The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLUA85-0284/ NIMIIW of 1b1c7Øf OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNE Y,• RENTON,WASHINGTON0Ityb..)ji.. 2 POST OFFICE BON i2i 100 S 2nd STREET • RENTON.WASH_ INGTON l 067 2 S-•L7• 009 LAWRENCE J.WARREN, CITY ATTORNEY DANIELfirKELLOGG, AstlsrANt car ATTORNeIr DAVID M. DEAN, ASSISTANT CITY'ATTORNEY TEO SEPtE MARK E.BARBER, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY ZANETTA L.FONTES, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEYJune11, 1985 MARTHA A.FRENCH, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY' Seth Fulcher, Jr. 210 Union Trust Annex 117 South Main Street Seattle, WA 98104 Re: American Memorial Services , Inc.nc. and Mt, L .:, Yg Ceme.te .,:ys.. Cit .Q .,.,kencan .. t . Dear Mr. Fulcher: I have received your Writ of Review and wish to clarify acouplepointswithyou. One, your Writ indicates that. theCityshallcertifyafulltrueandcompletetranscriptoftheentirerecordandproceedinginthismatter. I antici- 1 ,pate that I will answer by certifying a full copy of theCity' s file and certified copies of the tapes taken duringthehearing. If you wish to have those tapes transcribed,the burden and the expense rest upon the appellant. Ibelievethisburdenisclearlyestablishedbycaselaw. Additionally, you have as a last line of your Writ that theCityisrequiredtodesistfromfurtherproceedingsinthemattertobereviewed. I believe that is in the nature ofatemporaryrestrainingorderorpreliminaryinjunction. I note that you did not contact me as the known representativeoftheCitybeforeobtainingsuchanorder. You also did notfollowtheformatforinjunctions , nor did you post a bond. If you intend to limit that portion of the order to the adminis-trative determination that an incomplete application had beenmade, and the follow-up appeal before Fred Kaufman, and theletterfromRonNelson, the follow-up appeal, and the HearingExaminer's decision that this was not a final determination, Seth Fulcher, Jr. June 11, 1985 Page -2- then I can abide by the order. If you believe that yourrestraintifanygreaterthanthat, then I want you toimmediatelysoinformmesothatIcanmovetoquashthatportionoftheorder. Very truly yours, Lawrence J. Warren LJW/jw Encl. (Notice of Appearance) cc: Mayor Shinpoch rr..Ow OF RAI 0,/1•44. t OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY ' RENTON,WASHINGTON POST OFFICE SOX 626 100 S 2nd STREET • RENTON.WASHINGTON 99057 255-8678Z 09 at OMB LAWRENCE J.WARREN, CITY ATTORNEY DANIEL KELLOGG, ASSISTANT CITY Ammarw DAVID M. DEAN, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY14% SEPle-- e MARK E.BARBER, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY ZANETTA L.FONTES, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEYJune11, 1985 MARTHA A.FRENCH, ASSISTANT CITY ATTOIINEY TO: Ron Nelson FROM: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Dear Ron: I have been served a copy of a ,Write of Review by Ame11e.awriaLServicas and Mt alive.t..Xemeteery.:;o- Could you pleasecertifyupacopyofyourfileandthetapesusedforthehearings . The Writ gives us only until the 30th of June.If this presents any time problems for you, please let meknow. Very truly yours , btsiw_P 6-rti-- Lawrence J. arren LJW/jw R0_n Q cc: Mayor Shinpoch 0t 4af-Pc) kf6I "0 4-00' 1 0 2 tck 49/ 4 11; F 7 1985 tp er:ot Cuu;r C;; 3 1:iih CITY QF 4 C G\ s 6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY 7 AMERICAN MEMORIAL SERVICES, 8 INC, a Washington Corporation, ) p o 0 s, =7 and MT. OLIVET CEMETERY,NO. j 9 Petitioners, 10 WRIT OF REVIEW CITY OF RENTON, an incorporated) 11 city, 12 Respondent. 13 TO: BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, Mayor, FRED J. KAUFMAN, Hearing Examiner, 14 and RON NELSON, Building and Zoning Director, and the CITY of 15 RENTON 16 AND TO: LAWRENCE WARREN, City attorney 17 Whereas, it has been presented to this court by the petition 18 and affidavit in support thereof of AMERICAN MEMORIAL SERVICES and 19 MT. OLIVET CEMETERY, on file herein, that you have, in the exer- 20 cise of quasi-judicial functions and in exercise of the authority 21 of the City of Renton, proceeded illegally in the matter of the 22 processing and review of the annual license renewal applications 23 of AMERICAN MEMORIAL. SERVICES and MT. OLIVET CEMETERY in that you 24 have operated upon unlawful procedure and have made determinations, 25 upon an erroneous interpretation of the Renton Municipal Code as 26 Writ of Review - 1 SETH FULCHER, JR. 210 Union Trust Annex, 117 South Main Street Seattle, WA 98104 206) 292-9333 y 1 well as determinations which are clearly erroneous in view of the 2 entire record; and, 3 Whereas, by an Order of this Court duly given and made in the 4 above-entitled proceeding on the 6th day of June, 1985 , it was 5 ordered that a Writ of Certiorari issue to you, now therefore, 6 You are commanded to fully certify and return to the King 7 County Superior Court, on or before the day of 8 1985, a full, true, and complete transcript of the entire record 9 and proceedings in this matter, aforesaid, as fully as the same are 10 now before you, including the testimony given at hearings held 11 before you, to the end that the same may be reviewed by this Court 12 and such action taken thereof as of right and as according to law 13 shall be taken and done, and that you then and there have this writ 14 with you, and, in the meantime, you are commanded and required to 15 desist from further proceedings in the matter to be reviewed. 16 Attest by my hand and seal FOBEh jN, W;(icv{? 17 of said Superior Court the day and year last written Wi Es rable 18 L. c,Ti hli'OR Judge ofabove. Li. Janice Mich.'s, Cicri; of the Superior Court the Superior Court in and for19 the County of King, Washington, 20 Clerk ATt FFRI (1 _.N-CART I?i. y this . day of J!!N 6 - 1585 21 22 23 24 25 26 Writ of Review - 2 SETH FULCHER, JR. 210 Union Trust Annex 117 South Main Street Seattle, WA 98104 206) 292-9333 11.4; (x.m . E. F 7 f) JUN 7 1985 i fd6e i::( i'! $ I:r.I ITY OF RENTON i ,JUN 61985 1 MAYOR'S OFFICE 3 4 , 5 6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY AMERICAN MEMORIAL SERVICES, 8 INC, a Washington Corporation, ) 5 o : - f k` r' 9 ei and MT. OLIVET CEMETERY,NO. 9 Petitioners, 10 PETITION FOR WRIT OF REVIEW CITY OF RENTON, an incorporated) 11 city, 12 Respondent. 13 COMES NOW AMERICAN MEMORIAL SERVICES, INC, and MT. OLIVET 14 CEMETERY, by its undersigned attorney Seth Fulcher, Jr. and peti- 15 tions the above-encaptioned court for a writ of review directed to 16 the City of Renton, an incorporated city, in cause number 17 AAD-028-85 entitled American Memorial Services/Mt. Olivet Cemetery, 18 and as to the appeal stated in American Memorial Service ' s letter 19 to Hearing Examiner Kaufman of May ,15, 1985 (see exhibit A to Colt 20 affidavit) requiring the City of Renton to certify to this ' court at 21 a specified time and place a full record of the transcript and pro- 22 ceeding had in said cause for review herein and that thereupon the 23 court review the same as to the City of Renton' s denial of 24 Petitioner' s application for an annual license to operate 25 plaintiff' s landfill under its Renton special permit no. SP-047-80 26 Petition for Writ of Review - 1 SETH FULCHER, JR. 210 Union Trust Annex 117 South Main Street Seattle, WA 98104 206) 292-9333 1 and as required by King County Health Department permit 17-011 , 2 and as to the the unlawful procedures engaged in by the City of 3 Renton in processing, evaluating and making determinations upon 4 Petitioner' s applications . 