface and subsurface drainage devices and other protective devices (if any) to be constructed with or as part of [the] proposed work. " The applicant also notes that since the site is basically a hole approximately 70 feet deep, there is no run-off and consequently no erosion. At the time the fill is nearly complete, top soil will be brought in and the site will be hydroseeded according to the applicant. The Environmental Review Committee expressed a concern about possible leachate effecting the City's acquifer system and in addition to requiring the applicant to contract with a licensed professional geotechnical engineer approved by the City to monitor the site and to provide monthly reports on the types of fill material being deposited on the site also required the applicant to install a monitoring well down to the hardpan. If applicable, King County Board of Health Rules and Regulations No. 8. would require the installation of at least four monitoring wells on or about the site. e. Storm Water Runoff: As noted above, because the site is basically a 70 foot deep hole all storm water is expected to be contained on site, and certainly that of a 25 year, 24 hour duration. As the site is filled up and reaches the 325 foot elevation level, the applicant has stressed that a detailed drainage plan will be developed. Staff basically concur with this approach as did the Environmental Review Committee. f. Use of Site: Since the applicant estimates that it will take approximately another 10 years to complete filling of the site, the reuse issue was not previously raised nor does it seem appropriate at this time. Given that the site is zoned G-1 and shown on the Comprehensive Plan as Public/Quasi- public there is a high likelihood that it will eventually be developed for residential or some public or institutional type use. H. DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the above analysis, Staff are recommending that the subject application be approved for a five (5) year period with the following conditions: 1. That the applicant comply with the all the mitigation conditions imposed by the Environmental Review Committee when it issued the Determination of Non-significance - Mitigated on June 17, 1987; 2 . That trucks not be allowed to enter N.E. 3rd or N.E. 4th Streets earlier than 9: 00 a.m. in order to lessen traffic impacts noting that the Renton Police Department has reported that there have been five run-away truck incidents on N.E. 3rd since the beginning of the year, and that a large double trailer can occupy the space normally occupied by three to five automobiles. 3 . That trucks be cleaned before re-entering Monroe Avenue N.E. or the County Shop Road and that all washings be returned to and contained in the pit area, i.e. , not allowed to enter the City surface drainage system; BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT I'HE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING SEPTEMBER 15, 1987 M.A. SEGALE PAGE 5 NOTE TO APPLICANT: Application for a new five year permit or permit necessary to finish off filling under the existing permit should be made at least four months in advance of the expiration of this permit (assuming it is granted) and should include drainage, landscaping and rehabilitation drawings for the site at the time of application. ...' - .♦ : 1�. - ,•'T .f J•� i._ 11, _I I ,1,• Ir 1- ,1'e^-�ri;I/ .5:r';v T`I '.? 4 :7 7 j. ' 11 Lrillte Ott rtt It-• 0 ,l'� �T" --t�: 1 1; 1 �' i =^I. 11. I.1. . L . Iv f\.Il 5-yY" --- `.i _-�•,?O , E •t Lmi� •:. P1. to n �,� I .•. r .1.1 • 'a. 4 b i .yw 1t ,, tei-.� . ,, oi\,,TZS . . fii , ,, tIN E70. I/ 1 �zl � n " ,. A II A c. . 7 ." '? 5 • of . , • 7. , . -� ".' 1{ - 7rczE, r.•..iHJi ± M + :t •tt R1 . l..„•i LI 4�. r<df), 2-1,:(1):‘ 1 '' °, • -;-1 -,! --g-\,, ,_.±1 ,.1 lc : :._ _. R 1 • f � " PUP +, I I 14tEi4 /pI //y���/• FP OI V I,..1%.'t7,J,_ i/. \ , :• ., \...,,,,\P- ! s______,.....„,/ . ., f,,,;•,/ .j 51-,:F,L',,,I.„1 t•!, IL'7-\\\ '` )1, 1 il.*/ ,3 . , , _ , i ..,_.. _ i i, Ptm f 5?(1 l '1 .' - R` ,,!,.1'' Srd 4! + I I �A .:= ,I�' x i _� 1 OC.Al Ir Nh' I r t1 �_ 1 I: '� • o {i� u1L Y i 1.1 I I 4] ' L ' 1 � . . _ RP . U In L„ .,, , 1 i ? i 3 4 - I 1 P ` G 1 1 '' 1 1 I G�?E ENWOOD L 1s41 � 'f ' ITEIRY - ;---1- - - - - j 6t /.'. t '_+1 t I' 1 r" 4-1 rk ,/il /!i /V)// / ,+'' / ' 2 C. D I I 1 — /4// ' ,' I I ey,,,.‘ 0,3E4f I , T , '� • I I I / I I I r ,' / 1 I . kil l . I I . 11 1 - M.A. SEGALE, INC. • SPECIAL PERMIT: SP-033-87 APPLICANT M.A. SEGALE, INC. TOTAL AREA 14.4 ACRES PRINCIPAL ACCESS - COUNTY -SHOP ROAD OFF N.E. 3rd STREET. EXISTING ZONING G-1, GENERAL—SINGLE FAMILY EXISTING USE THE SITE IS: CURRENTLY A BORROW SITE BEING REFILLED. PROPOSED USE CONTINUATION OF FILLING OPERATION OF FORMER BORROW PIT. COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN PUBLIC/QUAIS—PUBLIC - COMMENTS THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE. OF MONROE AVENUE N.E. AT THE 300 BLOCK. • • r,%1 ril 1985 iil ,...- - --,P,--,v,,,,,,,---,.."7.'"• . '''''.‘11.11 ---'-.--..c..7:7•e'.3r.••:1W;...:'t;.v.:4!•'r:.-4..-..15.i•C.C•‘. ', 'c.,i'-:.'.7;;:•-°-"t:;',:. iinamic c ••••.-- .i rc..,1,rf...r....45:.....,,•••••:,e •-.L...7,-6 n,24',.'•;::..."...••:‘.1....,:.•...e%••••','•:•'4-,l'et. :2-.•;:7•.:r.C.::•• ' '•% 4•••• . ' 1 \ t,•1111 1 •:4 '•:•:•. ''•et:••,,i•,,,..f.'•'''C':rvi.C•,.C.",•:f'..t.:.:,•,...-,,":.o•::, "...O..)"::'oe.:4,tAc...•et`^ " %, 1 :II ir\veP$1. .%ii '-.••".•s-C.S' •••;,,_;;:;-',2.-ct« t.t.to",..r.;g: „.„,..Ai& .. 1 c••••-:,-;.- ''.. - •cc,-:.-' • ••*-*.c.'!... . o, Mill if. • , ' 4 `7f,e,.%...''',',-:ftez„. - - : \, SHINGT%O,o, •N•\74,,,,• .•'1,,,41,e..t.4.3-%%..%%•t.,,.,„V---,•.;,.%.•....•..,'.••.:,.::,'.•::..„::::.::::..::::..::::. • klat "...,...„,`:1,'1,..,:,:',-„,;.•,.0:-,-,-..t',!1•.•..•,--.::,4,-.:..!.,t..:,. ..::---".-N7...-• .4.‘.,...--:::..:•.-•:.,.•:,•...••.- -c:j...'.:.•:\7..i„:.•:`-,I.--:...:,..:,..-..-\.:....,...:: .:::.-:.:-•::..:,..i-.f.°....!,.-.,V ,.• „r.-.4•'J•.S../ ialv Sg •0.-0.•.0...0 j- if_.••. LAKE 4 ! ; •.r';.,.• •• A1.• --_- •-•. .....- •,..., ., .., 1 ::: ' " .,.L'Ilinine ..:•:::::i:i*i ..51, \r- eale' ," :,-.•' •;,,' :-.... 11111 , 4, ::.:i : ...411 .4' ,e,••41.s mg ,...• ,..-.' .r...,0. lioni . ..... •• • "•0000.1 :... •• twor.,1 4,moss ' 111111 au-.• ot,'Xit-• No \ 00000, •• :: ,sisrme c:$ ite. i ' ' '.i 1 .°.c.".°..:':.:.i:in:.::/alttirdsse •-• I 1‘11.11-ni.X. ' .-...-...: ., 0 0 la .7 r .%upt, ,., t ill Or iiiiiii:i:i:i::.M4:!..,1111P1 1 1 1111 agN: i', ..• o o o o o o b.,1 •‘I. .., • ,::i:i .-. ::i:::::::::1:1:1::. 'TjAtioliiii rr . •---,..i 0 0 o .0 o o 0, o,- ' ,:::::::::::::•:•.-......ki ::::::::::::: V , ,,,,, .. •:•:. •--- •••...4 0 0 0 0 0 0 o' 0 0 i• ' .-': ::.:* -•:-.. yi. gifill-; ......, \:... .--.;• - .-z- 0000000 , ,, ,. "1-44.11:1 :: ::::. iflAgar:',.:j gg, - (._...,_41....!, ..ii..1%./.7.ire........0) t 11- igog.ano.•. o REIM lir ,...7., ,....,0020.6.. , 00 . , 0 . 00 4 . . a :• . .:il: 4 ,-4...44-, •:"::::.:: Ageirs...; 111111 '• 0 NV '•"d,0'6020g• I. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0\0 0 0..; ''::::::*::::1 I f•IIM11112.1...- im......1 `II 0,00000a• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .1 0 0\ 0 0 .6.i' % ' :::::::. U.1 Ia."' fr... 111111.=11., ' jle •°0°0°0e0°. . 00000000000 00 . , ::::::::::: . I ' ••• 10..20CDA:3gg••• 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 a. 0 0 0 0 0 ',.: ./ \ 411.11111\........,\ ' 111Blallra a I. ,. Tsiogogog000 ,,. o o o o o o o o o o 0 0_o A,..., •ii. 0.2 77.71-:.it, c)'_1,..!..r.2,'•-• •-• el..0000000go, •;,..pp-,pol,••19, o a 000 • 00000 ...,, :. .a... .e..4,:•1 0°0°00000. 119 .0.0.0 0 O. 0 , 6_0_,a ".A. VgoggoggigiONB 4,..0 0 0 0 4 0°0°0°0'00°0 k °' .,‘, viii 15.'tx. 'u ':CIO . iu ..... lif 0:0:093%°0°2110.0°...4 •-)^-:i°ogogogogo-;, i 0 o o o • o o o • o o o o o o.,,,, , .Lr- *0°_,;_. „..,9T--,asi fiii 0 '•.*::::::::•:•••••••••:-::: •0000o• c, 000000000 . 0 ° 00 ,i,•• °.•°.Epp, Ia. Id, •.::...::.:.:i:::.,.. . . . 000.0.,.. . 000 ,. . ..-, 000000 :-.,. . ,..:.:.:... ..:.:::.:::.:.:.:• ° ° ° Al. 0 0 0 . 00.000, , . . 11, *gi,'.c..E,R,Ei o '0* 't '• • o o o o 0000bo '•`9•.. ' Agilli IP *la '' t• :r:M1 . 2,•..IF, ...,409,000c„0„, ..,,,e le. • o o o o o 4,-.•,.. ta, i , 1 , 16.4 .,11 ..: •••••••:•:.' ..:•:•:•:•:-:•:•:•:-:::::,... •,.•,o'oc,o0o ,• 0 0 0 , ,_ -,l' I:. 0000006000 •,,-..., ,', ...‘lira ••-o°0 o o•..1 , :':-...,- IL•°0000Q000„:.,,,, . - . ife_ a 00000 '.' ',w *I" °°°°°°°°°g'''::314,° ° ° .4P• .. . • • oil . 000 6 Or ‘l . 4 . -•-• t poo....:0::::;i: ::......::::::::::::i:i:73 . . • Tr . • ass...ii.......1 9'.P 05%9 1. -- :•,•,:::•°00o°0°0°0 ic:: 0 0 0 ,- ,..^..0.-- ‘inits` 4, 0 0- lmat..o.00 • ro°0°.°0°0°0 --• • - - Mum, 0 0 60 0 Q MIS / ei. . ib viov...0000. , mg •.00%0000001..ii , I Ns la it [0 A.A'„9) n . • \ ilLii.0000,00.000• .;....;.; , ? a •••••, .:.:,..„.............4.• . himmigil M nem 1,.. . •-•:;:.°0),:g%g2ggs'gs'. :golg?. ,. ,S, ,----4,...'.- mil . I '., t... 4 ...........,....- -4,------- oc.0.00000-. ' iiiiiiiiiiiiiPr.... 1:Z \ lir i •• %oil' ,.i.4.. •::*::::::::•:::::;.'• ...,::::i: 0000•i;',. - "..0 o o 00000 oo --..... =imam...of :::::::::::*i:i:: ste: ..terj, . . • 4,44 . .., -•:::i::•:?:.- ...::::::::::::::::. 0 0 o 0 .prir .00.0000_0_0_0_. ...:::::::::::::......„........ ::::::::::::„.:.:. ....................,..00• ...„....00000000000.0.0„ :.:.:.:.:.:.:.::::i..,:,...... :::::::::::,:,:,„:„ ::...:::::10,4,4 . ..... N*.,..,.. ,, .:- ..:::::,:,:,:,:,::::::::::::::::,..000000.3..........•000000000. . ..„:„.:.:.:„....„.::::„...................:.:::::::.:..:.:.:.:.:.:.: . .„..,,.,„::.. ..::„,:,„:iiii:i:ii:ii:ii:::i::ii .0000000d '•,y4 000cu000000000000., •-• ::•:.:.:.:.:•:-:,..-•••••:•:•:::::::::::::::::::::. •:I*1:iii:022. giig:iggi%. lg°?.'al'14111114'''''..i• !.!!".` 't°° fir I rt.,?(. ...:.:*...::::::::.::::::".:..... ..0.000-00,4----.:00000000.00000000.0. ;:::sisr•- •9 ::.::: i::...... ••:•' s ,0000000 • 00, P 49',0°0°o0o°0°0°0°. .0 i . iimm mu ogoMogogogogo_.• ! )(0,9,. lAI, 0.6 0',...;00 0,00 0000 06•,..114,,,.:aza-I it:40gOgag0g00g0goo 11, •k. 41 gii :::..:.:. .... ...;,,,,,.. as, 0 o o o o o %%00. .,:..„,,,,, I it ::::-:4:::IF A a . -..,;..-,:. ` 1 n' -:-:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:-:•:•:•:•::•:•:•: 0 0 o o •,,...,; 0 o o o 0 0 0 o o 0 .oo . . th...,.._. _,_.0. -:5'''' --"•''`:--' •-:-:•:-:•:•:•:.:•:-:.:•:•:•:.•:•:•:- •ob0000• ,,, ? ,00000o0o0o00000o0o.• 0 o• i• . , tr.umm,algoi.i. -"Tr' • -, ,e..) I r. ,...• A I:ini::min 400000000000.0.0.0.000.0000.0000.0000000.0.00.,, , .... .00..,,, • . -..... .t.,..,..r...... ) 41010211-::. --.N.-q-- tei .- - " IL,Jas.- s I' ,,, ,,fi Pau.. ,.:,iaii:::::i: :.:. :::i: --)-,1 oc.000.- 0.00-, 0••,,, ,i 1 • .111110111111n; - •;,:);0:,;0,7,1• -1 alumni-.. ..,,p .. •,i, • so •,. , ,g, ,t- I. t 't,• .' tinlri 4Tli . ' :....::i:'::::::, ),•-•'1 • •0 4. . .0 ' '' `4 1 .•o o o o•,,!', ::::::::::::ff:::::::: I+'"o°0°0•66"0.0.0"0. I. I . )00o00..• • • ! tell!.,1111 og4oggnogog2 : /$11:1:hill.. 7, •:'•.&}•t•:• ' .....4S, •, - ---,---s:".-:•8-:r•A''••,i'i r.i,/i.',, .:l.iI2o i n1sso1a1....s.-w.u=Miha1eM..im1s.1sM..14`.igl,.M.ii jmm.csi0-9.1lyg1..A-rk 0.1)1_.4,D•..h..0.A-.°.li0--'B6 i pm0ili•:.°010;.1is..°01.1.n i3..'0ms.m.u1m.° ma1n1.a1171sas.-,4'l1.o.:*-e1lja'7a.14mn,-:ets.mi.1.sr!I1si.11-1oi!I1m1-o-Iuu1-N!u;u,.10mime5I.so1i.m9tsrws.a.!: ,•f.,d••r00,00°.20?•°-\.O n.`„n, •3.0;,-,,*-.,3.,-•.,,.'.,•.,.•..<.,..•,,,k;.`..'-..:..:,-..,,.*-1/4.;A.,"(':•4;'?•-;:`,';.t..0.3-i.::':•),+,,.01',,-gc...1.-:...,--l.o,1-A,,i-s•.-.-.uw--,f,P$vf-'1.n'om.n,'.csi<".:.1.h!s-(_-..,,i*,',-.,,c,,''..4'z,c.i1.1,';.,'.,,,;,,r;-'f,,.Q,:';•'?i.N,3...ce',..:•,:.3.,..';',•4•'•,.3.',?:-•;•:•2:::•t,::_•:,:-_•:::7••:.::,•:_:::-:::::..•::::.•:•..::.:•'-::,•:.:./-'•,,•-3".:;f...;1:;31'.[',.,•.n,':),?,,/-,-.--q,•.::r-..•:-;i.••,'•*'''';.;,?•.•,'/)-".•;.c-9.-..,s•F..5,:.,",".Y...."{,;.?•..-,.:.;W.-•.`:0'r....,0,.5;,0;::,,,,0-,.r°.4r:r if'•l 0•.,.o0s,Q,'0 ' ( 126 .•.,;,,,•',4•:!,,,%,0 ,."r,,.•,';.:.5,..'•;-:"'/•,i:C•)''.,1"'„0'••..,•,•,,•..-':':.:.:'...•::.-:,::....i1.:':..i.::..:.,::,:':...:::..:..:.:..•.,::..:::.-.:...:,,t:':.-..:S•.:,.i•:.:.•...•.::•...•.:':.•,•:.:.•:.:,.:.:.:.:.:.'.:.:..-:..::.:.:. .::..- 1im11m1101.ig- .2 teMRE11231:111Ie - • •:•: , ., yoy w0 .; - V, c •P g ili,. ei..c,.•..:•"a- .. 4 , . „ . .:.. um. . .;--,,4':.,:f•c•k:, ..IPts,li-3§-e'f ' Iramtlit-'-''29- * .--''''k''' „„.. ‘.'j '•A i•Vt'''.1‘'.. :-• •J .• .• . '.•• • :• ...-•i i4Y• c.-.C•cS .'••.,••• , :.•,• ':.•` kviumgmaineaws,...-af ..,...11.4::-::-:.htf- •,1 ................,....t ,.,,,r.,:.::-.-11....:1,.; -•,0,, ., . .1.„-...„.,,,,..0., ...c,,,..,r., _ ''.?tififj,. -Asa: ::........'...", . ,. -!...-,..' l•wil:':ii:':0.:',•••...i: i::.iii 15 . y.,...,2,co:, .y. ••,p• , •err..0.:0-,(:„...N.,...„. ,,,,,,,,..,...„,..,,,,-14T., .:.,r,-,..,,,,,t-L.L. . .,...likett k.c.,-(--ci.;.•9-0-_, i i':I'• IN MMM 1 M saw -4-'•e.,'::M•"•;,V z' -- ' ••• • \YINF`,..,. ".... low -.."r' '. A.,'07,C- semi: ft,4:'''''4;'::. ,`:"4'el:i::::.':kir. '...;,...',1 -:;C)•::',. •'., .•r, • -•c,i'•11:`,7;',)`6•..."44-., 7,, ••:11 ,.„. .... ',milli'',.(7',..C.,,,P 47....se,••::(•;,.;r :-• mosii: .. 1. sk'f4kNv...144::•'..,•'1 ..: •‘,.1.0,•:,,..,•!-).,:•:i:.:‘•Q.,.;•:).f..,•:‘..... o.....0,..1..:,•t••.i.),•• . , • All c•-:•••<•,,("e•le:n.. •• 111"."114:12Edrii;''.''''.:. '' idav '• ..;„,.„.1,,..••.‘,.,•,,„„,., ,.!..4.1, 4 . , t••••-•--- ..„ 1:•:1,74.'• !r•t" 'tlt”.• - ' ' •" ' _ . t••o 0 o o o• :1,it\1:`1,;iv,..Q.b.o..,,. .q3,-,ro.,-,,,,,,; :. ..1,,,, , -- ....,,,c,-...cy, ,ecv,cco....c,.,.;‘I tl 00000000• ;;''41.VIti°• Q•6.t(:.7‘.6 ...'• e'0 ' e...-.. . -,\-...!‹,.;jeN•••;(V.c,e,..i:,,{.1:.•cr,..rir: lismome, • 1•00 it's •000 '.0.3, :.,.:,..0.77).'.(.)0-,•.`,.,?'A <j•.:;':6 Ari ,,,'‹" •)e, -, -7:5..q4..e.,,CN-4.!•;Nri...CA.4.rf.,4r,Cf•Z. . it" s..0g ssonsonsimi , -3.1••••(0 t.:(,••0,,e?'"'•`• v,.•<'•)•`'s-•`'.• '‘"'"'"0 " '",• •, -..,- ,,,,,-`:'.•"•,:•,-c;7'.,4,.• (•'/••• i.000 lillavralIMIN , ,:s.i.p......000d -0. ..cs•,• •.I - ,P, °,...'..0.,c.-1 •,•• ..• -••• • , ,, • ' samilimmusi•,,o Alms r 0. 1 n. n..• ••; ..- •••••,N ,-•' •• '•''. ,V•'' - '' •••(i'. . -•'' '•;'''',..4.'7(4.4 C../C4..lYce. """11111:11:tee'l IIIR '•' ,••• II p(S.iv,:-., . •,:p;::•;‘,is;.OW';:,,:,,.,•-•',,* ;...r.,:::g :•:•3.'...,6'e,„'••, ,-, -•v.L'!„ \-. • , ••;er.0,,,„,0•!-•0,0 • , ,,.,.......e..•,-„,. .....,•-..,,A:0,,,.'•‘:•_62 0:.cli,P:,`',-:I•.?i'z'/,.-..'1.,tb L••„:..'•„b).';,.:.`i;9,.*:::zi. , .,"-"c•in.(.$,- ,.:•,:___ - --- 1111111111111...... b -...:::::•:::::::::::::::::......: .-,,,1-. -_.-,.- .__., ,. „„___,.,..,. , ,_ _ _„,. ---- t ..111MISMinniow•--„:;14,ai::.::::HiMaii LAND USE ELEMENT .,... ...., . ...,......., it ,...,.....„„n„,,.:.„,..,.,::.,?... _, ilk 4,t.. ...,:.,, 4 --_---_-- \ _ •lig Single Family 1.........1 Commercial --- .• -__ ,--_, off . 00 , :i::..-.;1 :•::', ; o ,:•:,..:•:•:•., Or, , iiir °° %••''••• • .:•:.:.:•:•:•:•:•:.::1 fl. t'.:.:•:•:•:•:•:•.'',..,' 4 . s 00000 1. ol.v Density 1 --- - r.-..-- • • .°0, ---v.:"-...:•• . • :::: : :::::::::: • OVfice / OVfice Park _-_-_= 1,,,.._.,•:--?,. ,:. ,..R..„,0,, ,,- , Multi-Family ,.. . ‘;‘5): : - . . .... . ._- __ ...„ ,00.0.001.-_-_-_.k •-•.';-:•-' ..:: .69 i ,*:::::i:isi:i:x:::::, Medium Density 0.0.0o. Public/Ouasi-Public .000.0000 :(3,.i • 4.)0 0 00000 f....••• -. 0 0 C , oct.c1/40.0.0.4• 0 0:..?C., .7. :4 • ° ' 'w.,:,:.w-,;.•::k(!i i r --; lc 14 e c • ''' / -' G-iigi-u Density .600000 4 0 0 R a,:,A 0* '000000 I Light Industrial i.s.: ,A,••::.R4 Rila.liti-Farniiv ,...... , -_-•---,- -_- ,,-:,-,:.; ...;.,: . P':.>63,W.4::?A,3 ..,3 S.S "7:- , ------•:- '': .• • ,, _ .ilf„, __ __i,c ••• ,IS*„ • ;•:-. :' • V. ',' i 1 k'".•`C.ri,,,71:"c:::) ' o. a' ------ ----- ,,i ec aon C",-- . '0 ,-,r, r ,,_ 1 4-r.% 10 00 0 00. Di 000 _, eavy Ondustrial -,..411,16. % ":-. i '''* fr,e'-•-.? • I . •-- -- . : • [.. I''''..,^,1'..,•:',;-f.i Greenbelt f:'. i Manufacturing Park __ k i) ,.. ?.,._.._,..,, - / Multiple Option - . , .. ,. . ..... _, __ -:- -:-' , .:::.:--'..•:::::: : ::i•.: P :-:-.:- :-.=--.,.3:fs",. all ...::::::i*ii*::•:•: " Revised April 194_45 ,c( -_-_-- ---.4-...... .- . • •••••.•... . ....... ........................... . :-_-...:- -..... ,,....:::•••• -•00.,04 . •.• .• .......................... ........... ... . _.......„=„.„....-7.-..M„::::::::::i:::: ::.::.:.,:.:•::- . ,„,,,, ::::::: •.':%in.::.::ii:.. T3 14_111.1t11 1:1 I I-1,4:.N AI..IV M.'i I',',,1\..4__,..,....- . -...-.................. . • " . . . . . . . ... . • . . sEGALE 1••• . . . _ • _. .. ... . . . . • -, . e . r.,... .. ...... . -. . • • • • . ::.,..:'..:::-... F-_, c.2 . . BoR R • w pi -11-- s LIT ..." - . • -I 6. • • , .... .......5"---.....,... `....:7: ' - ,- • IIL . .._._ ,.._ . . & RECLAMATION . . - ..- •- . . PLAN • • , . ..._.., .--J '•S. . . . . t....: . ,••••;7?‘ . -_ - . .• -. - - ' --i , . •,_-, . . Y. • . • . . . . . . . . -. .• • . . • . . . . . • - , . . . . . . • . _ . • . . . N . -. • r, k . ' ...k.; . k W -E t . . • .• \4 . . \1/4 • ____ S A ..1 ‘ ,ve•-,et"..V t 1 I '.. f • • — • •• \ j.............1.....„...._ ........___...../_,,, !'..S' . 1 . . ,, • ..• ,f...°11 II- ':,...... . ,...., • . 7 ,,,,,ER, M.A.Sec.422,, ..r..r. 45641 1,85CA7/7r20AJ, elf /60/0 -^oariica,vrra PA-7-ey; P.40. 2;•,/if .."/4. /.4r/fred if ./hi.46-/S.,..e// Opf. O. oar 6270.5'0 .././..,thaw A", 7.7.......”1...;e. e..7 A4-713, Aiwy,.5.r.e.i/IA; 1 R r • 70%rwa.e, Iti.:tow. Terkfil 575-5200 • evre,r /1, A.,.-/A _rya ;-et';. a'ewe",/./.. JO Ai he"VW 6,rapt Sik,,S•1;1 RI: •,;•• ./dr.