No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA99-116 „ © CITY OF RENTON .. ir.......... ? -a Planning/Building/Public Works we I . o,„^' Cr 1055 South Grady Way Renton Washington 98055 CI30CI AU T8 9 �•3 /3 • �/ W 2 ' ' • ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED kA a.as. P 0METER * 4260 U.S. POSTAGE 08 1&.99 FC*1 PRESORTED SEA WA 931 w.. Barei Trust 509 Main Ave S Renton WA 98055 [:10T DELI V ERA B-LE .`r- - - may” AS ADDRESSED Y v O Z F UNABLE TO FOFIWARD X-P'" ` ��� RETURN TO SENO£A day At ins sTs2 tillit ttitiitntitlttttitttiiutitittiitttitttitittitltttiit 0 p CITY OF RENTON o F..- � � ---, Planning/Building/Public Works 1055 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 N ton 17'$9 r'.•S Est Q 5 W 0 w . I. ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED a' " MUTER4260U.S. POSTAGE * • 08 18 99 F`•1 PRESORTED SEA IAA 981 1 Robert Delancy 809 S 4th St Renton WA 98055 NOT C:ELI'�ERABLE a G9 AS ADDRESSED _ 3 AUG c9 UN:V LE TO FORWARD °, REfU IH TO SENDER •� Wa a'� • FL11I1i„1111iiiii„iiii,1ii<<liiii,li,i�iiil„ii mipmemr- 0 p CITY OF RENTON o � �,,—�--;. • . Planning/Building/Public Works W ! sCC et"" d 1055 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 W Cl) AUG 1 7'9 9 VA;t 7. 1 3 0 5 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED a. 0 PBMETER U.S. POSTAGE • 7204260 Curtis Holt 501 Wells Ave S w Renton WA 98055 1?:OIUELIVERABLE _ - .r CT. AS f.01;fiESSED .c-. UNAULE TO FORWM-,i -- - co K i`dd RETURN TO sENOEF a •,`144.101e55 iitliiiiilinimili,tilimli„tiiiidiiiiidilli,ilthitil,i —....".....r.r --yr -........--„, 0 c• CITY OF RENTON F'" --wraiarnszy. jk a Planning/Building/Public Works it ! 41/47.474 • o AU 9 g .•s a . iv 1055 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 V3 Om I/V 1 3 0 2 Cti a. 1.I. ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED 7PB20144E2T6FOR U.S. POSTAGE - --' Losh Family Ltd Partners 331 Wells Ave S ., Renton WA 98055 -)-0 ;3 '.;(I V 61 ..v. lAid (i) is. rky , 41310:4 ( ... II I 1 ; II "T 0 144-iiititir:Y4. ilw:iliiiiiill;iiiillililffilliiillumffiliiiliiiiiIIIIIIII Elpw -1w.11.' IPIIIIII W9FwwPI 0 p CITY OF RENTON .._ •• , _,,,, , , sel Planning/Building/Public Works W CO * ' �"""��"� IC 1055 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 Mg17'9 9 ,l.ei a = 0 5 '* * ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED a- 7204260 U.S. POSTAGE Jesse Sooy 417 Wells Ave S Renton WA 98055 NOT DELIVERABLE . --.........4,—, AS ADDRESSED Iilt ..Bit EU FORWftliD _ _ i, : S ; I'i i ii i i ii ; ; ; ; j I •i, -- '•'-- Iiiiiiiillilii.iililiiiiii.iiiiiiit:.lii iliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii LRETUFiN To SENDER_ 8 W T O ..18 Sb_ O 0 CITY OF KENTON F., ..—....74,,,vive„=,..........=..„... „ --,•;,—_,„..i ........,—.. owl Planning/Building/Public Works r9/ View 4 : cc 0 1055 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 o cal- AU I r9 9 grab E 1 3 0 5 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED a. U. PB 1204 ME260 U.S. POSTAGE * REASON CHECKE wup,;, Attempted\IRreonfcsusiusuaeccir: :::oet:r Known i.at r Mental Health Housing (nsufficient Address --- 1' 419 Wells Ave S No Such Numbep — Renton WA 98055 • _____ is3/-N, OT DELI V MAE.: ..---,- ,_ ----6t UNABLE TO F DRY!A30 '---"-'"- RETURN TO SENDER — 0 2:'.v 61 .P.- CI di d ,t, 4- , .....z%...7.---: i------,-.: II.;**:.. ---- 4/ --tirgelt- O © CITY OF RENTON - , _ r.,41, _ ; Planning/Building/Public Works u' 6s 1055 South Grady Way Renton Washington 98055 W /b 1 . Q ADDRESS SERVICE REQUE`' au. 7204260 U.S. POSTAGE °V, Cp4) �O do �° ,s°�' )� sS``�\ `0 4s S� ,'o`oc\pA Renton School Dist 403 �F'�yOJ� p`}' \P Po°oo.4° � 416 wells Ave S l��o o ss ZoGy 7 Renton WA 98055 `�V P Q� .sP �` �P°°�Gtic44 fr�T �� Sg'At.', 6, • tat z E a D 1---% (i66 \ W d :: : : RETJfi ' Tn SENDER a47 A.� = 8' _?:" 11,1„1„1,11,,,,1,1„ l, ll,t :iis:t?:i : i :s; ' st : :i::w:..:iI:i::?:E:iits:: • E3 • 7 T23N R5E E 1/2 . RM—I R-10 2 • o a • � � � � R=30 � , CA IL(P) • -13rd Pl. �` co CO -00- °D -1 1 —I-- i Ili . d- - .-0 P-1 -CCCO -` V. .. \� R-10<P> ��' .- / Airport Way I R-8 No?- , V A _o,,o, 1------,--- _E 1 hihtth STTo1bin' ISt' HRI A. 1 1 ___I 1_1 H I CD . jI ! IIR=8ilI Ri'b �a31111 � ��1Ct�iiii CA - - • - �r10 CD(P) -[ CI} RMI-U RM- i.; N d s =Z- -- C-A — : S `� CA - - RM-U -' I CD CD - -_ - S 2nd St. — CD- N -CAA_ I _ - S 2nd St. z Z f 1 1 ( / I / C A� -r-------.44150-J_cnvi— C� CD CD CD - Q. IS 3rd St,� cD� I c, I ,.- — — N - � CAI 1 Lr.I1L ICD ) ICD161 ICD Isi-.I IC;DI I L_ - is CD i 'S-13rd , Pl. —_6 ._ - — --- CD CD<P> . \ . CD ED CD ►� CD CD CD �C / I -S- _S�c/] . -ram CD= % �� C A CD CD CD CD CD CD - CD CD 4� D 1 7 -� I- I --- --I ' _�-- 15), -- _ -S =6_h- St -- !'' —�- a 1---- 7--) D- - --I 7 M- I /' — r •crzi CAC � -s -7k.h= .._ . 6 G3 . 19 T23N R5E E 1/2 p 1 7 `,,Y O ! 00 400 ZONING + TECHNICAL SERVICES 18 T23N R5E E 1/2 ZONING MAP BOOK . ;Kra: 29 !INGE11111:1104,' 011iti.,D 459 . _ter . . 4- 1.11C1 }h .ii li• ''"- . • is. �'1 r,� ,�;....iil ,<.4 :. % •.� p..; � l �. �d� :C.,.�_'i i� .°� :gip 26 T244 R5E i.,w,„:„ rpr r it 0„. ....................::,..,..:,...„.. ,::::.,:m:!i§.:.5.:::::Km::::. 1 a f 1 . ::::F !IMF.4,' ,, •:i:. .... .:.:.:. Itti • . ikr,iii::i.:: ::m iiii no.),...„:40 :iii!- *Ai,.':' y 1, i - :::- '1.; ';':- 1- ,.' . . . ..-__ -•:.,': :.3,i, ,i§ilik.,,,i!..4.,,:::„Ag 1;,: -*,: ,:. ::., .: It. A,2.3,i.,. , , TA,. •.. C 7 .. • }} f S t {fk} vi {}E : I . raxi 36 T2(Nt R4E i}su 1 RSE(-0- ;3 ._.�5�la._ {24 R5E N`RSE. N 0411111!VC130.7 t teat{.N5 o e a•OM ,_ ;:GA lF =01 IL 111111nrir i .-qiNi .v� ! fri---::;-r \ . --k 1'4 I 1111 4 I'V',.k t::"k1 .,:f-s: ,.:h V r''' ,i •-1- b - IL:. :1 . -...,: ..'illt ':Ili %':',1:.1.-..::.1.....- .•..'..•...Q3- jitit.. ...':t , .1 ... -r -.41 .... 1 t:i ;*. t � ` +, /— � `� jy�ZrT231QRSE 4' � 'T 3� R L 2 T23N R5 !rein.ii lip STIMPIS:�. z' 3,•' .1 691111 .�e H -_ r 06 nf1�t 01, I , lila Z.A!�' i!R �'• '.mil: .- '�: l•;i • � U a>, ., � '., E � ...e „` RR �� 1 1`P- n = 11 , ' � ' { 3N • RSV SE �h '� R$. 1 R• r vt 6'l..s , ,ur Q_. N' 11 T.231yi.RSE �. �yi `figi. 41/4. � wi % �i ;370 ® 111 !!1 !...„ .. 4.7.. i 11.s.;—_.,, 1 ,;,,, I I `}►C� ,,, p5 t 1 6=art 1-� 371 81,_ "�16 "l`j_: 1 77" " !in't K/i111Z -1 -=;•tv -g.. -1-44t-k•cl al :II, iit.''' ,. 'z,----:‘..V 7 41,..I...,`'"'''..t.--41%.-. rs:1- ,."'-: 1 3„if, T2 N R intirti Mat—, 0 ' 3IL T23N R _- 23 723N R5E 1 i I ,ft �� .d it ••00' • t•01,'rri .�oa2 ►1,4-41 ., : .i, 821 �1 t l I' 1 - tom, i' l'." 4 1 L n' •..74• f i•. ► - �. `-_•'• d .,� l ' . S 1. z . l '+C! � I 6 T2 N R4_ 23 RAE s.,'CO00 T23N 'S 8_'[33 R5E�t . T23N..Q4cy ,i Iff .t c 51 ._ 603'. 1p 8;;ir 0. ,• 825'! 82 ;, ` . / „,.c ci, ..• , ,...,,I,,,, : , b : ._, ihii�v. �(r- 36 T23N`R$''I .) T230.1 RSE' 32=1' N�RSE I 3,�, 23N SE r) 4 U3Ny. !R5E•-, 1 35 T23N A:c+-is:<: i i '•---��i . -f-- 606: •0, 6, i R ' ;3,2' 833 -)0 I. 2 ":1.— 1 L. . L �: sad t - _ +=t -� kIT eyvi...' :-=: :: d i 22N R4E 1 T42N-R4E - 6 T22N,R5E1.7-; 5'?22N R5E• 4 _R5E --�3 T (-1 R5C •_, ii 2 722N R5E -` } KROLL RC Resource Conservation CC I Convenience Commercial Cr) Publicly Owned R-1 Residential I du/ac 1 Cm Center Neighborhood ' — Ker.:ca City Limits I A GL.# — Adjacent City Limits I R-S Residential 5 du/ac � CS Center Suburban R-B Residential 0 du/ac I C: Center Downtown I (Cray Text) Prezones SECT/TOWN/RANGE p� RMM Residential Manufactured Homes I CCR Center Office Residential F"t-.'"Q Auto:aa:l District A R-io Residential 10 du/ac 1 CA Commercial Arterial I.:•:•:1 Auto-:all District II R-14 Residential 14 du/ac I CA Commercial Arterial Automali . PAGE u Commercial Office ) RM-I Residential Multi—Family Inlill Residential Multi-Family Neighborhood Center [ Industrial - Heavy INDEX W . Z Y anResidential Multi—Family Suburban Center Industrial — Medium m ^' I=1 Residential Multi—Family Urban Center Ei industrial - Light i 0 n Public Use ne • s 2ND ST ' gate 73737411,' ' 4 V S'' '''''' ' gri; AI a °inn , " 1 - 1 : .-• , -.,... ...,..,le ..e, .. 9 f�32 19' o Ii : Iii • • •I� U\ Ira .. 't IPa!! 3Q21 2 ' l� r .4•R 10 zs •e✓!. U• 5' R e S 16,.r„•'', ��II IS 11 - "."r/! 1 Li N, �, -� 1 . 1 14` te symumlia 8 aI �'.n1M al i ,4J 9 �� 9' 12 a 23, ����r� ' a 9, E • 1232' a / I ='0 tee,....f;l.'� to ,o •°lo '_il i • Ipl� 3®' �. t b` �� '� R,.�: ;�:�J ` ply 1 I OF, alb :..1 I.. •,, s --tom. __:—_._—r3_12D--_-- 101 AC ° _ ,P. S. 3R0 ST ` I fa vis 0g o� i; E \ di!''n � _ d •'' z i a,.v u .T ' ,� do 2 cii ed '� `���� ` 'i. o, I a o - °-- i'- 3 K� a C q !� ..4101111Y, a ,�-i,© 18 r1Ll• a ! i „s �I,S se G ,i eZ q 4 T _fS � ,� . ' tor 4 S rW • - iS -, 2 ®7. -- MIDI wain IIIIPP ,.!'iti 6„ P,,;? I ups widi /.......::::: :• , k:s ;11-': --.Ac. °9° , ''' 13:° k a _114_ 8 K,r^ ►rMEV_1 'f•ee7 9 MII101A1 ':. • d1 8 tl t —..---P R z 3O wir r _h . 7111 Mil J ,t ; 61 `c�\ 4 (' �`29 \`Tonkin Park S 4 rP: 1 � 7p , Eg�- 19 © • 2gill -- --- -------- J V 3 18 t ID 3( 3 9 ® 3 L7. S ' 1:i-.:. . a ' 3 I! ®• i ® r\ -444 gi' 28 J 1 e,a° 3O _ gell Al` .. Al /N .ONAT/O !M 4P tF-.1 Q� • .\ ®� leo Ei,to i Eli sa ®; e' S 16 a' i►i►�,��,y�I 1 • gm 5 16 a i1 J 1`� 6 IS !Al •® 6 IS ' r I Fti�►l,�u��\� :..4.:: '1.-..: gp 65 Is Q. ® � .3 Vo ti 7 140. Q •® 7 1411, 11 .:,w..: • I1 7 .K l'' Y ®rd' I - X 8 11521 J •® 8 ®• J • 8 Z �1 ° � 8 -13-j--NK, ® 7 ei 26 12 E. ",9 9 12 �- --� 3 a tzo rs ( �� ;� 1 r. P. i0 d II a9 h II C�� .zo '' Ro � h® 10 it_-� .yj g :::T9 �$ S. STH _ .21�� •L I ugr I ` 01 1' >7t 1'S✓i• Gs ,•: x® 20 7®p a, Iv l'F, ^ ` �i w 1 ( e • ® 2 19 U451 ,Ib .i11=��- . 2 5 os, $®---a 1� :03 p (z) ike �. . • rU11 3 IS i h° f f ® ' <, U 1 3 M ® _,_:___3 a • ® 3 18 s[ �n�5-0-9I� B t d •® 4 I l h 4 j 1 t` Q 4 11 J [ • �} ME _ __ .sts.. i t____ - ® • •® 6 IS El. •® •;; - • 6 15.a _ sf31 I4 ®9 •® 7 14 ®• .®x,7 Fir. 4,, ..'•: � 7 14 ,®� i ',.. 1. s� 8 n ® • •® 8 13 ®, .„„,", 8 4 Int. R ,��8 13 I� ; •® 52 s>.rl �s33 �` A " :• so ?AVE MISLL Iz ®�` 31 E. 10 ►fl' , 5114] L'J�? „ 3tI• AP II 53S ... _ n — Imo., p � b J1 a� 7 O - - h y , ,�, k 4"- ® 42-- y 211 ®i 4 !�..WI LIAMS� 0 • G� 0tz '1 1 • • 16 : ,So ,so L'-4Y V COURT l 0 at ` ' L . ,I ` •co,}•aPw n r1 �r� G,•' r° ' rt4 }--7t�- /— t 611 z® __6� _. 161s e,o`c �h�•'• 1w.IS .: a ; 13 -2 L3 !� rin° 09SAc. a I, 12- 1 enf, No of • "� e ur n, I r 7 mo ,z �� x 42 20 64 t" zt,P Ell Z ,r _ \S� . i1z3Ac. 18 s 629 N14 9sI O; I 5 Govt t IU 061Ac '^CEDRe �2 C@ ] LJ Tel • ! V 1 ( I�,o . Io i 13 Q I•uu r 'x.,.° 22 S 0 Z 8 Ac. r:?,,ti, •,;Y •c 4.,.(.._Lz J— S. J�A i /9I zo ATLAS O� SEATTLE 4i COPVRIGHTEO s PUBLISHED BY ...•�.uSidelod s. v.a �.>"'..•��'r KROLL MAP COMPANY,INC., SEATTLE `" �"�'''°'"'°`°°"' °'"` �"'"` �"°"���'" SCALE I INCH 200 FEET y _ All\ V 8 till • A. A 4 -0 ==" ASP1 Avl-T PAN11J6 5 01 ",F 0 NI Ns o t i f s iti i i 11) -C7 Ci L5-11 t •L Ra3,.t.Tot . L D�5T1z4CT d a lli 0ADM 1 t�.l l r RAT I o'ti-1 �V 1 l�D 1�(C-� (it4• a"`, ESE SA.L�/PGED/DS'M�.�L1S4-4��4ZEMOV NI � GRA.Ss off,3 ) S,1~. , �. 5('off Fez w� c�sr; !, lifIly _r 01.(�T -Q+ ry 4Z W�, S.�....r s r W 4 /AL..4. W - i N z.A 0 �c .s N a 4 -=_ 7-_. 12.0_`- i Mn4_l1--K*4 OP t ., HTZD14 stuck L_. sAsTg1cC- ApA 1 NI t s -('ior.l t5i.L—. w s ,du ve / cLtsg.r--cran,cv , WA.. a• Act-lA• IZOU5C,- 42 R- 14'l-I-" Coe /.Pt 401.1 .6 F. .14_; 2.06-232.— S ._..1.304r .: e-42.- -'' . Sc coT v F LedeJs 3pecer Court Apts Robert Delancy 334 Wells Ave S 809 S 4th St Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton School Dist 403 Judith Waller 116 wells Ave S 410 Williams Ave S Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Vlaugerite Kirkman Ben Wilson 1-31 Wells Ave S 424 Williams Ave S Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Robert Visk Theodore Niemi )09 S 5th St 420 Williams Ave S Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 3arei Trust Robert Moran 509 Main Ave S 428 Williams Ave S Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Robert Smith Nelson Palermo 319 S 5th St 432 Williams Ave S Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Curtis Holt Charles Headrick 501 Wells Ave S 438 Williams Ave S Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Rebecca Rogers 127 Wells Ave S Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Robert Moran 125 Wells Ave S Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 \leeta Rowe 121 Wells Ave S Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Vlental Health Housing 119 Wells Ave S Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Jesse Sooy 117 Wells Ave S Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Losh Family Ltd Partners 331 Wells Ave S Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 November 23, 1999 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPELLANT: Daniel Palmer Appeal of ERC's Decision re Henry Ford School Demolition File No.: LUA99-135,AAD LOCATION: 420 Wells Avenue S SUMMARY OF APPEAL: Appeals ERC's SEPA determination re Demolition of Henry Ford School PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Appellant's written request for a hearing and examining the available information on file,the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the November 2, 1999 hearing. The official record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Tuesday,November 2, 1999,at 9:25 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the appeal, Exhibit No.2: Land use file LUA99-116,ECF(by proof of posting and publication, and other reference) documentation pertinent to the appeal. Exhibit No.3: King Co. Historical Survey and Exhibit No.4: City's Summary and Excerpt Inventory(2 pages) Exhibit No. 5: Mr. O'Brien-Smith's Resume Exhibit No.6: Photograph album (20 pages) Exhibit No. 7: Photographic montage of building Exhibit No.8: Applicant Service Linen's Hearing exterior Brief Parties present: Daniel Palmer,Appellant 16638 106th SE Renton, WA 98055 Representing City of Renton David Dean,City Attorney Leslie Nishihira,Assistant Planner 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Daniel Palmer Appeal of ERC's Decision re Henry Ford School Demolition File No.: LUA99-135,AAD November 23, 1999 Page 2 Representing Applicant Service Linen Joel Gordon 902 Waterfront Place 1011 Western Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 The Examiner explained that the appeal was an administrative appeal held pursuant to Ordinance 3071 and was the only administrative review to occur on the matter. The matter may be submitted back to the Examiner for reconsideration if the parties are not satisfied with the decision. He stated that the appellant had the burden of demonstrating that the City's action was erroneous,and would have to show clear and convincing evidence that the City's determination was incorrect. At that point the City could respond, if they chose to do so. Mr. Palmer, appellant herein,explained that he is an historian and has taught a Local Historic Landmarks class at Green River Community College for five years and has expertise in recognizing historic landmarks and buildings. Currently he is a member of Citizens for Cultural and Historic Preservation. He stated that the Environmental Review Committee(ERC)made a Determination of Non-Significance, and he found that in error because the building had been designated as an historic landmark. The criteria for that designation was based on national historic landmark criteria. Although it is recognized as a local landmark, it easily qualifies as a national one. The building was surveyed in 1978 and is listed as one of the older buildings in Renton. The survey lead to an inventory sheet which gives the site official status as an historic landmark, making it eligible for a national as well as state register. Mr. Palmer explained the significance of the survey and inventory, and gave the definitions of historic landmarks from the King County Historic Preservation Program. This agency did the survey and they concluded that the school was significant to Renton for its architectural style and the role it played in the Renton School District's history. There was discussion among the parties regarding the significance of this designation and its relevance to this appeal. Further discussion involved the controlling policies and regulations of historic designations, i.e., State, County or City. The City of Renton has policies of historic preservation in its Comprehensive Plan(CP), but does not have an historic preservation program. Mr. Palmer continued that the City in its staff report to the ERC stated that Service Linen and Renton School District acknowledged the building's significance to Renton's history. He further stated that the City is non- compliant with its own CP and cited several policies to that effect. He also indicated that many of the policies had processes in which the citizens' inputs were included and that many responses had been received from local residents over the significance of this school. The Determination of Non-Significance calls for other alternatives to be studied,and the appellant suggested that other alternatives or compromises were available, and that funding for restoration of the building may be available from King County, state or federal governments. On cross-examination, Mr.Palmer stated that the school had not been designated on the federal or state register of historic places. The King County survey and inventory which has been done is based on criteria of national register status,and the next step would be to go national. Clayton O'Brien-Smith, 1191 2nd Avenue,#1650, Seattle, Washington 98101,architectural consultant for applicant Service Linen, stated that the school is not historically significant and that the rehabilitation and Daniel Palmer Appeal of ERC's Decision re Henry Ford School Demolition File No.: LUA99-135,AAD November 23, 1999 Page 3 preservation of the structure is not feasible. The school is not unique from an architectural or construction standpoint,but is of a similar age and style as many other educational structures in the greater Northwest that possess greater architectural integrity. Renton High School,within about half a mile of this site,has been well maintained. The subject site is no longer in a mainly residential area,but is surrounded by a freeway, commercial businesses,and parking lot. Extensive settlement, age deterioration, inappropriate remodeling over the years,and partial demolition of the building have seriously impacted the integrity of the original building to the point where it has lost any important significance. Bringing the structure up to current standards would involve extensive and expensive upgrading to meet code requirements. Because of the recent asbestos removal project,the building is currently open to the weather and there is standing water throughout. John Giuliani, 812 N 1st, Renton, Washington 98055,an interested party, stated this building was unique to Renton and its history, and should not be compared with other areas for its value,and that it was important to the community. He suggested that other uses for the building should be explored. Debbie Natelson,207 Main Avenue S,Renton,Washington 98055, an interested party and local business owner, stated that Renton does not have a rich architectural heritage, but to many citizens the school is one of the few to be preserved. She also felt that the school was a public building and to tear it down for a parking lot was unconscionable. Barbara Horton, 20613 SE 291 st Place,Kent, Washington 98042, appeared as vice-president of the Renton Historical Society. It is the intention of the Society to preserve and maintain the culturally significant edifices within its boundaries, and that the society did not support the razing of this school. Mr. Dean, City Attorney, stated that the historical significance of this facility was considered by the ERC,but the committee did not have before it a program, ordinance or statute that would tell the City or applicant what standards to use in its determination. The City was concerned that the Council was the appropriate governing agency to address what should be done within the City of Renton and not some other agency. Leslie Nishihira, City of Renton, addressed the issue of notification to interested parties of the proposed land use action,and stated that fluorescent signs were posted on telephone poles. Rebecca Lind, City of Renton, stated that she was familiar with the City's policies concerning historic preservation,but that Renton did not have an adopted implementation program or phasing program as required by the CP. She further responded that SEPA is referenced in the City's CP, and the CP is referenced in the City Code as part of the policies and procedures to be looked at in reviewing applications. Bob Raphael,P.O. Box 957,Renton,Washington 98057, co-president of the applicant herein, gave a brief history of Service Linen. When the property became available,they met with the school district to see about saving the building. After the building was inspected, it was determined that it was too expensive to bring it up to code standards and to meet their particular configuration needs,and it would need to be demolished. It was written into the purchase and sale agreement with the school district that it would be demolished. There was extensive asbestos throughout the building and it had to be removed before it could be demolished. This was done by the school district prior to their purchasing the building. Daniel Palmer Appeal of ERC's Decision re Henry Ford School Demolition File No.: LUA99-135,AAD November 23, 1999 Page 4 Jerry Fry, P.O. Box 957,Renton, Washington 98057, an employee of the applicant, presented a series of photographs which showed the current condition of the school. He described in detail the damage resulting from the asbestos material removal, as well as the general deterioration of the building. Debra Aungst, 300 SW 7th Street, Renton, Washington 98055, Assistant Superintendent, Renton School District, gave a brief history relating to the sale of the property,which has been used as its headquarters since 1970. The two pieces of property include the Henry Ford School and the property adjacent to the south which were connected by breezeways. After an evaluation it was determined to surplus the facility and notices for a public hearing were publicized and a hearing was held on August 26, 1999. She further responded that the district was not aware of any historic designation given to the building. Robert Brown, 1220 N 4th,Renton, Washington 98055,Facilities Manager,Renton School District,described the asbestos abatement process and the method which the district used. The removal of the asbestos was a part of the sale agreement, after which it was assumed the new owners would immediately begin demolition. He summarized the issues and problems the district encountered with the building prior to its being surplused. Pat Auten, 14401 SE Petrovitsky#B-105,Renton, Washington 98058,president of the Historical Society, stated that they had a vision and mission statement regarding the Ford building, but they did not take a vote of the trustees because they do not have the finances or the staff to handle something of this nature. She also stated she was a former employee who worked in the building, and described the poor and unsafe physical conditions at that time. Leonard Smith, 553 John Street, Seattle, Washington 98109,representing Teamsters Local 117, stated that they supported Service Linen's development plans on the site,which employed 85 union members. Marcie Maxwell, P.O. Box 2048, Renton, Washington 98056, Chairman of the Board, Greater Renton Chamber of Commerce, stated that to expect Service Linen to renovate the school was unfair and unreasonable. If they are not allowed to proceed,the building would probably sit unused until being condemned. Robert Cugini,P.O. Box 359, Renton, Washington 98057, stated he attended the school in the early 1960's and recently toured the site. The character of the building was substantially changed from its original nature. He noted that Service Linen's operations in that location predate the school's operation. In his closing arguments,Mr. Palmer reiterated that SEPA is a guiding factor in determinations of significance or non-significance. He further stressed the importance of preserving the older structures,primarily those from 1870's, 1880's, all the way through the 1930's era. If it wasn't important,then the Growth Management Act would not have come up with policies dealing with historic preservation, as well as King County's policies and Renton's CP. Mr.Dean responded that the appellant's arguments would be more efficiently addressed before the Renton City Council to direct staff to prioritize an appropriate preservation program. He further addressed the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Gordon closed by stating basically there is nothing which provides a legal basis for overturning the ERC's determination. This was a property that was owned by a public entity which held public hearings and then Daniel Palmer Appeal of ERC's Decision re Henry Ford School Demolition File No.: LUA99-135,AAD November 23, 1999 Page 5 surplused the property. The issue of historic significance was considered by the ERC. The checklist asks if anything is registered or proposed for registration on any federal, state or local register. There has been no evidence submitted that the site is registered or is proposed for registration on any of those lists. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this appeal. There was no one else wishing to speak. The hearing closed at 11:20 a.m. FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS &DECISION Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The appellant, Daniel Palmer,filed an appeal of a Determination of Non-Significance(DNS) issued by the ERC. Mr. Palmer, hereinafter the appellant,filed the appeal on September 24, 1999 and the appeal was filed in a timely manner. A supplemental letter in response to a request from this office for more detail was received on October 5, 1999. 2. The appellant is a concerned citizen who teaches historic preservation courses at Green River Community College. 3. The determination the appellant has challenged was for the demolition of the Henry Ford Grade School. The school is located at 420 Wells Avenue South in the City of Renton. The school is located between Main on the east, S 5th Street on the south, Wells on the west and S 4th on the north. It is located mid-block. Surrounded by the newer administration building on the south and Service Linen supply(purchaser applicant)on the north. I-405 is located due east of the site. Mixed uses surround the site including single family, commercial and freeway. 