5 This application is based upon the declaration of James L. Colt 6 submitted herewith and upon RCW 7.16.030 et seq. 7 8 9 Seth F lcher, . attorney for peti ioner 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Petition for Writ of Review - 2 SETH FULCHER, JR. 210 Union Trust Annex 117 South Main Street Seattle, WA 98104 206) 292-9333 T,•, l_ ___ tip . American Memorial Services, Inc. 100 Blaine Avenue NE • PO Box 547 Renton, Washington 98055 March 18, 1985 Mr. Fred J. Kaufman Land Use Hearing Examiner City of Renton 200 Mill Ave. South Renton, Wa. 98055 Re: American Memorial/Mt. Olivet Appeal of administrative determinations and interpretations regarding SP-116-84'made from the files of record, and specifically the attached letter dated March 8, 1985. Dear Mr. Kaufman: American Memorial Services, and Mt. Olivet Cemetery hereby formally appeal the interpretation and determinations made by the ERC committee members listed below, with respect to their findings comments and requirements imposed, as represented in the reports provided to American Memorial on March 8,1985. These reports form the basis for the letter from Mr. Blaylock, of the same date which states that the City will not consider the application accepted by the city of American Memorial/Mt. Olivet in Dec. 1984. Page one of the letter states that the following "information is requested", yet item 6. , clearly is not a request for information, but the attempt to impose conditions with-out benefit of the hearing examiner process , and to refuse to accept the application unless work is performed prior to the issuance of a permit. Item #7., also attempts to impose conditions prior to public hearing. These requests for. permit requirements clearly should be presented to the Hearing Examiner by those city departments so that the hearing examiner can hear both the applicants and citys positions and make a determination as to the conditions TO BE attached to the SPECIAL PERMIT. Further to page one, Para. #1. , a detailed plan prepared by a liscensed engineer was accepted by the city on Dec. 27,1984, and again on Feb 11, 1985. Para.#2. , is another attempt to impose conditions on a proposed permit with-out benefit of a public hearing, and clearly is an area to be addressed by the hearing examiner. 6141%t Further appeal of page 2 of the March 8, letter, INFORMATION , b requested under the heading TRAFFIC ENGINEERING again is not a request for information, but an attempt to impose conditions on a proposed permit, with-out the use of the hearing examiner process. Further, detailed plans, prepared by a licensed engineer clearly locate the area to be filled, and all staff members are familiar with the site, and it's location, both physically, and as J . represented on the plans submitted. With regard to the sta t that " the a float' of comp ete this determination b the Building Division is appealed, wi presented as to completeness of the application, as ACCEPTED by the Building Department. During the appeal hearing the "Appellants" will introduce testimony, exhibits, maps, and call witnesses to testify with respect to those items outlined above, and with respect to the Special permit file, and it's acceptance by the city, and to the ERC reports, and all of the statements contained there-in. The "Appellants" appeal those statements made by the following individuals resulting in the attached letter and intend to call these city representatives to testify as to those statements and the application accepted by the city. Don Monaghan Public Works Dept. James Hanson Building & Zoning Roger Blaylock Zoning Administrator Ronald Nelson Director Bldg. & Zoning Bob Bray Engineering The attempt to impose conditions in a special permit, with-out going thru the hearing examiner process, is improper, and the requirement that an applicant perform specific site work, with-out the benefit of a permit, and the refusal to accept an application for the permit to perform the work, until the work is peformed is contradictory, confusing and not permited by city code. The actions of the city are in error and a formal appeal hearing is here-by requested, as provided by code. Sincerely, American Memoria r- s, Inc. vi oiropy'ditolfrivir it/A. Colt Pr: ident h encls.RECEIVED MAR 2 01985 CITY OF RENTON 7 HEARING EXAIbisivcK RECEIVED SETH FULCHER, JR. 0870E May 17, 1985 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION. APPELLANT: AMERICAN MEMORIAL' SERVICES/MT. OLIVET CEMETERY FILE NO. AAD-028-85 ADDRESS: 100 Blaine Avenue N.E. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Appeal of an administrative decision by the Zoning Administrator to request additional information on a proposed fill project involving 119,172 cubic yards of material on approximately four (4) acres of property. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Appellant's letter of March 18, 1985, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing as follows: The hearing was opened on May 14. 1985 at 1:40 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit #1 - Yellow file. SP-116-85, containing application and other documents pertinent to this hearing. Exhibit #2 - Letter dated January 4, 1985 from Roger Blaylock to James Colt. Exhibit #3 - Letter dated March 8, 1985 from Roger Blaylock to James Colt. Exhibit #4 - Manila work file from the Building and Zoning Department, SP-028-85. Exhibit #5 - Letter from Ron Nelson to James Colt. dated February 2. 1984. Exhibit #6 - Letter from Ron Nelson to James Colt, dated July 19, 1982. Exhibit #7 - Series of Engineering drawings, date stamped June 23. 1983 and May 2, 1985. APPEARING: Lawrence Warren, Attorney for the City of Renton Seth Fulcher, Jr., Attorney for the Appellant James L. Colt, Appellant Ronald Nelson, Director, Building & Zoning Department James Hansen, Assistant Building Official Roger Blaylock, Zoning Administrator Don Monaghan, Design Engineer for the City of Renton Attorney Warren opened testimony by questioning the basis and necessity for this hearing stating he felt the letter from Roger Blaylock to Mr. Colt precipitating this appeal was not an administrative decision, merely a request for more information before Mr. Colt's application could move along within the City's departments. The Hearing Examiner stated the sole issue for discussion at this hearing is whether or not Mr. Colt's attempt to apply for a fill and grade permit met City conditions. Other information referring to previous applications on thkk..site need not be discussed. Mt. Olivet Cemetery/James Colt AAD-028-85 May 17, 1985 Page 2 Attorney Fulcher stated to the Examiner his concern with regard to the policies followed by City departments with respect to the cross-referencing of information and other documentation received from applicants. He questioned the use of more than one file (i.e. master file for City Clerk, work file for the Building Department and yet another file for the Hearing Examiner's Office). Attorney Fulcher continued stating it was felt due to responses received from various City departments cross-referencing prior applications, that the material submitted in support of prior applications should be accepted. It was his contention that the issue before the Hearing Examiner was to determine City policies in terms of incorporating and using previous information, and feels his client should be permitted to reference, and have accepted, information and documentation from previous applications to fulfill the City's requirements for the current permit request. He indicated his displeasure with what he considered to be inconsistent information as relates to city policies and procedures with regard to acceptance and