The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLUA96-052 F 'tx L.114- ci( 0 SZ-/1'1 0 CITY OF RENTON "LL Office of the City Attorney Jesse Tanner,Mayor Lawrence J.Warren June 21, 1996 The Honorable Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Re: Cedar River Utility Crossing Settlement Agreement Dear Mr. Kaufman: Enclosed is the fully executed, original Agreement re: Withdrawal of Appeal of Threshold Determination of DNS-M of Cedar River Utility Crossing. I apologize for the delay but, as you know, Ms. Whitley lives out of state. Very truly yours, Z etta L. Fontes ssistant City Attorney ZLF:ldm Enc. cc: David Bricklin Desmond Brown Post Office Box 626 - 100 S. 2nd Street- Renton, Washington 98057 - (206)255-8678 ' AGREEMENT RE WITHDRAWAL OF APPEAL OF - ' - - , '.' THRESHOLD DETERMINATION.OF;DNS-M.OF. _ • - ' CEDAR 1UVER UTILITY CROSSING - : . , - " . , ' File No. LOA-96-027, CU, ECF, SM,:W , - The`Appellants, Lee and Marilyn Whitley; and the Proponents,City.of Renton and . ' .King.County Water Pollution Control; hereby agree: - 1. ' Proponents seek to install new and replace old utility'lines under the Cedar ' River ; , 2. This.,crossing-will be located near river mile 3.1, and approximately 280 feet , . down river from the-Whitley'property. • -'3. Proponents' will install a concrete encasement to protect,the new utility lines. . ' - ,_l996 4. Appellants filed'an appeal of the,threshold determination 'of"DNS-M" on April ' 1S : , . . 5: , At the time,of the appeal, Proponents' project called for installation of the - ' ' concrete encasement inr.such a' ,fashion that its top would be at the thaiweg of the river bed. ; - • - - '-' 6 Appellants have agreed to withdraw their appeal, in consideration'for.the - " ' ' • project amendments reflected herein. " - :7.. :' P• roponents,will'install the•concrete'encasement in such fashion that the top of • . • the.encasement will be two feet below the thalweg of the river bed: -_= ',8: Although.the proposed project did not. call for them, the Proponents.will not , ' be adding or installing any.protrusion,-or. embedding'.any.'conduit or. tubing to the concrete.' - encasement for the,purpose oft attaching or accommodating a fish,Weir at a later.time: ' ' • :Dated: /'Jt et-e , , 1996 ., , ,, ' • ' -: ,, , ,/(0:77- ' :- _ , : avid Bricklin, Attorney for Appellants " Zane a L.-Fontes,,A ssistardCity 'Attorney City.of,Renton Desmond Brown;,"Attorney for-King County . _ -• ' ' Water Pollution Control 7. _ , 96 O52 , . * Lee and Marilyn Whitley 969 Shelton Avenue S. E. Renton, Washington 98058 • May 1, 1996 Abdoul Gafour& Staff, Planning, City of Renton, 200 Mill Ave. S., Renton 98058 Zanetta Fontes, Attorney, City of Renton, P.O. Box 626, Renton, 98057 Gene Peterson, Daniel Ervin, Jeff Clayton&Paul Szewczykowski, RH2, 8383 158th Ave. N. E. Suite 200 Opportunity Bld. Redmond, Wa, 98052 Stan Hummel, Desmond Brown&Many other Staff, Metro Exchange Building. 821 Second Ave. Seattle, Wa 98104-1598 George Schneider&Rand Little, Seattle Water, Management and Planning Dexter Horton Bld. 1lth Flr. 710 Second Ave, Seattle, Wa. 98104 Roderick Malcom&Eric Warner, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Fisheries Department 39015 172nd Ave. S. E. Auburn, Washington 98002 Dear People: This letter is to let you know how pleased we are with the agreement made this morning regarding the de-coupling of the fish weir base from the river pipeline crossing project. It is also to let you know that I was also very impressed with the care and professionalism taken during the negotiation process. I am very much aware that our recent involvement in the permitting process slowed your projects. However, after you have left the area we will be living the remainder of our lives with the results. We are all aware of the difficulties incurred and cumbersome process of coalition building and partnering which is now the norm for public projects. As we all gain more comfort with these new processes, recognition of the importance of acquiring partners who are prepared to move forward at the same rate as the lead project will become paramount. The pipeline project is well-developed