4. The building is 23,300 square feet. It is a one-story structure. The exterior of the building is brick veneer with decorative white trim elements that apparently are a concrete compound made to appear like terra cotta. It is a flat roofed building with a parapet wall that modulates up and down. 5. In recent years,the building and an adjacent newer structure were used by the Renton School District for administrative purposes. In 1998 the school district moved to newer quarters and the two side-by- side buildings were generally vacant. The school district then subsequently surplused the buildings and put them up for sale. Apparently they sold separately to two separate purchasers. 6. The two buildings are located on more than one legal lot. The Henry Ford School,the subject of this appeal, straddles a common property line and sits on a portion of the lot which houses the newer administrative building. As indicated,that newer building and its lot were sold to a third party. 7. As part of the sales of the two properties,the district was to be responsible for asbestos remediation and the Ford building was to be torn down or the property line altered between the adjacent parcels. Daniel Palmer Appeal of ERC's Decision re Henry Ford School Demolition File No.: LUA99-135,AAD November 23, 1999 Page 6 8. Asbestos remediation was done by the district prior to change in ownership and under permit from the Puget Sound Air Pollution Agency. This involved removing parts of interior walls,electrical components and roofing materials as well as some supporting structure or framing. Subsequent to that work,water has leaked into the structure where roof elements were removed. 9. Both the school district,the former owner,and the applicant,the current owner, enumerated various problems with the structure aside from any damage done during or exacerbated by the asbestos removal. The building does not meet current fire or seismic and building codes. The building and its lot do not provide space for required parking if the structure were renovated, and it is outside of the downtown core, exempt parking zone. There are some major cracks in the building that are visible in the facade that run from the foundation of the building to the roof line. There has been uneven settlement of the foundation over the years and the walls and floors of the building have pulled away from each other in locations. Load bearing walls are located throughout the structure which would complicate any adaptive reuse of the structure. 10. The school district held a public hearing on March 15, 1999.The Minutes of that hearing reflect generally that the property line runs through the school building and that there were two potential purchasers: "Debra Aungst explained that the Henry Ford Elementary School was in very bad shape and would not economically be able to be renovated and meet today's property codes. Debra Aungst further explained that she felt the new owner would most likely tear down the Henry Ford Elementary School. Mr. Moran suggested that the District consider saving the three cement slabs that say the name,Henry Ford Elementary School(italics in original). Debra Aungst stated that there might be some way to salvage the historical pieces." 11. The applicant prepared an Environmental Checklist. First it contains the background of the application which described the proposed project: "Demolition of Renton School District Administration Building." 12. The main area in the checklist of concern in this review is checklist item B 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. Daniel Palmer Appeal of ERC's Decision re Henry Ford School Demolition File No.: LUA99-135,AAD November 23, 1999 Page 7 Sign'Henry Ford School'will be carefully removed and presented to the Renton School District. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None." 13. No demolition permit has been issued at this point. No appeal of that permit is under consideration in this review. 14. The City's ERC report issuing the DNS was issued on September 7, 1999 and published on September 10, 1999. Any appeal was due by September 24, 1999. 15. That report contained such background information as the school was constructed in 1922 and used for 40 years for elementary school, closed due to declining population, and used for storage and administration by district. The report noted that the district held meetings to declare it surplus property to be sold. 16. The ERC's report stated: "The Henry Ford School Building is not listed on City,County, or State Historic registers and is not protected for historic preservation. Estimated costs for the renovation of the structure would far exceed the value of the building. Therefore, restoration of the building would not be feasible for the new property owners. Service Linen Supply and the Renton School District acknowledge the building's significance to Renton's history and have made efforts to reserve historical aspects of the building. The applicant has indicated that the'Henry Ford School' signs will be carefully removed and presented to the Renton School District as artifacts intended for display in the Renton Historical Museum." 17. The appellant has challenged the DNS in the following terms: (The following is a transcription of the appellant's handwritten appeal documents.) "I feel,based on my studies of(A) State G.M.A(Chapter 36.70 A RCW)and(B)King County Wide Policies(36.70A.210)and C)City of Renton's own Comprehensive Plan (policies LU-UU, LU-339,LU-340,LU-341,LU-342,LU-343,LU-344)all regarding Historic Resource Identity,Evaluation and implication of plan-that- Historic Resources has not been properly addressed particularly in the case of the culturally historic Henry Ford School and therefor request an emergency study be done before any final decisions made on school building regarding preservation vs. demolition." (original letter) "I am appealing these decisions based on what I find as the City being in conflict and inconsistent and also non-compliant in the implementation of state G.M.A., King Daniel Palmer Appeal of ERC's Decision re Henry Ford School Demolition File No.: LUA99-135,AAD November 23, 1999 Page 8 County wide policies and Renton's own Comprehensive Plan regarding non-renewable historic and cultural resources which will definitely have an environmental impact effect on local citizens in the loss of neighborhood historic and cultural identity thus diminishing the quality of our enriched community as we all have known it. Basis for Appeal Non-compliance/In conflict/Inconsistent 1. Detetermination of non-significance/no EIS creates lack of indepth study and alternatives. 2. State G.M.A. Chapter 36.70A RCW 36.70A.010, 36.70A020, 36.70A,090, 36.70A.100, 36.70A 210 3. King Country Growth Management and County wide policies Ord. 10450 Page 4 King County 2012 A. The problem(description page 4) B. The process(description page 4) C. Growth management Act(description page 5) 4. Renton City Comp. Plan Pg. I-141 Hist. and Arch. Resources Objective LU-UU Policies LU 339,340,341, 342 All of the above ordinances I believe have not been properly addressed in regards to comprehensive planning as determined by State GMA County Wide policies and Renton Comp. Plan all regarding historic and cultural preservation." (second letter) 18. The subject site was inventoried by King County in 1978. A document,King County Historic Sites Survey,Inventory Sheet was prepared. That document describes the building, its history, architectural details and compares it with Renton High School in the nature of materials and style. It closes with the following statement: "The Henry Ford School is significant to Renton,both for its architectural style and for the role it played in the Renton School District's early history." 19. The inventory sheet apparently makes the building eligible to be a historic place. It does not appear that it actually is on a register of historic places. 20. King County's actions regarding the historic inventory sheet are not binding on the City. 21. The City's adopted Comprehensive Plan,which is a basis for the City's SEPA authority, has the following goals and objectives: Daniel Palmer Appeal of ERC's Decision re Henry Ford School Demolition File No.: LUA99-135,AAD November 23, 1999 Page 9 Historic and Archeological Resources Objective LU-UU: Protect historic and archeological resources in the City. Policy LU-339. Historic resources should be identified and mapped within the City. Policy LU-340. Archeological and historic resources which have not been previously identified should be surveyed as part of the application process for any development. Policy LU-341. The City should pursue interlocal agreements with King County and other jurisdictions to identify and protect historic and archeological resources. Policy LU-342. Historic resources should be incorporated into economic development and tourism activities in the City. Policy LU-343. Adequate mitigation and buffering should be established between historic resources and other land uses. Buffers,site planning, clustering, transfer of development rights,or other similar incentives and control should be utilized. Policy LU-344. Historic resources should be integrated into plans for parks, open space, and trails acquisition and development. Policy LU-345. Officially designated historical sites should be preserved and/or incorporated into all development projects. Discussion: The City of Renton has a rich history as a pioneer settlement and mining community. As urbanization occurs throughout the Planning Area,historic structures and sites are in danger of being eliminated. These policies recognize the importance of historic resources and establish a framework for developing programs to protect them. 22. In reviewing this matter,this office has attempted to ignore the "self-fulfilling" aspects that make demolition the most reasonable option. That is,the deterioration which now further drives the desire to fully demolish this potentially unsafe structure was furthered by the partial demolition or asbestos removal effort which removed roofing materials, and opened the structure to the elements. The removal of drains and gutters may have exacerbated water damage. The question is, ignoring this added damage which should not have been permitted prior to a full demolition permit, was the ERC determination regarding any historic aspects appropriate. If they were not,the current state of the building will be ignored until a proper SEPA determination can be made. If the ERC decision was proper,then its current state and added deterioration matters little. Daniel Palmer Appeal of ERC's Decision re Henry Ford School Demolition File No.: LUA99-135,AAD November 23, 1999 Page 10 23. The building is the only remaining elementary school of that vintage and architecture in the City of Renton. The architectural style is matched by the Renton High School building which the school district is in the process of renovating. 24. The appellant argues that it appears no effort was made to ascertain if funds for restoration might be available and the issuance of a DNS will foreclose any study of alternatives to demolition. 25. An expert witness who has been involved in renovation of other historic structures such as the Eagles Auditorium and the Monte Cristo in Everett said that the structure is not unique in the sense that it represents the only example of an architectural style or even other elementary school buildings. Its architectural style as noted elsewhere is matched by the Renton High School. While it may be the only elementary school building of that age in the city, it is not unique in the area. In addition,the expert testified that the building does not have exceptional features and is in very poor shape. Renovation for reuse would be very limited by its bearing walls and its wood frame structure. In addition, some earlier renovations or remodeling changed some of the original features such as the windows. Finally,the expert indicated that in his belief it was not feasible to restore the structure. 26. On the other hand it was noted that Renton's history is limited and there are few remnants remaining demonstrating that history. If nothing, it was suggested that besides the "name plaque"the facade might be saved to screen the proposed parking lot. 27. The City has not enacted any enabling legislation regarding historic preservation. 28. The applicant indicated that they did consider reuse and looked at possible reuse as an interesting challenge. Their review showed the building would not economically lend itself to any feasible reuse. 29. The applicant also noted that in the absence of specific City ordinances setting out standards for historic preservation,any action to preserve the building could be a taking of private property. 30. The Renton Historical Society was aware of the probable demolition of the building. Apparently there were mixed reactions and they took no official position on the structure. They have no funding that would allow preservation of such a large building. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The decision of the governmental agency acting as the responsible official is entitled to substantial weight. Therefore,the determination of the Environmental Review Committee(ERC),the City's responsible official, is entitled to be maintained unless the appellant clearly demonstrates that the determination was in error. 2. The Determination of Significance and the mitigation measures imposed by the ERC in this case are entitled to substantial weight and will not be reversed or modified unless it can be found that the decision is "clearly erroneous." (Hayden v. Port Townsend,93 Wn 2nd 870, 880; 1980). The court in citing Norway Hill Preservation and Protection Association v. King County Council, 87 Wn 2d 267, 274; 1976, stated: "A finding is'clearly erroneous'when although there is evidence to support it,the Daniel Palmer Appeal of ERC's Decision re Henry Ford School Demolition File No.: LUA99-135,AAD November 23, 1999 Page 11 reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Therefore,the determination of the ERC will not be modified or reversed if it can meet the above test. For reasons enumerated below,the decision of the ERC is affirmed. 3. The clearly erroneous test has generally been applied when an action results in a DNS since the test is less demanding on the appellant. The reason is that SEPA requires a thorough examination of the environmental consequences of an action. The courts have,therefore, made it easier to reverse a DNS. A second test,the "arbitrary and capricious"test is generally applied when a determination of significance(DS) is issued. In this second test an appellant would have to show that the decision clearly flies in the face of reason since a DS is more protective of the environment since it results in the preparation of a full disclosure document, an Environmental Impact Statement. 6. The appellant has failed to demonstrate that the actions of the ERC were erroneous or arbitrary and capricious. There is a definite burden in overturning an administrative determination. The appellant did not present evidence that the ERC decision regarding this proposal should be modified. 7. Before continuing, it is necessary to counter any argument that requiring an Environmental Impact Statement to fully explore the impacts of issuing a public permit would be a taking. Dispensing with a full SEPA review of any City action that would have more than a moderate impact on the environment would be unacceptable. Any allegations of a taking might follow but should not thwart the review enunciated in City and State law. Even in the absence of enabling legislation,the SEPA checklist includes a review of"landmarks or evidence of historic importance" apart from any places that are officially designated. The Henry Ford School would seem to qualify. It is the remaining brick facade, Gothic Revival elementary school within the City. Therefore, SEPA review cannot be short-circuited. 8. The record would indicate that the building is not on any official historic register. It was surveyed. Its attributes were inventoried. That is where things stand. It appears that the ERC had most of this information. It discussed the historical significance of the building. It had the school district's minutes of its meeting where the building's potential sale and probable demolition were discussed. Those minutes revealed that the building was in very poor shape and that renovation was probably not feasible. 9. It appears from a reading of those minutes and the applicant's testimony that renovation potential had been reviewed and those conclusions were discussed with the school district. The result,the school district knew that renovation was probably not reasonable. It also appears that the Renton Historical Society was aware of the demolition but has no funding for such properties and took no official position on the issue. 10. The record discloses that even prior to the asbestos removal,there were serious defects in the building including floors settling and separating from the interior walls,cracks in the facade and foundation elements,non-compliance with seismic and fire codes, as well as parking constraints. The interior structure would severely limit potential reuse of the spaces. Daniel Palmer Appeal of ERC's Decision re Henry Ford School Demolition File No.: LUA99-135,AAD November 23, 1999 Page 12 11. What additional information would be required for the ERC to issue a different decision? And what additional information would an EIS provide to the decision-maker? The poor state of the structure was disclosed. Adaptive reuse was found by experts in the field to be infeasible. The building was seismically unsound and does not meet current fire code. The architectural style and its elements were well known by the ERC. The ERC noted in its determination that the building's history was acknowledged by the school district and the applicant. This shows that the ERC was also aware of the building's character. 12. As the City stated,the appellant's passion was definitely felt. The appeal appears to have been brought in good faith. The loss of this building will be felt by generations of former students and the general community. At the same time,as noted,this information was available in a sufficient framework to allow the ERC to make its determination. The preparation of an EIS probably would not throw more useful light on the crux issues. 13. The reviewing body should not substitute its judgment for that of the original body with expertise in the matter, unless the reviewing body has the firm conviction that a mistake has been made. No such conviction results from hearing this case. This office,based on the record,will not substitute its judgment for that of the ERC. 14. As noted above,the building has been poorly maintained and open to the elements since the asbestos abatement operation. The applicant,however, should refrain from making any changes that would worsen the current situation during the pendency of any additional appeal periods or remedies. DECISION: The decision of the ERC is affirmed. ORDERED THIS 23rd day of November, 1999. \(C.9-1°`\? FRED J. KAUFMA HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 23rd day of November, 1999 to the parties of record: Daniel Palmer David Dean Joel Gordon 16638 106th SE 1055 S Grady Way 1011 Western Ave,#902 Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 Seattle, WA 98104-1097 Clayton O'Brien-Smith John Giuliani Barbara Horton 1191 2nd Avenue,#1650 812N 1st 20613 SE 291 st Pl Seattle, WA 98101-3426 Renton, WA 98055 Kent, WA 98042 Daniel Palmer Appeal of ERC's Decision re Henry Ford School Demolition File No.: LUA99-135,AAD November 23, 1999 Page 13 Debbie Natelson Robert Cugini Leslie Nishihira 207 Main Avenue S P.O. Box 359 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98055 John C. Sterling Rebecca Lind Bob Raphael 2003 Rolling Hills Ave SE 1055 S Grady Way P.O. Box 957 Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98057 Jerry Fry Debra Aungst Robert Brown P.O. Box 957 300 SW 7th Street 1220 N 4th Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 Pat Auten Leonard Smith Marcie Maxwell 14401 SE Petrovitsky,#B-105 553 John P.O. Box 2048 Renton, WA 98058 Seattle, WA 98109 Renton, WA 98056 Arthur Johnson 17650 134th Avenue SE,#J-207 Renton, WA 98058 TRANSMITTED THIS 23rd day of November, 1999 to the following: Mayor Jesse Tanner Gregg Zimmerman, Plan/Bldg/PW Admin. Members, Renton Planning Commission Jana Hanson,Development Services Director Chuck Duffy, Fire Marshal Mike Kattermann, Technical Services Director Lawrence J. Warren,City Attorney Larry Meckling,Building Official Transportation Systems Division Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer Utilities System Division Councilperson Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Sue Carlson,Econ.Dev.Administrator Betty Nokes,Economic Development Director South County Journal Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 15 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m.,December 7, 1999. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact,error in judgment, or the 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 ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant,and the Examiner may, after review of the record,take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV,Chapter 8, Section 16,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. Daniel Palmer Appeal of ERC's Decision re Henry Ford School Demolition File No.: LUA99-135,AAD November 23, 1999 Page 14 If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants,the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. 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. ! . . 36.70.930 Title 36 RCW: Counties for planning methods but shall be deemed an alternative longer period is mutually agreed to in writing by the method providing for such purpose. [1963 c 4 § 36.70.930. applicant and the hearing examiner, shall be rendered within Prior: 1959 c 201 § 93.] ten working days following conclusion of all testimony hearings. [1995 c 347 § 425; 1994 c 257 § 9; 1977 ex.s. c v: 36.70.940 Elective adoption. Any county or counties 213 § 3.] presently operating under the provisions of chapter 35.63 Finding— Severability—Part headings and table of contents not 4 ` RCW may elect to operate henceforth under the provisions law-1995 c 347: See notes following RCW 36.70A.470. of this chapter. Such election shall be effected by the adop- Severability-1994 c 257: See note following RCW 36.70A.270. .Y. tion of an ordinance under the procedure prescribed by RCW Severability-1977 ex.s.c 213: See note following RCW 35.63.130. .;'may::, 36.32.120(7), and by compliance with the provisions of this chapter. [1963 c 4 § 36.70.940. Prior: 1959 c 201 § 94.] 36.70.980 Conformance with chapter 43.97 RCW ,.. required. With respect to the National Scenic Area, as 36.70.970 Hearing examiner system—Adoption defined in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area authorized—Alternative—Functions—Procedures. (1) As Act, P.L. 99-663, the exercise of any power or authority by - an alternative to those provisions of this chapter relating to a county or city pursuant to this chapter shall be subject to powers or duties of the planning commission to hear and and in conformity with the requirements of chapter 43.97 issue recommendations on applications for plat approval and RCW, including the Interstate Compact adopted by RCW 43.97.015, and with the management plan regulations and =<< applications for amendments to the zoning ordinance, the county legislative authority may adopt a hearing examiner ordinances adopted by the Columbia River Gorge commis. system under which a hearing examiner or hearing examiners sion pursuant to the Compact. [1987 c 499 § 9.] .N- may hear and issue decisions on proposals for plat approval ..,--"*.,-.= and for amendments to the zoning ordinance when the 36.70.982 Fish enhancement projects—County's amendment which is applied for is not of general applicabili- liability. A county is not liable for adverse impacts result- ty. In addition, the legislative authority may vest in a ing from a fish enhancement project that meets the criteria hearing examiner the power to hear and decide those issues of RCW 75.20.350 and has been permitted by the depart- it believes should be reviewed and decided by a hearing ment of fish and wildlife. [1998 c 249 § 81 examiner, including but not limited to: Findings—Purpose—Report—Effective date-1998 c 249: See Y %- (a) Applications for conditional uses, variances, shore- notes following RCW 75.20.350. line permits, or any other class of applications for or 2' ' pertaining to development of land or land use; `= .` (b) Appeals of administrative decisions or determina- occu iedOb 90 Treatment of residential structures = tions; and P y persons with handicaps. No county may = enact or maintain an ordinance, development regulation, _ (c) Appeals of administrative decisions or determina- zoning regulation or official control, policy, or administrative tions pursuant to chapter 43.21C RCW. practice which treats a residential structure occupied by The legislative authority shall prescribe procedures to be persons with handicaps differently than a similar residential followed by a hearing examiner. structure occupied by a family or other unrelated individuals. Any county which vests in a hearing examiner the As used in this section, "handicaps" are as defined in the authority to hear and decide conditional uses and variances federal fair housing amendments act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. Sec. shall not be required to have a zoning adjuster or board of 3602). [1993 c 478 § 22.] adjustment. (2) Each county legislative authority electing to use a hearing examiner pursuant to this section shall by ordinance 36.70.992 Watershed restoration projects—Permit . Processing—Fish habitat enhancement project. A permit specify the legal effect of the decisions made by the examin- er. Such legal effect may vary for the different classes of required under this chapter for a watershed restoration Project as defined applications decided by the examiner but shall include one in RCW 89.08.460 shall be processed in -_ compliance with RCW 89.08.450 through 89.08.510. A fish of the following: (a) The decision maybe habitat enhancement project meeting the criteria of RCW given the effect of a recom- 75.20.350(1) shall be reviewed and approved according to mendation to the legislative authority; the provisions of RCW 75.20.350. [1998 c 249 § 7; 1995 c (b) The decision may be given the effect of an adminis- 378 § 10.]trative decision appealable within a specified time limit to the legislative authority; or Findings—Purpose—Report—Effective date-1998 c 249: See (c) Except in the case of a rezone, the decision may be notes following RCW 75.20.350. given the effect of a final decision of the legislative authori- ty. Chapter 36.70A (3) Each final decision of a hearing examiner shall be GROWTH MANAGEMENT—PLANNING BY in writing and shall include findings and conclusions, based on the record, to support the decision. Such findings and SELECTED COUNTIES AND CITIES conclusions shall also set forth the manner in which the Sections t''^" i:i. decision would carry out and conform to the county's 36.70A.010 Legislative findings. .. comprehensive plan and the county's development regula 36.70A.020 Planning goals. e'= ?, lions. Each final decision of a hearing examiner, unless a 36.70A.030 Definitions. <<, ! 