processing of applications. He feels the City is acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner on Mr. Colt's current permit application. He suggested the Hearing Examiner review the procedures for acceptance and review of applications, and was advised by the Examiner that it was not within his jurisdiction to set policy, nor were the policies and procedures an issue in today's hearing. The Examiner again reiterated the single issue in this hearing was to determine if Mr. Colt did in fact submit an application for a grade and fill permit, and did that application meet City requirements. Mr. Colt began by calling the city Zoning Administrator, Roger Blaylock, to testify. He requested Mr. Blaylock to verbally review all of the documents contained in the official yellow file for this special permit. After this review Mr. Colt stated he had information to show that documents had been deleted from the original application presented. He presented a manila file containing additional information on the current permit request, bearing the same file number as the official file. The Examiner requested Mr. Colt at some point in the hearing to present the documents he felt were deleted from the original application, and in the interest of time, to advise what additional information the City required of him on his permit application. Mr. Colt referred to a letter from Mr. Blaylock dated March 8, 1985 setting out the additional information requested. Mr. Colt questioned the time frame used by the City in the processing of applications and their obligation to respond. He felt from the time he presented the permit application on December 27, 1984, until he received the letter from Mr. Blaylock on March 8, 1985, he had complied with all requirements for the permit application. He stated he felt when the Building Department signed his permit as "accepted", it was the City's way of saying he had complied with their procedure. It was pointed out by Attorney Warren that a signature in the "accepted" portion of the application merely means the department had received the application and would then begin the review procedure within the various city departments. Attorney Warren reiterated "accepted" did not mean "approved". He also pointed out that even after the application is accepted, the ERC must review, and that SEPA regulations take precedent over other departments until it's review is made. The ERC is also permitted to set out requirements other than those made by other city departments. Their review must also be considered in the processing time frame before a hearing date is set before the Hearing Examiner. Referring to a time frame for processing, Roger Blaylock referred to City Code Section 4-2808(b)(3) He also reviewed Section 4-2307 setting out requirements for new applications. At this point the Hearing Examiner asked Mr. Colt, both attorneys and members of staff present if they would like to consider a short recess to see if they would like to consider remanding the application back to staff for a 15 day period to consider new information, and if at the end of that time it is found that the application is considered complete, a recommended date could be presented for a hearing before the Hearing Examiner. At this time the Hearing Examiner called for a short recess. The hearing resumed at 3:20 P.M., with all original parties present. Attorney Fulcher advised the Examiner that Mr. Colt did not wish to remand the application, he wished to proceed with the hearing. Mr. Colt proceeded to call Ron Nelson, Building and Zoning Department Director to testify. Under direct questioning from Mr. Colt, Mr. Nelson described his participation in the review process as pertains to this application and how the other departmental information was interpreted by his department. Mr. Nelson stated that until this appeal was filed Mr. Colt's application was progressing, and would have been further along in the review process if the applicant had presented the additional information as requested. Reference was made to Exhibit #1 5, and Mr. Colt questioned why documents presented as support for previous permits/applications could not be used to support SP-116-85. Attorney Warren objected to constant reference of documents and applications prior to the March 8, 1985 letter requesting a hearing. He stated the letter of March 8, 1985 setting out additional information needed would serve to let Mr. Colt know at that time that his application was ni cceptable as presented to the Cit., - vlr. Nelson stated there Mt. Olivet Cemetery/James Colt AAD-028-85 May 17. 1985 Page 3 are major problems of erosion on the site and no documents presented addressed this concern. At this point, the Examiner read from the sections of the City Code which set out requirements for a permit to grade and fill a site. There was continued discussion on terminology used with regard to an application being accepted and/or incomplete, as well as reference to previous documentation submitted on past permit requests. Attorney Warren argued that it is not the duty of the various city departments to go back through old files and pick and choose documentation to be added to the current application. A review was made of a previously submitted drainage drawing and separate topographical map. Mr. Nelson advised the topographical map is not acceptable, had not been submitted with the application, did not show boundaries and did not address the concerns expressed regarding erosion on the site. The hearing continued when Mr. Colt called upon Jim Hanson from the Building and Zoning Department to testify. Mr. Colt questioned if Mr. Hanson had based his negative decision for this permit request on past applications, and was told he did not. Mr. Hanson reviewed City code section 4-2307 setting out the-requirements to be met for a fill and grade permit and said Mr. Colt's application was incomplete. Mr. Colt asked him to review a topographical map and tell him why it was incomplete. Mr. Hanson reviewed the map and stated the document presented was a topographical sketch, not a fill and grade plan as required, there were no property lines shown, and no limits of the site are shown on the sketch. Mr. Hanson reiterated that Mr. Colt had not presented a complete packet with the permit application, thereby making it impossible to process. The sketch presented had not been approved by Mr. Bray in the Engineering Department. Mr. Hanson continued reviewing code sections setting out requirements and noting Mr. Colt had not met those requirements. Again the Hearing Examiner suggested that Mr. Colt and staff get together and review the application, and within a 15 day period determine what needed to be done to bring the application into compliance, with all documentation attached. Attorney Warren advised the Examiner there would be no remanding to staff as it was agreed by departmental staff present that the application as submitted was not complete. At this point in the hearing the Examiner called for a 10 minute recess. The hearing continued at 5:00 P.M. with all original parties in attendance. Mr. Colt called on Don Monaghan, Design Engineering Department, to testify. In reply to questions from Mr. Colt, Mr. Monaghan responded that he had reviewed the current plans that had been submitted and they were incomplete. He said a complete plan was needed so any individual not familiar with the site could go out to the site and review to see what phase the work might be in. Mr. Colt inquired if Mr. Monaghan knew the property, and he responded stating it was not identifiable as to the sketch presented. When