-,/,..,,e,..4 d'xi"....fh,4 i / --1- — rey.4" PhleP4A'EO .iY,:, z e.te . . . _ 1. nzfruellon • ufroys,Inc. • • • . • . IIIIIII ••••*- 1403I•Mot....SCE. - • girkiona.Man.C0032 • . . , .. - . - -..... . t -...."• 421•73 . . 70 • '_ • • • \ "•m, C.- • . . ••-. . EX1-11Brr .../., V/C/N/TY -;14.---:/c..'::::\N • .f...-..e. ,-.2.v• . . . . , . . • si/e-er 1 i.7 , . . . • • . . . 1 . 1 . I . . $1, 4---A ' . ‘I' I I.r• „______,a • a• Ve"' • P • CS . D.\\ .1.5.0.00 ••••".st :, . '`,....., .____. ' 0.A r------ -----j- ___.. . se!Apt"' ;1/46 o 11 • l _______ Naveoe Ave at: • ---c--4 ._ ___.__„_.5...._•_.....--:.,_,_ pc _ .0f./OA° - .e" .-- PD..OD • •"1 -r.*: '. ._ I- :i--7--.-7--7-77:----...... --;,----'60,,,.---11--.7--- --'••- -------•'''---"------ - -- -- - --- sae _ - - -=4=•-•••. `" ___ --- ....:...:, • , ,„"---'7-. ' -. -. -- --- .--- . --... .----------"-.--- •11/4 ;,t''''‘,---,.,--_-:‘,....,,, - , '- . ---------____--.., I ; /..... II .,"------ i 1 ,-- ..t.0 •' ' `,. i ------- _ ----- .t../ ------..._.—.._ • .." -T.. '' - "vowed"t.Jec do.a (r...............,. --....... IIIII 1 —------- --—--- ------;.- ........___. .\. ,.............-........--.427 • ....----------- --------- :.."---- . :.•:: . . -.,...... ....- . --...."-----.. -,.. .........::::. \_ ,!. ... ......_, ... _.„. • . II . 1 1 .,i. . ,......... .......----............_.ss--•...,.. <-- • )-. --., i.:-.3 , ....... . __ . ,:. --... • ____... ., -- 1 ... \-......... • •-........ \, ---- I Of.71 ‘V2:1•J '..".:1. 1 1 • \ ,.....°. '. 1' . N.N. ......,,r4_1„,• I • I •,..,,,,.....--, ....i • ',..,,,. 5 _ ....._ „., . I IT . .-• INN.NN -. • • . • • . \ . . ..---- .1•\- \I . . B •, .. .. • , ( PA. •-•••••. • A.r.e. • ,•• I I 1 I f, .,' A . • . ( - -ro• .. • . ••• .. - '4‘I\._\, • • • s.. \• I ,, • ** 1 • . 4.9 . • V....-.- . • \ .,_ . ., ii ,,‘ • )r0 .1 I I .1.*C..:' _ . . : I I: . .N..............N.N.................ss / 'V./ I / / • • ./...... .7\.,. .:. i ' -.. - • . • I - • . 1 \.1 l' .. 11:? S. I°/'' •. t, . :, 1, ., 1 0, 1, • \\ •„.., -,.. . ----- 7;,,/ , "-- . . .....,‘ \u i 1 1 i :1'. • . . . .. . ,_ • • " ,. .:,...\ • • 1 I ••• - ---.,......:,..•...,,,,"..4.. -•.,.............,N..... ........-e„, , ....„ , , , ..• I i 1 • • _. • I ._____ ___ _, ..-- r_-__ / .--- ,....---/ ie . 1. I q . 1 AfoTES: _ '''%...„--:•:.• .c- c''.......-----.r....a.---_____-- : !i I 1 I Ikarili"Art"aoff.iten V Is, 1 I s 01.4 1 t ertrrytt",ka-tlys awe' \ ---..'^-•"-'•L-r,_: q y -------------- ------ ----••• . ..."<.•-•-' _____ ...-7/ .......--. IL'Ii. /eVirr-: — -Fjg \ • . '4 ! I a.lik.ater.100.071 Away art enifialthe li-eve etenmx.latxsch.a.n_.ttcratc41.,.., • 11 \:-------- ---- IfAmirOA WAS.Ha.I -..--------- .--.. ---.....-•-....•-•••"">s. , \ i . :•••• ..../ / I I .-• / / 1 -. - • 2.ogle .S2rerl J.",trro--• oewient A!,(Int? ..-. li ,....._...._j_ .--.----- .------ ( k --..-- --;--° ---- ----- ____-- ---•- --- ----yo ________,..•-••'-- ..• // . x • -.--..-- -cr.'. --/.-i n ..v....,f 440,,v.Lr.o.en..,:...... ..•..."/ / 1 9.Swifre arokr sAillie relfund on avii•until .': Il 1 .--- a", ...•"• .---• // I /ins/etratoaman/Grevro . ...........;...... .... .....',....... .................. / / 1 k ______ -----_ .__- -...--,„--F---- --, ... , • ; \\ ••_____ __ — ---„,---- 740 o.,"-,ca'a_r=_I_____._-- -- . ,_. ...--.7-• fr, }‹..•:); ---- -_- 4. P. • . ..... ane'l•to gae"n.statted".a4 •NJ." Mt locramor Jr:Amoo.o. --------• ------ ----.7:1,—.—Ere— ,orw./h.,,..., ,i/ Or"1", c'ety— T.9.4'ea:, •-•'-- ' f,.,.f...1-:-.- --==--- -: -. ____ --::: -- -_-.________ I ---- - _ - -• --------_ ;"4".. .1* Prder...;2/tro•-_,....flAJWY`'.-o...,-.......„4,44-.N.....-7-, ....x....vi.m....e? ,• ': ....,...... i ...........„...,„,....4,,,,,,,,,,.....mem...=•mxt,;,..„..;--- --- " • " -- -•....•......:,.....: ,,...-------------..., . .:,....mm_,,yjno,..,....,,..1. • _r.--,..- ozo..... .. .toosooron..n...-Moo . J . - e% 0 6, 41''1 ___,:freciY. ila-/4 e • ••-----•-....,---4:4,..z.,......-...-.f,..,;;..........-,...........,•,.,...„.••••••t-iram..."4 '..."'.."^"LI".""er"-:" ..""--44••• eborrr-i, .J.*VsKi•-R--Shire.swi ----• • - ---- A.. .__. .____*—_ M.A.SCOALE.INC. a ,.••1`,4,-3.:7:••4:!: I if..:••,/4//i. "Ocins true/Ion SY TE 17.Z.V/ Fog • .,...y.,me. /0/T RECI.INA770A/ .6.4.,Aa-i,akAil .41,.., .-4...;•01)",, LI)/,,,r,t Jr: "' ,7 /4=,.•''''"••••4" x;e-.., . y: 14031..21M Mc ME. .,!,, • , c..4lO' MO 46-C-6 • •ei..t!ig..10. 7 ",...•••.4 0.1 Op /O.-Ow/ow Int'eptd • oti At i" . .....,,:f;!!!.1;.:;•,. KirrIon0.Werh.DOW asc II . • • 021•r.7111 o.....i Ors-oo,Or \ 4 • 4#II,, Of . ..___ — _ . . 9./.,9 .;mi r.,;;::,;;;,,. .,,,,•.., „ ......, . ,„,a _ _ Ary?,•.,.7,11 CCM 1011m puiritio,,v ,,,,,!,.:,,, r-r 9 Vfa, ,,, ,, rop:9' a i•-3;..,.,,:. J N'..V lilt1•I C011 I 9 .9 1 1' / 0 i --..,_=.__e.:..w.f .-•'9 '' (1 'r''). -:-.7-1/.9 77/-1 12-19 1717/4.0',/ '" "8-"" ft ••'1.1,:, 0,z • • , . WY0/..1.229..+0 .9.7 7/-../OcYc/ "°"""'" .•e;'-V ...::.•• • — 0/1 'Dm.3-,vuis•...0, 0o, ....-... , . P . az ---. • e/ • , / - \ am . \ ..g . / \ , , • f„,.---- \ ,,,.,— 00( .••••"-- \ k . . • 1.7-- -- 1 c.,, (-3 7. 7, \ tki .....--.--- -....(a•.:2,4.) ,---4"-,s .? ...-- \ . - .......- .....- - 2 7.- 1---:-7. i d-- .--... / • . \ . .... ID .-.-.) , - , \ .-i•,- -..:.... . • \ ‘;...,"....7 .....;:,i, -,. • i . , z---..: c.c.7, -.---•-•-:-..?:::.:) . _ • \-- oi( Cs--) cla k . C-3 . :.:, -1.,.., • -0 7----1 . , - • • 1 . . . . k. N -, . . 9-67 flo/...toas . a./ 6 8 G 9. S . .3;e•' 1 I / 0 I • I I I' . . . / Pd:/fer)Pfla./.4 • \ 082 - '''.V.:..• -- / \ / • . • \ / • • \ ..... / / ..... • . ‘ 00, -------, , / •-e......(.3.7,-),...,,boi...r,,..7 ,.• off / • \ N • / \ ,... , . oa - r \ • 111 1 \ os . \ \ t . \ • 02( . • 1 1 \ - • 1 . \ . . i • . . 1 \ ... 1 . . . D'4"; •P2--4"---54:4!te.7 i 1. -,--- --', ' —....---,--------. 1 ' .. t1— On" • - . . . . . — . .------... •-. . . . . DS/dskl ECF02887 {- CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST NO. : ECF-028-87 APPLICATION NO(S) . : SP-033-87 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Application for special permit to cont.nue operation of filling existing former borrow pit of approximately 14.4 acres. PROPONENT: M.A. Seagle, Inc. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Property located at 300 block of t_ Monroe Ave. N.E. LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton, Building and Zoning Dept. The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43 .21C. 030 (2) (c) . This decision was made after review of an expanded environmental checklist and preliminary site plan, on file with the lead agency. Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-2822 (D) Renton Municipal Code (see attached sheet) . These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340. The lead agency will not act on this proposal for fifteen (15) days from June 22, 1987. Any interested party may submit written comments which must be submitted . by 5: 00 p.m. , July 6, 1987, in order to be considered. A fourteen ' (14) day appeal period will commence following the finalization of the DNS. i Responsible Official: Environmental Review Committee City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055 Phone: 235-2500 DATE OF DECISION: June 17, 1987 EFFECTIVE DATE: June 22, 1987 6// Ronald G. Nelson N. Sprip ger Building and Zoning Director Policy D velootent Director • Richard C. oughton Public Wor Director DS/dskl seagleMM CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATION MEASURES) ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST NO. : ECF-028-87 APPLICATION NO(S) . : SP-033-87 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Application for special permit to continue operation of filling existing former borrow pit of approximately ' 14 .4 acres. PROPONENT: M.A. Seagle, Inc. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Property located at 300 block of Monroe Ave. N.E. LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton, Building and Zoning Dept. CONDITIONS: 1. That no material which contains soluble poisons or other leachable compounds (including all petroleum based substances such as asphalt) which have the potential for contaminating the ground water is to be filled into the site. 2 . That a row of coniferous trees be planted along Monroe Ave. N.E. for long-item screening of pit operation insuring that the trees are set back from the road so as not toAcreate a site distance i problem. - 3. That the applicant work with the City of Renton Police Department and the Traffic Engineering Division of the Public Works Department in reviewing designated haul routes to the property. 4. That the applicant workpthe City of Renton Public Works Department to ensure source of fill is acceptable for placement on the property. That the applicant contract with a licensed professional geotechnical engineer approved by the City to monitor the site and to provide monthly reports on the types of fill material being deposited on the site and the results of leachate monitoring together with a monitoring well going down to the hardpan. 5. That the hours of operation be from 7:00 a.m. to 3: 00 p.m. , Monday through Friday. • Determination of No-- gnificance Mitigation Measures DS/dskl/SeagleMM Page 2 6. That(per ordinance fill material . shall have only minor amounts of organic substances and shall have no rock, concrete or similar irreducible material with a maximum dimension no greater than eight (8) inches (Section 4 -23lb:4) . 7. That the applicant provide the City a renewable bond in the amount of $2, 000. 00 for the duration of the Permit to cover the costs of c,Leanup work should such work become necessary. That vehicle cleanup facilities be provided on site to insure that mud and debris do not leave the site. 8. That when the fill elevation has reached the 325 foot level, the applicant will submit detailed drainage plans to include all surface and subsurface drainage devices and other protective devices to be constructed, erosion control and hydroseeding plans. a 4 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : C , . "0►✓ REVIEWING � n APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS flNOT APPROVED ct Tlik, 5I ie 15-ro 6c 1-4`'f DROS O J UPO6J GO r p,,,itO& etc iI V„1 4 P `C'3o' P 1 " -1s- PrOnOJ KM; OF l 1/2. T mEs— -1 I4G 1'1 ry,pTco C05--r oF 1,Z. 4VP)e:74LA-f 10v0 a HP$L-l.� U 1 k o �- Tl4 M)P t'1 CA N1- 1-4) , PISK RA- f 10 `10sir- 9 e 1- ' Z CO(v-rIrV Us, `1'1.41 I LLA C0 D 1 pt. ptsizyna yr\prki rn ILA Inn d (G) "-d-E64l;- 1 o gapEk 114 N ~ PA...orrilCix) Gc `r 1A. V II C 6t DOVE 1 uU ,1-1g 4P(-411312, C 0 TIC NPP1,Iuwl 1S- TO Com11101 ( LA)11H f0G 2k=[�uiR,c.vv ct,nr15 C1=' Toc- (Ali m5 YV) 131N(O s (oRPilJ lroto ©R.()1Np ki tc— \� DATE: ( M 5 . SIGNATURE OF DIRECTO 0 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : &..D6 E APPROVED 7 APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [1 NOT APPROVED 1 . AA o(r 0/777--'G<i G(J rrs rig cS3 - f' / ,to -0 'ac}m���`r z `POEr.) Aiorr- COred74; �, C uti C v�C?� C��J�� 3- S(--vz-C-/Y/,,t.1 6 , S i t,-U�.' .0 ( 2 Cu A-1 P `f- 1,— .s./72% 5, .�-, u S 7- c E:rr>✓9�/ - (iJ, 7- /a =Ai G>i.r) _472.�✓� c i-1 7) ''6 (7.2-0 1,'/5 i e.4.:S /.0(-:,e.t_ 9iz1 6., C°.!ir��,7��7/O,t) V2 ,J'.. . / / / �.� �- 41 - __ DATE : �`)'77" SIGNATUR ` F DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : APPROVED I ! APPROVED WITH NDITIONS r-] NOT APPROVED /1,14...6-?....g- /4_,Kt /1-Z /1q_z...p..._..ek..4_6(._ e,7 ,1 eAA.,eLdi„,g ,. ...e.. ,*L64,4. _.., 1z..4.,t4....46 a.-.1A—g_ , t...,..a..ef..,--c.L. /...."-to ...,-1-4._k_e_vt..., 7€.4..) (...4-e._ 1/)..),L4r7.A (.d.z...50L__ b-e-rt-z- k...11.-A-- d9...rire,Le...aLa.,Lz-In 7Z7F,', 1' ) L,. Li \iV IL; 1 • l!_1 'J U N 3 198 7 . kUILI',I\P( //O IN(.; DEP1', IGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVEATE:T_))4L:_,.. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : " C-c2'--e Fi APPROVED pi WITH CONDITIONS ri NOT APPROVED • p s a- ke.97DATE: Q SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION ©-e-' r- APPROVED pi APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS E NOT APPROVED f p . jq.lgi DATE : ,f/?/� SIGNA`I.r.E�OF DIRECTOR 0 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION P1 O IO _4 APPROVED n APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED DATE: SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : 7t; f l�/7 E/✓<//✓L-/_-- e///C I I APPROVED J APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS 0 NOT APPROVED i / F3 ofii e ,c)A .:1. /+ . ..`, `eM p tln ,f „ LI W.: C..lea 1._.i ` • 1 I l ° , c- . • , I i iv c'_';L�,.A1G/�.ININU 6er'T° "-. C: .�.-Leis , �S, L ? z. -�Y��- DATE ° SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHOR,I.2ED REPRESENTATIVE REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : n../7y > t/,V >1r I ] APPROVED ri APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS J5Je NOT APPROVED fN (.JELL rat) P4OTCcTOJ 4a.6:4 — k71uL (Iaar !o N.tit a,ir- t;Fr r ors ww-t-- FrEtd) Pitlitom =Z ETT-WOO Y U� 4c? 77 K/Au� Co. Zi, 9 74. 9z l �E T a SEW:7I j/ s S'-?' / " B° 1 OSA oleo - SISMIPam; y� � o s4 x Fr - .c 2646 42�Op. S 0 F E 1�:I CHp. .CE— :',® /" " of ,4 ���°'�'L da ibliT f�hw :jv's/E? f� ;,r``, t , APPROVED WATER PIM -4 ,14-44:-e----t• 6 ai 7,,a,,,,,Le_.. - _,. .. - , '''',77 . ---1------- "j'ai-"'ZC.. MOVED GIBE IIYDE;.. e Ei.. :--- z V i / _,...._ iS(1/:// DATE: el`' F e007 SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : r%N11:s�1.4'`,55"/fk- 1 EAP PROVEDD fl APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS fl NOT APPROVED / e :' C'e• F.ENTO ei# 71' rq ''' t 0 \if? 1. ' . ._ . ) • ...; ,..1 1 ! 11 , i ,1 tJf1 111 :7 t.;,,LC. .G/ZONINu u&PT° / f� DATE: 6- 9l/ '.7 SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE tc-1 I o\J NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION RENTON HEARING EXAMINER RENTON,WASHINGTON A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT i ud e tie J,i e ,being first duly sworn on oath states CIL CHAMBERS HIS REGULAR EET NG IN THE THE SECON - that he/she Is the Chief Clerk of the FLOOR OF CITY HALL, RENTON, WASH- INGTON, ON SEPTEMBER 15, 1987, AT 9:00 A.M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOW- VALLEY DAILY NEWS ING PETITIONS: M.A.SEGALE,INC. • Kent Edition • Renton Edition • Auburn Edition Application for special permit to continue operation of filling existing former borrow Daily newspapers published six (6) times a week.That said newspapers pit of approximately 14.4 acres. Property located at 300 block of Monroe Ave. N.E. are legal newspapers and are now and have been for more than six File Nos.ECF-028-87,SP-033-87. months prior to the date of publication referred to,printed and published POHL SHORT PLAT to in the English language continuallyas dailynewspapers in KingApplication acresc for short plat approval gKent, � divide 4.58 into 4 lots. Property boat- County,Washington.The Valley Daily News has been approved as a legal . ed at 2100 Jones Avenue N.E.File No. SH newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for PL Legal Legal-060-87.descriptions of the files noted King County. above are on file in the Renton Building and Zoning Department. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS TO SAID The notice in the exact form attached,was published in the Kent Edition PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE PRE- SENT, Renton Edition , Auburn Edition , (and not in AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON SEP- su supplement form) which wd5 regularly distributed to its subscribers TEMBER 15, 1 OPINIONS. AT 9:00A.M. TO pp g Y EXPRESS THEIR OPWIONS. during the below stated period.The annexed notice a Published in the Valley Daily News Sep- tember 4, 1987.R2494. piotiec cf ?ub is was published on .,ep ember• 4 : 1967 1,.214 911 The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $ Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of Sept 19 87 - (P-66 Notary Public for the State of Washington, residing at Federal Way, crry OF RENTON King County, Washington. 1 �� n C1 VDN#87 Revreed 11 86 �-,- Li V r . 11 OCT "- i987 RtJftD ".;G / ZONING DEPT. / ti ® CITY ,OF RENTON "lL PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Barbara Y. Shinpoch, Mayor Richard C. Houghton, Director c, '3 #0_CiNe (6 MEMORANDUM 43 les" op. September 14, 1987 TO: Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner FROM: Richard Houghton, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Segale Pit - Hours of Operation We have reviewed the hours of operation for the subject site and also the application requesting permission to continue filling said location. Our review indicates that the hours of operation from 7 AM to 3 PM are satisfactory and coincide with similar operations. RCH:pmp cc: Ron Nelson Gary Norris Don Erickson 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2569 HE/dskl AG91587 CITY OF RENTON r.� HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING SEPTEMBER 15, 1987 AGENDA COMMENCING AT 9:00 A.M. : COUNCIL CHAMBERS, SECOND FLOOR, RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING The applications listed are in order of application number only and not necessarily the order in which they will be heard. Items will be called for hearing at the discretion of the Hearing Examiner. M.A. SEGALE, INC. Application for special permit to continue operation' of filling existing former borrow pit of approximately 14 .4 acres. Property located at 300 block of Monroe Ave. N.E. File Nos. ECF-028-87, SP-033-87. r POHL SHORT PLAT Application for short plat approval to divide 4.58 acres into 4 lots. Property located at 2100 Jones Ave. N.E. File No. SH PL-060-87. c ` 0, 3 87 t$ . s CITY OF RENTON BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT Barbara Y. Shinpoch, Mayor Ronald G. Nelson, Director September 8, 1987 M. A. Segale Inc. P.O. Box 88050 Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: PUBLIC HEARING Dear Mr. Segale: A public hearing before the City of Renton Land Use Hearing Examiner has been scheduled for September 15, 1987. The public hearing commences at 9: 00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you before the hearing. If you have any questions, please call the Building and Zoning Department at 235-2550. ince y, ovollt Donald K. Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator DKE:DB:csb:Dsk • 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2540 t$ , ., CITY OF RENTON BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT Barbara Y. Shinpoch, Mayor Ronald G. Nelson, Director September 8, 1987 Ms. Laurie A. Pinard P.O. Box 88050 Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: PUBLIC HEARING Dear Ms. Pinard: A public hearing before the City of Renton Land Use Hearing Examiner has been scheduled for September 15, 1987. The public • hearing commences at 9: 00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you before the hearing. If you have any questions, please call the Building and Zoning Department at 235-2550. Sincerely, I I t Don- . Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator DKE:DB:csb:Dsk • • 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2540 !r//2 HE/Dskl Pub9787 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RENTON HEARING EXAMINER . RENTON, WASHINGTON A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE SECOND FLOOR OF CITY HALL, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON SEPTEMBER 15, 1987, AT 9:00 A.M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS: M.A. SEGALE, INC. Application for special permit to continue operation of filling existing former borrow pit of approximately 14.4 acres. Property located at 300 block of Monroe Ave. N.E. File Nos. ECF-028-87, SP-033-87. POHL SHORT PLAT Application for short plat approval to divide 4.58 acres into 4 lots. Property located at 2100 Jones Avenue N.E. File No. SH PL-060-87. Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the Renton Building and Zoning Department. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS TO SAID PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE PRESENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON SEPTEMBER 15, 1987, AT 9: 00 A.M. TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS. PUBLISHED: SEPTEMBER 7, 1987 - L,i o OF R4' . .t,4 r'2. ytr 1 d ,t X 77771 .,.1. .r" ,jr ,. ti d9 1 it r9 ,� *1` ' ''� kq .,,..;i y7 tix.` ;' J ",;� st t '9,� C�" ,.r.,l� ,� T�1`T._ n, t'� .1 �,t t.}4 fit'. tx .}'- i. . 091��0 SEPTE����� City of Renton L nc Use wearing Examiner .t 174, ::: �5 wH hold a a1` � p .fit, '� s 1 } d,,,,..,„17. % wr ,�`' t 1�P��y ���,' '.',.'''' % § A le4r �,,, 1„- , i Eit t:• tsn }' . ,roe r u x r sir ', } ,„4,:4 ° v r1 day t`- A is, { , ` 4 ` )A im ' ,;i ,,,b if A. %. 4 {{ (¢i��, in CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS „ CITY HALL ON SFPTFM?;FR 15, 1987 BEGINNING AT 9 :00 A.M. P.M. ,•H3lC 4 t fii } .. *II-, is , r . ' ( , ® M.A. SEGALE, INC. ECF-028--87, SP-033-87 APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONTINUE OPERATION OF FILLING EXISTING FORMER BORROW PIT OF APPROXIMATELY 14.4 ACRES, N ' • ' O 4 ; ,� ,„ ,-, 471! p . n b 14\, • u et 4 , OWNER. M.A.Scc.dce, L�r )tj�J.*1.' ,t M0/0 Sevrvcr./rrt P..wr. ((/ P.0. Ear f905o 11j ,'' 1 7i wits, Awi�v. 9G/dB t. IWiS7 r;, 575-J200 V / • . e PREPARED BY' 4 1� trtc u ltt ve k/ vere.Inc. 14031.171a1 ave.N.E. \ .4$ Kirkland.Waak COM I: •TN/ I \ . .c.----*.' . . . V/UN/TY MAP n..4 /.av' GENER _J".,'IL ...• "dATE 9 1 °44 , */a,:0 PI A tic ® S PROPERTY LOCATED AT 300 BLOCK OF MONROE- AVENUE N.E. , FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CALL ThOE CITY OF RENTON BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT 235-2550 THIS NOTICE r� x T TO V El: WITHOUT . , PROPER AUThDRIZ TI .milFN ' r • .,_ _ __, . 77,2. ,...4 . MT0 OLIVET CITY OF RENTON RE C E V En JUL 27 1987 BUILDING 1 ZONING DEPT. July 27 , 1987 City of Renton 200 Mill St. Renton, Washington RE: M. A. Segal_e Monroe Ave. & Fill Site Gentlemen: In response to the mitigated DNS planned to be issued for the filling of this site, we have been unable to obtain a copy .of the prepared mitigating measures. We want to be assured that all of the water presently forming in the large base of the pit covering several acres is maintained in it ' s natural. state with respect to it ' s quality and it ' s contribution to the ground Water table serving Olivet Creek. We would appreciate being pern_meted to comment further with respect to the water located on this site and how it ' s quality is being assured. This water should percolate to the water table and flow to Olivet Creek. We have not seen any information with respect to how this large body of water is to be handled. S.incerel . , T. AV.,T C' � F �' RY VII .� anf/ i1. Jaes L. Colt P. esident cc: Larry Setchell /4.- a-e97.-(1 /0-e-i/C1,1-- /a--e.-(....-1.4.... 9,_/34-7 Cemetery, Mausoleum, Crematory & Gardens Box 547 •. 100 Blaine Ave. N.E., Renton, WA. 98057 • 206-255-0323 • NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION RENTON,WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a Determination of NON- . SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED for the follow- ingAFFII -IT OF PUBLICATION project(s) underlC the h f the Renton Municipal Code. The Applicant(s) have completed a mitigation process pursu- ant to WAC 197-11-350. Audrey Del_ SHANNON O'NEIL (SHANNON'S VIL- ,being first duly sworn on oath states LAGE) that he/she is the Chief Clerk of the Application for site plan approval to con- struct three buildings and remodel one for retail and professional office use. Property located east DuvallAvenue N.E. and VALLEY DAILY NEWS northhSunsetBlvd. of N.E. Blvd. File Nos. ECF- 027-87,SA-031-87. • Kent Edition • Renton Edition • Auburn Edition M.A.SEGALE, INC. Application for special permit to continue Daily newspapers published six (6) times a week. That said newspapers operation of filling existing former borrow are legal newspapers and are now and have been for more than six pit of approximately 14.4 acres. Property located at 300 block of Monroe Ave. N.E. months prior to the date of publication referred to,printed and published File Nos.ECF-028-87,SP-033-87. in the English language continually as daily newspapers in Kent, King BERKLEY STRUCTURES,INC. Application for site plan approval to build County,Washington.The Valley Daily News has been approved as a legal a two-story office complex totaling 77,170 newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for sq. ft. building on 4.79 acres and applica- King County. tion for substantial shorelines development permit to allow the subject development within 200 feet of Springbrook Creek. Prop- The notice in the exact form attached,was published in the Kent Edition erty located east of Springbrook Creek and west of Lind Avenue and between S.W. , Renton Edition X , Auburn Edition , (and not in 34th Street and S.W. 39th Street. File Nos. supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers ECF-029-87,SA-034-87,SM-008.87. CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS during the below stated period.The annexed notice a DEPARTMENT Notice of Environmental Determination Application for environmental review and substantial shoreline permit to allow exten- was published on July 13, 1987 R2398 sion of sanitary sewer of the Cedar River. • Property located at S.E. 5th Street and Maple Valley Road. File Nos. ECF-030-87, SA-034-87,SM-005-87. The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the Further information regarding this action is available in the Building and Zoning sum of $ 36.90 Department, Municipal Building, Renton, • Washington, 235-2540. Any appeal of ERC action must be filed with the City of Renton Hearing Examiner by July 27, 1987. -/1 Published in the Valley Daily News July g 13, 1987.R2398. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 23ra day of July 19 87 Notary blic for the State of Washington, residing at Federal Way, King County, Washington. VON#87 Rev.sed 1186 '• I NotEnvirDet/Dsk 1 Pub71387 NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a Determination of NON- SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED for the following project(s) under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. The Applicant(s) have completed a mitigation process pursuant to WAC 197-11- 350. SHANNON O'NEIL (SHANNON'S VILLAGE) Application for site plan approval to construct three buildings and remodel one for retail and professional office use. Property located east of Duvall Avenue N.E. and north of N.E. Sunset Blvd. File Nos. ECF-027-87, SA-031-87. M.A. SEGALE, INC. Application for special permit to continue operation of filling existing former borrow pit of approximately 14.4 acres. Property located at 300 block of Monroe Ave. N.E. File Nos. ECF-028-87, SP-033-87. BERKLEY STRUCTURES, INC. Application for site plan approval to build a two-story office complex totaling 77,170 sq. ft. building on 4.79 acres and application for substantial shorelines development permit to allow the subject development within 200 feet of Springbrook Creek. Property located east of Springbrook Creek and west of Lind Avenue and betweez S.W. 34th Street and S.W. 39th Street. File Nos. ECF-029-87, SA-034-87, SM-008-87. CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Application for environmental review and substantial shoreline permit to allow extension of sanitary sewer of the Cedar River. Property located at S.E. 5th Street and Maple Valley Road. File NOs. ECF-030-87, SM-005-87 Further information regarding this action is available in the Building and Zoning Department, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington, 235-2540. Any appeal of ERC action must be filed with the City of Renton Hearing Examiner by July 27, 1987. Published: July 13, 1987 DS/dskl ECF02887 CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST NO. : ECF-028-87 APPLICATION NO(S) . : SP-033-87 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Application for special permit to continue operation of filling existing former borrow pit of approximately 14 .4 acres. PROPONENT: M.A. Seagle, Inc. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Property located at 300 block of Monroe Ave. N.E. LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton, Building and Zoning Dept. The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43 .21C.030 (2) (c) . This decision was made after review of an expanded environmental checklist and preliminary site plan, on file with the lead agency. Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-2822 (D) Renton Municipal Code (see attached sheet) . These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340. The lead agency will not act on this proposal for fifteen (15) days from June 22, 1987. Any interested party may submit written comments which must be submitted by 5: 00 p.m. , July 6, 1987, in order to be considered. A fourteen (14) day appeal period will commence following the finalization of the DNS. Responsible Official: Environmental Review Committee City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055 Phone: 235-2500 DATE OF DECISION: June 17, 1987 EFFECTIVE DATE: June 22, 1987 /4e Ronald G. Nelson . Spri er Building and Zoning Director Policy D velo ent Director /(2.. • Richard C. oughton Public Wor Director DS/dskl seagleMM CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATION MEASURES) ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST NO. : ECF-028-87 APPLICATION NO(S) . : SP-033-87 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Application for special permit to continue operation of filling existing former borrow pit of approximately 14.4 acres. PROPONENT: M.A. Seagle, Inc. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Property located at 300 block of Monroe Ave. N.E. LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton, Building and Zoning Dept. CONDITIONS: 1. That no material which contains soluble poisons or other leachable compounds (including all petroleum based substances such as asphalt) which have the potential for contaminating the ground water is to be filled into the site. 2 . That a row of coniferous trees be planted along Monroe Ave. N.E. for C®11-‹ long-term screening of pit. operation insuring that the trees Dadepel are set back from the road so as not toy create a site distance problem. kmt I oio (OM 3 . That the applicant work with the (00 • City of Renton Police Department and the Traffic Engineering moos'1 Division of the Public Works 7.00 Department in reviewing designated haul rbutes to the property. 4. That the applicant workAthe City of Renton Public Works Department to ensure source of fill is acceptable for placement on the property. That the applicant contract with a licensed professional geotechnical engineer approved by the City to monitor the site and to provide monthly reports on the types of fill material being deposited on the site and the results of leachate monitoring together with a monitoring well going down to the hardpan. 5. That the hours of operation be from 7: 00 a.m. to 3 : 00 p.m. , Monday through Friday. Determination of Non- , _ gnificance Mitigation Measures DS/dskl/SeagleMM Page 2 6. That(per ordinance) fill material shall have only minor amounts of organic substances and shall have no rock, concrete or similar irreducible material with a maximum dimension no greater than eight (8) inches (Section 4-231b:4) . 7. That the applicant provide the City a renewable bond in the amount of $2, 000.00 for the duration of the Permit to cover the costs of cleanup work should such work become necessary. That vehicle cleanup facilities be provided on site to insure that mud and debris do not leave the site. 8. That when the fill elevation has reached the 325 foot level, the applicant will submit detailed drainage plans to include all surface and subsurface drainage devices and other protective devices to be constructed, erosion control and hydroseeding plans. f 'IRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SF. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: 7 c,n t try DATE CIRCULATED: MAY' 21, 1987 0 COMMENTS DUE: JUNE 7, 1987 ECF - 028 — 87 APPLICATION NO(s). SPECIAL -PERMIT: 'SP-033-87 PROPONENT: M.A. SEGALE, INC. ' PROJECT. TITLE:' SEGALE FILL AND' RECLAMATION OF. FORMER'BORROW' SITE. Y BRIEF DESCRIPTION O . PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW- THE CONTINUED OPERATION 'OF 'FILLINGAN EXISTING FORMER' BORROW PIT WITH APPROXIMATELY'. 1,050,000 CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIAL ON A 14.4 ACRE SITE. LOCATION:" LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF MONROE AVENUE N.E. AT THE 300 BLOCK ' • ita + SITE ;AREA: 14, .4 tGi !7 , BUILDING AREA (gross): IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS ,, MINOR MAJOR MORE ! • IMPACT • IMPACT INFORMATION 1)ry „ Earth �' ' ' - l ; 2) Air. n _ z 3) Water j,rti ., . 4) Plants 5) Animals ‘( 6) Energy and Natural Resources D( 7) Environmental Health 8) Land and'Shaitne Use 9) Housing 10) Aesthetics 11) Light and Glare 12) Recreation 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation 7:4 14) Transportation 7� 15) Public Services 16) Utilities COMMENTS: MOOT\vv et\bp IMPN.I - (Aryl () Popp)etvt... Of. PEIZm rr o PR4u10E 4; ;Oct RtiAa iNG (60JVO, F7it. STR '( �l r�u�1►�C dam. ` LA)C l►vlo, , Pf c \c) l'!�2Ca syruw , CoN P ckous TIP ) NLONG MoNYR.oe Vcu EN uE N , SPI+AL-r'i; 11'iZL-p c 1p►r -5 sHoULD VUC t t ritA 0 %Kilo Pri 1N OR,Oer mpliK)--'AIh) Lokreqc C UAL17Y; OROCOlotMc 00e5_ YVcri F v eau, VvcTEi, I4,L, w1T1t P DIr iv'I an) &tter-\rert t10%0_1? t► C I %• /biOP ,ltrAr liON T 1-4-N1" COlociWE SLFiR S 4 FCe'l f nl DI AME1ER WILL. 13E U eb RECOMMENDATION: j1 DNS MITIGATED DNS E1 EIS REVIEWED BY: o ' . T, �r�� , TITLE: Cp 6-87 DATE: FORM #t14 REVISED 9/10/85 ts. .4 k.)0 YYlotielAct I Ok't 1 ck (Sol °Net pcn n r-ao o Q4.1211.. eackcs e cexpourIels ( Induce-View\ c )22,(40-) ,,,10Q5eri s(Akx5-)cin ce.) ). • pokhi,A,A. -vottiatoyAi-prn tfrA141A:t.tc., 14A' ' pod vJo4k- -is +66e- - 11cf Ih+0 tf,e T NPPLICkil CO )TRPKT LicooS..e.0 GtOTeCt-i MCN, V\kolikte4z, cA71 `TO 11(1crilvcr--0.1k, srre NJ 0 -to pl\coutP8 mor.)T4L1 \-)--tvolyr ON) 11K liP6S op v\rN, gull p09061-180 srfe 1 .‘040 Tzrewul5cc (-- 1141,-1144' P000rrolzim6 -roc. rw.eK vorn4- is1/4 mdkirreM1,66 kapeu, 601K)G " DCtA)No )A'N'uD1-)Isti • ,• • •"••. ; • , . .., • • • • , ••• , ,• • • •• • • • • „ • • • • RENT C UILDING & ZONING DEPA WENT REVEL, IP €E kPPUC \T 0 IREV E SHEET ECF - 028 - 87 APPLICATION NO(S) : SPECIAL PERMIT: SP-033-87 PROPONENT : mix_ SFrALB, INC. PROJECT TITLE : SEGALE FILL AND RECLAMATION OF FORMER BORRROW STTF. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF FILLING AN EXISTING FORMER BORROW PIT WITH APPROXIMATELY 1,050,000 CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIAL ON A 14.4 ACRE SITE. LOCATION : LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF MONROE AVENUE N.E. AT THE 300 BLOCK. DATE CIRCULATED: MAY 21,1987 TO : n PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : JUNE 13, 1987 n ENGINEERING DIVISION n TRAFFIC ENG , DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : UTILITIES ENG , DIVISION n FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT FT BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT n POLICE DEPARTMENT 0 POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT n OTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING , PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5 : 00 P .M, ON JUNE 7, 1987 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : `7.0J')I (0(0 ! ( APPROVED r'yf APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS I ( NOT APPROVED I� T1- SI i [5'1'O 141/4-1DRos 0poN) )%e11C1YV tue JN OI'J\p I N) "(1�� PPsY L N)-1; OF I.I/Z TI tE� ",5TI rnmarW GOSH ZCCiU I IcE0 Tl A<PPLI CA Ari i4 RA. Py1U R. 1 1 I(" ` o GONTIN OF> lAA-1V6 I->• s kiouuo tAm Ili 1-0 rivPtau r-) kit w1 `�l`' (6) 1 r) OfLOC MKT " V/31LOtriIJ NP pt.,i v I ►s- TO Com p t7r w t TI- TIC 2 VI IZ&vh c, Of "rt�C cal m II�INco 4 cf�coiv O1L\IJprQc� ® S DATE: 0- CA-6 SIGNATURE OF DIRECTO' 0' AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 • NVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW :T REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: U+i I the DATE CIRCULATED: MAY 21, 1987 COMMENTS DUE: JUNE 7, 1987 ECF — 028 - 87 APPLICATION NO(s). SPECIAL PERMIT: SP-033-87 PROPONENT: M.A. SEGALE, INC. PROJECT TITLE: SEGALE FILL AND RECLAMATION OF FORMER BORROW SITE. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF FILLING AN EXISTING FORMER BORROW PIT WITH APPROXIMATELY 1,050,000 CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIAL ON A 14.4 ACRE SITE. LOCATION: LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF MONROE AVENUE N.E. AT THE 300 BLOCK SITE AREA: BUILDING AREA (gross): IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS MINOR MAJOR MORE IMPACT IMPACT INFORMATION 1) Earth 2) Air 3) Water 4) Plants 5) Animals 6) Energy and Natural Resources 7) Environmental Health 8) Land and Shoreline Use 9) Housing 10) Aesthetics 11) Light and Glare 12) Recreation 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation 14) Transportation 15) Public Services 16) Utilities COMMENTS: CITY TC OFI,,�!!EEN :11' rJUN 4187 BUILDING/ZONING DEPT. • RECOMMENDATION: DNS Ai MITIGATED DNS EIS REVIEWED BY: BP 01 P ..! r. TITLE: - - DATE: 44 1/17 FORM #14 REVISED 9/10/85 RENT-1 BUILDING & ZONING DUDA Tr, ENT DEVELOP _„ENT APPLECATIV N ""EVlE..' SHEET ECF - 028 - 87 APPLICATION NO(S) : SPECIAL, PERMIT: SP-033-87 PROPONENT : M.A. SFAALF, INC. PROJECT TITLE : SEGALE FILL AND RECLAMATION OF FORMER BORRROW SITE. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF FILLING AN EXISTING FORMER BORROW PIT WITH APPROXIMATELY 1,050,000 CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIAL ON A 14.4 ACRE SITE. LOCATION : LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF MONROE AVENUE N.E. AT THE 300 BLOCK. DATE CIRCULATED: MAY 21,1987 TO: n PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : JUNE 13, 1987 l ] ENGINEERING DIVISION pi ENG , DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : FK UTILITIES ENG , DIVISION riFIRE PREVENTION BUREAU . PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT ] BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT CITY OF REN T C:I n POLICE DEPARTMENT 1 U ft; r) is 111 �I7 L� Lil n POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT LIU 1JUN 419S7 l ] OTHERS : I3U LDING/ZONING DEPT. COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING , PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5 ; 00 P .M, ON JUNE 7, 1987 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : ()miry „ /PLC'/NN,4A n APPROVED pi APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS Fl NOT APPROVED IN tam- F18-0 Pao-rC1ioW aR 4 — au.. yfe To Niils64rE Gri:C.. r ON WW6"- FrEU, UT1U11 APPROVAL SUBJECT TO I LR1E+tifII MOMENT-WATER y. W— 4{S8'_7a K/A1 ' Co. SZY, 974. 9Z WI MO NOEEMENT-SEVER - yes s-z./C" 0 " '' Ago,e/ '/sQ.Fr. ,_ w/o 4'sc 3/ slamming CHARGE-VP17,::, yks #'0.4¢ FTX Ozz z64ea'= 0 zS,omso SYSTOI DOO TPMENT CHARGE—SE::4 yes ,_ ef/„ ,0 " _ $z.S'; cep ..-b SPEC AL ASSESSMENT AREA CUS s;r NO __ S'ps/g/. OZ SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AREA I. A/D ``r % APPROVED WATER PLAN ' 417-id.to a. ' te.L.,) APPROVED SEWER PLAIT 7 � APPROVED FIRE HYDRO. - 111111111111111 A ' l BY FIRE D�' C� -. g FIsPE'' '7 � �i 021_./ DATE: 6V-3 /87.7 SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 - VIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW 5 T REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: (citilclIYvc� DATE CIRCULATED: MAY 21, 1987 0 COMMENTS DUE: JUNE 7, 1987 ECF - 028 - 87 APPLICATION NO(s). SPECIAL PERMIT: SP-033-87 PROPONENT: M.A. SEGALE, INC. PROJECT TITLE: SEGALE FILL AND RECLAMATION OF FORMER BORROW SITE. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW' THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF FILLING AN EXISTING FORMER BORROW PIT WITH APPROXIMATELY 1,050,000 CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIAL ON A 14.4 ACRE SITE. LOCATION: LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF MONROE AVENUE N.E. AT THE 300 BLOCK SITE AREA: BUILDING AREA (gross): IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS MINOR MAJOR MORE IMPACT IMPACT INFORMATION 1) Earth 2) Air 3) Water 4) Plants 5) Animals 6) Energy and Natural Resources 7) Environmental Health 8) Land and Shoreline Use 9) Housing 10) Aesthetics 11) Light and Glare 12) Recreation 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation 14) Transportation 15) Public Services 16) Utilities COMMENTS: RECOMMENDATION: FR, DNS 1 1 MITIGATED DNS 1 EIS REVIEWED BY: r 6 ' TITLE: DATE: __ FORM #14 REVISED 9/10/85 REN1 I BUILDING & ZONING DEP4 flENT DEVEL:!:P NIENT APPU CATBON REV0E SHEET ECF - 028 - 87 APPLICATION NO(S) : SPECIAL PERMIT: SP-033-87 PROPONENT : M.A. BEHALF, INC. PROJECT TITLE : SEGALE FILL AND RECLAMATION OF FORMER BORRROW SITF. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF FILLING AN EXISTING FORMER BORROW PIT WITH APPROXIMATELY 1,050,000 CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIAL ON A 14.4 ACRE SITE. LOCATION : LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF MONROE AVENUE N.E. AT THE 300 BLOCK. DATE CIRCULATED: MAY 21,1987 TO: n PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : JUNE 13, 1987 ENGINEERING DIVISION n TRAFFIC ENG , DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : n UTILITIES ENG , DIVISION n FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU n PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT • BUILLLIEG & ZONING DEPARTMENT n POLICE DEPARTMENT n POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT n OTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING , PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5 : 00 P ,M, ON JUNE 7, 1987 , REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : Bi e--,� n APPROVED {3 APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS n NOT APPROVED 1 . AA u s r e-0 P-; /tj 1' �o2 i� i�v 6 © ram 7 Z. cc,/u C il2B?� ©(J 8 et I A-GtIri (PODS CO/VO9LtI ce' 0 AaatiAlf, g• A. ait) LS Ja cD 5, 4.7-7 r--s r c drn �z`1 ram, � .ee .-�(,,- ((WIC* fig` tokz DATE : c. - 2-? SIGNATUR DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 VIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW 5 T REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Ritr, I�el)e,Ir Yn' ; DATE CIRCULATED: MAY 21, 1987 u .COMMENTS DUE: JUNE 7.1 1987 yiI v .uer tikffif ff�N ECF -- 028 - 87 APPLICATION NO(s). SPECIAL PERMIT: SP-033=87' MAY 2 1 1987 PROPONENT: M.A. SEGALE, INC. s, POLICY OFVELOPMr 1T OFPr PROJECT TITLE: SEGALE FILL AND RECLAMATION OF FORMER BORROW SITE.,. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW' THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF FILLING AN EXISTING FORMER BORROW PIT WITH APPROXIMATELY 1P050,000 CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIAL ON A 14.4 ACRE SITE. LOCATION: LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF MONROE AVENUE N.E. AT THE 300 BLOCK SITE AREA: • • BUILDING AREA (gross): IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS MINOR MAJOR MORE IMPACT IMPACT INFORMATION 1) Earth ✓ 2) Air ✓ 3) Water ✓ ✓ 4) Plants V ryr/ OF FIENTON 5) Animals ✓ (� L h ; II \\ E D 6) Energy and Natural Resources ✓ L - �-J rva .>;w F:a 7) Environmental Health ✓ Jiii ' kit, 7C' 8) Land and Shoreline Use ✓ Roil nln!Sr!ONINS fl PT. 9) Housing ✓ 10) Aesthetics ✓ ✓ 11) ' Light and Glare ✓ 12) Recreation ✓ 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation ✓ 14) Transportation ✓ ✓ 15) Public Services V 16) Utilities ✓ COMMENTS: 4- 2,301- ( ) 01.. 7t k.c_ God..¢._ ` -r-fr.d ot..4.E- rbAU;_. 4Q0Be4c= i 1,-,-1 -tom 1:). cam., zs a c�.oL M -a- trawl -�-� e. . L—a- �—e— ai_-rw-,,,_- L_ , .. . v tt-e_ ' mac__ /1.4.4...4,1 . d , . AA-c- -1...(-441--c-- art re-••Ldst-r•-.4-Anc. Zn A--“-Jd7t-ia-e--e D . RECOMMENDATION: DNS El MITIGATED DNS El EIS REVIEWED B .G' lt_ TITLE: DATE: 3_11°14a3FORM #14 REVISED 9/10/85 ( F, 1.1ca&-czyi 9 L.L .tx_Loc.c....ir / At.c 2e44_.e. /.0-3-z_k__ A-41- *0- 0‘.k..dac_ ,tt) ct Z1 . b - LA-e 7C1tr25 (" 4"A-Li6"1111=t -5 / t 'IAA- AA) zlzbireL.c4c4-- eL.4.t_oL aCtAA-AA-IN-Al-c40(-- I1,0.00A.A.42tr...etde 4RA,‘...0C • dot- -47114 7tAt.4. eit.dtar iL2-41 tAAA-C-.V1t-e,st*.0 ot EgGLACVLAAA-C.A.Z Enel ( AAt . o2-25 • ie› ) t511-2r1.•‘-12-A_ et-e- -4) c.Tb tatA:rif:L-tra-da-2- 7t..0 -) Le 2_) • 32r7 ) Gt%41--.91--/edel") *-2AA-44-1-rjrat-ti trrl-tAk-64-- ' ec4;t"--a2ITAL Lrlt jek-c f-ttt't / el • • y RENT '1 BUILDING & ZONING DEPT —TMENT DEVELOPME JT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF - 028 - 87 it.,11 t ul>- RENTON APPLICATION NO(S) : SPECIAL PERMIT: SP-033-87 MAY 21 1987 PROPONENT : M.A. SFr1I E, INC. POLICY OI VI UWMkTd I Urrw PROJECT TITLE : SEGALE FILL AND RECLAMATION OF FORMER BORRROW SITE. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF FILLING AN EXISTING FORMER BORROW PIT WITH APPROXIMATELY 1,050,000 CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIAL ON A 14.4 ACRE SITE. LOCATION : LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF MONROE AVENUE N.E. AT THE 300 BLOCK. DATE CIRCULATED: MAY 21,1987 TO : n PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : JUNE 13, 1987 ENGINEERING DIVISION r1TRAFFIC ENG , DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : ri UTILITIES ENG , DIVISION F-1 FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT 0 BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT n POLICE DEPARTMENT EPOLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT n OTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING , PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5 : 00 P .M, ON JUNE 7, 1987 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : 00-C.I.ct VP` APPROVED APPROVED WITH NDITIONS NOT APPROVED fl fl fl .— ir),1 .1.4tAt_out_c_atirt_44.....6 ez...to,--a_ . C- L tLetin_A, 1��� c-,- �'cry i v,� J -J U N 31987 k-jt _. .Li) i_. LI VJ BUILDING/ZONING DEPT. TYa�d7r DATE: J I���- SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 VIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW ! T REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Pet, S DATE CIRCULATED: MAY 21, 1987 COMMENTS DUE: JUNE 7, 1987 ECF - 028 - 87 APPLICATION NO(s). SPECIAL PERMIT: SP--033-87 PROPONENT: M.A. SEGALE, INC. PROJECT TITLE: SEGALE FILL AND RECLAMATION OF FORMER BORROW SITE. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW' THECONTINUED OPERATION OF FILLING AN EXISTING FORMER BORROW PIT WITH APPROXIMATELY 1,050,000 CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIAL ON A 14.4 ACRE SITE. LOCATION: LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF MONROE AVENUE N.E. AT THE 300 BLOCK SITE AREA: BUILDING AREA (gross): IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS MINOR MAJOR MORE IMPACT IMPACT INFORMATION 1) Earth 2) Air 3) Water 4) Plants 5) Animals 6) Energy and Natural Resources 7) Environmental Health 8) Land and Shoreline Use 9) Housing 10) Aesthetics 11) Light and Glare 12) Recreation 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation 14) Transportation 15) Public Services 16) Utilities COMMENTS: lV!J `ie6N'd / D . 7,0 aevf. trpr ql JUil 1q87 1. RECOMMENDATION: Vt DNS MITIGATED DNS EIS REVIEWED BY: 6/00#1 / /�</ TITLE: 619 CEO Cof/f^r�( 76,- DATE: 4-41/X- 6 -7--69 FORM #14 REVISED 9/10/85 ;�-A RENT I BUILDING & ZONING DEP4 MEM' DEVELtP:\'IE€ T APPUC TON EVIIE v: SHEET ECF - 028 - 87 APPLICATION NO(S) : SPECIAL PERMIT: SP-033-87 PROPONENT : M.A SF(AI E, INC. PROJECT TITLE : SEGALE FILL AND RECLAMATION OF FORMER BORRROW SITF_ BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF FILLING AN EXISTING FORMER BORROW PIT WITH APPROXIMATELY 1,050,000 CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIAL ON A 14.4 ACRE SITE. LOCATION : LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF MONROE AVENUE N.E. AT THE 300 BLOCK. DATE CIRCULATED: MAY 21,1987 TO : I I PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : JUNE 13, 1987 ENGINEERING DIVISION n TRAFFIC ENG , DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : n UTILITIES ENG , DIVISION ri FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU g PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT Ell BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT n POLICE DEPARTMENT n POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT n OTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING , PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5 : 00 P .M, ON JUNE 7, 1987 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : Ae"ief p - /p ee.freWer '-� F . APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [7 NOT APPROVED 4/0 /" /a a d/4- (7 ?L ' cA u v ()( t :"E eT r:$N JU;1 U 987 E G/ZO I _PT. a-�-o DATE: b-f6! GF? SIGNA E OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 / Form 1\ , -�J !VIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW : :T REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: FnolYlc,-..xlrn DATE CIRCULATED: MAY 21, 1987 COMMENTS DUE: JUNE 7, 1987 ECF - 028 - 87 APPLICATION NO(s). SPECIAL PERMIT: SP-033-87 PROPONENT: M.A. SEGALE, INC. PROJECT TITLE: SEGALE FILL AND RECLAMATION OF FORMER BORROW SITE. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF FILLING AN EXISTING FORMER BORROW PIT WITH APPROXIMATELY 1,050,000 CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIAL ON A 14.4 ACRE SITE. LOCATION: LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF MONROE AVENUE N.E. AT THE 300 BLOCK SITE AREA: BUILDING AREA (gross): IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS MINOR MAJOR MORE IMPACT IMPACT INFORMATION 1) Earth 2) Air 3) Water 4) Plants 5) Animals "' 6) Energy and Natural Resources 7) Environmental Health 8) Land and Shoreline Use 9) Housing 10) Aesthetics &,' 11) Light and Glare 12) Recreation r/ 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation 14) Transportation 15) Public Services 16) Utilities COMMENTS: CfT e' Oo RENTON k JUN 11198711171 �{ CUiLDING/ZONllvu Is" I. RECOMMENDATION: FrDNS El MITIGATED DNS EIS REVIEWED BY: TITLE: /',/ , 5�, DATE: 6/g/ i7 - FORM #14 REVISED 9/10/85 • - RENT 1 i ILDING & ZONING DEP P . ENT DEVEL4P,V ENT APPLICATIION REVIE v SHEET ECF - 028 - 87 APPLICATION NO(S) : SPECIAL PERMIT: SP-033-87 PROPONENT : M.A. SFr,AT E, INC. PROJECT TITLE : SEGALE FILL AND RECLAMATION OF FORMER BORRROW SITE. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF FILLING AN EXISTING FORMER BORROW PIT WITH APPROXIMATELY 1,050,000 CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIAL ON A 14.4 ACRE SITE. LOCATION : LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF MONROE AVENUE N.E. AT THE 300 BLOCK. DATE CIRCULATED: MAY 21,1987 TO : n PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : JUNE 13, 1987 El ENGINEERING DIVISION n TRAFFIC ENG , DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : n UTILITIES ENG , DIVISION n FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU n PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT in BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT In POLICE DEPARTMENT n POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT n OTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING , PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5 : 00 P .M, ON TUNE 7, 1987 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : gv•/r�. / / ' /,k/77 IT1AP PROVEDVED n APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS n NOT APPROVED V , r,, i's n ,..T., li \117 II , j JUN111 W L,-:Ly. ,!G/ZoNA+a utPT. ,` DATE : 6,/P/ "7 SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 ti WIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW _T REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: 1/-(Z r-. DATE CIRCULATED: MAY 21, 1987 COMMENTS DUE: JUNE 7, 1987 ECF - 028 - 87 APPLICATION NO(s). SPECIAL PERMIT: SP-033-87 PROPONENT: M.A. SEGALE, INC. PROJECT TITLE: SEGALE FILL AND RECLAMATION OF FORM a, BORROWS SITE. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF FILLING AN EXISTING FORMER BORROW PIT WITH APPROXIMATELY 1,050,000 CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIAL ON A 14.4 ACRE SITE. LOCATION: LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF MONROE AVENUE N.E. AT THE 300 BLOCK SITE AREA: BUILDING AREA (gross): IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS MINOR MAJOR MORE IMPACTT IMPACT INFORMATION 1) Earth t/ 2) Air 3) Water 6//` 4) Plants -- 5) Animals /.