36.70A.035 Public participation—Notice provisions. ~ ' =�'- t ',�l)ia.l: , [Title 36 RCW—page 164] (1998 Ed) - ,; 1 ..,, • } : Growth Management—Planning by Selected Counties and Cities Chapter 36.70A 1 36.70A.040 Who must plan—Summary of requirements—Development 36.70A.480 Shorelines of the state. regulations must implement comprehensive plans. 36.70A.481 Construction—Chapter 347,Laws of 1995. 36.70A.045 Phasing of comprehensive plan submittal.36.70A.050 Guidelines to classify agriculture,forest.and mineral lands fund—Established. and critical areas. 36.70A.500 Growth management planning and environmental review 36.70A.060 Natural resource lands and critical areas—Development fund—Awarding of grants—Procedures. regulations. 36.70A.490 Growth management planning and environmental review 36.70A.510 General aviation airports. 36.70A.070 Comprehensive plans—Mandatory elements. 36.70A.800 Role of growth strategies commission. 1i 36.70A.080 Comprehensive plans—Optional elements. 36.70A.900 Severability-1990 1st ex.s.c 17. i 36.70A.090 Comprehensive plans—Innovative techniques. 36.70A.901 Part,section headings not law—I990 1st ex.s.c 17. 36.70A.100 Comprehensive plans—Must be coordinated. 36.70A.902 Section headings not law-1991 sp.s.c 32. 36.70A.103 State agencies required to comply with comprehensive plans. Building permits—Evidence of adequate water supply required: RCW 36.70A.106 Comprehensive plans—Development regulations— 19.27.097. Transmittal to state. Expediting completion ofindustrial projects ofstate-wide significance- 136.70A.110 Comprehensive plans—Urban growth areas. p g p Planning requirements: RCW 43.157.020. 36.70A.120 Planning activities and capital budget decisions— implementation in conformity with comprehensive plan. Impact fees: RCW 82.02.050 through 82.02.100. ' 36.70A.130 Comprehensive plans—Review—Amendments. Population forecasts: RCW 43.62.035. 36.70A.I31 Mineral resource lands—Review of related designations and Regional transportation planning: Chapter 47.80 RCW. development regulations. 36.70A.140 Comprehensive plans—Ensure public participation. Subdivision and short subdivision requirements: RCW 58.17.060. 36.70A.150 Identification of lands useful for public purposes. 58.17.110. 36.70A.160 identification of open space corridors—Purchase authorized. 36.70A.165 Property designated as greenbelt or open space—Not subject 36.70A.010 Legislative findings. The legislature finds to adverse possession. that uncoordinated and unplanned growth, together with a 36.70A.170 Natural resource lands and critical areas—Designations. 36.70A.172 Critical areas—Designation and protection—Best available lack of common goals expressing the public's interest in the science to be used. conservation and the wise use of our lands, pose a threat to 36.70A.175 Wetlands to be delineated in accordance with manual. the environment, sustainable economic development, and the 36.70A.177 Agricultural lands—innovative zoning techniques. health, safety, and high quality of life enjoyed by residents 36.70A.180 Report on planning progress. 36.70A.190 Technical assistance,procedural criteria,grants,and media- of this state. It is in the public interest that citizens,commu- tion services. nities, local governments, and the private sector cooperate 36.70A.200 Siting of essential public facilities. and coordinate with one another in comprehensive land use 36.70A.210 County-wide planning policies. planning. Further, the legislature finds that it is in the public 36.70A.215 Review and evaluation program.36.70A.250 Growth management hearings boards. interest that economic development programs be shared with 36.70A.260 Growth management hearings boards—Qualifications. communities experiencing insufficient economic growth. 36.70A.270 Growth management hearings boards—Conduct,procedure, [1990 1st ex.s. c 17 § 1.] and compensation. 36.70A.280 Matters subject to board review. 36.70A.290 Petitions to growth management hearings boards—Evidence. 36.70A.020 Planning goals. The following goals are 36.70A.295 Direct judicial review. adopted to guide the development and adoption of compre- 36.70A.300 Final orders. hensive plans and development regulations of those counties 36.70A.302 Determination of invalidity—Vesting of development per- and cities that are required or choose to plan under RCW mits—interim controls.36.70A.305 Expedited review. 36.70A.040. The following goals are not listed in order of 36.70A.310 Limitations on appeal by the state. priority and shall be used exclusively for the purpose of 36.70A.320 Presumption of validity—Burden of proof—Plans and regu- guiding the development of comprehensive plans and lotions. development regulations: 36.70A.32011ntent—Finding-1997 c 429§20(3). (1) Urban growth. Encourage development in urban 36.70A.330 Noncompliance. 36.70A.335 Order of invalidity issued before July 27, 1997. areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or 36.70A.340 Noncompliance and sanctions. can be provided in an efficient manner. 36.70A.345 Sanctions. (2) Reduce sprawl. Reduce the inappropriate conversion • 36.70A.350 New fully contained communities. of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density develop- 36.70A.360 Master planned resorts. 36.70A.362 Master planned resorts—Existing resort may be included. ment. 36.70A.365 Major industrial developments. (3) Transportation. Encourage efficient multimodal 36.70A.367 Major industrial developments—Master planned locations. transportation systems that are based on regional priorities 36.70A.370 Protection of private property. and coordinated with county and city comprehensive plans. 36.70A.380 Extension of designation date.36.70A.385 Environmental planning pilot projects. (4) Housing. Encourage the availability of affordable 36.70A.390 Moratoria,interim zoning controls—Public hearing— housing to all economic segments of the population of this Limitation on length—Exceptions. state, promote a variety of residential densities and housing 36.70A.400 Accessory apartments. types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock. 36.70A.410 Treatment of residential structures occupied by persons with (5) Economic development. Encourage economic handicaps. 36.70A.420 Transportation projects—Findings—Intent. development throughout the state that is consistent with 36.70A.430 Transportation projects—Collaborative review process. adopted comprehensive plans,promote economic opportunity 36.70A.450 Family day-care provider's home facility—City may not for all citizens of this state, especially for unemployed and prohibit in residential or commercial area. for disadvantaged persons, and encourage growth in areas 36.70A.460 Watershed restoration projects—Permit processing—Fish • habitat enhancement project. experiencing insufficient economic growth, all within the 36.70A.470 Project review—Amendment suggestion procedure- - g Definitions. ' , (1998 Ed.) (Title 36 RCW—page 1651 t. ♦.•. Y I ;lti 36.70A.020 Title 36 RCW: Counties r4:''. public services, (6) "Department" means the department of community, - ' '' capacities of the state's natural resources, P • ` and public facilities. trade, and economic development. (6) Property rights. Private property shall not be taken (7) "Development regulations" or "regulation" means thet. r ,;; for public use without just compensation having been made. controls placed on development or land use activities by a The property rights of landowners shall be protected from county or city, including, but not limited to, zoning ordinanc- „., arbitrary and discriminatory actions. es, critical areas ordinances, shoreline master programs, (7) Permits. Applications for both state and local official controls, planned unit development ordinances, ';:: government permits should be processed in a timely and fair subdivision ordinances, and binding site plan ordinances -_:' manner to ensure predictability. together with any amendments thereto. A development (8) Natural resource industries. Maintain and enhance regulation does not include a decision to approve a project :•' natural resource-based industries, including productive permit application, as defined in RCW 36.70B.020, even ;•1 timber, agricultural, and fisheries industries. Encourage the though the decision may be expressed in a resolution or f.,. conservation of productive forest lands and productive ordinance of the legislative body of the county or city. agricultural lands, and discourage incompatible uses. (8) "Forest land" means land primarily devoted to (9)Open space and recreation. Encourage the retention growing trees for long-term commercial timber production of open space and development of recreational opportunities, on land that can be economically and practically managed :,i'': conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to natural for such production, including Christmas trees subject to the .r. resource lands and water, and develop parks. excise tax imposed under RCW 84.33.100 through (10) Environment. Protect the environment and enhance 84.33.140, and that has long-term commercial significance. - ;;. the state's high quality of life, including air and water In determining whether forest land is primarily devoted to quality, and the availability of water. growing trees for long-term commercial timber production (11) Citizen participation and coordination. Encourage on land that can be economically and practically managed F ;;�_ the involvement of citizens in the planning process and for such production, the following factors shall be consid- ,::. ensure coordination between communities and jurisdictions ered: (a)The proximity of the land to urban, suburban,and -4'.`:, to reconcile conflicts. rural settlements; (b) surrounding parcel size and the -; •; (12) Public facilities and services. Ensure that those compatibility and intensity of adjacent and nearby land uses; I.:.',.;.: public facilities and services necessary to support develop- (c)long-term local economic conditions that affect the ability : . .: ment shall be adequate to serve the development at the time to manage for timber production; and (d) the availability of .;. =_.;;' the development is available for occupancy and use without public facilities and services conducive to conversion of '-;} = decreasing current service levels below locally established forest land to other uses. :,.; minimum standards. (9) "Geologically hazardous areas" means areas that = ,, (13) Historic preservation. Identify and encourage the because of their susceptibility to erosion, sliding, earthquake, ; 'y:. preservation of lands,sites, and structures, that have histori- or other geological events, are not suited to the siting of cal or archaeological significance. [1990 1st ex.s. c 17 § 2.] commercial, residential, or industrial development consistent '4, i:A with public health or safety concerns. F''. 36.70A.030 Definitions. Unless the context clearly (10) "Long-term commercial significance" includes the _: •{ ?: requires otherwise, the definitions in this section apply growing capacity, productivity, and soil composition of the *' throughout this chapter. land for long-term commercial production, in consideration /'icy, (1) "Adopt a comprehensive land use plan" means to with the land's proximity to population areas, and the :' .' .,; enact a new comprehensive land use plan or to update an possibility of more intense uses of the land. ' p ., existing comprehensive land use plan. (11) "Minerals" include gravel, sand, and valuable "- :., (2) "Agricultural land" means land primarily devoted to metallic substances. '•d the commercial production of horticultural, viticultural, (12) "Public facilities" include streets, roads,highways,' ' b4" floricultural, dairy, apiary, vegetable, or animal products or sidewalks, street and road lighting systems, traffic signals,' '';zy.: of berries, grain, hay, straw, turf, seed, Christmas trees not domestic water systems, storm and sanitary sewer systems, 3 . subject to the excise tax imposed by RCW 84.33.100 parks and recreational facilities, and schools. .`: 13 "Public services" include fire protection and '.;r through 84.33.140, finfish in upland hatcheries, or livestock, (13) '`•�-F •. and that has long-term commercial significance for agricul- suppression, law enforcement, public health, education,, . tural production. recreation, environmental protection, and other governmental, ;ai. ; (3) "City" means any city or town, including a code services. (14) "Rural character" refers to the patterns of land use;;x4r city' and development established bya countyin the rural elemenCs:�„<,,- (4) 'Comprehensive land use plan," "comprehensive P '� of its comprehensive plan: -;• . *"t _ plan," or "plan" means a generalized coordinated land use P and ' policy statement of the governing body of a county or city (a) In which open space, the natural landscape, .,,,__;P , ,. that is adopted pursuant to this chapter. vegetation predominate over the built environment; "°'? (b) That foster traditional rural lifestyles, rural-ba f� {4 ;'. (5) "Critical areas" include the following areas and , ecosystems: (a) Wetlands; (b) areas with a critical recharg economies, and opportunities to both live and work in f?:i ,t ro.:; ing effect on aquifers used for potable water; (c) fish and areas; •' I.,..`", . wildlife habitat conservation areas; (d) frequently flooded (c)That provide visual landscapes that are tradition?ll.y, . ;;= areas; and (e) geologically hazardous areas. found in rural areas and communities; (d) That are compatible with the use of the land ; ;b � ; wildlife and for fish and wildlife habitat; -., • (0998a:.r • •,N:a�• �' 36.70A.070 Title 36 RCW: Counties t=`. .. ;N..; . . developed by the department of transportation as required by .36.70A.090 Comprehensive plans—Innovative .; =•: ;:, RCW 47.05.030; techniques. A comprehensive plan should provide for • ; (C) If probable funding falls short of meeting identified innovative land use management techniques, including, but �y needs, a discussion of how additional funding will be raised, not limited to,density bonuses, cluster housing, planned unit ,''�"+ : or how land use assumptions will be reassessed to ensure developments, and the transfer of development rights. [1990 that level of service standards will be met; 1st ex.s. c 17 § 9.] -'a (v) Intergovernmental coordination efforts, including an - assessment of the impacts of the transportation plan and land 3. use assumptions on the transportation systems of adjacent 36.70A.100 Comprehensive plans—Must be coordi. r :- jurisdictions; nated. The comprehensive plan of each county or city that ? (vi) Demand-management strategies. is adopted pursuant to RCW 36.70A.040 shall be coordinated - �H • with, and consistent with, the comprehensive plans adopted ;g(,.., Zr. (b) After adoption of the comprehensive plan by pursuant to RCW 36.70A.040 of other counties or cities with jurisdictions required to plan or who choose to plan under which the county or city has, in part, common borders or , RCW 36.70A.040, local jurisdictions must adopt and enforce ordinances which prohibit development approval if the devel- related regional issues. [1990 1st ex.s. c 17 § 10.] ^_' y" opment causes the level of service on a locally owned 36.70A.103 State agencies required to comply with transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted in the transportation element of the comprehensive plan, comprehensive plans. State agencies shall comply with the local comprehensive plans and development regulations and unless transportation improvements or strategies to accom- ' amendments thereto adopted pursuant to this chapter. [1991 'r with the development. These strategies may include in- sps. c 32 § 4.] Y-+" modate the impacts of development are made concurrent a. . . creased public transportation service, ride sharing programs, :: r demand management, and other transportation systems 36.70A.106 Comprehensive plans—Development a management strategies. For the purposes of this subsection regulations—Transmittal to state. (1) Each countyand cityproposing -• -,—' (6) "concurrent with the development" shall mean that P p sing adoption of a comprehensive plan or develop- t; ment regulations under this chapter shall notify the depart- . : ' t improvements or strategies are in place at the time of ment of its intent to adopt such plan or regulations at least '' "'% development, or that a financial commitment is in place to ` complete the improvements or strategies within six years. sixty days prior to final adoption. State agencies including ,~' (c)The transportation element described in this subsec- the department may provide comments to the county or city ''°` tion (6), and the six-year plans required by RCW 35.77.010 on the proposed comprehensive plan, or proposed develop- .`,4 y for cities, RCW 36.81.121 for counties, RCW 35.58.2795 for ment regulations, during the public review process prior to , 1, public transportation systems, and RCW 47.05.030 for the adoption. state, must be consistent. [1998 c 171 § 2; 1997 c 429 § 7; (2) Each county and city planning under this chapter "` u 1996 c 239 § 1. Prior: 1995 c 400 § 3; 1995 c 377 § 1; shall transmit a complete and accurate copy of its compre- °... T-`, 1990 1st ex.s. c 17 § 7.] hensive plan or development regulations to the department " ix Prospective application-1997 c 429§§ 1-21: See note following within ten days after final adoption. il RCW 36.70A.3201. ''` (3) Any amendments for permanent changes to a ao"' Severability-1997 c 429: See note following RCW 36.70A.3201. comprehensive plan or development regulation that are "ra ; Construction—Application-1995 c 400: "A comprehensive plan proposed by a county or city to its adopted plan or regula Y'. adopted or amended before May 16, 1995,shall be considered to be in tions shall be submitted to the department in the same '' compliance with RCW 36.70A.070 or 36.70A.1 l0,as in effect before their manner as initial plans and development regulations under ' 13 amendment by this act, if the comprehensive plan is in compliance with this section. Any amendments to '=¢`'• •r a comprehensive plan or RCW 36.70A.070 and 36.70A.I 10 as amended by this act. This section ;;N� ' shall not be construed to alter the relationship between a county-wide development regulations that are adopted by a county or city >;: .; planning policy and comprehensive plans as specified under RCW shall be transmitted to the department in the same manner as -K 36.70A.210. the initial plans and regulations under this section. [1991 ''� : '.As to any appeal relating to compliance with RCW 36.70A.070 or sp.s. § 8.] =2; i,. 36.70A.I 10 pending before a growth management hearings board on May c 32 _ f., • 16, 1995,the board may take up to an additional ninety days to resolve such %"'r' , appeal. By mutual agreement of all parties to the appeal,this additional 36.70A.110 Comprehensiveplans—Urban growth , .' a ' ninety-day period may be extended." [1995 c 400§4.] _:: ' .'. areas. (1) Each county that is required or chooses to plan ;4.4 ., - Effective date-1995 c 400: See note following RCW 36.70A.040. under RCW 36.70A.040 shall designate an urban growth area or areas within which urban growth shall be encouraged ; ' t "t; 36.70A.080 Comprehensive plans—Optional and outside of which growth can occur only if it is not urban. { ;0,,P•? elements. (I) A comprehensive plan may include additional in nature. Each city that is located in such a county shall be :— r=` , elements, items, or studies dealing with other subjects included within an urban growth area. An urban growth area -,••;. ..., relating to the physical development within its jurisdiction, may include more than a single city. An urban growth area .,` including, but not limited to: may include territory that is located outside of a city only if :' : ` `. (a) Conservation; such territory already is characterized by urban growth .- ,` s.s , (b) Solar energy; and i 1, whether or not the urban growth area includes a city, or is ;'r��`,,•, ,�,: t; (c) Recreation. K adjacent to territory already characterized by urban growth;" •=-�����.s+.,r<::. #" (2) A comprehensive plan may include, where appropri- or is a designated new fully contained community as defined ,' ' B.,gt; 1., ate, subarea plans, each of which is consistent with the by RCW 36.70A.350. ?' t , comprehensive plan. [1990 1st ex.s. c 17 § 8.] '.' �r8e..I; • �_.fli 36.70A.190 Title 36 RCW: Counties ' chapter. The department may establish provisions for county city and county comprehensive plans are consistent as and city matching funds to conduct activities under this required in RCW 36.70A.100. Nothing in this section shall subsection. Grants may be expended for any purpose be construed to alter the land-use powers of cities. directly related to the preparation of a county or city (2)The legislative authority of a county that plans under ' comprehensive plan as the county or city and the department RCW 36.70A.040 shall adopt a county-wide planning policy may agree, including, without limitation, the conducting of in cooperation with the cities located in whole or in part surveys, inventories and other data gathering and man- within the county as follows: agement activities, the retention of planning consultants, (a) No later than sixty calendar days from July 16, ;" contracts with regional councils for planning and related 1991, the legislative authority of each county that as of June i services, and other related purposes. 1, 1991, was required or chose to plan under RCW x (4)The department shall establish a program of techni- 36.70A.040 shall convene a meeting with representatives of :1 cal assistance: each city located within the county for the purpose of (a) Utilizing department staff, the staff of other state establishing a collaborative process that will provide a agencies, and the technical resources of counties and cities framework for the adoption of a county-wide planningt. to help in the development of comprehensive plans required policy. In other counties that are required or choose to plan L- under this chapter. The technical assistance may include, but under RCW 36.70A.040, this meeting shall be convened no 44. not be limited to, model land use ordinances, regional later than sixty days after the date the county adopts its education and training programs, and information for local resolution of intention or was certified by the office of finan- and regional inventories; and cial management. _Y. (b) Adopting by rule procedural criteria to assist (b) The process and framework for adoption of a counties and cities in adopting comprehensive plans and county-wide planning policy specified in (a) of this subsec- development regulations that meet the goals and require- tion shall determine the manner in which the county and the ,5. ments of this chapter. These criteria shall reflect regional cities agree to all procedures and provisions including but and local variations and the diversity that exists among not limited to desired planning policies, deadlines, ratifica- different counties and cities that plan under this chapter. tion of final agreements and demonstration thereof, and (5)The department shall provide mediation services to financing, if any, of all activities associated therewith. . resolve disputes between counties and cities regarding, (c) If a county fails for any reason to convene a meeting among other things, coordination of regional issues and with representatives of cities as required in (a) of this designation of urban growth areas. subsection, the governor may immediately impose any (6) The department shall provide planning grants to appropriate sanction or sanctions on the county from those enhance citizen participation under RCW 36.70A.140. [1991 specified under RCW 36.70A.340. e. sp.s. c 32 § 3; 1990 1st ex.s. c 17 § 20.] (d) If there is no agreement by October 1, 1991, in a county that was required or chose to plan under RCW - . 36.70A.200 Siting of'essential public facilities. (1) 36.70A.040 as of June 1, 1991, or if there is no agreement :• ' The comprehensive plan of each county and city that is within one hundred twenty days of the date the county planning under this chapter shall include a process for adopted its resolution of intention or was certified by the '-y identifying and siting essential public facilities. Essential office of financial management in any other county that is =.. public facilities include those facilities that are typically required or chooses to plan under RCW 36.70A.040, the , difficult to site, such as airports, state education facilities and governor shall first inquire of the jurisdictions as to the M state or regional transportation facilities as defined in RCW reason or reasons for failure to reach an agreement. If the 47.06.140, state and local correctional facilities, solid waste governor deems it appropriate, the governor may imme- handling facilities, and in-patient facilities including sub- diately request the assistance of the department of communi- stance abuse facilities, mental health facilities, and group ty, trade, and economic development to mediate any disputes .