asked if he had reviewed the same sketch in 1983, Mr. Monaghan stated he was unsure when he had first viewed the plan. Attorney Warren asked Mr. Monaghan if there was adequate information on the plan for a fill and grade permit, are the exact boundaries shown, landscaping shown, reclaimation information shown, and to all of those inquiries Mr. Monaghan replied in the negative. Mr. Monaghan further stated the plans required should be drawn up by a certified engineer. He also said there are problems on the site at this time that need to be corrected because the City feels the site is unstable. Mr. Colt requested the Hearing Examiner to find that due to the vagueness of the correspondence from the City of Renton to American Memorial Services regarding a request for additional information, that he had been denied his right of due process by not having all of the information necessary available to them. He stated he feels decisions have been fluctuating, and asked the Examiner to find that staff acted in a arbitrary and capricuous manner in refusing to further process his application. Attorney Warren argued that it was felt Mr. Colt was trying to give the City drawings that had not been approved by staff and make said drawings work for the current application. He said the City is only required to respond to an application as it is presented, and Mr. Colt's application was not complete. In closing, Mr. Colt reviewed the actions that took place leading up to and the presentation of a permit application for grading and filling for the subject site. He referred to a previous file, SP-047-80 as he feels it relates to his current application. He said he feels the City has conditioned the application before it has been presented before the Hearing Examiner. He reiterated his feeling that American Memorial Services, Inc. has met their obligations under City code even though the code numbers have changed, and feels the City is acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner. There were no closing statements from either attorney, or further comments from staff. 1 he hearing was closed at 5:50 P.M. Mt. Olivet Cemetery/Jams._ molt AAD-028-85 May 17, 1985 Page 4 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: INTRODUCTION The appellant, American Memorial Services, which operates the Mt. Olivet Cemetery at100BlaineAvenueN.E., in Renton, has had a number of permits issued to grade and fill anoldquarry/gravel extraction site. Those permits have been the subject of various administrative and court appeals but are not part of this appeal. The City refused to issue an annual license and ordered work on the site halted. In order to continue to fill the subject site the appellant filed a new request for a special permit. The appellant submitted various documents as part of the application and cited the contents of the earlier permit files. The City, in written correspondence, indicated information necessaryforevaluationwasnotsubmitted, and stated processing could not continue. The appellant submitted additional information. The information was routed to various Citydepartmentsforroutineevaluation. Various departments commented that the information was incomplete and requested additional information. A letter from the Building and Zoning Department, the department responsible for processing the application, was sent to the appellant indicating that the application was incomplete and requesting additional information. The appellant thereafter, and in a timely fashion, filed this appeal from the decision that the application was incomplete. Parties to the proceeding were the appellant, American Memorial Services (Mt Olivet Cemetary Company, Inc.) by James L. Colt, and Counsel, Seth Fulcher, Jr. Appearing fortheCityofRentonwasCityAttorney, Lawrence J. Warren. Testifying for the City were Roger Blaylock, Zoning Administrator, Ronald Nelson, Building Director, James Hanson, Assistant Building Director, and Donald Monaghan, Design Engineer. FINDINGS 1.The Special Permit which gave rise to this appeal is identified in City documents as SP-116-84. The permit was filed with the City on December 27, 1984 on a form titled Master Application. The form is a general form which contains boxes to check off the type of application. It also provides the applicant blanks in which other relevant information about the projected use may be provided. The form indicates the site address as 100 Blaine Avenue N.E., Renton; 4 acres are involved, the existing use as land fill site, the proposed use as complete land fill, and then any allowable use. Two separate cover letters accompanied the Master Permit Application. One letter was addressed to Ronald Nelson the Building Director.The second letter was addressed to the Building and Zoning Department. Also submitted to the Building and Zoning Department as part of the packet of information was an affidavit of ownership, a separate sheet containing the legal description of the site, an Environmental Checklist, a xeroxed map (apparently a copy of a Kroll Map) showing Mt. Olivet Cemetery and surrouding property, another map again showing Mt. Olivet Cemetery and surrounding property with zoning classifications, an engineering estimate sheet for landscape earthwork prepared by Giaudrone and Associates and a topographic sketch of what would appear to be the fill site, prepared by the same firm. 2. For purposes of this appeal, the two earlier special permits issued to the appellant, American Memorial Services (AMS), SP-034-77 and SP-047-80, are not subject to this appeal. 3.Both cover letters to the City, the one to Nelson and the general letter to the Building Department referenced the "complete sets of plans for this project in files SP-034-77 and SP-047-80." 4.The Master Application was received by Jerry F. Lind on December 27, 1984. In addition to the information provided by the appellant on the form, there is a section reserved for "Staff Use Only -- Administrative Processing." Lind marked the box provided on the form 'Accepted' under the phrase "Application determined to be:" The other choice on the form would have been 'Incomplete.' Lind signed the form. 5.The affidavit of ownership signed by the appellant had the following language: Acceptance of this application and required filing fee does not constitute a complete application. Plans and other materials required to constitute a complete application are lister the 'Application Procedure.' 1 Mt. Olivet Cemetery/James Colt AAD-028-85 May 17. 