�'"" 6) Energy and Natural Resources 7) Environmental Health 4.--" 8) Land and Shoreline Use ,-.r..-- ' 9) Housing `""�� 10) Aesthetics t•---''- 11) Light and Glare 12) Recreation 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation 14) Transportation 15) Public Services 16) Utilities COMMENTS: hie ad f ry c /G -/ea rf c 4-c-1Y// C a a v e e 2. Gy e 'F r i D Ar" -f7 D o f /t-e 'a-G=1 Mgr° CY: RENTON Lti,d1: iL75 1.ti \'`"/ ' ,. -, '''' ‘ , L Iuii 1 IVY 1!,*G, BUILP!NG/ZOI',.,•,y DEPT. RECOMMENDATION: / DNS n MITIGATED DNS EIS � REVIEWED BY: , �� TITLE: 11'44 , ff DATE: /. / g7 FORM #14 REVISED 9/10/85 BUILDING & ZONING DEP T ENT DEVEL*PMENT APPUUCATIO °j REV E S.' SHEET ECF - 028 - 87 APPLICATION NO(S) : SPECIAL PERMIT: SP-033-87 PROPONENT : M.A cFA,A! F INC. PROJECT TITLE : SEGALE FILL AND RECLAMATION OF FORMER BORRROW SITF. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF FILLING AN EXISTING FORMER BORROW PIT WITH APPROXIMATELY 1,050,000 CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIAL ON A 14.4 ACRE SITE. LOCATION : LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF MONROE AVENUE N.E. AT THE 300 BLOCK. DATE CIRCULATED: MAY 21,1987 TO : I I PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : JUNE 13, 1987 n ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG , DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : UTILITIES ENG , DIVISION n FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU OPARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT ! POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT I ( OTHERS ; COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING , PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5 : 00 P .M, ON JUNE 7, 1987 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : n APPROVED / APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS l ( NOT APPROVED 13z,c d 1,1 e e.cf e ci hh Kt. p f �n `(".d z.J,t o . C/F-3 Z 4 e ` ei /4-0- /7 -, 6v 5j ?> a r /L7 VX �P �� �J1 oT',> or RENTON fflq3 OW - LI JUN1187 ` /r OUJL 1JG/ .>NINv T, DATE: "i /%Wj SIGNATURE OF DIRE TOR OR AUTHORED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 IVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW : :T REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: RAc- . DATE CIRCULATED: MAY 21, 1987 COMMENTS DUE: JUNE 7, 1987 ECF - 028 - 87 APPLICATION NO(s). SPECIAL PERMIT: SP-033-87 PROPONENT: M.A. SEGALE, INC. PROJECT TITLE: SEGALE FILL AND RECLAMATION OF FORMER BORROW SITE. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW' THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF FILLING AN EXISTING FORMER BORROW PIT WITH APPROXIMATELY 1,050,000 CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIAL ON A 14.4 ACRE SITE. LOCATION: LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF MONROE AVENUE N.E. AT THE 300 BLOCK SITE AREA: BUILDING AREA (gross): IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS MINOR MAJOR MORE IMPACT IMPACT INFORMATION 1) Earth 2) Air 3) Water 4) Plants 5) Animals 6) Energy and Natural Resources 7) Environmental Health 8) Land and Shoreline Use 9) Housing 10) Aesthetics 11) Light and Glare 12) Recreation 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation 14) Transportation /..,-- 15) Public Services 1� 16) Utilities COMMENTS:4 7-/�b/ A fee,02L 2)&6eG/ O 0, 1 Tin i,ce--7OG,i el= 9 r, I"lea_a� /2c))te/,e. e ecc.)77 isl, 2 ::-' : r,:-MTV"°ll - LI) gar C:1:-C::,!C/2CNI!VG DEPT. RECOMMENDATION: V DNS 1 I MITIGATED DNS 1 EIS REVIEWED BYs., /73,---e.--t7d410L7TITLE: / i�rcO l/ 7z DATE: -8--8 7 FORM #14 REVISED 9/10/85 RENT--I -MMHG & ZONING DEP TENT DEVELOP c ENT A PL'L C aTII)N [IEV6EW SHEET ECF - 028 - 87 APPLICATION NO(S) : SPECIAL PERMIT: SP-033-87 PROPONENT : M.A. SFAA! F, INC. PROJECT TITLE : SEGALE FILL AND RECLAMATION OF FORMER BORRROW SITE. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF FILLING AN EXISTING FORMER BORROW PIT WITH APPROXIMATELY 1,050,000 CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIAL ON A 14.4 ACRE SITE. LOCATION : LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF MONROE AVENUE N.E. AT THE 300 BLOCK. DATE CIRCULATED: MAY 21,1987 TO : I I PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : JUNE 13, 1987 I ( ENGINEERING DIVISION 111 TRAFFIC ENG , DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : ri UTILITIES ENG , DIVISION n FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU F-1 PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT I ( BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT X POLICE DEPARTMENT n POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING , PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5 : 00 P .M, ON JUNE 7, 1987 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : N'APPROVED n APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS I ( NOT APPROVED iIu 0198 Ley C ''._`D.;:,;,_/ZONING L-. . GG DATE : SIG ATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 1 Form 182 IVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW T REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: 5 €;t7-<:._ DATE CIRCULATED: MAY 21, 1987 COMMENTS DUE: JUNE 7, 1987 ECF - 028 - 87 APPLICATION NO(s). SPECIAL PERMIT: SP-033-87 PROPONENT: M.A. SEGALE, INC. NjAY_ a 19a( PROJECT TITLE: SEGALE FILL AND RECLAMATION OF FORMER BORROTAIKE. . I0A7 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW' THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF FILLING AN EXISTING FORMER BORROW PIT WITH APPROXIMATELY 1,050,000 CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIAL ON A 14.4 ACRE SITE. LOCATION: LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF MONROE AVENUE N.E. AT THE 300 BLOCK SITE AREA: BUILDING AREA (gross): IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS MINOR MAJOR MORE IMPACT IMPACT INFORMATION 1) Earth 2) Air 3) Water 4) Plants 5) Animals 6) Energy and Natural Resources 7) Environmental Health 8) Land and Shoreline Use 9) Housing 10) Aesthetics 11) Light and Glare 12) Recreation 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation 14) Transportation 15) Public Services ✓ 16) Utilities COMMENTS: Ci-" O - _.o J In e V1 1 �1 `i MAY 2 21987 ^CN Pr^ G'JILCI, �.�.; I.,, DEPT. RECOMMENDATION: DNS 171 MITIGATED DNS 1 EIS REVIEWED BY: TITLEr2�- DATE: / /9 , FORM #14 REVISED 9/10/85 RENT'. BUILDING & ZONING DEPA-MENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF - 028 87 APPLICATION NO(S) : SPECIAL PERMITI SP-033-87 PROPONENT : M.A SFrAI F INC. PROJECT TITLE : SEGALE FILL AND RECLAMATION OF FORMER BORRROW STTF_ BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF FILLING AN EXISTING FORMER BORROW PIT. WITH APPROXIMATELY 1,050,000 CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIAL ON A 14.4 ACRE SITE. LOCATION : LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF MONROE AVENUE N.E. AT THE 300 BLOCK. DATE CIRCULATED: MAY 21,1987 TO: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : JUNE 13, 1987 ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : UTILITIES ENG , DIVISION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU 0 PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT 0 BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT 0 POLICE DEPARTMENT ❑ POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING , PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5:00 P,M, ON JUNE 7, 1987 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : APPROVED ❑ APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS El NOT APPROVED DATE: SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 ►IRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SF ' REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: DATE CIRCULATED: MAY 21, 1987 COMMENTS DUE: JUNE 7, 1987 ECF - 028 - 87 APPLICATION NO(s). SPECIAL PERMIT: SP-033-87 PROPONENT: M.A. SEGALE, INC. PROJECT TITLE: SEGALE FILL AND RECLAMATION OF FORMER BORROW SITE., BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO. ALLOW THE CONTINUED 1 - OPERATION OF FILLING AN EXISTING FORMER BORROW PIT 'WITH APPROXIMATELY 1,050,000 CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIAL ON A 14.4 ACRE SITE. LOCATION: LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF MONROE AVENUE N.E. AT THE 300 BLOCK SITE AREA: BUILDING AREA (gross): IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS MINOR MAJOR MORE IMPACT IMPACT INFORMATION 1) Earth 2) Air 3) Water 4) Plants 5) Animals 6) Energy and Natural Resources 7) Environmental Health 8) Land and Shoreline Use 9) Housing 10) Aesthetics 11) Light and Glare 12) Recreation 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation " 14) Transportation 15) Public Services 16) Utilities COMMENTS: RECOMMENDATION: 0 El DNS Q MITIGATED. DNS J EIS REVIEWED BY: TITLE: DATE: FORM #14 REVISED 9/10/85 RENT BUILDING & ZONING DEP/ rMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION ;= Ev IEW SHEET ECF - 028 - 87 APPLICATION NO(S) : SPECIAL PERMIT: SP-033-87 PROPONENT : M.A SFPAH F INC. PROJECT TITLE : SEGALE FILL AND RECLAMATION OF FORMER BORRROW STTF_ BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF FILLING AN EXISTING FORMER BORROW PIT WITH APPROXIMATELY 1,050,000 CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIAL ON A 14.4 ACRE SITE. LOCATION : LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF MONROE AVENUE N.E. AT THE 300 BLOCK. DATE CIRCULATED: MAY 21,1987 TO: n PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : JUNE 13, 1987 ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG , DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : n UTILITIES ENG , DIVISION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU F-1 PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT n BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT ❑ POLICE DEPARTMENT n POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT n OTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING , PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING& ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5: 00 P .M. ON JUNE 7, 1987 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : APPROVED F-1 APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS n NOT APPROVED DATE: / /9i7' SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 ye) Ink) • N E ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION APPLICATION NO. ECF-028-97, SP-033-87 APPLICANT M.A. SEGALE, INC. PROPOSED ACTION APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONTINUE OPERATION OF FILLING EXISTING FORMER BORROW PIT OF APPROXIMATELY. 14,4 ACRES. GENERAL LOCATION AND/OR ADDRESS PROPERTY LOCATED AT 300 BLOCK OF MONROE AVENUE N.E. POSTED TO. NOTIFY INTERESTED -PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIkONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (E.R.C.) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION ' DOES ► DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WILL WILL NOT BE REQUIRED. THE CITY OF RENTON WILL NOT ACT ON THIS • PROPOSAL FOR 15 DAYS FROM THE DATE BELOW. COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED BY JULY b, 1987 • AN APPEAL OF THE ABOVE DETERMINATION MAY BE FILED WITH THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER BY 5:00 P.M., -- FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT AT 235-2550. DO NOT. REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION. as„,Q.) CITY OF RENTON isiL •z,, BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT Barbara Y. Shinpoch, Mayor Ronald G. Nelson„ Director June 24, 1987 Laurie A. Pinard P.O. Box 88050 Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Segale Fill Permit, ECF-018-87, SP-033-87 Dear Ms. Pinard: This letter is to inform you that the Environmental Review Committee completed their review of the environmental impacts of your fill permit request for property located on the west side of Monroe Ave. N.E. at the 300 block. The Committee on June 17, 1987, decided that your project may-be issued a-Determination'"of Non-Significance - Mitigated with the following conditions: 1. That no material which contains soluble poisons or other leachable compounds (including all petroleum based substances such as asphalt) which have the potential for contaminating the ground water is to be filled into the site; 2. That a row of coniferous trees be planted along Monroe Ave. N.E. for long term screening of pit operation insuring that the trees are set back from the road so as not to create a site distance problem; 3 . That the . applicant work with the City of Renton Police Department and the Traffic Engineering Division of the Public Works Department in reviewing designated haul routes to the property; 4. That the applicant work with the City of Renton Public Works Department to ensure source of fill is acceptable for placement on the property; 5. That the applicant provide leachate monitoring wells on site per King County Health Rules and Regulations No. 8; 6. That the applicant contract with a licensed professional geotechnical engineer approved by the City to monitor the site and to provide monthly reports on the, types of fill material being deposited on the site and the results of leachate monitoring together with a monitoring well going down to the hardpan; 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2540 Laurie A. Pinard Segale Fill Permit June 23, 1987 Page 2 7. That the hours of operation be from 7:00 a.m. to 3 : 00 p.m. , Monday through Friday; 8. That per ordinance fill material shall have only minor amounts of organic substances and shall have no rock, concrete or similar irreducible material with a maximum dimension no greater than eight (8) inches (Section 4- 2316:4) ; 9. That the applicant provide the City a renewable bond in the amount of $2,000. 00 for the duration of the Permit to cover the costs of cleanup work should such work become necessary. That vehicle cleanup facilities be provided on site to insure that mud and debris do not leave the site; and 10. That when the fill elevation has reached the 325 foot level, the applicant will submit detailed-drainage plans to include all surface and subsurface drainage devices and other protective devices to be constructed, erosion control and hydroseeding plans. Because the Environmental Review Committee imposed specific mitigation measures rather than issue a Determination of Significance, there is a required fifteen (15) day comment period during which comments are solicited from various agencies, jurisdictions or individuals who may have an interest in the Committee's decision. The comment period will end July 6, 1987. Following the end of the comment period, the City will finalize it's Determination unless comments received require a reevaluation. Following the finalization of the Determination, there is a required . 14 day appeal period. Appeals are made to the City's Hearing Examiner. In addition, by the end of the comment period, we should be able to establish a tentative public hearing date before the Hearing Examiner for your Final PUD. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call our office at 235-2540 and ask for myself or Jeanette Samek-McKague. nvir ental ev Committee. Do K. Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator DKE:JFL:csb:Dsk1 LtPinard c ¢ ERCO2887 Dsk1 BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT JUNE 17, 1987 A. BACKGROUND: APPLICANT: M.A. Segale :. .PROJECT:- :.. ... Segale Fill Permit ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST: ECF-028-87 -. •• APPLICATION NO. : SP-033-87 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Application for special permit to allow the continued operation of filling on existing former borrow pit with approximately 1, 050, 000 cubic yards of material on a 14.4 acre site. LOCATION OFPROPOSAL: Located on the west side of Monroe Avenue N.E. at the 300 block. B. ISSUES: 1. Whether the renewal of this special permit for fill and grade poses any potential hazard to the City's aquifer. Discussion: The applicant states that up to 5% asphalt could be included in the fill material used for the site. The amount of asphalt that can be included in fill material without adverse effects from possible leaching into the aquifer is unclear. The previous 1982 permit application states that the site was to be filled with inert non-putricable material including waste dirt, broken concrete and asphalt. No information on the percentage of asphalt already on the site is included with this application. 2. Whether there is a potential for methane to develop as a result of the fill material placed on the site. Building and Zoning Department Environmental Review Committee Staff Report ECF-028-87 June 17, 1987 Page 2 Discussion: The applicant states that only 5% of the fill will be organic materials and that the quantity and type of materials will not produce methane. The previous application did not indicate that any methane producing material would be used. The City may want to monitor the fill and do some baseline testing for methane before continuation of the fill. Some illegal dumping could have occurred because of the site's proximity to the King County transfer station. 3 . Whether the proposal meets' requirements of section 4-2307 (5) of the Renton City Code. Discussion: The covenants on the property require that upon completion of filling the property an on-site system for recharging the aquifer with natural precipitation shall be installed. Details of the final drainage plans have not been included with this application. 