and the planning at end stage, the weir project is presently not at that level. We continue to be supportive of the pipeline crossing and wish you success in its completion. We are concerned about the proposed fish weir. We recognize the much diminished sockeye run and like all, residents along the river, would like to see those supplies replenished. At the same time, we are also concerned about acquiring a neighbor who has not fully studied the use of the land in our residential area vis-a-vis other sites nor engaged the neighbors during the planning of such a project. Page 2 Therefore, we ask to be informed as early as possible in the planning process for the site selection and construction of any new Cedar River fish weir projects in or near our neighborhood. We also request that our name and that of our neighbor Hank Waffle be added to any mailing list concerning such a project. Our addresses are as follows: Lee and Marilyn Whitley 969 Shelton Avenue S. E. Renton, Washington 98058 Mr. Hank Waffle 1000 Shelton Avenue S. E. Renton, Washington 98058 Again, we are pleased to be engaged with you in the construction of utility projects made necessary by increasing area population, and look forward to continued cooperative relationships with all the agencies involved. Sincerely, nd Marilyn Whitley 1400 N. State Parkway Unit 7-F (Until June 26, 1996) Chicago, Illinois 60610 (312) 587-0488 CITY OF RENTON NELL HEARING EXAMINER MEMORANDUM Date: May 1, 1996 To: File Re: Appeal of DNS of Cedar River Utility Crossing File No. LUA-96-052,AAD The above appeal was withdrawn and the matter was dismissed by the Hearing Examiner on May 1, 1996. I 01 T" CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER ' MEMORANDUM Date: April 24, 1996 To: Mark Pywell Abdoul Gafour From: Marilyn Moses Re: Appeal of DNS of Cedar River Utility Crossing File No. LUA-096-027,CU,ECF,SM,W Attached is a copy of the appeal as you requested i w m APR 2 41996 NEARINGERXAMIM NER 2 3 4 5 BEFORE THE CITY OF RENTON 6 HEARING EXAMINER 7 8 IN RE: THE MATTER OF APPEAL OF DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE -- 9 APPLICATION NO. MITIGATED 10 LUA-96-027,CU,ECF,SM,W 11 12 I. INTRODUCTION 13 Appellants Lee and Marilyn;Whitley appeal the decision of the Environmental 14 Review Committee to issue a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance for the Cedar 15 River Utility Crossing, Project No. LUA-96=027,CU,ECF,SM,W. Appellants challenge 16 17 the decision of the ERC because the proposal has been improperly segmented for review, 18 because the MDNS improperly relies upon the benefits of a fish weir to overlook the 19 project's significant impacts, and because of the failure to impose sufficient conditions to 20 mitigate impacts related to the project. 21 II. OBJECTIONS 22 23 The following are appellants' reasons for challenging the decision: 24 25 APPEAL OF DETERMINATION OF 26 NON-SIGNIFICANCE MITIGATED•L.1 27 28 BRICKLIN&GENDLER, LLP ORIGINALSUITE 101 SEATTLE,WA 98 K BUILDING (206)621-8868 9 1. The environmental review of the proposal inappropriately segments the 1 2 Cedar River crossing and the installation of the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe and the 3 Washington Department of Fish& Wildlife fish weir avoiding present consideration of the 4 fish weir and its impacts. That portion of the proposal which includes the Muckleshoot 5 Indian Tribe and Washington Department of Fish&Wildlife fish weir foundation indicates 6 that the installation and construction of the fish weir itself is dependent upon this project 7 and that the project is dependent upon the fish weir for its justification. Thus, the ERC 8 9 must consider the operational and construction impacts of the fish weir. The project 10 description contains no description of the fish weir and no consideration of the potential 11 construction and operational impacts. 12 2. Appellants challenge the decision by the ERC on the basis that it has 13 improperly depended upon the fish weir as mitigation of the significant impacts caused by 14 15 the open trench method. 