1985 Page 5 6. The copy of the Kroll map which is scaled 1" = 200' appears to have been the map prepared by the City for the earlier permit application SP-034-77 since it bears information containing that number. It does not particularly identify the subject site or the location of the fill area. 7.The zoning map submitted with the application showing Mt. Olivet Cemetery also appears to have been prepared for SP-034-77 since it again contains that permit's reference number. The information contained in the map would appear to be at least 7 to 8 years old. Certain zoning designations noted on the map, including that of the subject site, are no longer used in the City of Renton and have not been used for more than a year. 8.The landscape earthwork quantity estimate sheet was originally prepared on September 16, 1983. The topographic sketch was scaled at 1" = 50' and would appear to show a deep depression with a low elevation of approximately 242 feet and; a high elelavtion of approximately 300 feet. It also appears to show the finished elevations ranging from approximately 270 feet to 300 feet. A road easement is designated and the phrase Mt. Olivet Cemetery appears on the map. A power right-of-way is also shown. No complete boundaries are represented on the map. 9 ) As 'additional background, the appellant had begun work under the auspices of the earlier special permits. That work was stopped when the City refused to issue an annual license. Work in progress was stopped. This stoppage may have resulted in unsafe conditions on portions of the old fill site, as correspondence indicates that the City determined that potentially unstable conditions resulted from the failure to, complete the work authorized by the special permits. The appellant was informed that the site would. among other things. have to be stablized even in the absence of an annual license. As what appears to be the result of correspondence on this matter, the appellant submitted various plans to the City on June 23, 1983. The record does not reflect approval of those plans nor whether any work was performed pursuant to those plans. The record reflects the City's belief that the site is still unsafe. While the City had in its possession the June 23, 1983 plans, they do not appear to have been deliberately submitted as part of the Master Application packet on December 27. 1984. nor is there any reason to believe they were considered or should have been considered as part of that application. Those June, 1983 plans appear to have been submitted again on May 2. 1985 subsequent to the filing of this appeal since they bear a date receipt stamp with the later date. 10. The Zoning Administrator, Roger Blaylock, wrote the appellant on January 4. 1985, approximately 5 working days after submission of the Master Application that: Our plan checking has revealed that the required information has not been submitted in order for us to evaluate [your plans]. Unfortunately, the City cannot reference documentation in previous land use files (SP-034-77 and SP-047-80) as you have suggested in your cover letter." The letter from Blaylock concludes: Please be advised that the Building and Zoning Department cannot process the application any further until it is completed." 11. The City's method of processing an application and compiling an official file does not appear to be an exact science. Apparently until a public hearing is scheduled, documents, both copies and originals are, placed in various files. routed to different departments for review and circulated internally. After such routing and review, an 'official file' is compiled containing the original Master Application, I supporting documentation, original comment sheets from the various departments and other original correspondence. Until such compilation is made, the City maintains various working files. 12. j The City was in receipt of various other documents and plans submitted over an i approximately 8 year period. These materials were related to prior applications, the correspondence generated as a result of those permits and the lack of completion of those permits. Blaylock's letter indicates clearly that those materials could not be considered as part of the current request. Mt. Olivet Col metery/Jame-_--nit AAD-028-85 i May 17, 19851 Page 6 13. The appellant submitted additional materials on February 11, 1985, apparently in response to the January 4th letter and a telephone conversation with Mr. Blaylock. Included in those materials was again the "Topographic Sketch", a three page narrative, "Mt. Olivet Cemetery, Inc. Method of Reclamation" and a cover letter from appellant indicating a desire for a March 19, 1985 hearing date on the request. The narrative indicated the types of materials to be used, the density of the materials after compaction, the cell size (layers of fill material and covering materials), the completion materials which included replacing natural fill materials, topsoil and hydroseeding, including the mix of seed, fertilizer and water. The setbacks of the tops and toes of slopes was not specified but was to provide safety and benefit for adjacent property, and be not less than 10 feet. Distance to undefined structures was given. A buffer strip on the north and west property lines in which natural vegetation would be maintained was specified as 50 feet. 14. The Master Application form indicates that the documents, including the material submitted on February 11, was routed on February 12, 1985. The material was routed to the Building, Design Engineering, Fire, Parks, Police, Policy Development, Traffic Engineering and Utility departments or divisions. 15. The routing appears to serve two purposes. One purpose is to solicit comments for an environmental determination, while the other is to solicit information for an analysis of the request on its merits. The routing is via two separate forms: a Development Application Review Sheet and an Environmental Checklist Review Sheet. Comments from departments are expected to result from the circulation of these! two review sheets. Don Monaghan, Design Engineer, on both review sheets cited a separate memo which indicated that he needed more information. The memo requested "a detailed before and after grading plan," "a detailed temporary erosion control plan ...," "a phasing plan for the partial completion of the filling, stabilization and hydroseeding," " identification of the ground water aquifer and the direction of its flow," and "all of the above prepared by a licensed engineer." The Utility Engineer, Ronald Olsen wrote: "Note this area in ground water protection area which must be protected." 16. Jim Hanson, Assistant Building Director, responded on the Environmental sheet: application is not complete, plans and/or checklist does not show compliance with Sec 2307, Sec 2306, or 2303 of the Mining & Grading Ord." On the Development Review Sheet he wrote: "plans do not comply with Mining & Grading Ord. Sec. 2303; 2306 & 2307. Project must comply with Sec 4-2310, 2, Eng. Grading. Past Permit has not been completed as proposed." 16. Clinton Morgan of the Traffic Engineering Department, wrote on the Environmental sheet: "Not enough detailed plans to make appraisal of proposed file." Traffic Engineering noted on the Development Sheet: "No (sic) enough detailed plans for site and where the fill will occur." 17. These routing sheets appear to include not only the requests or comments relating to more detailed information, but also statements referring to conditions or requests for conditions. Such conditions are usually referred to the Environmental Review Committee, the City's responsible State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) official and the Hearing Examiner, who reviews the requests on their merits at a public hearing. 18. In referencing these comments, Roger Blaylock, the City's liaison with applicants. including the appellant, wrote the appellant on March 8, 1985. . The letter referenced almost verbatim, the comment sheets of Don Monaghan, the Design Engilneer, and Jim Hanson, the Assistant Building Director. While Mr. Blaylock introduced the verbatim statements as a request from the departments for additional information. The letter also included some of the proposed conditions those departments would have imposed on a permit, if it were approved. While not clearly a request for just additional information, the letter from Mr. Blaylock clearly indicates that additional information was necessary "prior to formally accepting the application as complete." 