4. Whether screening trees along Monroe Ave. should be provided. Discussion: The landscaping and screening of the periphery of the site has not been discussed in the application except to mention that plans would be submitted if applicable when the fill is completed. 5. Whether the City should be provided with monthly reports on leachate in monitoring wells and reports on material being deposited on the site. Discussion: The sensitivity of the aquifer recharge area in which the site is located would require extra precaution to make sure no contaminants reach the ground water. 6. Whether this permit should be for a five or a ten year period. Discussion: The previous permit was for a five year period. The applicant has requested a ten year permit to finish the fill and grade on the site. However, the time frame of five years would allow for better monitoring by :. :_.. . ._.. ... the City. Building and Zoning Department Environmental Review Committee Staff Report ECF-028-87 June 17, 1987 Page 3 7. Whether there should be designated haul routes and specified hours of operation. Discussion Hours of operation and hauling routes need to be designated to provide for the general safety and welfare. These items should be worked out with the Police and Traffic Engineering Division. 8. Whether sufficient measures are in place to insure mud and debris do not leave the site. Discussion The additional cost of cleanup of City streets should be covered by bonding and reduced by on-site vehicle cleanup facilities when required. C. RECOMMENDATIONS: That a Determination of Non-Significance be issued mitigated with the following conditions: 1. That no material which contains soluble poisons or other leachable compounds (including all petroleum based substances such as asphalt) which have the potential for contaminating the ground water is to be filled into the site. 2 . That a row of coniferous trees be planted along Monroe Ave. N.E. for long term screening of pit operation insuring that the trees are set back from the road so as not to create a site distance problem. 3 . That the applicant work with the City of Renton Police Department and the Traffic Engineering Division of the Public Works Department in establishing designated haul routes to the property. 4. That the applicant work with the City of Renton Public Works Department to ensure source of fill is acceptable for placement on the property. 5. That the hours of operation be from 7:00 a.m. to 3 : 00 p.m. , Monday through Friday. 6. That fill material shall have only minor amounts of organic substances and shall have no rock, concrete or similar irreducible material with a maximum dimension no greater than eight (8) inches. Building and Zoning Department Environmental Review Committee -- Staff Report ECF.-.02.8-87 June 17 , 1987 Page 4 7. That the applicant contract with a licensed professional geotechnical engineer approved by the City to monitor the site and to provide monthly reports on the types of fill material being deposited on the site and the results of leachate monitoring together with a monitoring well going down to the hardpan. 8. That the applicant provide the city a renewable bond in the amount of $2, 000. 00 for the duration of the Permit to cover the costs of cleanup work should such work become necessary. 9. That vehicle cleanup facilities be provided on site to insure that mud and debris do not leave the site. 10. That when the fill elevation has reached the 325 foot level, the applicant will submit detailed drainage plans to include all surface and subsurface drainage devices and other protective devices to be constructed, erosion control and hydroseeding plans. D. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS: Various City departments have reviewed and commented upon the project. These comments are as follows: Police Department: Minor impacts noted to public services and the following comment was made: Approval based on continuation of original requirement. Fire Prevention Bureau: Minor impacts noted for public services and no additional comments made. Engineering: Minor impacts noted for all environmental elements with no further comment. Traffic Engineering: Major impacts noted for transportation with minor impacts noted for all other environmental elements. The following comments were made: Heavy truck traffic will cause early deterioration of the roadway. Utility Engineering: No comments made on this proposal Parks and Recreation: The following comment was made: No recreation impacts. Building Division: Major impacts noted to earth and aesthetics with no further comment. Building and Zoning Department Environmental Review Committee Staff Report ECF-028-87 June 17, 1987 Page 5 Zoning Division: Major impacts were noted to earth and aesthetics with minor impacts noted for all other environmental elements. The following comments were made: 1. Recommend a maximum of five years approval of permit. 2. Provide $2, 000 cash revolving bond :.. . . : . . for street cleaning or sweeping. 3. Provide screening trees, coniferous type, along Monroe Avenue N.E. 4. Asphalt and street sweepings should not be filled into pit in order to maintain water quality. 5. Ordinance does not allow fill material with a ' dimension greater than 8 inches. Application says that concrete slabs 4 feet in diameter will will be used. 6. No material which contains soluble poisons or other leachable, compounds (including all petroleum based substances) which have the potential for contaminating the ground water is to be filled into the site. 7. The applicant contract with a licensed professional geotechnical engineer approved by the City to monitor the site and to provide monthly reports on the types of fill material being deposited on the site and the results of leachate monitoring together with a monitoring well going down to the hardpan. 2 Policy Development: More information requested on water, aesthetics and transportation. Major impacts noted to earth, water, aesthetics and transportation. Minor impacts noted for all other environmental elements. The following comments were made: Section 4-2307 (5) of the Renton City Code sets forth the following requirements which are not included on the plans: 1. Existing natural drainage systems including both perennial and intermittent streams and the presence of bordering vegetation. 2 . Detailed plans of all surface and subsurface drainage devices, . . . to be constructed with . . . a map showing the drainage area and the estimated run-off of the area . . . and measures to be taken to control erosion and the estimated time of planting or installation of controls. Building and Zoning Department Environmental Review Committee Staff Report ECF-028-87 June 17, 1987 Page 6 3 . Location of any buildings or structures on the property where the work is to be performed and the location of any buildings . . within fifteen feet of the property. 4. A plan shall be submitted setting forth the proposed rehabilitation of the tract to the approved new use. 5. Setbacks and those areas that are not to be disturbed. 6. Landscaping and screening plans . . . along the periphery of the site. These requirements were unheld in the Hearing Examiners decision on Mt. Olivet Cemetery (AAD. 028.85) and should also be required of this proposal. The application's agreement to 1) install groundwater monitoring wells; 2) submit drainage plans when fill reaches 325 ' elevation; 3) submit landscaping plans upon fill completion; and 4) hydroseed the site, should, if found adequate by the City, be required as covenants. 1\ i M. A. SECALE, INC. GENERAL CONTRACTORS ��, `U1 i 'L�� ' April 28, 19.87 I' Donald K. Erlickson, Zoning Administrator CITY OF RENT,ON, Municipal Building, 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 RE: Special' Permit SP-033-87 Upper Balch Pit Application for Renewal Dear Mr . Eri'ckson: This letter Iis written in response to your April 24, 1987 letter requesting clarification and additional information. Your letter references two areas of concern, "Estimated Quantities and Types of Material Involved" and "Transportation" . I will address these two areas separately, and have repeated your questions immediately preceding each of our responses. I . Estimated Quantities and Types of Material Involved . A. "Please define "waste dirt" and clarify what type of materials will be included in "street sweepings" . Waste dirt i (as mentioned in Item G1 , pg. 6 of Applicant' s Description/Justification and Environmental Checklist at A 11 , pg. 2 . ) includes sand , gravel , clay, dirt and topsoil , and excludes organic material , broken asphalt and broken concrete . "Street sweepings" consists of material picked off of streets when swept with a power sweeper , such as sand and grit. B. "Will any asbestos or plasterboard be included in the fill material? If yes, please give estimated quantities. " Neither asbestos nor plasterboard will be included in the fill material. C. "Please estimate the quantity of asphalt. " Approximately 0 - 5% of fill material will be asphalt materials. This figure is proportionately due to the fact that applicant is in the asphalt paving business and has the capability of recycling asphalt. P.O.BOX 88050 • 18010 BOUTHCENTER PARKWAY• TUKWILA,WASHINGTON 98188 • TELEPHONE: (206)575-3200 223-01-SE-GA-LM-A372NO An equal op portunity pportunity employer Mr . Donald K''. Erickson RE: Upper Balch Pit, Application for Renewal April 28, 190 Page 2 D. "Please define the term "minor amounts of organic substances" How many cubic yards of organic material will be included in :the total amount of fill?" "Minor amounts of organic substances" refers to approximately 5% of the total fill which will consist of organic material such as vegetation, sod and peat. E. "What methane monitoring measures, if any, will be implemented?" It is anticipated that the quantity and 'type of material deposited will not create a level of methane capable of being monitored . Methane monitoring measures are therefore not planned . F. ".What is the maximum size of broken concrete that will be used as Mill?" Applicant intends to use broken concrete slabs approximately four (4) feet in diameter . These slabs will be place in the subject fill site no higher than ten (10) feet below final elevation. G. '!Wha't alternative fill sources are available?" Dump site located at 15401 New Castle Road , Issaquah, Washington 98027, known as "COAL CREEK DEVELOPMENT" and operated by COAL CREEK DEVELOPMENT, CORP . , whose offices are located at 9 South Massachusetts Street, Pier 35 , Seattle, Washington 98134. II. Transportation. A. "Please provide information on the number of "truck" vehicular trips per day to and from the site . Although w;e anticipate completing this fill within the ten year requested permit period , we are unable 'to predict an exact number of truck vehicular trips per day to and from the site . Therefore,,, we have provided information regarding the' amount of material to be removed and the proposed method of removal . Hopefully '; this will answer any questions or concerns you have regarding transportation. Current measurements disclose that 'the site will accommodate approximately 1 ,050,000 cubic yards of material . Taking into consideration a ten year permit, an average of 105 ,000 cubic yards of ;;material would be placed in the fill during each permit Mr. Donald K'. Erickson RE: Upper Balch Pit, Application for Renewal April 28, 1987 Page 3 ip I year . This&' would require placement of approximately 8,750 cubic yards each month. Taking into consideration, 8.0 hour work days, Monday through Friday, there is approximately 176 hours of permit time per mon4h available for placement of fill material . This amounts to ';the placement of approximately 49 .71 cubic yards of material per' hour, or approximately 400 cubic yards per day. Applicant does not anticipate placing fill material each day, but estimates that it will be placing material in the subject fill during approximately 50% of the permit days available for filling. Cionsequently, we estimate that during our average day of active filling operation we will place approximately 800 cubic yards in the subject site. This anticipated average daily filling would be accomplished by thirty (30 ) semi or truck and pup trailer " loads of approximately 20 C.Y. each, and twenty (20 ) solo truck loads of approximately 10 C.Y. each. Utilizing these figures, estimated traffic for an average day will be 50 exit trips per day, or about 6 exit trips per hour . We hope that this information answers your questions and concerns. I'If however, you require any additional information, please call Very truly yours, M A. SEGAL , INC . 11 Lau ieeN, . Pinard Spes. ial 'ermit Contact Person is OF R4,, ° BUILDING 1, ZONING DEPARTMENT ®o . ' RONALD G. NELSON — DIRECTOR c�� ' ' �� MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 e 235-2540 Cx 0917' D SE PI S°- BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR April 24, 1987 Ms. Laurie A. Pinard Special Permit Contact Person M.A. Segale, Inc. P.O. Box 88050 18010 South Center Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Special Permit SP-033-87 Upper Balch Pit, Application for Renewal Dear Ms. Pinard: The City of Renton Building and Zoning staff has reviewed your application for renewal of a fill and grade permit approved in 1982 (Ref. SP-032-82) for completeness. Before the application can be routed to various city departments, we will need clarification and additional information. Your application will be held in this department until the following information is submitted. Re: Estimated Quantities and Types of Material Involved. (Item Cl, pg. 6 of Applicant's Description/Justification and Environmental Checklist A11, pg. 2.) O Please define "waste dirt" and clarify what type of materials will be included in "street sweepings". O Will any asbestos or plasterboard be included in the fill material? If yes, please give estimated quantities. O Please estimate the quantity of asphalt. O Please define the term "minor amounts of organic substances". How many cubic yards of organic material will be included in the total amount of fill? O What methane monitoring measures, if any, will be implemented? Ms. Lauie A. Pinard Special Permit SP-033-87 Upper Balch Pit, Application for Renewal April 24, 1987 Page 2 ® What is the maximum size of the broken concrete that will be used as fill? o What alternative fill sources are available? Re: Transportation. (Item 14f., Environmental Checklist.) O Please provide information on the number of "truck" vehicular trips per day to and from the site. If you have any questions, please contact myself or Jeanette Samek-McKague at 235-2540. Inc ly, 1 jivi jjt I Donald K. Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator DKE:BG:cb:3746Z 4:12w, M. A. SEGALE, INC. ORIGINAL GENERAL CONTRACTORS April 7, 1987 Mr . Ronald Nelson Director of Building and Zoning Department 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 RE: Special 'Permit No . SP-032-82 Upper Balch Pit Application for Renewal Dear Mr . Nelson: Enclosed please find the original and six (6 ) copies of all materials required by the building and zoning department for processing of the above-referenced application. All items are identified as Exhibits as follows : Exhibit A Master Application & Affidavit of Ownership Exhibit B Special Permit and Environmental Checklist Review Fee Exhibit C Vicinity Map and Plans Exhibits D , E, F & G Description/Justification Statement Exhibit G4 Traffic Flow Drawings Exhibit I Completed Environmental Checklist Exhibit J 8-1 /2" x 14" Super-K reduction Please process this application request at your earliest convenience ;and call me if you need additional information or have any questions. Very truly yours, M. A. SEGALE, INC . J$1I r Lau /IS% Piriard Cont.,c % 'erson for Special Permit Application er , }. c10-ures ;) � S 6p ir LIi;l r,?u;J-. r/._O;v"\iG DEPI P.O.BOX 88050 • 18010 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY■ TUKWILA,WASHINGTON 98188 ■ TELEPHONE: (206)575-3200 223-01-SE-GA-LM-A372N0 An equal opportunity employer s:. (;) err (rfi . (. � Kidder Mathews Segner inc Commercial•Indust:lel Realtors 12886 Interurban Ave.So. Seattle,WA 98168 (206)248-7300 March 4, 1987 Building and Zoning Department City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Gentlemen: • Please include the undersigned as a party of record with respect to the following land use permits or files. We are interested in being informed regarding any activities, hearings, or city actions pertaining to these permits or properties: ' 1. Edwards/Segale S1099-80 & S41099-85. • Segale (Monroe Avenue) S032-082. 3. Greenwood Cemetery SP-048-85. • Also, please include us a party of record regarding the McMahon/Centron rezone application. Sincerely, • • KIDDER, MATHEWS & SEGNER, INC. William R. Kidder wRx:q j s CITY OF RENTON MAR 4 1987 y CLEWS OFFICE • • • CCIM Offices: Downtown Seattle • South Seattle • Bellevue . - { P3. 0,-,/ i9 40718 D RE►C_r..:' F 4., 00 RESTRICTIVE COVENANT '-P?