16 A threshold determination shall not balance whether the beneficial aspects of a proposal outweigh its adverse impacts, 17 but rather, shall consider whether a proposal has any probable significant adverse environmental impacts under the 18 rules stated in this section. For example, proposals designed 19 to improve the environment, such as sewage treatment plants or pollution control requirements, may also have significant 20 adverse environmental impacts. 21 WAC 197-11-330(5). The project narrative and conditional use permit justification 22 submitted by the City of Renton states that the open-trench crossing of the river had not 23 been considered previously because the environmental impacts of the open river cut were 24 25 APPEAL OF DETERMINATION OF 26 NON-SIGNIFICANCE -- MITIGATED - 2 27 28 BRICKLIN&GENDLER, LLP ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW SUITE 1015 FOURTH AND PIKE BUILDING SEATTLE,WA 98101 (206)621-8868 e _ thought too sensitive to pursue. 'The decision to include the fish weir was a factor in 1 2 making the open trench option "feasible." If the fish weir is relied upon to mitigate 3 significant environmental impacts, then the impacts of using the fish weir must be 4 considered. 5 3. Appellants challenge the determination of the ERC on the basis that the ERC 6 failed to impose sufficient conditions to mitigate impacts caused by construction which is 7 8 proposed to take place on a 24 hour a day basis. The mitigation limits the construction 9 hours to be between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except for the 10 work in the actual river crossing. The impact of the noise and lights.will significantly 11 impact the appellants during the construction period. In addition, the MDNS should 12 include conditions to mitigate impacts caused by the construction and operation of the fish 13 weir. 14 15 III. CONCLUSION 16 Appellants request that the Hearing Examiner remand this matter to the ERC with 17 instructions to prepare an EIS or to conduct a new threshold determination without 18 improperly segmenting the fish weir foundation from the fish weir itself and to impose 19 sufficient conditions to mitigate impacts related to the project. 20 21 22 23 24 25 APPEAL OF DETERMINATION OF 26 NON-SIGNIFICANCE -- MITIGATED - 3 27 28 BRICKLIN&GENDLER, LLP ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW SUITE 1015 FOURTH AND PIKE BUILDING SEATTLE,WA 98101 (206)621-8868 Dated this 2-3 day of April, 1996. 1 2 Respectfully submitted, 3 BRICKLIN & GENDLER, LLP 4 5 By: C''. 6 Claudia M. Newman WSBA No. 24928 7 Attorneys for Appellants whitley\appeal 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 APPEAL OF DETERMINATION OF 26 NON-SIGNIFICANCE -- MITIGATED - 4 27 28 BRICKLIN&GENDLER, LLP ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW SUITE 1015 FOURTH AND PIKE BUILDING SEATTLE,WA 98101 (206)621-8868 CITY OF RENT0(V 2 3 ?996 BRICKLIN & GENDLER,' LLP L, ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW ,'CITY CLERK'S OFFICE ' FOURTH AND PIKE BUILDI. , 1424 FOURTH AVENUE, SUIT:• 1r- 15 C 11 V 11 , SEATTLE, WA 98101 DAVID A. BRICKLIN APR 22)1996 (206) 621-8868 :.MICHAEL W. GENDLER FAX (206) 621-0512. DAVID S. MANN CITY OFRENTON ` JENNIFER A. DOLD - ' - , HEARING EXAMINER CLAUDIA M. NEWMAN April 22, 1996' Fred J. Kaufman ; ' • Hearing Examiner `. •`, , City.of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South . Renton, WA 98055 Re: Appeal' of City of -Renton/Water Utility Application No. LUA-96- • 027,CU,ECF,SM,W Dear Mr. Kaufman: ' Please find enclosed the $75 filing fee,to accompany an appeal of the above-referenced matter filed on behalf of Lee and Marilyn Whitley; The accompanying appeal will arrive via facsimile on Tuesday, April 23, 1996. ' ' Very truly yours, , " : • , BRICKLIN & GENDLER, LLP •• • Claudia M. Newman CMN:psc ' Enclosure, ' • cc: Lee and Marilyn Whitley DUPLICATE-RECEIPT=DUPLICATE"RECEIPT CITY OF RENTON CITY TREASURER REG/RCPT : 02-34352 C:04-24-1996 CASHIER ID : G 07:23:00 A:04-24-1996 8000 MISCELLANEOUS REV $75.00 APPEAL 000.000.00.338.58.00.000000 TOTAL DUE $75.00 RECEIVED FROM: BRICKLIN & GENDLER CHECK $75.00 TOTAL TENDERED $75.00 CHANGE DUE $0.00 DUPLICATE RECEIPT DUPLICATE RECEIPT