19. After receiving this letter the appellant filed the instant appeal and the matter wasIset for this hearing. Nit. Olivet Cemetery/James Colt AAD-028-85 May 17, 198S Page 7 20. Other, correspondence appears to have occurred subsequent to the setting of the appeal hearing. Additional plans were also submitted which appear to be the same or similar to plans submitted on June 23, 1983, since these plans show receipt by the City on two dates: June 23, 1983 and May 2, 1985. The plans are not considered as part of the application for purposes of this decision. If the plans were received later than the appeal date, there is no evidence they were reviewed by City officials who should be given first chance to determine their respective suitability per ordinance requirements. Since they were submitted more than a year earlier then the instant application, there is no evidence that the City culled all of its old records to find any information relevant to all aspects of the appellant's prior requests or current application. The record actually demonstrates that the appellant was informed that old records could not be relied upon, and new documents and plans clearly outlining the current request were necessary. 21. The Ordinance itself advises: "For advice and assistance before the application for a special permit from the Hearing Examiner and an annual license to operate under this Ordinance from the Building and Public Works Department, the applicant should consult early and informally with the Building and Public Works Depar;tments." (Section 4-2303 (1)). While various plans 'floated' around City Hall, any such plans were not part of the official application which was received by the City Ion December 27, 1984. Some of the information the appellant urges be considered as part of the current application was received by the City more than a year earlier. The packet presented in December, 1984 would have to meet the requirements of the ordinance. Other information, even if viewed, reviewed or even approved earlier, would be part, at best, of a preliminary or informal process. The applicant has the burden of presenting current information for City review. No where in the Ordinances is there an affirmative duty for the City to cull, examine, copy and prepare documents from old records or submissions for inclusion in the applicant's application. Even if files were hanging around, the applicant had the responsibility to compile them into a coherent application. There was no way the City could know, nor does it appear it had the responsibility to determine, if old information was relevant in part or in its entirety to the subject application. i 22. The Ordinance specifically requires a variety of maps, plans and details. The sections, requirements and appellant's submissions are presented below. 4-2307(4)(A) Adequate information shall be submitted for the entire project which may include work over several years. The appellant submitted various maps from 1977, a topographic sketch, the environmental checklist, and an engineering estimate of fill material. 4-2307(5) Map scale, Information on Plans and Specifications. Plans shall be drawn on 22 by 34 inch sheets with a vertical scale of 1" representing 40 horizontal feet and 1" representing 10 vertical feet. All Plans shall be of sufficient clarity to indicate the nature and extent of the work proposed and show in detail that they will conform to the provision... The topographic sketch. while on the correct size page. is in the wrong scale. It shows a segment of property. no particular standardized reference point or section lines. It is what its title purports it to be - a sketch. 4-2307(5)(A) General vicinity map of the proposed site showing adjacent land uses on a 1" representing 600 or 800 feet. The two maps which the appellant extracted from an old file do not show adjacent land uses, they show zoning which only indicates a potential land use. The zoning which is shown contains outdated information from 1977. The scale on one map is 1" = 200 feet which would appear to show much less of the surrounding area then required by a scale of 1" to 600 feet. There is no scale evident on the other map which indicates the acreage for the fill at approximately 11.3 acres. The Master Application form filled out by the appellant indicated only 4 acres would be filled. 4-2307(5)(B) Property limits and accurate contours of at least 10 foot intervals of existing ground and details of terrain and area drainage. Only one contour map exists and it does not show property limits. Mt. Olivet Cemetery/James Colt AAD-028-85 May 17, 1985 Page 8 4-2307(5)(D) Existing natural drainage systems including both perennial and intermittent streams and the presence of bordering vegetation. No such plans are part of the Master Application. The narrative discusses vegetation but its extent, nature and type is not indicated. 4-2307(5)(E) Detail plans of all surface and subsurface drainage devices, walls, cribbing, dams and other protective devices to be constructed. There were no plans submitted on December 27, 1984 as part of the Master Application showing such plans. 4-2307(5)(F) Location of any buildings or structures on the property. The narrative indicates a distance to such structures but they are not shown on any plans, nor is their location or characteristics shown. 4-2307(5)(H) Setbacks and those areas that are not to be disturbed. Again, while setbacks are indicated in the reclaimation narrative, they are not shown on plans, and the specificity is limited to setbacks of "at least 10 feet." 23. The comments from the Utility Engineer, Ronald Olsen. which state: "Note this area in ground water protection area which must be protected," would appear to lend substance to a request which Mr. Monaghan formulated as: "All of the above to b1e prepared by a licensed engineer." Section 4-2307(4) permits Public Works to require the plans and specifications to be prepared and signed by a licensed engineer. 24. Plans, if the topographic sketch could be considered such, and it is not, prepared almost 2 years earlier would not appear to satisfy this requirement. Since work was in progress when halted in an earlier period, erosion cited as a hazard may have occurred, and two years have passed, the topographic sketch is not sufficiently current to serve any meaningful purpose. Any plan for the site should not ;only be signed by a licensed engineer, but to be meaningful, the plan should be current. CONCLUSIONS 1.The; appellant has the burden of demonstrating that the Building and Zoning Department's decision from which he is appealing was either in error, or was otherwise contrary to law or constitutional provisions, or was arbitrary and capricious. (Section 4-3011(B)(4)). The appellant has failed to demonstrate that the decision of the Zoning Administrator that the application was incomplete should be modified or reversed. While a number of issues were raised, including past conduct, and the time frame for review, the only substantive issue to resolve is: Was the Master Application complete on March 8, 1985? The answer, after a review of the evidence, supports the determination of the Zoning Administrator that the application was not complete. In fact, not only was additional information required, but the minimum requirements of the Ordinance, particularly those contained in Section 4-2307, were not satisfied. 2. While the appellant may have held a good faith belief that the application was complete, the supposedly surprise determination of the Zoning Administrator would not appear to have prejudiced the appellant. City staff indicated that without sufficient information they could not have recommended that the Special Permit the appellant sought should be approved. 