}. homes. that preclude agreement. If mediation is unsuccessful in t. (2) The office of financial management shall maintain resolving all disputes that will lead to agreement, the r imposeappropriate sanctions from those i' a list of those essential state public facilities that are required governor mayI or likely to be built within the next six years. The office of specified under RCW 36.70A.340 on the county, city, or 1 financial management may at any time add facilities to the cities for failure to reach an agreement as provided in this list. No local comprehensive plan or development regulation section. The governor shall specify the reason or reasons for :i maypreclude the siting of essential public facilities. [1998 the imposition of any sanction. :_ (e) No later than July 1, 1992, the legislative authority c 171 § 3; 1991 sp.s. c 32 § 1.] ` of each county that was required or chose to plan under 36.70A.210 County-wide planning policies. (1)The RCW 36.70A.040 as of June 1, 1991, or no later than fourteen months after the date the county adopted its legislature recognizes that counties are regional governments resolution of intention or Was certified by the office of within their boundaries, and cities are primary providers of financial management the county legislative authority of any urban governmental services within urban growth areas. For other county that is required or chooses to plan under RCW the purposes of this section, a "county-wide planning policy" 36.70A.040, shall adopt a county-wide planning policy is a written policy statement or statements used solely for according to the process provided under this section and that establishing a county-wide framework from which county is consistent with the agreement pursuant to (b) of this and city comprehensive plans are developed and adopted subsection, and after holding a public hearing or hearings on pursuant to this chapter. This framework shall ensure that the proposed county-wide planning policy. [Title 36 RCW—page 176] 0998 Ed.) ., Growth Management—Planning by Selected Counties and Cities 36.70A.210 (3) A county-wide planning policy shall at a minimum, (a) Determine whether a county and its cities are address the following: achieving urban densities within urban growth areas by (a) Policies to implement RCW 36.70A.110; comparing growth and development assumptions, targets, and (b) Policies for promotion of contiguous and orderly objectives contained in the county-wide planning policies and development and provision of urban services to such the county and city comprehensive plans with actual growth development; and development that has occurred in the county and its (c) Policies for siting public capital facilities of a cities; and county-wide or state-wide nature, including transportation (b) Identify reasonable measures, other than adjusting facilities of state-wide significance as defined in RCW urban growth areas, that will be taken to comply with the 47.06.140; requirements of this chapter. (d) Policies for county-wide transportation facilities and (2) The review and evaluation program shall: strategies; (a) Encompass land uses and activities both within and (e) Policies that consider the need for affordable outside of urban growth areas and provide for annual housing, such as housing for all economic segments of the 'collection of data on urban and rural land uses, development, population and parameters for its distribution; critical areas, and capital facilities to the extent necessary to (f) Policies for joint county and city planning within determine the quantity and type of land suitable for develop- urban growth areas; ment, both for residential and employment-based activities; (g) Policies for county-wide economic development and (b)Provide for evaluation of the data collected under (a) employment; and of this subsection every five years as provided in subsection (h) An analysis of the fiscal impact. (3) of this section. The first evaluation shall be completed (4) Federal agencies and Indian tribes may participate in not later than September 1,.2002. The county and its cities and cooperate with the county-wide planning policy adoption may establish in the county-wide planning policies indi- process. Adopted county-wide planning policies shall be cators, benchmarks, and other similar criteria to use in adhered to by state agencies. conducting the evaluation; (5) Failure to adopt a county-wide planning policy that (c) Provide for methods to resolve disputes among meets the requirements of this section may result in the jurisdictions relating to the county-wide planning policies imposition of a sanction or sanctions on a county or city required by this section and procedures to resolve inconsis- within the county, as specified in RCW 36.70A.340. In tencies in collection and analysis of data; and imposing a sanction or sanctions, the governor shall specify (d) Provide for the amendment of the county-wide the reasons for failure to adopt a county-wide planning policies and county and city comprehensive plans as needed policy in order that any imposed sanction or sanctions are to remedy an inconsistency identified through the evaluation fairly and equitably related to the failure to adopt a county- required by this section, or to bring these policies into corn- wide planning policy. pliance with the requirements of this chapter. (6) Cities and the governor may appeal an adopted (3) At a minimum, the evaluation component of the county-wide planning policy to the growth management program required by subsection (1) of this section shall: hearings board within sixty days of the adoption of the (a) Determine whether there is sufficient suitable land county-wide planning policy. to accommodate the county-wide population projection (7) Multicounty planning policies shall be adopted by established for the county pursuant to RCW 43.62.035 and two or more counties, each with a population of four the subsequent population allocations within the county and hundred fifty thousand or more, with contiguous urban areas between the county and its cities and the requirements of and may be adopted by other counties, according to the RCW 36.70A.110; process established under this section or other processes (b) Determine the actual density of housing that has agreed to among the counties and cities within the affected been constructed and the actual amount of land developed counties throughout the multicounty region. [1998 c 171 § for commercial and industrial uses within the urban growth 4; 1994 c 249 § 28; 1993 sp.s. c 6 § 4; 1991 sp.s. c 32 § 2.] area since the adoption of a comprehensive plan under this Severability—Application-1994 c 249: See notes following RCW chapter or since the last periodic evaluation as required by r 34.05.310. subsection (1) of this section; and s Effective date-1993 sp.s. c 6: See note following RCW (c) Based on the actual density of development as 36.70A.040. determined under (b) of this subsection, review commercial, ,r industrial, and housing needs by type and density range to `, 36.70A.215 Review and evaluation program. (1) determine the amount of land needed for commercial, indus- ;r Subject to the limitations in subsection (7) of this section, a trial, and housing for the remaining portion of the twenty- n county shall adopt, in consultation with its cities, county- year planning period used in the most recently adopted wide planning policies to establish a review and evaluation comprehensive plan. s If program. This program shall be in addition to the require- (4) If the evaluation required by subsection (3) of this y ments of RCW 36.70A.110, 36.70A.130, and 36.70A.210. section demonstrates an inconsistency between what has In developing and implementing the review and evaluation occurred since the adoption of the county-wide planning :y program required by this section, the county and its cities policies and the county and city comprehensive plans and at shall consider information from other appropriate jurisdic- development regulations and what was envisioned in those is tions and sources. The purpose of the review and evaluation policies and plans and the planning goals and the require- )n program shall be to: ments of this chapter, as the inconsistency relates to the evaluation factors specified in subsection (3)of this section, `;;` (1998 Ed.) [Title 36 RCW—page 177] d.) :^ NI July 1, 92 Int. iced by: Sullivan/Laing ' 92-439s8..1M'cF/JC:hdm Gruger/Phillips Derdowski Proposed No. : 92-439 1 • O45 0 2 ORDINANCE NO. - -1- AN ORDINANCE adopting the Countywide 4 Planning Policies pursuant to RCW 5 36.70A. 210 and ratifying the Countywide 6 Planning Policies for unincorporated King 7 County. • 8 PREAMBLE: . 9 For the purpose of meeting the requirements of the State 10 of Washington Growth Management Act to establish a countywide 11 framework from which comprehensive plans are to be developed as 12 specified. in RCW 36.70A.210, the King County Council makes the 13 following findings: 14 1. The Countywide Planning Policies describe the vision 15 for King County and provide the initial strategies to be used 16 by local jurisdictions, acting individually and cooperatively, 17 to achieve that vision. ,18 2. RCW 36.70A. 210 requires that, through a process agreed 19 to by King County (county) , the City of Seattle (Seattle) , and 20 incorporated suburban cities and towns (suburban cities) , the i 21 county, as the legislative authority, adopt Countywide Planning 22 Policies no later than .July 1, 1992. •23 established 3 . The county, Seattle, and suburban cities , 24 that process through an interlocal agreement creating the 25 Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) . The GMPC is 26 comprised of the King County Executive, five members of the 27 King County Council, three representatives of Seattle, and six 28 representatives of the suburban cities with three votes, and 29 one ex-officio member representing the Port of Seattle. • 30 4., After six months of deliberation which included public 31 workshops and hearings, the GMPC. adopted and recommended the 32 Countywide Planning Policies to the King County Council. 33 5. The council finds that the existing environmental 34 documents adopted by King County on May 5, 1992 and the 35 supporting addendum issued on June 18 , 1992 are adequate under 36 SEPA "for the purposes of the county's adoption of the 37 Countywide Planning Policies. 38 6. The county recognizes that additional work is planned 39 to further refine the Countywide Planning Policies with regard 40 to numerous issues , including but not limited to urban centers, 41 manufacturing and . industrial areas and centers , affordable 42 housing, nobility , transportation, economic development, rural 43 character, provision of urban -services, including services in 44 potential annexation areas, and adjustments to the Urban Growth 45 Area. Based on this work, the GMPC will recommend to the 46 county amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies. These 47 amendments would be subject to further environmental review, 43 and adoption by the county and ratification by the- cities. The 49 results of this work would be a refined set of countywide 50 Planning Policies . A Supplemental Environmental Impact set 51 Statement (SEIS) will analyze the impacts of the proposed 52 of reined policies and will consider --reasonable alternatives . 92-439se:wicf:h6n - July 6, 19i2 10:02am. _ _ i provide olicy frameworx :cr ...te=-. i I 2 I the polic_:s expressly require them; an :o establish a program 3 for the additional work necessary to refine, amend and 4 implement the Countywide Planning Policies, including SETS 5 review and fiscal analysis. 6 SECTION 3 . In Phase II the county will reconvene the 7 GMPC no later than December 1992 to evaluate the following 8 information and recommendations: nominations of urban and 9 manufacturing/industrial centers by affected jurisdictions; the 10 target numbers for population and employment by jurisdiction; 11 recommendations from the Rural Character, Affordable Housinc 12 and Economic Development Task Forces; further fiscal analysis; 13 analysis of mobility and transportation; other relevant 14 information and public comment, in preparing amendments. GMPC 15 will consider the results of the additional work and may 16 recommend amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies to the 17 county. • Any such recommended amendments shall be subject to 18 adoption by the county and ratification by the cities according 19 to the formula in the interlocal agreement creating the GMPC. 20 Further fiscal analysis of the Countywide Planning Policies , 21 any proposed amendments and alternatives will be prepared and 22 circulated for public comment. The objectives of the fiscal • 23 analysis are to a) provide information on the anticipated 24 financial and economic impacts on the individual, and on the 25 private and public sectors , and b) determine how these impacts 26 affect the fiscal viability of the individual and of the 27 private and public sectors. A SEIS will be prepared for the 28 proposed refined set of Countywide Planning Policies resulting 29 from the work described in this Section. The SETS will analyze 30 the probable significant environmental impacts , including 31 countywide impacts, of the proposed refined set of policies and 32 reasonable alternatives to those policies. The scope of the 33 environmental impact statement will be based on a public 34 scoping process pursuant to WAC 197-11-408 . 92•439sa:nticf:hcm -- - July 6, 1992 10:02am - - 3 - 1 0`: E . Should any section, ',section, paragraph, 2 sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or its application 3 to any person or circumstance be declared unconstitutional or . 4 invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the 5 validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance or it 6 application to other persons or circumstances. . 7 INTRODUCED AND READ for the first time this • �' day 8 of r--' � , 19 9 r ,5G � 9 PASSED this G day of 10 • KING COUNTY COUNCIL 11 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON • 12 oax7 ,0:,r,44, 13 Chair 14 ATTEST: is � 16 Clerk of the Council 4-1 17 APPROVED this C day of �"' / , 19 . C r 18 19 King County Executive 20 • • 92. 39sE:HM:F:hm July•6, 1992 10:02em - — r • Table of Contents King County Growth Management Act Countywide Policies Pace King County 2012 A. The Problem 4 B. The Process 4 C. The Growth Management Act 5 D. Vision for King County 2012 5 E. The Framework Policies 7 I. Critical Areas 9 II. Land Use Pattern 13 A. Resource Lands: Agricultural, Forestry and Mineral 13 B. Rural Areas 14 C. Urban Areas• • 15 Urban Growth Area Map D. Urban and Manufacturing/Industrial Centers 19 E. Urban Growth Outside of Centers 25 III. Transportation• 29 IV. Community Character and Open Space 35 V. Affordable Housing` 38 VI. Contiguous and Orderly Development' 40 VII. Siting Public Capital Facilities of a Countywide or 44 Statewide Nature• VIII. Economic Development and Fiscal Impact' 45 Appendix I Transportation: Requirements of the Growth Management Act 47 'These elements are required by RCW 36.70A.210. King County 2012 A. The Problem King County has long been known for unsurpassed natural beauty and a dynamic human environment. It has thriving cities and suburbs and healthy rural communities. The county's attractive lifestyle and economy continue to draw people into our region. But unmanaged growth and development endanger some of those very qualities. An additional 325,000 people will live here by the year 2010 (State of Washington Office of Financial Management), bringing the total population to 1.8 million. that growth threatensfthes th featuresathat areg economy, the absence of effective management of • essential to a rich quality of life. The effects of uncoordinated and unplanned growth are obvious. King County has the fifth worst • traffic mess in the nation, declining air and water quality, flooding aggravated by development, and escalating housing costs. Many of the schools are overcrowded and local governments are struggling to pay for increased demands for services to control crime and to provide critical human resources. The need facing the County and State is to provide the incentives necessary to promote a vigorous, sound, and diversified economy, while reducing, controlling and managing the potential adverse effects of uncoordinated and unplanned growth. The Washington State Legislature passed the Growth Management Act (GMA) in 1990 and strengthened it in 1991 to address these problems. B. The Process Growth management involves planning for economic and population growth, determining where new jobs and housing should go and then locating and phasing population growth in accordance with the ability to provide infrastructure and services. This should include economic development, a workable transportation system, quality drinking water, affordable housing, good schools, open . space and parks and, at the same time, protection of our natural environment. King County and the 31 cities within it are addressing growth management problems together and in their local jurisdictions. Planning at both levels is called for by the Growth Management Act. All jurisdictions are working together to develop a vision for the future. This vision is embodied in this series of policies called Countywide Planning Policies. Realization of this vision involves trade-offs and difficult choices about the appropriate level of growth, its location, the type of growth to be encouraged, public spending, governance decisions, environmental protection, and the quality of life in King County. A formal body, the Growth Management Planning Council, with elected officials from Seattle, the • suburban cities, and King County, has considered these draft policies, and based on public input, will make a recommendation to the King County Council for adoption. Adoption must take place by July 1, 1992. King County will then submit the adopted policies to the cities for ratification. GMA:pol Page 4 06/10/1992 The Countywide Planning Policies will serve as the framework for each jurisdiction's own comprehensive plan, which must be in place by July 1, 1993. These individual comprehensive plans throughout the county, then, will be consistent with the overall vision for the future of King County. C. The Growth Management Act The GMA fundamentally changes the way that comprehensive planning is to be done and land use decisions are to be made in Washington State. The challenge of GMA is to establish a countywide vision and devise a strategy to achieve it. This includes balancing growth, economics, land use, infrastructure, and finance. If resources are inadequate to realize the vision, then the strategies and land use must be revised. The GMA requires Countywide Planning Policies be adopted by July 1, 1992. At a minimum, the policies must address: • a. Implementation of RCW 36.70A.110 (Urban Growth Areas); b. Promotion of contiguous and orderly development and provision of urban services; c. Siting of public capital facilities; d. Transportation facilities and strategies; e. Affordable housing; f. Joint county and city planning within Urban Growth Areas; g. countywide economic development and employment; and h. Analysis of fiscal impact. Special emphasis is placed on transportation. Future development activity will be constrained by a jurisdiction's ability to provide and finance transportation improvements or strategies. This fact has implications for all jurisdictions who can no longer finance and build the facilities necessary to retain current service levels. D. Vision for King County 2012 Our county has significantly changed in the 20 years that have elapsed from 1992 to today. The paramount cause for this change has been the successful public/private partnership which has: supported a diversified, sound regional economy; managed and accommodated growth; and maintained the county's quality of life. An effective stewardship of the environment has preserved and protected the critical areas in the county. This stewardship has extended to the conservation of our land, air, water and energy resources for future generations. The rural areas first formally identified in 1985 and expanded in 1992 remain permanently preserved with a clear boundary between rural and urban areas. Development has emphasized the use and reuse of the existing urbanized areas. Much of the new growth after 1992 first occurred in the areas where there was existing capacity. Growth then occurred where existing infrastructure could be easily extended or enhanced. Lastly, areas which required significant new investment in infrastructure accommodated growth. Today, there still is ample room for new development within the urban area. • Much of the growth in employment, and a significant share of new housing, has occurred in Urban Centers. These Centers now provide a mixture of employment, residential, commercial, cultural and recreational opportunities. The centers are linked by the high-capacity transit system, and transit stations within the centers are located within walking distance to all parts of the center. -M' " GMA:pol Page 5 06/10/1992 • INCORPORATES AM NTS ADOPTED 8/15/94 BY MKCC • • 1 Recommended Amendments to King County 2012 2 Countywide Planning Policies • 3 Adopted by the King County Growth Management Planning Council • 4 • May 25, 1994 . 5 Revisions.by'MKCC°staff 719.94 6 7 A. The Problem 8 King County has long been known for unsurpassed natural beauty and a dynamic 9 human environment. It has thriving cities and suburbs and healthy rural communities. 1 o The county's attractive lifestyle and economy continue to draw people into our region. 11 But unmanaged growth and development endanger some of those very qualities. 12 An additional 325,000 people will live here by the.year 2010 (State of Washington Offic 13 of Financial Management), bringing the total population to 1.8 million. While growth 14 fuels the area's strong economy, the absence of effective management of that growth 15 , threatens the features that are essential to a rich quality of life. 16 The effects of uncoordinated and unplanned growth are obvious. King County ha ' 1' the fifth worst traffic mess in the nation, declining air and water quality, flooding 18 aggravated by development. and escalating housing costs. Many of the schools are over- • 19 crowded and local governments are struggling to pay for increased demands for services 20 to control crime and to provide critical human resources. 21 The need facing the County and State is to provide-the incentives necessary to 22 promote a vigorous. sound, and diversified economy, while reducing, controlling and 23 managing the potential adverse effects of uncoordinated and unplanned growth. 24 The Washington State Legislature passed the Growth Management Act (GMA) in 25 1990 and strengthened it to 1991.to address these problems. 26 B. The Process 27 Growth management involves planning for economic and population growth, 28 determining where new jobs and housing should go and then locating and phasing 29 population growth in accordance with the ability to provide infrastructure and services. 30 This should include economic development, a workable transportation system, quality • 31 drinking water, affordable housing,good schools, open space and parks and, at the same 32 ,time, protection of our natural environment. 33 King County and the 34 cities within it are addressing growth management 34 problems together and in their local jurisdictions. Planning at both levels is called for b) 1 • 11446 • 1 the Growth Management Act. • 2 All jurisdictions are working together to develop a vision for the future. This 3 vision is embodied in this series of policies called Countywide Planning Policies. 4 • Realization of this.vision involves trade-offs and difficult choices.about the appropriate 5 level of growth, its location, the type of growth to be encouraged, public spending, 6 governance decisions, environmental protection, and the quality of life in King County. 7 A formal body, the Growth Management Planning Council, with elected officials a from Seattle, the suburban cities, and King County, (( )) considered ((These)) draft 9 policies in May 1992, and based on public input, ((will mnke)) made a recommendation 10 the King County Council for adoption. King Cpunty Council adopted the initial 11 Countywide Planning Policies in July 1992 by Ordinance #14450, The Ordinance adopt( 12 the Phase i Policies and initiated a Phase IT work program which called for environment 13 and fiscal analysis and additional work on economic development, rural character, 14 transportation and affordable housing. The Phase i Countywide Planning Policies were . ratified by Seattle and the suburban cities in October 1992. (( 16 _. 17 I tion.)1 1 a The Growth Management Planning Council initiated the Phase IT Work Program • 19 I October 1092 and formed three Task Forces comprised of elected officials and citizens t' 20 I develop policy recommendations and a Transportation Caucus to develop transportation 21 strateeles. These included the Affordable Housing Task Force, Rural Character Task 22 Force and FistEd (Fiscal impact Analysis and Economic DevelQpment) Task Force, The 23 Fis/Ed Task Force was responsible for conducting the fiscal analysis required for the 24 Countywide Planning Policies as well as developing policy recommendations on econom 25 development. Al the completion of the Phase I1 work, on May 25. (( ))1994 the GMP( 26 made polfc\ recommendations to the Metropolitan King County Council, King County 27 will adopt ((the)) policies and then submit them for ratification to the cities, 28 The Countywide Planning Policies, as amended through the Phase ii work. ((wiil 29 serve as the framework for each jurisdiction's own comprehensive plan, which must be 30 consistent with Countywide Planning Poiicie (Cr1 place)) by Decenibcr311 1995 ((461.5 31 l99((3))S)))). These individual comprehensive plans throughout the county, then, will b 32 •consistent with the overall vision for the future of King County. 3 3 C. The Growth Management Act cppph.2. 