�,ft_•t_ :i r:.i::r:,�, it►� WHEREAS, on June 4, 1982 , the Land Use Hearing Examiner for the City of Renton approved, with conditions, a Special Use Permit for filling the following described property; and vl WHEREAS, as a condition to that Special Use Permit the City has Crequired that the property owner record a Restrictive Covenant regarding C) an on-site sytem _for charging the ground with natural precipitation; and the ner desires:to ._c.omplyFwith said requirement a-"�'�' �"" co NOW THEREFORE, M. A. Segale, Inc. , a Washington corporation, being GD the owner of the followingdescribed premises hereby makes the following restrictive covenant in regards thereto : 1. Legal Description of Premises The East 4 of the Northeast 4 of the Northwest 4 of Section 16 , Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M. , King County, State of Washington. EXCEPT the North 330.00 feet thereof; AND EXCEPT the East 30. 00 feet for right-of-way; LESS all coal and minerals and the right to explore for and mine the same; SUBJECT TO easements, encumbrances, restrictions and reservations of record. All situate in the City of Renton, County of King, State of Washington. . . 2 . The owner , for and on behalf of itself and its successors, heirs and assigns, hereby covenants and agrees that upon completion of filling of the above described property an on-site system for recharging the aquafire with natural precipitation shall be installed. Such system shall be such that natural precipitation falling on the site shall be returned to-the ground by perculation, injection wells or other r.easonable .means_. This requirement — y�whether the -land=r-e-mains undeveloped or is developed with on-site improvements . .. 3. The foregoing shall be a covenant running with the land at law as well as in equity and is binding upon the successors and assigns of the owner and all future persons owning interest in said property. 4. This Restrictive Covenant may, in the future, be removed by the owners of the above described property by way of a termination of Restrictive Covenant upon a finding by the City of Renton by and through its Hearing Examiner that such Covenant is no longer a necessary requirement of the City. - 1 - . • • • IN WITNESS HEREOF, these covenants have been executed this �� day of , 1983. M. A. SEGALE, INC. 20 rl Its kc t;O4��411 N1� fly J��� 9 10 37 �� '�' STATE OF WASHINGTON) RF�� �`t' ' v ss . K.1N� LOUW COUNTY OF KING ) On this day .of ��• � , 1983, before me, the undersigned, personally appeared ' NA , Pk , 7S"c..4-5,,�20 , to me known • to be the - of M. A. SEGADE, INC. , a Washington corporation, the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and • acknowledged said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he was authorized to execute said instrument, and that the seal affixed. (if any) is the corporate seal of said corporation. WITNESS my hand and official seal the day and year last above written. . NOTARY PU C i and for th State of resi ing at • IA CAC33 �� ►1 C (� WA3 !la 4:1i4::1 Cal AV Ai ti - 2 - Ci?.?-1-341:11 M. A. SEGALE, INC. ® GENERAL CONTRACTORS RECEIVED June 1 , 1987 JUN 3 1987RENTON Mr . Fred J. Kaufman CITY QF Land Use Hearing Examiner HEARING EXAMINER 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 RE: Special Permit SP-033-87 Upper Balch Pit, Application for Renewal , and Fill & Grade Permit Continuation of No . B10819, Building Permit No . B12143 • Dear Mr. Kaufman: On April 7, 1987, in an effort to secure continued permission to operate the Upper Balch Pit, a Master Application, Environmental Checklist and other necessary documents were filed with the City of Renton by M. A. Seale, Inc . The applicant ' s Environmental Checklist (EXHIBIT I. ) , at item A. BACKGROUND, 6. indicated that approval of the application was necessary prior to the expiration of applicant ' s current Special Permit SP-032082) on June 4, 1987. As of this date, the permit process is continuing and as of May 28, 1987 we have been informed that our Special Permit application has been tentatively scheduled for the Environmental Review Committee on June 10, 1987. Presuming that all matters are in order, tt . appears that the soomest we can expect a Public Hearing is July 14, 1987 'or later . This will not likely result in the issuance of a Special Permit to the applicant until late in July of 1987. The Report and Decision regarding Special Permit No . SP-032-82, dated June 4, 1982, indicates at CONCLUSi'ON No . 6 that "The applicant may secure continuous operation by applying for a new permit" prior to the expiration of the current permit. " Applicant has followed this procedure and will not be able to secure continuous operation as suggested . Therefore, in the interest of allowing applicant and its licensees to continue work at the subject site, and consistent with the spirit of CONCLUSION No . 6 we hereby request an extension of the above-referenced Special Permit No . SP-032-82 • until you have rendered a final decision following the Public Hearing in this matter . • P.O.BOX 88050 ■ 18010 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY■ TUKWILA,WASHINGTON 98188 • TELEPHONE: (2061 575-3200 223-01-SE-GA-LM-A372N O An equal opportunity employer M Mr. Fred J. Kaufman RE: Upper Balch Pit June 1 , 1987 Page Two A similar letter has been transmitted to the Director of Building and Zoning, Ronald Nelson, requesting an extension of the above— referenced Fill & Grade Permit No . B12143 until the same time. Please process this request at your earliest convenience and call me if you need additional information or have any questions. Very truly yours, M. A. SEGALE, INC. �. L11: - )It 'inard S ,- `''ermit Contact Person NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION RENTON,WASHINGTON The Environmentall Review Committee (ERC) has issued a Determination of NON- SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED for the follow- ing,being first duly sworn on oath states project(s) under the authority of the Audrey Dejloie Renton Municipal Code. The Applicant(s) that he/she is the Chief Clerk of the have completed a mitigation process pursu- ant to WAC 197-11-350. SHANNON O'NEIL (SHANNON'S VIL- LAGE)VALLEY DAILY NEWS Application for site plan approval to con- struct• Kent Edition • Renton Edition • Auburn Edition retail and buildings and remodel. oneo for Property retail and professional office use. Property Daily newspapers published six(6) times a week.That said newspapers to northeo east Sunseto Blvd.Avenue N.E. and of N.E. File Nos. ECF- are legal newspapers and are now and have been for more than six 1027-87,SA-031-87. months prior to the date of publication referred to,printed and published M.A.SEGALE,INC. Application for special permit to continue in the English language continually as daily newspapers in Kent, King operation of filling existing former borrow County,Washington.The Valley Daily News has been approved as a legal pit of approximately 14.4 acres. Property located at 300 block of Monroe Ave N.E. newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for File Nos.ECF-028-87,SP 033-87. King County. BERKLEY STRUCTURES,INC Application for site plan approval to build a two-story office complex totaling 77,170 The notice in the exact form attached,was published in the Kent Edition sq. ft. building on 4.79 acres. Application for substantial shoreline permit to allow the , Renton Edition x , Auburn Edition , (and not in • construction.Property located on S.W.34th supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers Street adjacent to 800 S.W. 39th Street. during the below stated period.The annexed notice a File Nos: ECF 029-87, SA 034-87, SM 008-87. CITY OF Notice of -Environmental Determination DEPARTMENT RENTON PUBIC WORKS was published on June 2? 1°87 R2358 • Application for environmental review and substantial shoreline permit to allow exten- sion of sanitary sewer of the Cedar River. Property located at S.E. 5th Street and Maple Valley Road. File Nos. ECF 030-87, The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sM 005-87. This decision will be finalized in 15 days. sum of $ 36.90 • Written comments received after 5:00 P.M. July 6, 1987 will not be considered.A four- . teen (14)day appeal period will commence following the finalization of DNS. The miti- �� >, gation measures imposed by the City of Renton's Environmental Review Committee are available at the Building and Zoning Department, Municipal Building, Renton, Subscribed and sworn to before me this dayof19 , Washington.Phone 235-2540. ! t b �I uno Published in the Valley Daily News June 22, 1987.R2358 /ea- ( ,K*. Notary Public for the State of Washington, residing at Federal Way, King County, Washington. 1_ , VDN N87 Revised 11 86 1....t i ; l �. . - L Ci ' r -1 i 10 1 NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON • The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a Determination of NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED for the following project(s) under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. The Applicant(s) have completed a mitigation process pursuant to WAC 197-11-350. SHANNON O'NEIL (SHANNON'S VILLAGE) • Application for site plan approval to construct three buildings and remodel one for retail and professional office use. Property located east of. Duvall Avenue N.E. and north of N.E. Sunset Blvd. File Nos. . ECF-027-87, SA-031-87 • • M.A. SEGALE, INC. Application for special permit to continue operation of filling existing former borrow pit of approximately 14.4 acres. Property located at 300 block -Of Monroe Ave N.E. File Nos. EC1:' 028-87, SP 033-87 BERKLEY STRUCTURES, INC Application -for site plan approval to build a two-story office complex totaling 77,170 sq. ft. building on 4.79 acres. Application •for substantial shoreling permit to allow the construction. Property located on S. W. .34th.Street adjacent to 800 S. W. 39th Street. File Nos. ECF 029-87, SA 034-87SM 008-87 CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Application for environmental review and substantial shorelinge permit to allow extension of sanitary sewer of the Cedar River. • Property,located: at S. E.. 5th Street and Maple Valley Road. File Nos. ECF 030-87, SM 005-87 This decision will be finalized in 15 days. Written comments received after 5:00 P. M. July 6,- 1987 will not be considered. A fourteen (14) day appeal period will commence following the finalization of DNS. The mitigation measures " imposed by the City of Renton's Environmental Review Committee are available at:.the Building and Zoning Department, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington Phone 235-2540 PUBLISHED: June 22, 1987 _ � :. �® ,,,cry OF R4, A o THE CITY OF RENTON U �� Z. MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 osal g mom c" BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH. MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 9.0 `o. FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 D9.47. SEP1°�¢, CITY OF RENTON s June 10, 1987 ® is C 12 0 V L�-1 JUN 1i1987 '• .:.) 4` Laurie A. Pinard Special Permit Contact Person BUILDING /ZONING DEPT. M.A. SEGALE, INC. P. 0. Box 88050 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Re: Special Permit 033-87 Dear Ms. Pinard: I have reviewed your correspondence and it is unfortunate, but I must inform you that this office is not empowered to extend the Special Permit under the circumstances presented. This office is not capable of modifying the terms of the decision or the provisions of the Ordinance without express legal authorization. Again, it is .unfortunate, but obviously the processing of a new permit° needed more lead time then you permitted. In most recent instances, this office has recommended reapplication approximately 6 months in advance to provide for sufficient City review and to cover most eventualities. If this office can be of any further assistance please feel free to call. Sincerely, 4N.t.4.7 '(1;"4„rel„,..._ FRED J. UFMAN HEARING EXAMINER FJK/dk ilao OF R4,4, e� =. o ! UAL���1NG & ZS N NG DEPARTMENT v RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOR Z tra 09 ® ' co� MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 ® 235-2540 0,94T�0 SEP °4� BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR May 22, 1987 Ms. Pinard M. A. Segale, Inc. P.O. Box 88050 Tukwila, WA 98188 SUBJECT: M.A. Segale, Inc. File Nos.: SP-033-87, ECF-028-87 Dear Ms. Pinar& The City of Renton Building and Zoning Department has formally accepted your special permit and environmental checklist applications for the above referenced project. Your application has been routed and tentatively scheduled for the Environmental Review Committee on June 10, 1987, to consider your environmental checklist. The special permit application will be reviewed by the City°s Hearing Examiner after the Environmental Review Committee has issued a threshold determination. If you have any questions regarding the scheduling of your project, please contact Dee Beadle of this office at 235-2540. Ve Uly, Donald K. Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator DE:JL:cb:3818Z r.‘ . o 'ITY OF RENTOT 7 FILE NO(S): 512-7033--B1 �% ' eim. *etB : DING & ZONING DEPARTM -i:T "© �7 • y'` • EXHIBIT • ' Ntv° MASTER APPLICATION NOTE TO APPLICANT: Since this is a comprehensive application form, only those items related to your specific type of application(s) are to be completed. (Please print or type. Attach odditional sheets if necessary.) APPLICANT ITYPE OF APPLICATION NAME FEES M. A. Segale , Inc. ADDRES REZONE*(FROM TO ) SP. 0. Box 88050 173 SPECIAL PERMIT* LOW?' Q TEMPORARY PERMIT* Z CITY Tukwila, WA 98188 , CD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT* • coELEPHONE o SITE PLAN APPROVAL , (2 0 6)5 7 5-3 2 0 0 Q SPECIAL PERMIT FOR GRADE AND FILL No. of Cubic Yards: •-CONTACT PERSON Q VARIANCE* . From Section: * Justification Required NAME ' Laurie A. Pinard ; • ADDRESS SUBDIVISIONS: ' Pi 0. Box 88050 . . Q SHORT PLAT CITY Tukwila, WA 98188 ZIP [Q TENTATIVE PLAT EJ PRELIMINARY PLAT TELEPHONE Q FINAL PLAT (206)575-3200 0 WAIVER (Justification Required) OWNER _ NO. OF LOTS: NAME PLAT NAME: M. A. Se.gale , Inc. ADDRESS_ PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: P. 0. Box 88050 - Q PRELIMINARY CITY Tukwila, WA 98188 ZIP Q FINAL . P.U.D. NAME: TELEPHONE • (2 0 6)5 7 5-3 2 0 0 - D Residential Q Industrial • 0 Commercial Q Mixed ' LOCATION 1 _... MOBILE HOME PARKS: PROPERTY ADDRESS 300 block of Monroe Ave. N.E. , Renton, WA Ej TENTATIVE EXISTING USE PRESENT ZONING PRELIMINARY Fill & grade G-1 FINAL PROPOSED USE • PARK NAME; Continued fill and grade :.,;,,- t,cn 7,77 .: NUMBER OF SPACES: - _ . [EtENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW "O t.ITTEE', d 4:749 SQ. FT. ACRES 's - " AREA: 627 ,264 14.4 . TOTAL FEES , 7'4-(p'/ 'LA ® -u-� irra...n 7" USE ONLY -- ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSING 1 rice' nvi:.. _ DATESS Aiss7 � APPLICATION RECEIVED BY:5-C_-�.c- � r APR 71987 APPLICATION DETERMINED TO BE: V 0 Accepted 0 Incomplete Notification Sent On By: Rim 1iNG /ZONIND DEPT. • (Initials) DATE ROUTED ADDITIONAL MATERIAL RECEIVED BY: APPLICATION DETERMINED TO BE: 5 " Z I - e37 0 Accepted • 0 Incomplete Notification Sent On By: . (Initials) ROUTED TO: .Buildinggl 00 CglDesign Eng. ��� Fire Parks Police it Policy Dev. • Traffic Eng. Utilities u ..r REVISED 1=31-fa4. • • Legal description of property (if more space is required, attach a separate sheet). • - East 1/2 , NE 1/4, NW 1/4 of Section 16 , Township 23N, Range 4E, W.M. except the north 330 feet thereof. • AFFIDAVIT I, 11,E A,Sega1Q-, PreG;c)Pn o F M, A. Segale,InOeing duly sworn, declare that I am El authorized representative to act for the property owner,Mowner of the property involved in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS (__ DAY . OF PP2LU , 19 6:: NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, RESIDING AT co•nzgis,ion e Aires itoV i ^ _ _ (M. A. Segale) t. arnc;o' N-z� .'ublic) (Signature of Owner) + P. 0. Box 88050 (Address) (Address) Tukwila, Washington 98188 (City) (State) (Zip) (206) 575-3200 (Telephone) Acceptance of this application and required filing fee does not constitute a complete application. Plans and other materials required to constitute a complete application are listed in the "Application Procedure." •- • Form #174 � --` ` � ` ` � � \ � | �~ ` ` ` m.XH~^~_ r---�� � !' | � . \ / . � - EXHIBITS ;FJ& APPLICANT 'S DESCRIPTION/JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT CITY OF RENTON SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR FILLING AND GRADING A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST Applicant seeks continuous operation of a Special Permit to fill an existing 70 foot deep former gravel borrow pit with approximately 1 , 100,000 cubic yards of non-putrescible material. The "Report and Decision" of the City of Renton Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated June 4, 1982 , indicates that Applicant may secure continuous operation by applying for a new permit prior to the expiration of the current permit. (See FINDINGS, #6 at Page Six) . Applicant has placed approximately 50,000 cubic yards of material in the pit under its current Special Permit (No. SP-032-82 ) for filling and grading which will expire on June 4, 1987. B. GENERAL INFORMATION 1 . OWNER OF RECORD: M. A. SEGALE, INC. 2. APPLICANT: M. A. SEGALE, INC . P.O. BOX 88050 TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 (206 ) 575-3200 CONTACT PERSON: LAURIE A. PINARD 3. LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF MONROE AVENUE N.E. , APPROXIMATELY 330 FEET SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION WITH N.E. 4TH STREET (VICINITY MAP ATTACHED). 4. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: E 1 /2, N E 1 /4, N W 1 /4 OF SECTION 16 , T23N, R4E, W.M. EXCEPT THE NORTH 330 FEET THEREOF. 5. SIZE OF PROPERTY: APPROXIMATELY 14.4 ACRES 6. ACCESS: VIA KING COUNTY TRANSFER ACCESS ROAD AND/OR MONROE AVENUE N.E. 7. EXISTING ZONING: G - 1 , GENERAL CLASSFIQATION DISTRICT __ _,. , t,=ray rO 8. EXISTING ZONING IN THE AREA: G - 1 t_aps�� 7lCI); +�t_ '� SP' F, 9. COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE DESIGNATION:I_.-l'sITiBLIOITQU^ t'B r�3 CU D NG/zONlNG DEPT. Justification Statement for Special Use Permit Applicant : M. A. Segale, Inc . April 3 , 1987 Page 2 INTRODUCTION This text is provided in response to items D . , E. , F. and G. of the Special Permit Application. Included in this text is a brief history of Applicant' s activity on the subject site, as well other pertinent information. HISTORY OF APPLICANT 'S ACTIVITY ON THE SITE The subject site, owned by the applicant, is a former gravel borrow pit located next to the King County Transfer Station. The site is approximately 14.4 acres in size , and consists mainly of the pit which is approximately 70 feet deep. The applicant has been filling the pit since 1982 under Special Permit No . SP-032- 82 , and under said Permit has filled the pit with approximately. 50,000 cubic yards of inert, non-putrescible material . The applicant estimates that the pit will accommodate an additional one million fifty thousand (1 ,050 ,000 ) cubic yards of material . In order to fill the site, the applicant seeks approval of a Special Permit. It was originally estimated that this project would require fifteen years to complete , and Applicant therefore requests a ten year permit. The subject site is unusable or unsuitable for development in its current condition. The Special Permit requested herein, however, would allow Applicant to fill and reclaim the site , making it available for future development, consistent with the City' s Comprehensive Plan Designation for the site (Public/Quasi Public) . / / / Justification Statement for Special Use Permit Applicant : M. A. Segale, Inc . April 3, 1987 Page 3 ITEM D. DRAINAGE PLAN AND DRAINAGE AREA Proposed work will not include specific drainage plans until the fill has reached elevation 325 . At that time, Applicant will submit detailed drainage plans to include all surface and subsurface drainage devices and other protective devices ( if any) to be constructed with or as part of proposed work. Since the site consists entirely of a hole approximately 70 feet deep, there is no run-off. Consequently, there is no erosion. Erosion control , and/or hydroseeding will be accomplished upon completion of the fill . / Justification Statement for Special Use Permit Applicant : M. A. Segale, Inc . April 3 , 1987 Page 4 ITEM E. LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING PLANS There is no office or other building at the site . Landscaping and screening plans, if applicable, will be submitted upon the completion of the fill . Applicant will leave a well graded site per its reclamation plan and will hydroseed the site upon completion of its filling operation. / / / / Justification Statement for Special Use Permit Applicant : M. A. Segale, Inc . April 3 , 1987 Page 5 ITEM F. Applicant' s rehabilitation plan for the subject site consists of filling the site to the general grades and slopes indicated on the Site Reclamation Plan (See Sheet 2 of 3 ) . Applicant will grade the site and , if necessary, will ensure sufficient topsoil to accommodate hydroseeding and to prevent erosion. 1 ) If needed upon completion of the fill , sufficient topsoil will be imported to support hydroseeding. 2) All such restoration will be accomplished upon completion of the fill . Justification Statement for Special Use Permit Applicant : M. A. Segale, Inc . April 3 , 1987 Page 6 ITEM G. 1 ) ESTIMATED QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF MATERIAL INVOLVED It is estimated that the subject site will accommodated approximately one million fifty thousand (1 ,050,000 ) cubic yards of material . Applicant intends to continue to fill the site with various inert, non-putrescible materials such as waste dirt, broken concrete and/or asphalt and street sweepings and no more than minor amounts of organic substances including peat. 2) HOURS OF OPERATION Applicant intends to continue to operate between 7 :00 a.m. and 3 : 30 p.m. , Monday through Friday. 3) TIME OF COMPLETION AND PHASING Applicant requests that it be allowed to continue its current operation to fill and reclaim the subject site. Although Applicant is anxious to complete this project, its progress is dependant upon various market factors including public and private need for a fill site which will accommodate non- putrescible materials. It was originally anticipated that this project would require fifteen years of operation for completion. Because the fill process is dependent upon economic conditions which are outside of Applicant ' s control , we are unable at this time to project an exact time of completion or phasing of this project. 4) TRANSPORTATION ROUTE MATERIAL WILL BE HAULED ALONG Applicant has evaluated the possible haul routes and plans to utilize the King County Transfer Station Access Road for ingress and egress, with Monroe Avenue N.E. as an alternate . This route will allow traffic to be controlled via the new signal light at the intersection Jefferson and N.E. 3rd Street or by the signal light at Monroe and N.E. 3rd Street. (See "Traffic Flow" drawings attached. ) 5 ) MEASURES TO BE IMPLEMENTED TO MINIMIZE DUST, MUD , NOISE AND OTHER NOXIOUS CHARACTERISTICS Applicant ' s filling activity may result in the raising of some dust in the pit area. This dust will be controlled with water . Other "noxious" characteristics are not anticipated . If • required, Applicant will provide street cleaning. Justification Statement for Special Use Permit Applicant : M. A. Segale, Inc . April 3 , 1987 Page 7 6 ) SPECIFICATIONS WITH RESPECT TO CONSTRUCTION AND MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS Applicant ' s activity on the site does not include construction of any buildings nor does it include covering the site with any impervious structures. Construction requirements will be limited to hauling vehicles entering and exiting the site and other equipment which may be necessary. DATED : April 3 , 1987 M. A. SEGALE, INC . M. A. Seg 1 , President I • S/GWi)C . .&'its , — N.) I /e/T 5/re / 4p/ GA i —,GG.VTSC COU�ty 5/0/2 /c1.4 0 x ..c/I- Z-5 V (7 ` rw t o EXHIBIT . Lill- APR o71987 i /l/d5 %ALE //V • CU„ n!NG/ZONNG DEPT. tl PIdG ZIPPER /3ALC,//P/T C art T�zAff7c /Cow — SULE.'HowC IO,'rE 3-2'-e7 / of E ..-, .. \ .-- 1 A ____N_____A ,,147C.,-, ',he / of z .a.kr OIQ R . Ill . ,. — , ,sc,A,vii Aio,emey .0A. l P r N / .• . ........A1..._ f!ti FitSREIT — — . —›.. I 410.0 ---, . -- .7-inc.,..,,Al A— --).— "•:------. li‘ei I 5uNsET Ell't.7- NE jI I jill — G:7" c=).- ' cv, izmIldi° 2-- - .. 1 1r I V\ . ROvia/4/ •-x.. 0 CITY CIF NVINTONI _ ":16 , -1‘.In ili al r32 1.1 V] 1171 I] --- bli AP?‘ o i1B87 ' f'j . MASEGALC./NC. rUiL,T,ING/ZOITNG DEPT. -?.//9FA g A Icii /474- 777ili/Ze /7o pv 1 - ECF: 16C17' 028-871 • t: z City of Renton LU: jP-a33-g7 s• GEM 9,0 Go, ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST e9�TED SEPS„se4 EXHIBIT.I... Purpose of Checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43,21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for allproposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations. such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal. even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impacts. Use of Checklist for Nonproject Proposals: (Please Type or Print Legibly) Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions (actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs), the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant." and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Segale fill and reclamation of former borrow 'site 2. Name of applicant: M. A. Segale , Inc. 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: P. 0 . Box' 88050 Laurie A. Pinard Tukwila, WA 98188 (206)575-3200 4. Date checklist prepared: 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton Building & Zoning Department 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Approval of application and issuance of Special Permit prior to expiration of current permit (SP-032-82) on June 4, 1987. c i1 a a i i9 -' L.L ILD#?,,,cvd.o(m; DEFT: • . j 7. Do you have any ply., for future additions, expansions, c, rther activity related to or connected with this proposal? if yes, explain. \ • No 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Environmental Checklist `0),keed j April 3 , 1987 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. No 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. City of Renton & Special Use Permit 11. Give brief, complete description of-your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. . Continued operation of filling existing 'former borrow pit of approxi-,r mately 14. 4 acres . Applicant anticipates that the site (approxi- mately 70 feet deep) will accomodate approximately 1, 050 ,000 cubic yards of inert , .non-putrescible materials such_ aswaste dirt',. broken concrete and/or asphaltic-a'nd` street sweepings and no More than minor amounts of organic substances iricTtrdirig peat. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topography map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. West side of Monroe '_Avenue N.E. , approximately 330 feet south Of the intersection of Monroe Avenue N.E. & N.E. 4th Street . See attachments for additional information. • B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one); flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other former borrow pit b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 1.5 :1 34% c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, caly, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Sand, gravel and random dirt d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. None - 2 - e. Describe ,;the;._ Jrpose, type, and approximate quo :ies of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Continued filling of existing pit with approximately 1 ,050 ,000 c.y. of inert ,rori-putrescible materials -=-(Se.e A::•.`11:-;:above) at page -2:- ). Sot c'e :of_.;a1niii11.:1ze.:surplus materials;.from.off=site-jobsices•- including:`earthT materials,-and- Some organic material. f. Could erosion'occur as a result of clearing, construction, ;or use? If so, generally describe. No g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after:project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? None h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: , - N/A 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Dust during filling activities which will be controlled with water. No emissions Nall occur after reclamation. b. Are there any off-site sources of emission? No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to, air, if any: • Dust control - water- • 3. WATER a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. No 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. No 3) ' Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. N/A -. 3 - 4) Will the pro,_-_4a1 require .surface water withdray.___ or diversions? - Give general description, purpose, and approximately quantities if known. No 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No 6) Does the proposal. involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No • b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and appaoximately quantities if known. Surface water will be discharged to ground water through natural Percolation. Applicant is aware of the City's concern for the downstream aquifer and agrees to install ground water monitoring wells..,onnthe property in the locations shown on the drawings. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals . . .; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the • number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. Not applicable to Applicant ' s project . c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Surface water will be channeled to the sidewalls of the pit where the water. will percolate into the native sand and gravel deposits , thereby recharging the aquifer with natural precipitation. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface. waters? If so, generally describe. • No - 4 - d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: See Item C. 1. above 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: ® deciduous tree:r d- maple, aspen, other o evergreen tree: fir, cedar pine, other • Shrubs (scoter' broom) o grass o crop or grain o Wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other o water plants: water lily. eel grass, milfoil, other o other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Vegetation described in 4. a. above will be covered as the site is filled. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None • d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: N/A 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: Hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other Name observedC_ Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other None observed Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other None observed b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None c. Is the site part of.a migration route? If so, explain. No - no site cover or food source - 5 - d. Proposed mt jres to preserve or enhance wildlife,•..any: Aka part of redevelopment , habitat ,:.if, any,-:-will,:be re-established. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet, the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. N/A b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If.so, generally describe. No . • c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control.. energy impacts, if any: N/A • 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. • N/A 2) Proposed measures to reduce or 'control environmental health hazards, if any: None b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? None - 6 - 2) What types and levals of noise would be created by or associated with the - , project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? - Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Continued levels and types of noise which now exist during hours of 7 :00 a.m. through 3 :30 p .m. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: N/A 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Subject site : Fill site North of subject site: Retail South of subject site : King County Transfer Station East of subject site, : Greenwood Cemetery & current excavation oper. West of subject site : King County Public Works Storage Yard & Shop b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No c. Describe any structures on the site. None d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? G-1 f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Public/quasi public g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? None , h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. No i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? N/A j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: N/A - 7 - 1. Proposed mL._.;ures to ensure the proposal is com,o ible with existing and ' • projected land uses and plans, if any: Reclamation plan 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate. whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None 10. Aesthetics a. What is the -tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed. • N/A b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: None 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? None b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No . c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None - 8 - • 12. Recreation s . a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? None b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or,local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific; or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. See attached plan b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximately distance to the nearest transit stop? .. No c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? N/A , d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No - 9 - e. Will the prof`,, use (or occur in the immediate v __...ity of) water,,rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No f. How many .vehicular trips per day would be generated by the. completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. None g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: . None 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools,, other)? If so, generally describe. No b. , Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural .gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. None b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, 'the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. None C. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is 'understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. / Proponent: 4e Name Printed: M. A. Segale. President M. A. Segale, Inc. ' . - - 10 - #176 11-8-84