07/19/94 2 • • 1 The GMA fundamentally changes the way that comprehensive planning is to be 2 done and land use decisions are to be made in Washington State. The challenge of GMA 3 is to establish a countywide vision and devise a strategy to achieve it. This includes •4 . ' balancing growth, economics, land use,infrastructure, and finance. If resources are. 5 inadequate to realize the vision, then the strategies and land use must be revised. The 6 GMA require((s))d Countywide Planning Policies to be adopted by July 1, 1992. At a 7 • minimum, the policies ((ii t M)) were to address: 8 • a. Implementation of RCW 36.70A.110 (Urban Growth Areas); 9 b. Promotion of contiguous and orderly development and provision of urban 10 services; 11 c. Siting of public capital facilities; 12 d. Transportation facilities and strategies; 13 e: Affordable housing; 14 f. Joint county and city planning within Urban Growth Areas; 15 g. Countywide economic development and employment: and 16 h. Analysis of fiscal impact. 1 Special emphasis is placed on transportation. Future development activity will be 18 constrained by a jurisdiction's ability to provide and finance transportation improvements • 19 or strategies. This fact has implications for all jurisdictions who can no longer finance 20 and build the facilities necessary to retain current service levels. 21 D. Vision for King County 2012 22 Our county has significantly changed in the 20 years that have elapsed from 1992 23 to today. The paramount cause for this change has been the successful public/private 24 partnership which has: supported a diversified, sound regional economy; managed and 25 accommodated growth: and maintained the county's quality of life. 26 An effective stewardship of the environment has preserved and protected the 27 critical areas in the county. This stewardship has extended to the conservation of our 28 land, air, water and energy resources for future generations. 29 The rural areas first formally identified in 1985 and expanded in 1992 remain 30 permanently preserved with a clear boundary between rural and urban areas. 31 Development has emphasized the use and reuse of the existing urbanized areas. 32 .Much of the new growth after 1992 first occurred in the areas where there was existing 33 capacity. Growth then occurred where existing infrastructure could be easily extended or cppph2. 07/19/94 3 • 1 enhanced. Lastly, areas which required significant new investment in infrastructure 2 accommodated growth. Today, there still is ample room for new development within the 3 •urban area. • 4 • ' Much of the growth in employment,.and a significant share of new housing, has • 5 occurred in Urban Centers. These Centers now provide a mixture of employment, 6 residential, commercial, cultural and recreational opportunities. The centers are linked 7 by the high-capacity transit system, and transit stations within the centers are located 8 within walking distance to all parts of the center. Each center has its own unique 9 character, and they are all noted for their livability, pedestrian orientation and superior 3.0 design. 11 Smaller concentrations of businesses are distributed throughout the urban area, and 12 focus on providing goods and services to surrounding residential areas. They are linked 13 to Urban Centers by an effective local transit system. 14 Manufacturing/industrial areas continue to thrive and be key components in the 15 urban area. They are served by a transportation system which emphasizes the movement 16 of people and goods to and within these areas. 17 Rural cities provide unique environments within the rural area and provide 18 commercial and employment opportunities for their residents. This includes retail, 19 educational and social services for city residents and surrounding rural areas. Businesses 20 in rural cities provide employment opportunities for local residents. 21 The entire urban area is increasingly characterized by superior urban design and ar 22 open space network which defines and separates, yet links the various urban areas and 23 jurisdictions. Countywide and regional facilities have been located where needed, sited 24 unobtrusively and with appropriate incentives and proper impact mitigation. 25 Attractive and workable alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle have been built 26 and strategies adopted which assure the mobility of people, goods and information 27 throughout the county and beyond. 28 Regional funds have been used to further the regional land use plan and fund 29 needed regional facilities. Local resources have been focused on local facilities. The 30 sharing of resources to accomplish common goals is done so that the regional plan can 31 succeed and so that all can benefit. 32 The economy is vibrant and sustainable, and emphasizes diversity in the range of 33 goods produced and services provided. Businesses continue to locate in our county cppph.2. 07/19/94 4 • 1 because of the high quality of life, the emphasis on providing a superior education, and 2 the predictability brought about by the management of growth and the effectiveness of the 3 public/private partnership in these areas as well as the mutually beneficial partnership in . • 4 economic development: . • • 5 Housing opportunities for all incomes and.lifestyles exist throughout the county, 6 and with the balanced transportation system, arcs to employment is assured. 7 The needs of residents are attended to by a social service system that emphasizes 8 • prevention, but which stands ready to respond to direct needs as well. 9 The urban area is located within the incorporated cities, which are the primary 10 urban service providers. Where appropriate, sub-regional consortiums have been created 11 for certain services, and the county government is recognized as a regional service 12 provider. • 13 Through a clear understanding of growth management, residents and businesses 14 have recognized that all problems will not be cured quickly, but clear and reasonable 15 timelines and financing commitments demonstrate to them that problems will be solved. 16 Residents and businesses trust in their local governments because the plans and promises 17 .made to manage growth in 1992 have been followed. Change is accepted and proceeds in • 18 an orderly fashion based on the growth management plan. 19 20 E. The Framework Policies 21 The GMA gives local officials new tools for planning and, for the first time, 22 mandates that the county and cities work together to establish an overall vision. Through 23 a collaborative process. the local jurisdictions of King County have prepared the following 24 ((draft)) Countywide Planning Policies. (( sews-relies)) These policies rely on local 25 choice to determine the density/intensity and character of each area. All jurisdictions. 26 must recognize that the smart, long term choices for the region will require compromises 27 in local self-determination. 28 These policies represent a cohesive set and are not individual, stand-alone 29 concepts. The ideas represented here balance each other to establish a vision for the 30 county which builds on existing land use patterns. The policies are organized by topics in 31 separate chapters. At the beginning of each chapter is a framework policy which 32 establishes the overall direction for the following policies. The Countywide Planning 33 Policies can only be realized through local plans and regulations. A decision made locally cppph2.07/19/94 5 11446 • 1 must become a commitment that the region can rely upon. The following framework 2 policies outline the countywide planning process. 3 Whenm mtmtvwtoe i~v tz~s aL n..dtrtiOie shall or WA'll d9 metfitnF 4 such a policy QI�iret the'iurisdichon{ cornnr�}ienm nlan_to contain a policy c�±at is 5 written'to aacoMplishrihepuroOie f'itte t i Siiiide•polit hsm.'a's lmtn det.olicy 6 Eates''thati'a itirisdiction>"shott'd"<tlo som thing'stieh a pohc rc utres'tltcltrnsdtction 7 �mnrchen�tve plan to contain a tl as is, ritfietr to accomoltsh the os�of e 8 countywide policy trtiless'thejurisdiction It?cnttfies ri asons wtiy it has iot'dQtie o. lliei 9 g countywide nolicy'states'thara Jttnsclictrion "mar• do mettling�siich•a poTtiFy stir 10 the jurisslicitOn comyretts ve lanYs�tttarn p41t wrtttui to omvUsh thcputpo:,e c 11 She countywide-nolicyif it is in'theirinterest; 12 FW-1. Countywide growth management is a multi ((five))-step process: 13 STEP 1: The Countywide Planning Policies became ((3hh(4f-beeefne)) effective 14 October 1992, upon adoption by the King County Council and ratification by at least 15 thirty percent of the city and county governments representing seventy percent of the 16 population in King County. (( _ )) 17 STEP 2: The•Growth Management Planning Council (GMPCl reconvened to 18 conduct environmental and fiscal impact analysis of the Countywide Planning Policies ant 19 to consider polio amendments developed through implementation of tasks specified in tht 20 Countywide Planning Polices. When adopted by the Metropolitan King County"Cori iii 21 and ratified ((T11. these actions are considered the Phase 11 policy amendments and 22 include: 23 a Confirmation of Urban Centers according to the procedures and criteria 24 established in policies L1.1-39 and LU-40: 25 h. Confirmation of Manufacturing/industrial Centers based on the procedure • 26 and criteria established policies in LU-5I and LU-52: 27 c Adoption of 20 year targets of projected household and employment . 28 growth countywide and target ranges for each jurisdiction according to the procedures anc 29 criteria in policy LU-67 and LU-68; 30 d. Confirmation of the Urban Growth Area based on criteria established in 31 policy LU-26.(())TheUrban Growth Area in'theCountywidePlanning"Police."is.a 32 plannir.gpolicy framework to be used'by'the'Metropolitan°K1ng Coltnty•Council 'when it 33 gdoots the final Urban Growth:Area in its 199d""Conn sivePlan, and cppph2. 07/19/94 • 6 NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING RENTON HEARING EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON An Appeal Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall, Renton, Washington, on November 2, 1999 at 9:00 AM to consider the following petitions: HENRY FORD SCHOOL AAD99-135 The appellant appeals the SEPA determination of nonsignificance issued by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee for the Henry Ford School demolition project (File LUA-99-116,ECF). Service Linen Supply proposes demolition of the existing school building to prepare the site for future development. Location: 420 Wells Ave. So. Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the Development Services Division, Sixth Floor, Renton City Hall. All interested persons are invited to be present at the Public Hearing. Publication Date: October 22, 1999 Account No. 51067 NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER DEVELOPMENT puutiNci CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM OCT 1999 RECEIVED Date: October 11, 1999 To: Mayor Tanner Jay Covington Larry Warren Leslie Nishihira Applicant From: Fred Kaufman Re: Appeal of SEPA Decision on Demolition of Henry Ford School Appeal File No. LUA99-135,AAD The attached letter is a clarification from the appellant in the above-referenced matter, and is in response to my letter dated September 28. /gyp/ �. 0 72..D D/ u-. / / r-„gad Li/ Uay//) Z/d u,C) , Y>l-/ //-a/4--t:7d,� J/.'� � J 1 y ) cpe7 )o •-) 9) of 9b (1-) (9 — G/ O ' 6 �- � -' b / c, (% '-/ Mp c9c/ s- / •/ P l T „) L// Gi b /1�lti� a - l!/P .0 5:// b car � S/S v a J c��`-- �o v ee . �� '9 ��. � c::,?y74 74,-10 y.C� L/Q �.=, .ruD /S'f�a� C==?S-d� �� .7-1==.4:9 / ,/, - 1 © y — LG/a l �o © dp vb ns s ( y y c 0/0. Q S7C) era �v /y0/V _ '/- '/ � ,,..7Z aC S-3 c),/ oAe..-a a/ / O ?pp° cvd C< ed!4, 70 cy/ p/ 4 /72 teo/S✓..). 1(7 00 flawsc7I 771 y ' "moo-/ ' )•=2./C l va/�� :;„2d A11 0 (h24 � ,s1/4? aJo / 1 •�� :75 LrA al 9 0 ✓t a2 / 0 /-4 " 'RD 4-4 ‘6o1 7_40Sa ofJJ °d d ! ( ') fr ov 949 1,1 00 b !� () 4- J (� gZ 9C Ol •c,J OL � E, c ' w OZOti Q 3C 0230, o ) © � I pL "9E S d n Z��u J� /�' do n24. - o7/), c u ?j ?U ?s (VQ ) J0 '-- �Js(�o 0/4yd-sic?)_ c„,b u-,o>>d u® _ o cr‘- cod s d (Y7 "5--CV7L '14s- V4 ) / "CY-/ d4,0 s .s ` c4Y1'4. 2-,_ i J sPs � c 6), ,17/ck cky -1.7t- A CIL- C� , 9 � ndn C� � r'vr P70- 1-7 1 `f 1 /`/ 5- Y. /9/ C�, /6;'6' so yr s eC6' V <= Z Cam' /4O//'�l�s / ( - 3 ;-v / - 3y � CU - 3 y G--// 0D, 7/ cam' GOv � 07-0(1,-, a hC 6 / 'te cis A ‘E' �d � �� e c(ci / e 5.Se 'f, GZ S `� P r !�' i ^ CJ CV e S / 1 /! / �CJG I? ! CA-1/r 4 (( eC/t s Gz ►-2 ov( ?c3 _ C� .�—r� . /</ rS rC C( �v v / a / /ASP/ � / < �7 . 'e Oa/ k')-re r ,r gc3 /o 6- _5:ct } Cd c . 28OJ �` Cc( 25 ) 22G' 7X �vU CITY _5F RENTON T , Hearing Examiner Jesse Tanner,Mayor Fred J.Kaufman September 28, 1999 Mr. Daniel Palmer 16638 106th SE Renton, WA 98055 Re: Appeal of SEPA Decision on Demolition of Henry Ford School Appeal File No. LUA99-135,AAD Dear Mr. Palmer: This office has received your appeal of the above-referenced matter dated September 24, 1999. A hearing has been set for Tuesday,November 2, 1999, at 9:00 a.m. In order to process your appeal, further information is required. Enclosed is a copy of General Procedures for Appeals of Environmental Determination which sets forth guidelines in the appeal process. This office needs to know if you are filing an appeal of the SEPA determination,the issuance of the demolition permit, or both. Please add as much detail as you can to your clarification. The issues that will be covered in the appeal hearing will be limited to those in your appeal letter. Please file your clarification no later than October 5, 1999. If you have further questions,please feel free to call this office. Sincerely, Fred J. Kau an Hearing Examiner cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Larry Warren, City Attorney Leslie Nishihira, Development Services Applicant 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)430-6515 / /gym ' / _ -2/ e A:=L1)-/.°1-7 t=).--1 /(:) . SE C. • 07 C'i S c to,--I o.-I / .„7 `O it/ le50( / ...„.2.7-t,-,...2 _9 GI OF RaiTON SE P 2 41999 _127 /c'9 U e..s17r-� 0. t741,co Sle ca, r,a : r / �� 2 „c", 2 7 / /y X - 47/7 C'ra /. .7<C' /) ( 1 •0.'9) sTvotiizas O Dr 0 -5L e f / Cc°X 71e ., C. /9 A CW) o?" - y C:: ca -?* 6-ii(7c c� ,0 l / C/L'='S 63! - <36C 70 � �O ) 6Z.7&.(( 0 C:�� O pC 0/� %. 9 CCx1- ya /� Lo-3l', Cu -3 � _ 7/ rr9GtiC3 r► / Gu3Y zu 3ya. cc, 3y ./ M. - /-/'c / Sc�cJ/'C`�'�u - Y Y 3 -- 17-.1Oc -e--7 / CJc,_ l v C` ! /'0 r7 C` r! of J /• rG.%.r d r7 0 g /�cL r! — 7,4 / -- mV ( Cc'cc=).--7 /' o 6'/7 �?G��tc)SS Cr 7j.cp 4`C v /o�r 7`ram C--Ck.-gr`=:' 0 9" 7/Xt.- 66P}7/cf-c . /70 S 70/'i- 'C' 777e— / o .S' I o 7 Gi of 74=/ — s C 7'0/ �''c- u V c_� Z o--7tom` g/: _g (ci a7 6 do/7 Kr-Do' , ' f P GL�7 f7,0-ic2,- / C ji 5P C-'/ Sl' Q,?S !/y7C?, ' 0 .--CC ./C0 ‘.(--' fr/C '''ly r5 a_/7 dr A //q•e-3sE,i (. a7 � 0 / (/ Ss 1 ,,i YO ' . i C...--0 _ _ _ ,„. _ _ . . .-... .._-I._ _:. .-‘,.. _... -. . .,.._a.r.) ( e . . p-( .. . . ... ,_ ,/}„ , y' . .. , f6G3 (067-f- Ste , .. _,.___)_ e _ .--.:r-. _ _ .... __ _ _ _ . . Gi2. s..,,,),-:,,...,-.712. .2..c. — ,c .,..,....,.: , .....7 _____ . . .. .._ . .... . ... . .. . ... . . _ _ ., . . . ._ _ ... . . . . . ___ .. . , . . . .. . . . . . . ,... _ _ . .. . . _ . . . ... _ . .._ ___ _ .. ...,. .. ._ . . , _ .... ... . . . . . .. . . . . . . Ole fr.‘7) ."-:(7-0 ' '•1 -- 'L4...)C1/4.. ' ' •. • 7_0' .. ... I { • . - - - _ - _- - - .< , - r 1 CITY OF RENTON CURRENT;PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the `1 day of Sel5tetnnber , 1999, I deposited in the mails of the United. States, a sealed envelope containing e vz c kt�vtntvo,_-hmS documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Department of Ecology Don Hurter WSDOT KC Wastewater Treatment Division Larry Fisher Washington Department of Fisheries David F. Dietzman Department of Natural Resources Shirley Lukhang Seattle Public Utilities Duwamish Indian Tribe Rod Malcom Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Joe Jainga Puget Sound Energy (Signature of Sender) &itd.k . k STATE OF WASHINGTON ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that cct. signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act fb. the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. • `tc-6 L/l ' �; / Notary Public yfi and for the State of WasI ngton i MARILYN KAAACHEFF NOTARY PUBLIC Notary (Print) STATE OF WASHINGTON My appointment F (N KAMCHEFF ' COMMISSION EXPIRES y MY APPOINTMENT EXPIRES:6-29-03 JUNE 29,2003� esi Project Name: t.,+ehlai Igovd (3149 11-Wtolt+U11 Project Number: LU •°1q - I1(n, EC NOTARY.DOC �y CITY F RENTON ;,tl Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator September 9, 1999 Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Subject: Environmental Determinations Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC)on September 7, 1999: DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE HENRY FORD BUILDING DEMOLITION LUA-99-116,ECF The proposal is to demolish and remove the existing 23,300 square foot Henry Ford Elementary School building. The building was formerly used as an elementary school and was subsequently occupied by the Renton School District Administration Service Center. The purpose of the demolition project is to prepare the site for future development, including landscaping, asphalt paving, and building construction to be conducted by the new property owners. Asbestos remediation was previously conducted prior to the change in ownership of the property. Due to the size of the existing structure, Environmental (SEPA) Review is required. Location: 420 Wells Avenue South Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM September 24, 1999. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)430-6510. If you have questions, please call me at(425)430-7270. For the Environmental Review Committee, a't) Les ey Nishihira Project Manager cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division Larry Fisher, Department of Fisheries David F. Dietzman, Department of Natural Resources Don Hurter, Department of Transportation Shirley Lukhang, Seattle Public Utilities Duwamish Tribal Office Rod Malcom, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (Ordinance) Joe Jainga, Puget Sound Energy agncyltr\ 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 This oaoer contains 50%recycled material.20%post consumer _ _ e s... CITY RENTON sollL Planning/Building/Public Works Department J e Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator September 9, 1999 Mr. David Jassny Service Linen Supply PO Box 957 Renton WA 98057 SUBJECT: Henry Ford Building Demolition Project No. LUA-99-116,ECF Dear Mr.Jassny: This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) and is to inform you that they have completed their review of the environmental impacts of the above-referenced project. The Committee, on September 7, 1999, decided that your project will be issued a Determination of Non-Significance. The City of Renton ERC 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 by the ERC under the authority of Section 4-6-6, Renton Municipal Code, after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information, on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM September 24, 1999. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)430-6510. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at(425)430-7270. For the Environmental Review Committee, -00 06i rl ` eNLtiuie UlirLesley Nishihira (J Project Manager cc: Mr. Dan Palmer; Mr. John Sterling/Parties of Record SED Real Estate Co./Owners dnsltr 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, Washington 98055 CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NUMBER: LUA-99-116,ECF APPLICANT: SED Real Estate Company PROJECT NAME: Henry Ford Building Demolition DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The proposal is to demolish and remove the existing 23,300 square foot Henry Ford Elementary School building. The building was formerly used as an elementary school and was subsequently occupied by the Renton School District Administration Service Center. The purpose of the demolition project is to prepare the site for future development, including landscaping, asphalt paving, and building construction to be conducted by the new property owners. Asbestos remediation was previously conducted prior to the change in ownership of the property. Due to the size of the existing structure, Environmental (SEPA) Review is required. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 420 Wells Avenue South Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. Building 1. Demolition permit is required. Planning 1. Temporary erosion and sedimentation control measures are required pursuant to RMC section 4-4- 030.C. 2. Future development on the site would require a separate Land Use Application review and approval process. Plan Review 1. The side sewer is required to be cut and capped. This is an over the counter permit which may be applied for at the same time as the demolition permit. CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE APPLICATION NUMBER: LUA-99-116,ECF APPLICANT: SED Real Estate Company PROJECT NAME: Henry Ford Building Demolition DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The proposal is to demolish and remove the existing 23,300 square foot Henry Ford Elementary School building. The building was formerly used as an elementary school and was subsequently occupied by the Renton School District Administration Service Center. The purpose of the demolition project is to prepare the site for future development, including landscaping, asphalt paving, and building construction to be conducted by the new property owners. Asbestos remediation was previously conducted prior to the change in ownership of the property. Due to the size of the existing structure, Environmental (SEPA) Review is required. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 420 Wells Avenue South LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section This Determination of Non-Significance is issued under WAC 197-11-340. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be involved, the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fourteen (14) days. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM September 24, 1999. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: September 10, 1999 DATE OF DECISION: September 07, 1999 SIGNATURES: 9 reggJerm drfiinistrator DATE DepartrrSer4t of annin /Buildin /Public Works 9 9 ",,,---))2.,_-- .1"' Le /(7(4' Jim Shepherd, dminis for DATE • Community Services Department � Z 7. 77 . Lee ee er, Fire Chief DATE Renton Fire Department dnssig CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NUMBER: LUA-99-116,ECF APPLICANT: SED Real Estate Company PROJECT NAME: Henry Ford Building Demolition DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The proposal is to demolish and remove the existing 23,300 square foot Henry Ford Elementary School building. The building was formerly used as an elementary school and was subsequently occupied by the Renton School District Administration Service Center. The purpose of the demolition project is to prepare the site for future development, including landscaping, asphalt paving, and building construction to be conducted by the new property owners. Asbestos remediation was previously conducted prior to the change in ownership of the property. Due to the size of the existing structure, Environmental (SEPA) Review is required. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 420 Wells Avenue South Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. Building 1. Demolition permit is required. Planning 1. Temporary erosion and sedimentation control measures are required pursuant to RMC section 4-4- 030.C. 2. Future development on the site would require a separate Land Use Application review and approval process. Plan Review The side sewer is required to be cut and capped. This is an over the counter permit which may be applied for at the same time as the demolition permit. No"ncE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: HENRY FORD BUILDING DEMOLITION PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-99-116,ECF The proposal is to demolish and remove the existing 23,300 square fool Henry Ford Elementary School building.The building was formerly used as an elementary school and was subsequently occupied by the Renton School District Administration Service Center.The purpose of the demolition project is to prepare the site for future development,Including landscaping,asphalt paving,and building construction to be conducted by the new property owners. Asbestos remediation was previously conducted prior to the Change in ownership of the property. Due to the size of the existing structure,Environmental(SEPA) Review is required.Location:420 Wells Avenue South. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed In writing on or before 5:00 PM September 24,1999. Appeals must be filed In writing together with the required$75.00 application fee with:Hearing Examiner,City of Renton,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 96055.Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-11.11B.Additional information regarding the appeal process maybe obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office,(425)430-6510. �Ir l:k ?x..."i �K • . N'�'r `s � 5°uc ac o'... �°' se" s„k ee:A ;m ..,_ 8,„,,f Hi, s 4 at e,, ', .. fi N� lip L3 y +p"P tie . •ore • O 4 4 y -•n/ 1 •}•,i JJ 1r w t- , t l':4 Oi ([ L I ^L.W FOR FURTHER INFORMATION,PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON,DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT(425)430-7200. 00 NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification. CERTIFICATION I, ` 6p,Ct1\lr'A2rAvi , hereb certify that .. copies of the above document were posted by me in n conspicuous places on or nearby the described property on g 1A Oleg-- 9 , 1�cie • Signed:ATTEST: Subcribed and sworn before me,a Nortary Public, i°"--(....,-. 1.------- an r the State of Washington residing in'- , y4 g,^ , on the /y`-f2- day of p. /9S 5 • ;/K)r, 6.ut r �. MARiLYN KgjylCl-tEFF NOTARY P STATE OF WASHINBGLTON MARILYN KAMCHEFF COIIAM1SSIpN EXPIRES MY APPOINTMENT EXPIRES:6-29-03 , _y,.., JUME 29,2003 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Charlotte Ann Kassens first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the - NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL RENTON,WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee 600 S. Washington Avenue, Kent, Washington 98032 (ERC) has issued a Determination of Non Significance for the following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal a daily newspaper published seven (7) times a week. Said newspaper is a legal Code. newspaper ofgeneralpublication and is now and has been for more than six months HENRY FORD BLDG.DEMOLITION LUA-99-116,ECF prior to the date of publication, referred to, printed and published in the English language Proposal to demolish and remove the continually as a daily newspaper in Kent, King County, Washington. The South County existing Henry Ford Elementary School Journal has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the building. State of Washington for King County. Location: 420 Wells Ave.So. The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the South County Appeals of the environmental determina- Journal (and not in supplemental form) which was regularly distributed to the subscribers tion must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM September 24, 1999. Appeals during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Henry Ford Building Demolition Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by as published on: 9/10/99 City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8- 11B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of$34.50, Renton City Clerk's Office,(425)430-6510. Publication Date:September 10,1999 charged to Acct. No. 805106 Published in the South County Journal September 10, 1999.6557 Legal Number 6557 Legal Clerk, South County Journal Subscribed and sworn before me on this Z`1 day of 19C6 t�rooa Notary Public of the State of Washington R a residing in Renton = King County, Washington `�� C ' 1/40o�mo r NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a Determination of Non-Significance for the following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. HENRY FORD BLDG. DEMOLITION LUA-99-116,ECF Proposal to demolish and remove the existing Henry Ford Elementary School building. Location: 420 Wells Ave. So. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM September 24, 1999. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)430-6510 Publication Date: September 10, 1999 Account No. 51067 dnspub ,* f / ' STAFF City of Renton REPORT Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE A. BACKGROUND ERC MEETING DATE: September 7, 1999 Project Name: Henry Ford Building Demolition Applicant: SED Real Estate Company File Number: LUA-99-116, ECF Project Manager: Lesley Nishihira Project Description: The proposal is to demolish and remove the existing 23,300 square foot Henry Ford Elementary School building. The building was formerly used as an elementary school and was subsequently occupied by the Renton School District Administration Service Center. The purpose of the demolition project is to prepare the site for future development, including landscaping, asphalt paving, and building construction to be conducted by the new property owners. Asbestos remediation was previously conducted prior to the change in ownership of the property. Due to the size of the existing structure, Environmental (SEPA) Review is required. Project Location: 420 Wells Avenue South Exist. Bldg. Area gsf 23,300 square feet Proposed New Bldg. Area gsf N/A Site Area 42,000 square feet Total Building Area gsf N/A RECOMMENDATION Staff Recommend that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non-Si:.,,lfic:ncwaye (DNS). 744 ki , a n� .�L-.^,y / .-. •.,._�� am S_ �3R0— __. T„ iY�i.ptic, S 3R0 :,0.ci- 4TH W ST i'\° ® 2� el ® Q IMP - €a r __nY ,�•Q am ' - E os. L.s �. . ---- `:> - `H26 .d - 1 y t:>1i:� l /11 7. 6 e. 6 _.gyp * 0 t ® ' 1I &REAR4 H i11 �tr' El'1 usr s m--- ...Ki t ice.,®i. maul .s ® s•11.' -. n•. z6 :• 3.x.z' 4.:. ._-,. . is s S 5TH ✓,,�-:.�-, ' - r. ll,�� •. 4 n . 0 . 11Q N Y4M • I • 4 n f t ygli n •,: 4 n (ma p s h� PyCfE., 7 ro Project Location Map k ,...o� o��' le S s,,.sr,- : i V + ercrpt GAR • 4B 6 K 9 ® ' ,City of Renton P/B/PW Department Environrr I Review Committee Staff Report • HENRY FORD BUILDING DEMOLITION LUA-99-116,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 7, 1999 Page 2 of 3 B. RECOMMENDATION Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommend that the Responsible Officials make the following Environmental Determination: XX DETERMINATION OF DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE NON- SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED. XX Issue DNS with 14 day Appeal Period. Issue DNS-M with 14 day Appeal Period. Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period followed by a 14 day Appeal Period. C. MITIGATION MEASURES The analysis of the proposal does not reveal any adverse environmental impacts requiring mitigation above and beyond existing code provisions. Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. Building 1. Demolition permit is required. Planning 1. Temporary erosion and sedimentation control measures are required pursuant to RMC section 4-4-030.C. 2. Future development on the site would require a separate Land Use Application review and approval process. Plan Review 1. The side sewer is required to be cut and capped. This is an over the counter permit which may be applied for at the same time as the demolition permit. D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS In compliance with RCW 43.21 C. 240, the following project environmental review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. 1. Earth Impacts: The subject site is relatively flat with a maximum slope of 2%. The project would require approximately 2,500 cubic yards of fill to be imported to the site for use in filling in the crawl space and basement cavities after the building is removed. These areas would be filled to two inches below adjacent grades and would not result in elevations higher than the existing surfaces. The fill would be compacted to 95% density. The applicant is required to comply with code provisions regarding temporary erosion and sedimentation control measures pursuant to RMC section 4-4-030.C. The project description includes proposed measures for street permits, street flagging, dust control measures and street closures as permitted. In order to diminish the potential for erosion and to control sedimentation during the demolition and fill activities, the applicant would be required to provide an acceptable temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan prior to the issuance of demolition permits. No additional mitigation measures above existing code provisions would be necessary. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation recommended. Nexus: N/A 2. Historic and Cultural Preservation Impacts: The Henry Ford Elementary School was constructed in 1922. The structure was used as an elementary school for approximately 40 years and was closed in the 1960's due to a decline in the area's student population as well as the deterioration of the building. Subsequently, the building was used for storage by the Renton School District Administration until 1998 when the Administration was relocated to a newer facility. In addition to the adjacent building, the Henry Ford School was vacated and declared surplus property by the School District. ercrpt ' City of Renton P/B/PW Department Environr 31 Review Committee Staff Report HENRY FORD BUILDING DEMOLITION LUA-99-116,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 7, 1999 Page 3 of 3 On March 15, 1999, the Renton School District held a public meeting to discuss the surplus of the property. At the meeting, the Renton School District disclosed that potential purchasers would likely demolish the structure. The property was sold earlier this year to Service Linen Supply and is now being prepared for future development by the new property owners. The Henry Ford School Building is not listed on City, County, or State Historic registers and is not protected for historical preservation. Estimated costs for the renovation of the structure would far exceed the value of the building. Therefore, the restoration of the building would not be feasible for the new property owners. Service Linen Supply and the Renton School District acknowledge the building's significance to Renton's history and have made efforts to preserve historical aspects of the building. The applicant has indicated that the"Henry Ford School"signs will be carefully removed and presented to the Renton School District as artifacts intended for display in the Renton Historical Museum. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is recommended. Nexus: N/A E. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS The proposal has been circulated to City Departmental/Divisional Reviewers for their review. Where applicable, these comments have been incorporated into the text of this report as Mitigation Measures and/or Notes to Applicant. X Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File. Copies of all Review Comments are attached to this report. Environmental Determination Appeal Process Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM September 24, 1999. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)430-6510. ercrpt ei L,✓-A-- 'Lc '-i1 O , N \-.4 iw 1 j • 5 0 ---r- (_.--- iw' 1 - / 0 i At T PA4'1)J G_ 7 ii 1 e 0 O o t , I 3 i I-- 111 !� ,, iS 'l NG PZ -t4TaN sc -�t,.._-Pk517--K j- Li to ADAAt f l ts-TizArr 1 Odd EsUI l_.Q 11•4 rt o_0 8.� 5 6.�/AG�D- DS-IS�G:�1-1 V-k� MoVeO, ( ; ; 1-'" r 1 .Qd►./A NSA' r 41 4 LK. W 0 In 11) p . 12..Pies N 0 M r7,1-c Tro t cep R_t•t-l-ccNc_ s . t.._, .1-.).‘s- g..kcy- A7A I t4 k s --K F4 EuDG. . - :W L S _,6„... .m._ 1_.r=zIes.n.tTe:D_ti4 , w.d... 4.. AtIZ.lA• ROUS'SC -o /hkR.C--f'1 cr i pt4ol.ls-e-FA.1C_,, so6-Z3Z^' 05 ._..DAr-'•:. $--1Z-_olR City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: [Tc e,\,, ,r- D_ev t wu, COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 30, 1999 APPLICATION NO: LUA-99-116,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 16, 1999 APPLICANT: SED Real Estate Company PROJECT MANAGER: Lesley Nishihira PROJECT TITLE: Henry Ford Building Demolition WORK ORDER NO: 78570 LOCATION: 420 Wells Avenue South SITE AREA: 42,000 sq.ft. I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The proposal is to demolish and remove the existing 23,300 square foot building formerly occupied by the Renton School District. The purpose of the project is to prepare the site for future development. Due to the size of the existing structure, Environmental (SEPA) Review is required. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have revi- -• .-• ' ation with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas when additional informatio eeded to properly assess this proposal. 8 a5/99 Signature o Dire ,• or Author d Rep esentative Date routing ' Rev.10/93 I City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ::>ul/ks COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 30, 1999 APPLICATION NO: LUA-99-116,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 16, 1999 APPLICANT: SED Real Estate Company PROJECT MANAGER: Lesley Nishihira PROJECT TITLE: Henry Ford Building Demolition WORK ORDER NO: 78570 LOCATION: 420 Wells Avenue South SITE AREA: 42,000 sq.ft. I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The proposal is to demolish and remove the existing 23,300 square foot building formerly occupied by the Renton School District. The purpose of the project is to prepare the site for future development. Due to the size of the existing structure, Environmental (SEPA) Review is required. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code)COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare _ Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment i 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet /' '2 ,P /0 �Gl' f&2 B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS fZei2 .. aA /� f� <,i5. 4) ) ') C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS \--- ' .,(_/(__%--- 7t / 4"--,. ,:2____ We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where;additional information is, /ded to properly as ess this proposal. ) 3/97 , Si nature of of Director Au oriT,ed Representative Date routing Rev.10/93 i +Ir1"ero., City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REV WING DEPARTMENT: koktc.c. COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 30, 1999 APPLICA NO: LUA-99-116,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 16, 1999 APPLICANT: SED Real Estate Company PROJECT MANAGER: Lesley Nishihira • PROJECT TITLE: Henry Ford Building Demolition WORK ORDER NO: 78570 LOCATION: 420 Wells Avenue South SITE AREA: 42,000 sq.ft. I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The proposal is to demolish and remove the existing 23,300 square foot building formerly occupied by the Renton School District. The purpose of the project is to prepare the site for future development. Due to the size of the existing structure, Environmental (SEPA) Review is required. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet no+ opPlicalac B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. • 1b. ,6 elS 9-10 '`=c,' , Signature of Director cOuiliorized Representative Date routing Rev.10/93 City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:CvvvA,AL.-horn StWtat, COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 30, 1999 APPLICATION NO: LUA-99-116,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 16, 1999 � 3h APPLICANT: SED Real Estate Company PROJECT MANAGER: Lesley Nishihira .4e�� s,,*/,‘ r‘ . PROJECT TITLE: Henry Ford Building Demolition WORK ORDER NO: 78570 t..� i, LOCATION: 420 Wells Avenue South `'.4 7t.9Si SITE AREA: 42,000 sq.ft. l BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A ('ear SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The proposal is to demolish and remove the existing 23,300 square foot building form's:A r occupied by the Renton School District. The purpose of the project is to prepare the site for future development. Due to the size of the existing structure, Environmental (SEPA) Review is required. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. �JC'�/ E-RELATED COMMENTS li-(- 1A't.'t-- - i We have •3viewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas e additional informationmio is neede to properly assess this proposal. W fir el • ignature of Dir or or Authorized Representative Date routing Rev.10/93 r:IDC opwrkp-mm RI)RFAL A U G 1 71999 City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEwleGEIVEU REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: _rive ('re -tom\ COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 30, 1999 APPLICATION NO: LUA-99-116,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 16, 1999 APPLICANT: SED Real Estate Company PROJECT MANAGER: Lesley Nishihira PROJECT TITLE: Henry Ford Building Demolition WORK ORDER NO: 78570 LOCATION: 420 Wells Avenue South SITE AREA: 42,000 sq.ft. BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The proposal is to demolish and remove the existing 23,300 square foot building formerly occupied by the Renton School District. The purpose of the project is to prepare the site for future development. Due to the size of the existing structure, Environmental (SEPA) Review is required. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities _ Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS '0/ C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS /m We have viewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or are wh re additional info ion is needed to properly assess this proposal. will-0 41 0 07 . Signat re of Director or Authorize Representative Date routi' Rev.10/93 —._... .. .n. Corm— nrn-- City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL 8 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Reuteuw -Wat.A..1'- COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 30, 1999 APPLICATION NO: LUA-99-116,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 16, 1999 APPLICANT: SED Real Estate Company PROJECT MANAGER: Lesley Nishihira O, . PROJECT TITLE: Henry Ford Building Demolition _WORK ORDER NO: 78570 • c$• LOCATION: 420 Wells Avenue South '` 7� SITE AREA: 42,000 sq.ft. I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A U ip SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The proposal is to demolish and remove the existing 23,300 square foot building forrrTe y_ occupied by the Renton School District. The purpose of the project is to prepare the site for future development. DZSe►jip the size of the existing structure, Environmental (pSEPA) Review is required. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS R 'VCR GO WMe We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. e,c-/ ri./0 7/ AI Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date routing Rev.10/93 City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Woric, ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: -1 (tk‘Sro,r—va rte‘ COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 30, 't.999 APPLICATION NO: LUA-99-116,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 4, 1999R � APPLICANT: SED Real Estate Company PROJECT MANAGER: '{,esley Nisgir�a •�M , PROJECT TITLE: Henry Ford Building Demolition WORK ORDER NO: 78570��. i4?9 LOCATION: 420 Wells Avenue South i SITE AREA: 42,000 sq.ft. BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A /c) SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The proposal is to demolish and remove the existing 23,300 square foot building formerly occupied by the Renton School District. The purpose of the project is to prepare the site for future development. Due to the size of the existing structure, Environmental (SEPA) Review is required. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code)COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic./Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS� 1JD covv,w, /- We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. iva 7/q Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date routing Rev.10193 City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Suy+ac.tl 5- u A A -- COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 30, 199 APPLICATION NO: LUA-99-116,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 16, 1999 0,. APPLICANT: SED Real Estate Company PROJECT MANAGER: Lesley Nishihirtkh, PROJECT TITLE: Henry Ford Building Demolition WORK ORDER NO: 78570 7 %Y9c LOCATION: 420 Wells Avenue South �'•�,�v/ �r SITE AREA: 42,000 sq.ft. I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A wisz (16 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The proposal is to demolish and remove the existing 23,300 square foot building forMerly occupied by the Renton School District. The purpose of the project is to prepare the site for future development. Due to the size of the existing structure, Environmental (SEPA) Review is required. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code)COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water LightGlare Plants Recreation _ Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS 100 Gokn wy, We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional/innfoor�ma�tion is needed to properly assess this proposal. �� 5/s17%4 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date routing Rev.10/93 Washington State Northwest Region Fa Department of Transportation 15700 Dayton Avenue North Sid Morrison P.O. Box 330310 Secretary of Transportation Seattle,WA 98133-9710 (206)440-4000 August 20, 1999 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON Lesley Nishihira City of Renton AUG 2 1999 Development Services Division RECEIVED 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055-3232 RE: SR 405, Vic. MP 4.18, CS 1743 Henry Ford School Demolition, LUA-99-116,ECF Dear Ms.Nishihira: Thank you for giving us the opportunity to review the Notice of Application for the Henry Ford School Demolition,which is located at 420 Wells Avenue S in Renton. We have reviewed the subject document and have no comments. The project will not have significant impact on the state highway system. If you have any questions,please call John Collins at (206) 440-4915. Sincerely, F02 Craig J. Stone,P.E. Area Administrator- South King CJS:jc JTC cc: file CITY OF RENTON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION LIST OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS within 300 feet of the subject site PROJECT NAME: APPLICATION NO: LUAU '-'16) 14 i p_(47" The following is a list of property owners within 300 feet of the subject site. The Development Services Division will notify these individuals of the proposed development. NAME ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER ACCOUNT NBR BLOCK LOT TAXPAYER NAME PROPERTY ADDRESS 723150-1275-0 15 1-2-3 CITY OF RENTON 0 WELLS AV S 723150-1290-0 15 4-5-6 SPENCER COURT APTS 334 WELLS AV S 723150-1305-0 15 7 SPENCER COURT APT 323 MAIN AV S 723150-1310-0 15 8 SPENCER COURT APT 327 MAIN AV S ACCOUNT NBR BLOCK LOT TAXPAYER NAME PROPERTY ADDRESS 723150-1350-0 16 1-2-19-20 RAPHAEL ROBERT 903 S 4TH ST 723150-1360-0 K 16 1-2 SERVICE LINEN SUPPLY IN 903 S 4TH ST 723150-1370-0 16 3 JASSNY DAVID+CAMILLE 408 WELLS AV S 98055 723150-1375-0 16 4 THRU 18 RENTON SCHOOL DIST 403 416 WELLS AV. S 723150-1385-0 K 16 19 SERVICE LINEN SUPPLY IN 903 S 4TH ST 723150-1389-0 K 16 20 SERVICE LINEN SUPPLY IN 903 S 4TH ST ACCOUNT NBR BLOCK LOT TAXPAYER NAME PROPERTY ADDRESS 723150-1390-0 17 1-2 VISK ROBERT T+SUSAN J 909 S 5TH ST 98055 723150-1500-0 17 18-19-40 BAREI R TRUST 509 MAIN AV S 98055 723150-1615-0 18 20 SMITH ROBERT C+IRIS L 819 S 5TH ST 98055 723150-1616-0 18 20 HOLT CURTIS G JR 501 WELLS AV S 98055 ACCOUNT NBR BLOCK LOT TAXPAYER NAME 723150-1620-0 19 1 PROPERTY ADDRESS DELANCEY ROBERT C+BEVER 809 S 4TH ST 723150-1625-0 19 2-3 WALLER JUDITH I 410 WILLIAMS AV S 98055 723150-1635-0 19 4 JASSNY DAVID+CAMILLE+RA 0 WILLIAMS AV S 723150-1640-0 19 5 JASSNY DAVID+CAMILLE+RA 0 723150-1645-0 19 6 NIEMI THEODORE L+NANCY 420 WILLIAMS AV S 98055 723150-1650-0 19 7 WILSON BEN A+KIMBERLI K 424 WILLIAMS AV S 98055 723150-1655-0 19 8 MORAN ROBERT R 723150-1660-0 19 9 428 WILLIAMS AV S 98055 PALERMO NELSON D+RHODA 432 WILLIAMS AV S 98055 723150-1665-0 19 10 HEADRICK CHARLES R+MARY 438 WILLIAMS AV S 98055 723150-1670-0 19 11 KIRKMAN MAGUERITE 431 WELLS AV S 98005 723150-1675-0 19 12 ROGERS REBECCA L 427 WELLS AV S 98055 723150-1680-0 19 13 MORAN ROBERT R 723150-1685-0 19 14 425 WELLS AV S 98055 ROWE NEETA B 421 WELLS AV S 98055 723150-1690-0 19 15 MENTAL HEALTH HOUSING F 419 WELLS AV S 98055 (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) CITY OF RENTON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION LIST OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS within 300 feet of the subject site PROJECT NAME: p(,.( APPLICATION NO: The following is a list of property owners within 300 feet of the subject site. The Development Services Division will notify these individuals of the proposed development. NAME ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER ACCOUNT NBR BLOCK LOT TAXPAYER NAME PROPERTY ADDRESS 723150-1695-0 19 16 , SOOY JESSE JAMES 417 WELLS AV S 98055 723150-1700-0 19 17 RAPHAEL ROBERT B+JENNIF 415 WELLS AV S 98055 723150-1706-0 19 18-19-20 RAHAEL ROBERT ETAL 0 WELLS AV S 723150-1710-0 K 19 19 RAPHAEL ROBERT B+JENNIF 723150-1715-0 K 19 20 SERVICE LINEN SUPPLY IN 0 WELLS AV S 723150-1735-0 20 4 LOSH FAMILY LTD PARTNER 339 WELLS AV S 723150-1740-0 20 5 LOSH FAMILY LTD PARTNER 0 WELLS AV S 723150-1741-0 20 5-6 LOSH FAMILY LIMITED 331 WELLS AV S 723150-1745-0 20 6 LOSH FAMILY LTD PARTNER 329 WELLS AV S (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) (Continued) NAME ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER Applicant Certification I, (-kA.w.t� , hereby certify that the above list(s) of adjacent property (Print Na e) owners and their addresses were obtained from: ❑ City of Renton Technical Services Records ❑ Title Company Records g King County Assessors Records Signed ,,/ z,;?-. 4-- Date 2,-I3-q9 (Applicant) NOTARY ATTESTED: Atbscribed and sworn •efore me, a Notary Public, in andnnfor the State of Washington, residing at @ It I ( '& . on the 1 3 day of 1`t L161 lit 51- , 19`1 �' . Signed \ ja (Notary Pu• c) ****For City of Renton Use**** CERTIFICATION OF MAILINGN OTARY I,1k,JL/l. C�i�0}- , hereby certify that notices of the propose' j • (City Employee) / (� JUNE 29, 3RES each listed property owner on 1(0 q ( . Signed C. Date: c._ L / I NOTARY ATTE : Subscribed and sworn before me, a yN��otary Publi in and for the State of Washington residing at i)c -AA -� on the �7 ""Clay of y- , 19 4 0 Signed _ /'1:i-706 _f listprop.doc MARILYN HEFF �sl REV 07/98 M1'APPOINTMENT EXPIRES:6-29-03 2 A �SY• O®fit • NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON- SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) DATE: August 16.1999 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-99-116,ECF APPLICATION NAME: HENRY FORD SCHOOL DEMOLITION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposal is to demolish and remove the existing 23,300 square foot building formerly occupied by the Renton School District.The purpose of the project is to prepare the site for future development.Due to ire size of the existing structure, Environmental(SEPA)Review is required. PROJECT LOCATION: 420 Wells Avenue South OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE(DNS):As the Lead Agency,the City of Renton has determined Nat significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result born the proposed project.Therefore,as permitted under the RCW 43.21 C.110,the City of Renton Is using the Optional DNS process to give notice that a DNS is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS are integrated into a single comment period.There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance(DNS).A 14 day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: August 13,1999 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: August 18,1999 APPLICANT/OWNER: SED Real Estate Company Permits/Review Requested: Environmental Checklist Review(ECF) Other Permits which may be required: Building(Demolition)Permit Requested Studies: None. Location where application may be reviewed: Planning/Building/Public Works Division,Development Services Department, 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 PUBLIC HEARING: N/A CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Land Use: The subject site is designated Center Downtown on both the City's Comprehensive Land Use Map and Zoning Map.The proposal is consistent with each of these designations. Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: None known. Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: The project will be subject to the City's SEPA Ordinance,Public Works Standards,Uniform Building Code,Uniform Fire Code,and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. Proposed Mitigation Measures: At this lime,the analysis of the proposal does not reveal any potential adverse impacts rogueing mitigation above and beyond existing code provisions.However,further review may indicate the need for additional mitigation measures. Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Ms.Lesley Nishihira,Project Manager,Development Services Division,1055 South Grady Way.Renton,WA 98055,by 5:00 PM on August 30,1999. If you have questions about this proposal,or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail,contact the Project Manager.Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: LESLEY NISHIHIRA(425)430.7270 PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION malwl CERTIFICATION I, 31Px1 ci i(, i WA()levoit, hereby certify that •--22 copies of the above document were posted by me in 3 conspicuous places on or nearby the described property on Man A ax.1 Prm v st Ito , 1 q • e ATTEST: Subcribed worn before me, a No Pu • an or State of Washington residing in , on the me ' day of /1 q • MAR1LYNj 4" ' /.10 NOTAR �rcHL STATE oF rUB IC wASHINGTpN MARILYN KAMCHEFF ; Co!MISSIpN APPOINTMENT EXPIRES:6-29-03 r. .a ME 29 20 SIRES • YC ) NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON- SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) DATE: August 16,1999 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-99-116,ECF APPLICATION NAME: HENRY FORD SCHOOL DEMOLITION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposal is to demolish and remove the existing 23,300 square foot building formerly occupied by the Renton School District. The purpose of the project is to prepare the site for future development. Due to the size of the existing structure, Environmental(SEPA)Review is required. PROJECT LOCATION: 420 Wells Avenue South OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE(DNS): As the Lead Agency,the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore,as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110,the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS process to give notice that a DNS is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance(DNS). A 14 day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: August 13, 1999 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: August 16,1999 APPLICANT/OWNER: SED Real Estate Company Permits/Review Requested: Environmental Checklist Review(ECF) Other Permits which may be required: Building(Demolition)Permit Requested Studies: None. Location where application may be reviewed: Planning/Building/Public Works Division,Development Services Department, 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 PUBLIC HEARING: N/A CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Land Use: The subject site is designated Center Downtown on both the City's Comprehensive Land Use Map and Zoning Map. The proposal is consistent with each of these designations. Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: None known. Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: The project will be subject to the City's SEPA Ordinance,Public Works Standards,Uniform Building Code,Uniform Fire Code,and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. Proposed Mitigation Measures: At this time,the analysis of the proposal does not reveal any potential adverse impacts requiring mitigation above and beyond existing code provisions. However,further review may indicate the need for additional mitigation measures. Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Ms. Lesley Nishihira, Project Manager, Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on August 30, 1999. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact the Project Manager.Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: LESLEY NISHIHIRA(425)430-7270 PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION mailout r' ) CITY Oi, RENTON ..LL Planning/Building/Public Works Department J e Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator August 16, 1999 Mr. David Jassny Service Linen Supply PO Box 957 Renton WA 98057 SUBJECT: Henry Ford Building Demolition Project No. LUA-99-116,ECF Dear Mr. Jassny: The Development Planning Section of the City of Renton has determined that the subject application is complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, is accepted for review. It is tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Environmental Review Committee on September 07, 1999. Prior to that review, you will be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your application. Please contact me, at(425)430-7270, if you have any questions. Sincerely, 2(41/44) Lesley Nishihira Project Manager cc: SED Real Estate Co./Owners acceptltr 1055 South Grady Way- Renton, Washington 98055 • ::::;::::>:in.i: CITY OF RENTON !DEVELOPMENT SERVICESDIVISION LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER(S) PROJECT INFORMATION Note: 'ff there is more than one legal owner, please attach an additional �rt FOP b Ti- notarized Master Application for each owner. PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: (, !1 c Q NAME: P r . - p �� 0 1� T O.� J c I-' o ( S e D Rewi Es4 �,4-e Co , D . Tj4—°-d- -, d, PROPERTY/PROJECT ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION: ADDRESS: _ ).1a0 �,r , US /1 U e• 5. CITY: ZIP: KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): 'Repko^ Isla. 0S 1 ` Z3 15 o — 137. - 0 0 TELEPHONE NUMBER: _ _ EXISTING LAND USE(S): APPLICANT (if other than owner) PROPOSED LAND USES: NAME: WA—till Air W Cons kfuc1-;gn COMPANY(if applicable): EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: ADDRESS: PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable): CITY: ZIP: EXISTING ZONING: Qom +�G Z.fl A Gc D (y ) oQ.,e��6N�° 9 TELEPHONE NUMBER: D�SG�-(`t° 1 `w� PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): ��� .`'�!O CONTACT PERSON • G ` / SITE AREA (SQ. FT. OR ACREAGE): ♦ - NAME: 0CIt1 i Cit �QSJ n A (o; ) R � 10 ,2r ,1- R� b p I ) 1 COMPANY (if applicable): PROJECT VALUE: Se/ u % Ce 1.. -NC>l 5 � 9 f, i, -4- . (Na ADDRESS: IS THE SITE LOCATED IN THE AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA? V, o. 6ax c\ 6 `I Afr1' CITY: n ZIP: '^l IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY OTHER TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY Q {� ^ G, `� A SENSITIVE AREA? TELEPHONE NUMBER: WO LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (Attach separate sheet if necessary) )-- so - \ (c CV A cA ) S - h ✓- o ik^J h i )f\ (') i o c I I (o (� Jt • o (Ai. 12.Qn �-on Accof 0( 0n5 �A 1 tc T r2 afoflcl Ih U � km � a p � q. �-S eA pa,�QCS ) 13 .5� ; „ Pits ;1\3 TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES Check all application types that apply--City staff will determine fees. ANNEXATION $ SUBDIVISION: COMP. PLAN AMENDMENT $ _ REZONE $ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT $ _ SPECIAL PERMIT $ _ SHORT PLAT $ TEMPORARY PERMIT $ _ TENTATIVE PLAT $ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT $ PRELIMINARY PLAT $ _ SITE PLAN APPROVAL $ _ FINAL PLAT $ _ GRADE & FILL PERMIT $_ (NO. CU. YDS: ) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: $ VARIANCE $ (FROM SECTION: ) _ PRELIMINARY _ WAIVER $ FINAL _ WETLAND PERMIT $ ROUTINE VEGETATION bf9131-LE-I10114€'PACS: $ MANAGEMENT PERMIT $ _ BINDING SITE PLAN $ SHORELINE REVIEWS: SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT $ -' _ CONDITIONAL USE $ _ VARIANCE $ EXEMPTION $No Charge ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW $ REVISION $ AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Name) , declare that I am (please check one) "the owner of the property involved in this application, the authorized representative to act for the property owner (please attach proof of authorization), and that the foregoing statements a`gAtkik\ers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief: 0. m�\\fit Q .... oo9 l i A ` k S ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to before rie, a: �tr tr l+c, r�gnd J ✓ Si ) Cr n i for the State of wv/I`Fi J�I�,'ffj+' residing at / ••U _ r�Y m. (Name of Owner/Representative) �'�t�iu' on thel)_'k $iy of • nt �1� � 1 � �� � g.03 (Signature of Owner/Represeative) � { ), �/� � �`��Fyvg1N�'- (Signature of Notary Public) (Tais section to be completed by City Staff.) City File Number: 1A`��l' -- it " A AAD BSP CAP-S CAP-U CPA CU-A CU-H ECF) LLA MHP FPUD -'FP PP R RVMP SA-A SA-H SHPL-A SHPL-H' SP SM SME TP ' V-A -B V-H W TOTAL FEES: $ `t( . -(C TOTAL POSTAGE PROVIDED: $ 1 ,k;O MASTERAP.DOC REVISED 8/97 01ilgU0 ARCHITECT 3021 69TH AVENUE S.E. • MERCER ISLAND, WA 98040 • (206) 232-3505 ---FAX (20C) 283 7884 August 12 , 1999 Ms . Jennifer Toth Henning, Senior Planner Development Services & Planning City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Wa . 98055 Re: Environmental Review. . . Demolition of Renton School District Administration Building at 420 Wells Avenue. T)ear Ms . Henning: Please accept this letter as part of the application. I spoke with my clients and we agreed that, although it would be more convenient and less costly to combine demolition and new con- struction into a single Environmental Review application, the condition of the existing building and the danger that exists make it imperative that the work be done as soon as possible. Please note that my numbers correspond to your Application Materials numbers : Items 1 through 6 provided. Item 7: Project Narrative. A. Project name, size and location: Demolition of Renton School District Administration Building at 420 Wells Avenue. Size of building is 23 , 300 sq. ft . . Lot size is 42 , 000 sq. ft . B. Zoning: This property zoned Center-Downtown (Publicly Owned) or CT)(P) . Adjacent property is zoned Mixed Commercial ( CM) . C. Current use of site: Vacant. D. Soil under building is mostly sand . Paved areas now drain to catch basins . E. Proposed use: To be left cleared on a short term. The long term plan is for landscaping, paved parking and a building addition. Project has not yet been designed . F. Off-site improvements : None planned at this time. � G. Cost of demolition (Contract amount) : $87, 724. 00. C/}' �0:Nl.. H. Fill required: Approximately 2 , 500 yards of Washington RENT State certifed quarry spawls, 14" . Fill shall be com- 406 pacted to 95% density. . 1 1999 I . No trees removed . . .No land dedicated to City. ��,� Item 8 : Construction Mitigation Description: A. Construction dates: To begin as soon as permit is obtained . 15 working days shall be required for competion of all work. B. Hours of operation: Work at the site shall occur between the hours of 7 : 30 AM and 5: 30 PM. C. Proposed hauling/transportation routes: This shall be per City requirements . Contractor, s Contract calls for providing Street flagging, street permits , dust control measures and r LUI N 221T ARCHITECT 3021 69TH AVENUE S.E. • MERCER ISLAND, WA 98040 • (206) 232-3505 •--FAX(206) 232-7884 August 12 , 1999 Letter to Ms . Jennifer Toth Henning, Senior Planner . Page 2 Item 8C continued . any street closures as permitted. D. Measures to minimize undesirable happenings : Contractor has agreed to do this work in a workmanlike and neat manner . He will be closely monitored by the owner ' s representative and any unacceptable procedures will not be allowed. E. Special hours: None contemplated . F. Preliminary traffic control plan: Contractcr 'co make any special accomodations per requirements of Demolition Permit . Item 9: Neighborhood Detail Map: Provided . Item 10: Site Plan: Provided. Items 11 and 12 Not Applicable . Item 13 : Grading Elevations : When building is removed, crawl space and basement ares will be filled to two inches below adjacent grades . At no time will the fill surface be at a higher elevation than the existing adjacent surface. See Item 7TT for material and installation notes . Item 14: Utilities Plan: Demolition contractor is to cut off or cap all utility lines serving the property as part of his contract . He will provide any information required as part of his demolition permit application. Items 15 and 16: Drainage: The existing asphalt paving drains to existing catch basins . Areas to be filled shall absorb any moisture occuring at this areas . On a long term, drainage design/report shall be provided for the new work to be done. Items 17 through 23 Not Applicable. Items 24, 25 and 26 provided . If you have any questions or comments , please let me know. Also I would like to thank you and Laureen Nicolay for your effort and interest in this project . Yours very truly, 41v41:4.1 7 Azaria Rousso Architect O z-t 6• CITY OF RENTON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 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 all proposals 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 impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NONPROJECT PROPOSALS: 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 "propgsalh+;; "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. a�EL(VIV REN-VGN Ct�OF p,�G 1� 1C99 ReC°\15) • Environmental Checklist A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Demolition of Renton School District Administration Building . 2. Name of applicant: Azaria Rousso Architect . 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 3021 69th. Avenue S . F. , Mercer Is . , Wa . 98040. Phone/Fax: 206-232-3505 . 4. Date checklist prepared: August 12 , 1999 . 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton Development Services Division. 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Per City requirements . 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Landscaping, asphalt paving and a building addition will be constructed at a later date. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. An Environmental Review Application is being submitted . 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. Environmental Review approval . Demolition Permit . 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. A 23 , 300 sq. ft . one story building will be removed and crawl space and basement cavities will be filled . The site contains 42 , 000 sq. ft . 2 Environmental Checklist 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 topographic 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. Project is located at 420 Wells Avenue in Renton, Wa . B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one) 0 rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?) 2%. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Mostly sand . d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Approximately 2 , 500 cu . yds . of fill will be brought in . Material is Washington State certified quarry spawls , l';i" . Compacted to 95% density . Source not known at this time . 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)? No new impervious surface . Approximately 35% of the site is now paved . h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: None required at this time . 3 Environmental Checklist 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. A small amount of truck/tractor emissions during the three weeks of work . b. Are there any off-site sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: None anticipated. 3. WATER a. Surface Water: 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. None . 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year flood plain? 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 . 4 Environmental Checklist b. Ground Water: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. 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. None . 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. No new runoff . Existing is directed to catch basins . 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No. All waste to be removed quickly. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: None required . 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs y grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? None . 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: None at this time . 5 Environmental Checklist 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 Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other 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 . d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None . 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. None . 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: None . 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. None . 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Dust control measures . 6 Environmental Checklist b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Traffic in area must be considered . 2) What types and levels 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. On a short term basis ( 15 working days) Tractor and truck noise. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Work shall be done during normal working hours . 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Site is vacant . Adjacent properies contain commercial uses . b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. c. Describe any structures on the site. A 1926 wood frame building with brick veneer containing 23 , 300 sq. ft . d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Yes . The entire structure. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Center-Downtown (Publicly Owned) . . CT)(P) . f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Downtown Business . g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not applicable . h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. No . Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? None . 7 Environmental Checklist j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None . k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None . I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: None required/provided . 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. Not applicable . 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. 8 • Environmental Checklist 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 . 12. RECREATION 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. Sign "Henry Ford School" will be carefully removed and presented to the Renton School T)istrict . 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. Wells Avenue and Main Street serve this location . b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? `les . . Approximately three blocks . c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? None • None . • Environmental Checklist 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 . e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity 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 current�r available at the site:(electricity, OEM wat-r ' refuse service, telephone,Ganitary sewe)septic system, ohier. All to be cut—off or capped . 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: p� ,� 1(2_- W444A6 - Name Printed: �' ') f' 0L `- `) Date: 10 August 4, 1999411 116 ' 1 8,1999 News Briefs • • demolition Voter o f month registration 1 - -I Voter registration forms G�ntact Robext please s ciitor, and absentee ballot applica- of Teo�osio,new: tions are available at Renton tool tilt- Renton K<'h°rif-i City Hall in the City Clerk's will \ f i oted at or at- Office,the Renton Public Li- this tetaded Heny'y kexd brary and the Renton High- landsGrade School Library.To be eligible rvi �v Ice lliin�1o' are ,,(... e to vote,residents must be at pany memories or okl least 18 years old by the date rty hoCo�,pleast call of the election,and a resident �lition 425127 l.:f,67 3 n. of Washington for 30 days ot1zlay through !tose10a g ble to vote at a pollingbefore the election.To e ell tolition Friday betweenm if c�u place in an election,rest he City and �>i Gan an send 1 preter,y dents must be registered no are_foot e t1�ai1 to Q {r later than 30 days before the t door to reporters3 ao1 7 m Sept. 15 primary election or on is at l ,.5) the Nov. 2 general election. between � g }Ott Can also Those who register after the us at 723 S.W 30-day deadline can vote Teets. Write iite 27 y v is sensi i0thtrcGt Tease only by absentee ballot. sen 9 (155. 1 al and Renton, our name anei 77-year-old \ incline y on all Information on the city and phone number emaiIs an __ with the city w s later "Mime capsule" bricks school of the The the 1960s partly Sought donated to the dosed in grade school ical Museum, because most g down_ vanished from The Renton Historical archivist children nenton and partly be- Museum is asking for anyone eene, Society building to having information on the .torical S cause the had said the school much deterioration. whereabouts of a historical lacing "time capsule"at Henry Ford -922 rep Elementary School to call oral School. their office at(425)255- 2330. The school was recently purchased by Service Linen Supply and is scheduled to be torn down Aug.8.The museum would like to retrieve the time capsule before the building is torn down. IF BULK RATE U.S. POSTAGE )N PAID RENTON,WA #55 1RTER \ er S aired help, 3enton community. Renton,WA 's de- the of- decide gut not for longale ounselor is officers If their col- 11 the after- dent. Such \ , 9-1696 or matOemaxwellsom we S% e.www. success Henry Ford Grade School to be razed after sale By ROBERT TEODOSIO was sold to Washington Inter- partly because of the building's News Editor scholastic Activities Association l a + condition and partly because The property housing one of for$1.11 million, she said. i 1 - - - there were not enough families in the oldest landmarks in Renton - The Bellevue-based, non- ._+ E , t. downtown Renton to justify the IMAthe Henry Ford Grade School - profit association oversees public , s • ''"" schools'opening. has been sold and will probably and private high school and ju- ,� ." °' -` 1emlit 1 " , Greene said while citizen ef- be torn down to make way for a nior high school interscholastic = 110 ' forts to save the building are well new building or parking lot, ac- competition, said Mike Colbrese, " meaning, it might be unrealistic , cording to school officials. executive director of the associa �' ti "� „ a,, because of the high cost of Sale of the two buildings on tion. ;.y "I restoration. the 2.2-acre property on South The staff of 13 coordinate . • - 11 leo "If you want to save it, you I'Main Street-between 4th and 5th school activities including: ,,,i buy it. You can't really use it for 'a Streets- will close in July. sports, dance and drill, cheer- anything. It's condemned. The The 24,000-square-foot brick leading, music, drama, debate - ,---- restoration would be just outra- T building, known as the Henry and speech,he said. DAVID NELSON/Renton Reporter geous,"he said. Ford Grade School, was built in The two properties have been The Henry Ford Grade School was sold to Service Linen Supply. Greene said before the 1922 and was sold to Service on the market for about a year building comes down, there are Linen Supply for $695,000, ac- after it was declared surplus prop- value of the building,"she said. "I think it's a move in the plans to hold an "old-timers" cording to Debra Aungst, busi- erty,Aungst said. Neeta Rowe, who lives across wrong direction.It may not be the party for those who worked at ness manager for the Renton Aungst said the Henry Ford the street from the school, said right thing to do,"Rowe said. and attended the school. School District. Grade School is the least habit- plans to tear down the school for Stanley Greene, archivist at Aungst said some of the A newer 16,000-square-foot able of the two buildings and will a parking lot is a bad idea,in light the Renton Historical Society and school bricks will be donated to building, used recently as a probably be torn down. "The cost of Renton's push to beautify the Museum, said the 77-year-old the Renton Historical Society and school administration building, of renovation far exceeded the city. school closed down in the 1960s- Museum. See Renton Village Thriftway Specials on pages 8 & 9 • 1 ou now • The Renton Police Department is one of only three Washington police agencies to achieve accredited status A through both the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies and the State of Washington. jjj .AiuJiL1.. • Ahead of the curve City of Renton•Greater Renton Chamber of Commerce•Renton Hotel IndustryRenton School District•Renton Technical College•Valley Medical Center Renton School District No. 403 PUBLIC HEARING Regarding a PROPOSAL TO SELL REAL PROPERTY March 15, 1999, 5 pm Kohlwes Education Center, Room 151 AGENDA I. Welcome and introductions II. Review of the purpose for the hearing III. Public Comment IV. Renton School District Comment V. Adjourn Public Hearing March 15, 1999 Koh!wee Education Center Monday, 5:00 p.m. 300 SW 7th Street Renton, WA 98055 MINUTES Debra Aungst opened the public hearing at 5:20 p.m. Citizens in Attendance: Bob Moran, 425 Wells Ave So, Renton, WA 98055 District Staff in Attendance: Debra Aungst, Assistant Superintendent: Business Debra Aungst explained that the purpose for the public hearing is to consider a proposal to sell two parcels which collectively are commonly referred to as the Administration Service Center which includes two buildings located on one parcel of approximately 2.0 acres plus a supporting off-site parking lot across the street of approximately .2 acres. Debra Aungst further explained that this meeting is pursuant to City of Renton Municipal Code on P-suffix zoning and is a follow-up public hearing to one that took place about one year ago to surplus the Henry Ford Elementary School, 416 Wells Avenue South; the Administration Building, 435 Main Avenue South; and the off-site parking: corner of South 5th Street and Wells Avenue South in Renton, WA (Addendum A). Debra Aungst continued to explain that it is the district's expectation to separate the Henry Ford Elementary School and the Administration Building and to give the affected public an opportunity to ask questions and share concerns prior to approving any purchase and sale agreement. Bob Moran stated that the flyers mailed to the owners and occupants surrounding the property were well distributed. Debra Aungst thanked Mr. Moran for his comment and explained that the District was required to notify the owners of the residents of within 300 feet of the surrounding property. As a courtesy, residents in that area were also notified. Mr. Moran stated one of his concerns was if the two buildings were sold separately that there wouldn't be enough parking available. Debra Aungst explained that as a public entity, the District can't pick and choose the next owners but the District currently has two offers. One from the Service Linen that currently owns property north of the Henry Ford Elementary School. If the sale of the Henry Ford Elementary School is successful, Service Linen will most likely not need additional parking. Mr. Moran asked if the widening that is taking place on Main Street on the East side of the Administration Building will eliminate any parking spaces? Debra Aungst explained that parking spaces would not be eliminated but the aisle between the parking spaces would be made smaller. Mr. Moran's only other concern was if one buyer purchased both pieces of property, tore them down, and built apartments, that parking would also be a concern. Debra Aungst explained that was mostly likely not going to be the case since the District is considering two offers right now for both buildings. Debra Aungst further explained that the property line (Addendum A) between the two buildings currently runs partially through the South side of the Henry Ford Elementary School and it is the District's hope that the new owners can agree on a new property line so that parking spaces can be added on the North side of the Administration Building between the two pieces of property. That would add more parking spaces around the Administration Building and eliminate parking on Wells Avenue South. Mr. Moran then asked if the Henry Ford Elementary School is in any shape to be occupied by new owners. Debra Aungst explained that the Henry Ford Elementary School was in very bad shape and would not economically be able to be renovated and meet today's property codes. Debra Aungst further explained that she felt the new owner would most likely tear down the Henry Ford Elementary School. Mr. Moran suggested that the District consider saving the three cement slabs that say the name, Henry Ford Elementary School. Debra Aungst stated that there might be some way to salvage the historical pieces. Debra Aungst offered to make available to Mr. Moran information when the District had a firm offer for purchase of the two properties. Debra Aungst asked if there were any further comments or concerns. There being none, the meeting was adjourned at 5:40 p.m. it,64,z/he ev? Debra Aungst, Assistant Superi tendent: Business Recorder: Mary Ann Dowd March 15, 1999 Addendum A PROPOSAL TO SELL REAL PROPERTY Main Avenue South I I I • V I Ford Elementary School Administration Building r~ Off site c 4. Parking 0 r I I I I I Wells Avenue South —— Current Property Line • f NOTICE A PUBLIC HEARING ON MARCH 15, 1999 regarding a PROPOSAL TO SELL REAL PROPERTY Renton School District No. 403 is proposing to sell two parcels which collectively are commonly referred to as the ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE CENTER Which Includes two buildings located on one parcel of approximately plus a supporting off-site parking lot across the street of approximately .2 acres LOCATIONS The Henry Ford Elementary School: 416 Wells Avenue South, Renton, WA The Administration Building: 435 Main Avenue South, Renton, WA Of -site parking: corner of South 5th Street and Wells Ave. South, Renton, WA Pursuant to City of Renton Municipal Code on P-suffix zoning, Renton School District Administration will hold a public hearing on: Monday, March 15, 1999 5:00 p.m. Kohiwes Education Center, Room 151 300 SW 74 St., Renton, WA 98055 Questions? Contact the Business Office at 425/204-2388. Legal Description for the approx. 2.0 acre parcel (Administration Bldg. and Henry Ford Elementary): A tract of land in the City of Renton, County of King, State of Washington, described as: Lots 4-18, Block 16 Town of Renton, according to the plat thereof recorded In Volume 1 of Plats, page 135, records of King County, Washington; LESS that portion of Lots 11 through 18 of said Block 18 lying east of a Ilne beginning at a point on the south line 5.77 feet west of the southeast corner and running northerly to a point on the north line 5.58 feet west of the northeast corner of said parcel dedicated to the City of Renton for road right-of-way. Legal Description for the approx. .2 acre parcel (off-parking): West 40 feet of Iota 1 &2, Block 17, Town of Renton, according to the plats recorded In volume 1, of plats, page 135, In King County, Washington. East 40 feet of the west 80 feet of lots 1 & 2 block 17, Town of Renton, according to the plat recorded in volume 1 of plats, page 135, In King County, Washington. NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING • REGARINNG�THE ItdTENT10N TO SELL y SURPLUS PROPERTY OF THE y .. •RE 1rTON SCHOOLD151 H ICT Renton School I/strict No.403 is propos- ing to sell two parcels of real property. AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION ! Pursuant to City c1 Renton Municipal Code on P-suffix.zoning, the District is hereby providing notice of such proposal. The property, commonly referred to as Charlotte Ann Kassens first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the the,Adrminisirafive Service Cereal,includes • one single parcel of approximately 2.0 acr- es,which houses two buil:inQs,and a sap- SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL arate supporting parking lot across the street of approximately.2 acres.The first 600 S. Washington Avenue, Kent, Washington 98032 - building, commonly referred to as the L.Henry Ford Elwnentary School,is located ' at 416 Wels Avenue South In Renton.The a daily newspaper published seven (7)tines a week. Saki newspaper is a legal second building,commonly referred to as newspaper of general publication and is now and has been for more than six months the Administration Building, is located at435 Main Avenue South in Renton. Both prior to the date of publication, referred to, printed and published in the English language buidr,gs are located on a snared site and continually as a daily newspaper in Kent, King County, Washington. The South County are physically attached rrta two enclosed walkways exterxding beaveeen the buiid•ngs. Journal has been approved as a legal per try order of the Superior Court of the These buil6ngs are supported wit on-site l i i State of Washington for King County. .1.paling as well as a separate pares across The notice in the exact form attached,was published at the comer of South 5th street and Wells in the South Countyr s The oft-site bt a located Journal (and not in supplemental form)which was regtilatty distributed to the subscribersr Avenue South in Renton. during the below stated period. The annexed note, a rile she housing the two twit:trgs is spe- Ldfirat'y described as: r--A tract of land in the City of Renton. 3 public Meeting: Intention to Sell Surplus Properly CountyKing, slate of Washington, described as: ' l C Lots -4-18,•Block 16 Town of Renton, -I as published on: 2124 &3/3/99 a000rdng to the pal thereof recorded in I volume 1 of Plats,page 135,records of blication is the sum of $371.12 ' King County,Washington;LESS that por- tion of Lots 11 through 18 of said Block 16 tying east of a Vies begsnrxng al a point Legal Number 5768 • �) on the south tine 5.77 feet west or the 'I southeast comer and running northerly to a point on the north Vine 5.58 feel west of the northeast corner of said parcel don►- l4y rated to the City of Renton Ior road right- Legal Clerk, South my ,�oumal ol•way. The oft-site perking lot across the street is i specifically 40y dfeet of bes as: !/ West 40 teat of lots 1 &2,Block 17,Town Subscribed and sworn before me on this day of , Q.d� 19q7 of Renton,according to the plats record- ed in volume 1, el plats, page 135, in lGng County,Washington. \ /1 East 4o feet of the of Rer.reel al Vohs 1 ttttt;ttttrrrrrrrr (C4.- ji)-Y-N 1r11 8 2 block 17,Town of Barron.accordng ``�<<< �� ,- • ri_rrr• to the plat recorded in volume 1 of plats, �. •-• �-f.•- H F, page 135,in King County,Washington. `���',.`;�''J Yi;;!(�✓�i Nutary Public of the Slate of Washington The District is giving consideration to Qj a q 'i''- in: residingIn Renton The the site and se>ling the two build 'r: '' �� y N_ ings separately. _ _� _ King County, Washington The Renton School District Arrstra — hen wil told a public hearing on Monday, . - pUO L�4 •• March 15, 1999 at 5:00 p.m. al the Kohiwes Education Center, 300 SW 71h • • e Street, Renton, in Room 151 for the put- • :`/ F p:�p1�e. C '/''/�r� is �llrr 11ttt���0,,`\ pose of hearing public comment on meeting Any yd be person hear mayr appeor arrat the ttthe l • proposal to sell these properroes. Published in the South Caunty Journal' �1 C o ONa �RON A�� 1 1999 R CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: December 3, 1998 TO: Pre-Application File No. 98-90 FROM: Jennifer Toth Henning SUBJECT: Service Linen Expansion Pre-Application Comments General. We have completed a preliminary review of the pre-application materials for the above- referenced development proposal. The following comments on development and permitting issues are based on the pre-application submittals made to the City of Renton by the applicant. The applicant is cautioned that information contained in this summary may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision makers (e.g., Hearing Examiner,Zoning Administrator, Board of Adjustment, Board of Public Works, and City Council). Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by City staff or made by the applicant. The applicant is encouraged to review all applicable sections of the Renton Municipal Code. As we understand the proposal,the applicant intends to remove the existing Henry Ford School Building and the 2,500 s.f. metal building and residence on the Service Linen property. A new building abutting the existing Service Linen is proposed. 1. Zoning. The project site is zoned Center-Downtown(Publicly Owned) or CD(P). The purpose/ of the CD Zone is to provide a mixed-use commercial center serving a regional market as well as adjacent residences. Permitted uses include a wide variety of retail sales, personal and professional services, multi-family residential dwelling, recreation and entertainment, and some light industrial uses. This zone is intended for the Downtown District only. Commercial laundries are permitted as a secondary use, only as a continuation of an existing commercial laundry use. Existing uses of this type may be expanded on existing properties, contiguous properties or on properties a portion of which is within 100 feet of existing buildings, subject to site plan review. These uses shall not be expanded on the ground floor along street frontage in the"downtown pedestrian district"except for those supportive offices and sales uses (the Ford building is not within the downtown pedestrian district). Development standards of the CD Zone apply. Landscaping along areas abutting public streets shall have a minimum landscaping strip of 10 feet. Surface-mounted and roof-top equipment must be screened from public view. Permitted outdoor storage must be screened from adjacent properties and public rights-of-way. All refuse and recyclables collection areas must also be screened from view \\TS SERVER\SYS2\COMMON\I-I:\DIVISION.S\DEVELOP.SER\DEV&PLAN.INGUTH\PRE-APPS\SVLIN.DOC December 2, 1998 Page 2 (except for access points) by a fence or landscaping, or a combination thereof. You will need to show where the garbage and recyclables areas are on the site. The additional (P) designation is discussed under Code Section 4-31-19:I. This is the "Administration, Interpretation and Permits"portion of the Code Section 4-31-19:I discusses Public Use Notification Procedures. The owner of any property designated with a"P"suffix is requires to give written notice to the owners of all property within a 300-foot radius of the site involved, as well as all residents and/or businesses with a 300-foot radius of the site or facility, at least 60 days in advance of any of the following: 1. A proposed change of use of the premises; 2. A proposed change of the major tenant and/or tenant group using the premises if such a change is determined by the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or designee to have probable major adverse impacts to t he immediate surrounding area; or, 3. Any proposed change of ownership of the premises. The public notice is not required if the proposed change has been identified in a master site plan adopted pursuant to the Master Site Plan Ordinance. The notice shall also invite those neighboring property owners, residents and/or business persons to attend an informational meeting in the area, hosted by the owner of the property or their representative. We understand that the School District has hosted such meetings previously. If the applicant intends to pursue a rezone in order to remove the P suffix on the CD Zone,then the rezone should be processed first. If the rezone is approved,then the public meeting requirements stated for the P-suffix do not apply. 2. Environmental Review. Since the proposal is considered to be a change of use,the proposal is subject to environmental review. 3. Site Plan Review. Development projects in the CD Zone are subject to Site Plan Review. And the CD Zone requires site plan review for commercial laundries. A public hearing is required since the total size of the redevelopment is greater than 25,000 square feet of gross floor area. 4. Parking and Loading. The City's Parking and Loading Ordinance(4-14) requires a minimum of 1 parking stall for each 1,000 s.f. of gross floor area, and no more than a maximum of 1.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area(not including the warehousing space). Warehouse and storage require 1 parking space for each 1,500 s.f. of gross floor area. Office space requires a minimum of 3 parking spaces per 1,000 s.f. of gross floor area and a maximum of 4.5 parking spaces per each 1,000 s.f. of gross floor area. Deviations from these standards may be applied for with the City's Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator. For the proposed facility, with 3,800 s.f. of office, 22,385 s.f. of laundry and 45,840 s.f. of warehouse/storage, a minimum of 66 parking stalls and a maximum of 72 parking stalls are required as follows: Office (min. 3/1,000 g.s.f.to maximum of 4.5 stalls/1,000 g.s.f. of floor area) = 11.4 - 17.1 stalls Laundry (1/1,000 g.s.f.) =22.38 stalls Warehouse (1/1,500 g.s.f.)= 30.56 stalls December 2, 1998 Page 3 Total Parking Required=37.34 minimum to 70.04 maximum Required parking shall be provided upon the property in the same ownership as the property upon which the building or use requiring the parking facility is located. Off-site parking may be proposed and is subject to review by the City. A letter of justification is required along with the site plan and environmental checklist. The off-site parking area must be within 750 feet of the building or use it is intended to serve. A joint-use contract, covering a minimum 5 years shall be provided. Landscaping of all parking lots, is required per the Code. It appears that sufficient parking is available on-site and in the surrounding area through joint-use parking. If truck loading doors are being added, adequate maneuvering are must be provided. For dock-high doors, a minimum 100 feet of clear maneuvering area is required in front of each door. For ground level service or loading door a minimum of 45 feet of clear maneuvering area in front of each door is required. It appears that the proposal would provide the minimum amount of maneuvering area. cc: Jana Huerter 98 - 90 r/C-5 N O V 12 1998 MEMORANDUM ECO,,CM:,_ DATE: AP l) /2.- , ( qq?' TO: Long Range Planning FROM: Jim Hanson, Development Services Division Director SUBJECT: New Preliminary Application: v e1'i LOCATION: 4/D ('UP/ls /9-1'�- Please review the attached preliminary project plans for consistency with applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies. Please submit your itten comments to v L no later than pec) 2-1 ( q y y . Thank you. We will not be able to include comments received after this date in the presentation/summary we prepare for the applicant. • .Sci 15 17c-3,�,rv,'�.;e-y-, cL \itocz- ,h.('(L1:71-1Q'7vs v PLP \J AT•IQ Z O N l-(7 C � (v 0 PO I 1 S',u C) roa- 6 l e2,1 L eu kivry.rJ 1. O CITY OF RENTON FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU MEMORANDUM DATE: November 16, 1998 TO: Jennifer Toth Henning, Planner Q� FROM: Jim Gray, Assistant Fire Marshal SUBJECT: Service Linen Expansion, 410 Wells Av S. Fire Department Comments: 1. The preliminary Fire flow is 6000 GPM which requires one fire hydrant within 150 feet of the building and five additional hydrants within 300 feet of the building. 2. Provide a list of any flammable, combustible liquids or hazardous chemicals that are to be used or stored on site. 3. A fire mitigation fee of$23,836.80 is required based on $.52 a square foot of the new building square footage. This may be reduced by deducting the square footage of the buildings to be demolished. 4. Separate plans and permits are required for Sprinkler and Fire alarm systems installation. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. City of Renton InterOffice Memo To: Jennifer Henning From: Kayren K. Kittrick Date: November 30, 1998 Subject: Service Linen Expansion PreApplication Review NOTE ON PRELIMINARY REVIEW COMMENTS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT: The following comments on development and permitting issues are based on the pre-application' submittals made to the City of Renton by the applicant. The applicant is cautioned that information contained in this summary may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision makers (e.g. Hearing Examiner, Boards of Adjustment, Board of Public Works and City Council). Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by the City or made by the applicant. WATER 1. There is existing 8-inch waterline to the south, 4-inch and 10-inch in Wells Av S., and 14-inch and 16-inch diameter water lines in Main Avenue S. The derated fire flow in the vicinity is modeled at 2500 thru 6000 gpm with a static pressure of 65 psi. There are fire hydrants in the vicinity that may be counted towards the fire protection of this project, but are subject to verification for being within 300 feet of the nearest corner of the building. 2. The Water System Development Charge (SDC) would probably be offset by the existing 2- inch and 1.5-inch meters on the site. Any meter not to be used in the new building will require a service kill application and fee. An SDC fee would only apply if additional meter, hydrant or connection is required. SANITARY SEWER 1. There is an existing 8-inch diameter sanitary sewer on both sides of the parcel. There is an existing side sewer connection. 2. If demolition occurs, the side sewer is required to be cut and capped. This is an over the counter permit which may be applied for at the same time as the demolition permit. SURFACE WATER 1. A limited level one drainage study is required. No retention/detention calculation are required for this project. Water quality treatment sized for the new impervious surfaces subject to vehicular access is required. It is unlikely that any additional surface water work is required as the entire site is impervious at this time. A narrative from a licensed engineer verifying this in accordance with the King County Surface Water Design Manual is required. 2. The Surface Water SDC is assessed based on the total new impervious surface square footage as reflected in the final design. The charge is determined by multiplying the gross square footage by$0.129. TRANSPORTATION • Service Linen Expansion PreApplication Review 11/30/98 Page 2 1. The traffic mitigation fee of$75 per additional generated trip shall be assessed with a credit for the current use. 2. Full street improvements including, but not limited to paving, sidewalks, curb & gutter, street signs and street lights are required to be brought up to City of Renton standards, if not already in place. 3. All wire utilities shall be installed underground per the City of Renton Undergrounding Ordinance. If three or more poles are required to be moved by the development design, all existing overhead utilities shall be placed underground. PLAN REVIEW 1. A construction permit may be required for any additional connections for either sewer or water. When plans are complete three copies of the drawings, two copies of the drainage report, a construction estimate and application fee shall be submitted at the fourth floor counter. CC: Neil Watts DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS LAND USE PERMIT SUBMITTAL WAIVED MODIFIED COMMENTS: REQUIREMENTS: BY: BY: Calculations, Survey, Drainage Control Plan 2 9a%31 . . ,419-1M4Mt.r, CV)-4-1 ri .Aef.. 0.) Drainage Report 2 X Elevations, Architectural 3 AND 4 011 ✓ Elevations, Grading 2 y� 4 Existing Covenants (Recorded Copy)4 Existing Easements (Recorded Copy) 4 Flood Plain Map, if applicable 4 v Floor Plans 3 AND 4 Geotechnical Report2AND3 Grading Plan, Conceptual 2 Grading Plan, Detailed 2 King County Assessor's Map Indicating Sited Landscaping Plan, Conceptual 4 1 E \ Legal Description 4 List of Surrounding Property Owners 4 Mailing Labels for Property Owners 4 Map of Existing Site Conditions 4 Master Application Form 4 Monument Cards (one per monument) , Parking, Lot Coverage & Landscaping - N Analysis 4 Plan Reductions (PMTs) 4 Postage 4 Public Works Approval Letter 2 Title Report or Plat Certificate 4 Topography Map (5' contours)3 Traffic Study 2 S/j-'h Tree CuttingNegetation Clearing Plano �� Utilities Plan, Generalized 2 Y L (iy Wetlands Delineation Map4 �} 1`- Ni- Wetlands Planting Plan 4 NI41 Wetlands Study 4 `J J rl N ' This requirement may be waived by: ."-, OPMENT F` 1. Property Services Section CITY OF REt\,,PROJECT NAME: �S ! C �'/ � 2. Public Works Plan Review Section Pf/v C / 17�_ 3. Building Section AUG 1 3 1999 DATE: (3 / 4. Development Planning Section RECEIVED h:\division.s\develop.ser\dev.plan.ing\waiver.xls .sy.....; .--,.::-..«--t,-.-.--.. .,-.w.•-.....- -. »-.>. it.s'T.iw_ r +:i: af±..'r-•i - ...- .- • - 4I - .'iwrasa�lapy . -z)=vt . add Sow--ZSZ-9oz ; x --, oi-►d -/-- - 11-k--k-- -231.99__p scssno i -,vii--2i -v "9'Ns, ' t1t-ca..l_W Esp 1 / ai(»-7\4' sr/' \ c-,17.-17' _. IC)163i Noti1 SIN 1wv _1 . 1202 1, -,c is Nc'i . - r.i ' Q os-It-1C) -= a r 0 V c N 5�'.3d'� 0 (nill il -A"-)ww----- 7t'WM P. F III r T -•- �� A � i- a }.�zi� .11 INN1- r VI 471C2 s 'Q3AOS\hlazia-7QEi 1'7C7`v5C. 3�43. /`c�''4'S 33 0.�:p ' ", 124 1 �N t d'"11`1 r-i o 1..1-'�t`--eL s 11-11�NC�' 'C VI c' .1.�i s1Q �- tr1 i ? • s: 1ill 1, 4 0 6\ 0 < (- 1"'N/1")sse44 .1.--Pd-H4t4SNse ,__s____------- _ 1 b ( i c. . tI4.„--el „.--)14 - .--:_-_--7- $� � I Ihg' _ ___. __ t 14"Z1 -‘-^'-1'ci e��. S - . 2N r_._� _� c -r Igag Fr"- I tTl"I 1ih1 um m • 4[ 1t �Zr•• 4_ 16 J r 4'. 10 2e 4. r' ,;� 7 •a,., . Kill :NEW L !i : �,R! Z23. 220 6 will ��® b • �' '� _ 1 �® 422 v 7 14`•`7zs ^ 11 8 ' ` 8 13 [z0 °'"®O 230 8' "...Ad(. n • Z29' ° 30 N � 9 6�t7� 9 12 zs ti�a � aa n b ! G p I.'S-j o .11 no s' SINEW ' 'i J A�IFI , . • o/'ter'-" ®' 5 ,3RD— _-STPA . t S t3RD s I01b,AC c kiii zv I m E `El •� , r' z ,z N 4, .r - @ d• s •�, ' 2 EOM 306 2'QIO 'm g l!• . r A,\x.� •1 DJ 19 i 1 1% a' . iL 3 NEI i - I9 �^ pp,— wr� c .t 6T°��. 4 is ,ELg• 4v : ; ' i '� }1 nzs �I2s w L r QIran Q31es��$ 13 °; Wif3 • �'/ , 11 Q � ce". _ ' t^eZ o l V�.f�1 r7 R° / ► „S '4/ ` .\ f- Ci I! "fir-2 ® k -- yL "imam t • ..�, r /2 mpg . Tom• e- -1 c11),�3 MI s M �, _V. Miii �I s ti - It - —' g I L 8 11 �� __ `_4,, ®� ® 30 P -ird, ico Qt ' ilo 7 ; »QSn§in.Ifit SliE WIZ Q r7R�� EU '` a • 0 g ; $ \\`Tonkin Pork S 4 T -1 $ ST . y '1 B'�00 IZeI \ __pig ' 2 19 ® 19 fa• . 2 i� Q . [ I� M.e �\ -- II A a 6C �++� : {° ---- y. - 28 3 18an41 .al 3 18 . :® 3 (8 5 I 3 1e ®. ® \ Mom, -fr _ _ a -®� g Zx 1 Toga/IN 'ld. awl �[N .ONATIO !M _` �/®_si • v• © '.. ir° ,so �6 e Efti • i ! E" •''''' 5 916 d1 �i►i.�NrT,�?y�1 I 16 1® \ © �. ' 6 IS :.ail . •® 6 15 r" t 7�Q,1.�•t •• S t �• . 7 140. Q .Egli 7 14 . / :4 .•ti.• 4' I 8 713®. v ® s ___ v . ;' 13 • Z "-I : ® 8 -la I � 71 6 9 t12 •® BIZ ®, 29 12 Q ® 912 �Q-rf.� --aa3 \ if o jj , • 12° /l' 144'1;17 e° I t• 10 11 M I I 01 Ip I l o !tT u0 \ •• ,m I Ra ' h \-,,,,,,,.,, „ 11 �3 (J g (21s►eo-re 25 S. 5TH ' '' 6 ,9.-{ I 43 (3) - (I) .4 3 �``� . ,4-t\ a �0 470• 11 r ram, 2; r; • ti, 2 �-;-2 19• �s (Z 4133.r., dtt 3 ,® 3 18 � o� f ® 3 IS Chi ,i121 -�tii-- — L' d ® 4 Il tiol'IST, 4 I7 �py ��1— h® 5,, ¢ Lam° • 111i1F1i1YirC1 ' - • :7- 1y ' •' G • • _--- --•-• 213 --7 14 ®9 . .® 7 i4 .® 7 'PI: .sN 7 14 ,®O 1 iro 5 • 58 • 52®� zb Q,8 13 ® 8 13 ail. Jaw 8 �`/y 1 $1 [ff9 8 13 I.f} a 1 R 9 12 ©s• S59 12 533 �r s ,,•,; 336 MILL 12 �. _ t 1 (�� .•.• 60 �AVE.S. - �_ 32 ,2 0ID = x aI.r�P 1Q Es, •: �r:l .-l.o I s fi�"�:�C �'] �( a S. Is-6i I.ST l 1 O 5�^ I �1 M i t fr-WI LIAMS I. 0 V o tO 1:1 +y 16 so so �� EYJ ` '. r/ mi, • rAC ,u.I.IT, !° . J•, .�, 7[1 �•1 • „ .rovalai ,,,.f„,t . T� ti 13 bl —2 ItO .' , - 1 •.. ... :. . .1 ,, 2. 03,j 1 z �0 � + IzsLAc�.]{ 18 g 629 6 7 I4 ?L dr ��fT, fii, I ,1 ,��• Gov 1 IUD' 0.61 At. C ED�R. a ��2 CI 1�, 3�„ i�o J� 'tb tC �` �._Y____ e `10 S. v y` t' 0t8Ac. *t.2t ;Y .c YL,�yyr', / I �`.f,`e fi➢"_' a ,w.. ,e•,»',a , ,.u.« _•`:: :.: • _ •r ��� W /9 20 ro.aw ..arr re. -- • -- -- _• __._-___ 'raJ. —. 1 —� / \ t VVV YYYY�//// ATLAS OF SEATTLE '"n44.4•`"""'_•40,464..•••""..M""""" .....•r....O....,1......".............�lam..•.....•...n..... , COPYRIGHTED&PUBII$HEO BY I.................,a4....�..1 tem....,+..w... KROLL MAP COMPANY,INC., SEATTLE . .""'_"'`""`°°°" "' • "`""`'"" """"'° k*************************************************************** 2ity of Renton WA Reprinted: 08/13/99 15 :42 Receipt k******************************************************1 ******** Receipt Number: R9903997 Amount : 406 . 60 08/13/99 15 :42 Payment Method: CHECK Notation: 56033SERVICELINE Init : CRP Project #: LUA99-116 Type: LUA Land Use Actions Total Fees: 406 . 60 This Payment 406 . 60 Total ALL Pmts : 406 . 60 Balance: . 00 k*************************************************************** Account Code Description Amount 000 . 345 . 81. 00 . 0007 Environmental Review 400 . 00 000 . 05 . 519 . 90 .42 . 1 Postage 6 . 60