3.In addition, any belief the appellant founded upon the 'check-off' box on the Master Application which indicated acceptance should have been countered by a similar careful reading of the last paragraph of the Affidavit of Ownership the appellant also signed and received. Quoting again, "Acceptance of this application and required filing fee does not constitute a complete application. Plans and other materials required to constitute a complete application are listed in the Application Procedure." Coupled with the letter that Mr. Blaylock sent on January 4, 1985, the appellant cannot still claim as he does, that he was led to believe by the 'check-off' box the application was complete. Within approximately 5 working days he should have been clearly disabused of this belief, since the City informed him his application was not complete. Mt. Olivet Cemetery/James Colt AAD-028=85 May 17, 1985 Page 9 At this date the appellant cannot claim he was deceived by a 'check-off' box. He even submitted additional information without any recorded evidence of resistance or protest when informed that old records could not be referenced in the new request. 4. Since it appears the City reserved the right to determine after submission of an application, its completeness or incompleteness, the question is - was the information submitted on December 27. 1984 in the Master Application, and as supplemented by subsequent submissions, complete under the provisions of Section 4-2307? The findings indicate that the appellant failed to provide maps of the appropriate scale (Section 4-2307(5)), provided maps lacking property limits Sec'ition 4-2307(5)(B)) and adjacent land uses (Section 4-2307(5)(A)), submitted information with conflicting figures on acreage to be filled - 4 acres in one instance and approximately 11.3 in another; submitted a 7 year old zoning map with incorrect zoning designations for the subject site, provided no information on drainage features or control measures, included an ambiguous narrative indicating a distance to structures which are not identified as to location or type, imprecise setbacks and no landscape buffer details. City staff also indicated the area was part of the ground water protection zone and that a licensed engineer should prepare the plans. 5. The plans drawn up and entitled a topographic sketch, even accompanied by the earthworks quantity estimate, were drafted in 1983, and would not necessarily satisfy today's on-site conditions. Those plans may or may not represent current conditions, and City officials should not be required to speculate regarding current on-site conditions. 6.Any plans which the appellant may have submitted and which pertain to prior applications, enforcement actions or other actions of the City, do not appear to be clearly part of the current application. As the findings indicate, the City does not have a responsbility to perfect the appellant's application. Over seven years the City may have amassed large volumes of paper, plans and maps since there had been two prior special permits. It was not the City's responsiblity to determine if somewhere in those files and old applications sufficient information containing current information existed to satisfy its permit requirements. The responsibility was solely the appellant's. 7.Therefore, under the various provisions of the Mining, Excavation and Grading Ordinance, and particularly the provisions contained within Section 4-2307, the application was not complete on March 8, 1985 when Zoning Administrator Roger Blaylock so informed the appellant by letter. A cursory review of the information which appellant insists was part of the Master Application, either by incorporation by reference or any other means which the appellant might suggest, requires the City to consider it, whether old information submitted prior to December 27, 1984 or even new information submitted after the appeal was filed, still indicates many of the items of information required are not provided. 8.Arbitrary and capricious action has been defined as willful and unreasoning action in disregard of the facts and circumstances. A decision, when exercised honestly and upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances, is not arbitrary and capricious (Northern Pacific Transport Co. v Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, 69 Wn. 2d 472 (1966)). The decision of the Building and Zoning Department that the application was incomplete is founded upon a fair review of input from staff and a clear reading of the Ordinance. Information was either not provided, was provided in the wrong format,; or was incorrect, outdated or both. The decision was not unreasoning nor does it appear willful. It is not arbitrary and capricious. 9.An action is likewise clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing body on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. (Ancheta v Daly, 77 Wn. 2d 255, 259 (1969)). The appellant has failed to demonstrate with cogent evidence that a mistake was made. Even if all the material the appellant indicates should have been considered as part ,of the application is considered, the requirements of Section 4-2307 have not been mc,` The application is incomplete and it is. therefore, impossible to determine wL inite and firm conviction that Building and Zoning Department rr iistake. Mt. Olivet Cemetery/James Colt AAD-028-85 May 17, 1985 Page 10 10. To allay, if possible, any need to further appeal a decision of the Building Department or the Public Works Department in the matter of who should draw up plans, the following determination was made. The declaration that the site is in the !ground water protection area, which should easily be verifiable by map reference, is a reasonable ground to determine that "the plans and specifications be prepared and signed by a licensed civil engineer" as provided by Sections 4-2307(4). 7) and (8). 11. In light of the foregoing Findings and Conclusions. the decision of the Building and Zoning Department is affirmed. DECISION The decision of the Building and Zoning Department is affirmed. ORDERED, THIS 17th day of May, 1985. FRED J. KAU AN HEARING EX INER TRANSMITTED THIS 17th day of May. 1985 to the parties of record: Lawrence Warren 100 So. Second Ave. Renton, Wa. 98055 Seth Fulcher. Jr., Attorney 210 Union Trust Annex Seattle, Wa. 98104 James L. Colt 100 Blaine Ave. N.E. Renton. Wa. 98055 Ronald Nelson City of Renton James Hansen City of Renton Roger Blaylock City of Renton Don Monaghan City of Renton TRANSMITTED THIS 17th day of May, 1985 to the following: Mayor Barbara Y. Shinpoch Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Richard Houghton, Public Works Director Larry M. Springer, Policy Development Director Members, Renton Planning Commission Ronald Nelson, Building & Zoning Director Jim Matthew, Fire Marshall Roger Blaylock, Zoning Administrator Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Renton Record-Chronicle Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before May 31, 1985. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing .may make a wri"--i request for a review by the Ex,--~0ner within fourteen (14) days from the dat' if tt._ examiner's decision. This request ,..:ull set forth the specific i Mt. Olivet Cemetery/James Colt AAD-028-85 May 17, 1985 Page 11 Any appeal,is governed by Title IV, Section 3011, which requires that such appeal be filed with the Superior Court of Washington for King County within twenty (20) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning 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 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. Slit City of finutlln King County auu•4es Id yw Alayor 1Lrn`ly HmaeDo,t;xrruli r. Seattle-!King County Department of Public Health Jesse W llipp,NLD.,A1.1'.I I.Director CITY OF RENTON April 19, 1985 EEOWII MAY 2 1985 liji Mt. Olivet Cemetery BUILDING/ZONING DEPT. P.O. Box 547 Renton WA 98057 Dear Mr. ,Colt: We have completed final review of the Demolition Landfill Permit Application. Based on ,the information presented in the application, site visits/inspection reports and related discussion, it has been determined that the Mt. Olivet site DOES currently meet all the pertinent requirements of King County Board of Health Rules and Regulations No. 8. Therefore, the landfill is being classified CONFORMING in line with Rules and Regulations No. 8, Part II, Section 3. We have attached the Mt. Olivet permit and ask that it be posted in a conspicuous location in the caretaker's house. Your attention is directed to the leachate seeps periodically observed at several points on site. This condition needs to be addressed as soon as possible to prevent an off-site leachate flow. Enclosed you will find your CONFORMING Disposal Site Permit for 1985. Should you have questions or need further information, please contact me at 587-2722. Sincerely, Greg ishop, Coordinator SOLID WASTE PROGRAM GB:rb Att. cc: City of Renton Grading and Fill Permits Attn. Ron Nelson Joan Thomas, Redmond, D.O.E. Jeff Everest 1( 6SoutheastDistrictHealthOffice 400 Yesler Building Seventh Floor Seattle,Washington 081134 (206)587-4600 RECEIVED 45 q .'Y) • wi JUN 7 1985 2 CITY OF RENTON MAYOR'S OFFICE 3 4 5 6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY 7 AMERICAN MEMORIAL SERVICES, 8 INC, a Washington Corporation, )nA 10 and MT;. OLIVET CEMETERY,NO. 5 a 2, - .f'7 1{ . 9 Petitioners, 10 DECLARATION OF JAMES L. COLT CITY OF RENTON, an incorporated) 11 city, 12 Respondent. 13 JAMES L. COLT declares the following facts are true, under 14 penalty of perjury under Washington law: 15 1 .i He is the President of petitioner AMERICAN MEMORIAL 16 SERVICES INC. and President of petitioner MT. OLIVET CEMETERY CO. 17 INC. Each is an interested party in the proceedings described 18 below.; 19 2 .. On May 17 , 1985, City of Renton Hearing Examiner, Fred J. 20 Kaufman, made final determinations in the matters of petitioners ° 21 appeals of decisions of the city of Renton' s Building and 22 Zoning Department with respect to application and ' processing of 23 applications for petitioners' annual licenses under city of Renton 24 Special Permit SP-047-80 (exhibit "A" incorporated by reference . 25 herein) and with respect to petitioners ' appeal file number 26 Declaration of James L. Colt - 1 SETH FULCHER, JR. 210 Union Trust Annex 117 South Main Street Seattle, WA 98104 11/1K\ ICEI 11111 1 AAD-028-856 (exhibit "B" incorporated by reference herein) . 2 3 . ! Examiner Kaufman disposed of petitioners ' annual license 3 appeal, (exhibit A supra) by holding that petitioner could not sub- 4 mit evidence in support of its application for annual license and S that the building departments refusal to consider the application, 6 did not present an appealable decision. This decision is error, 7 because it is made upon unlawful procedure, is clearly erroneous in 8 view of the entire record and is premised upon an erroneous 9 interpretation of the Renton Municipal Code. Moreover, in 10 arbitrarily denying petitioner' s ability to apply for an annual 11 license respondent is effectively restraining petitioners from 12 compliance with its obligations to stabilize and complete the unfi- 13 nished landfill in conformity with approved plans, 14 which is petitioners ' obligation under its permit from the King 15 County; Department of Public Health (exhibit "C" incorporated by 16 reference herein) and which it is obliged to do under the terms of 17 a separate agreement with the Washington State Attorney General. 18 4. Examiner Kaufman disposed of appeal AAD-028-856 (exhibit B 19 supra) upon unlawful procedure and contrary to the Renton Municipal 20 Code by refusing to consider petitioners ' evidence that the form of 21 communications adopted by Renton City departments was unfair 22 because of its conflicting and contradictory content and therefore 23 should not be considered final action as to the running of appeal 24 deadlines. 25 5 .; This is a proper case for issuance of a writ of review, 26 Declaration of James L. Colt - 2 SETH FULCHER, JR. 210 Union Trust Annex 117 South Main Street Seattle, WA 98104 206) 292-9333 1 because Examiner Kaufman, in ,exercising judicial functions, has 2 exceeded his jurisdiction as set forth by the Renton Municipal Code 3 and ha's acted illegally and erroneously in conducting proceedings 4 before him, and there is no appeal from his determination. 5 WHEREFORE petitioner prays that a writ of review issue out of 6 the above encaptioned court directing the city of Renton to certify 7 its record in said proceedings to such court, so that the reason- 8 ableness and lawfulness of its determinations therein may be 9 inquired into and determined. 10 11 12 James L. Colt 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Declaration of James L. Colt - 3 SETH FULCHER, JR. 210 Union Trust Annex 117 South Main Street Seattle, WA 98104 206) 292-9311 OF R4,A o THE CITY OF RENTON Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 0 BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR © LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 0 co- FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 o9 TE0 SEPlE t,O May 17, 1985 Mr. James L. Colt American Memorial Services. Inc. P. O. Box 547 Renton. Washington. 98055 Re: Appeal Letter dated May 15. 1985 Dear Mr. Colt: I have reviewed your letter of May 15. 1985 and find that if does not present any appealable 'decision. The letter, from Mr. Nelson. Building Director, contains. as I read it. information in response to inquiries by yourself to the Building and Zoning Department. A mere restatement of facts does not amount to a decision which is subject to an appeal. The time for filing an appeal has long since passed and this office has no jurisdiction in this matter at this late date. Very truly yours, FRED J. KA FMAN HEARING EXAMINER FJK/dk cc: Mayor Shinpoch Ron Nelson. Building & Zoning Director Lawrence Warren. City Attorney City Clerk e7r7' L CITY OF RENTON N2 11146 FINANCE DEPARTMENT RENTON, WASHINGTON 9 8 0 5 5 11) 19 RECEIVED OF h t .110. W‘2, rir\ D;\r; (.?L. cocev\, rs._ )()Received by' TOTAL r AMERICAN MEMORIAL SERVICES, INC. P. O. E1OX 547 Renton,! Washington, 98057-0547 RECEIVED May 15,1 1985 MAY 16 1985 CITY OF RENTONMr. Fred J. Kaufman FaCaARt1NG EXAMINER Hearing Examiner City Of Renton 200 Mi 1!1 Ave. South Renton,j Washington, 98055 RE: Appeal of Administrative Determinations contained in letters dated May 2, and 10th. , 1985, from Ronald G. Nelson Building And Zoning Director, and undated attachment thereto. 1 Dear Mr. Kaufman; American Memorial Services hereby formally appeals the decisions of the building and zoning directer, Mr. Ron Nelson, contained in his letter dated May 2, 1985. His determinitation that a "resubmital " for a speacial permit is requi red_ before the issuance of "further" annual 1 i secences " under Sp-047-80 is based upon his "opinion" and is made without reguard to the Renton City code, and is arbitrary and capricious. His decision is incorrect in that it fails to consider the Renton City Code nor the record and file # Sp-047-80, nor the findings and conditions of the hearing examiner therein, which granted the permitjfor three years of filling and grading. Renton code section 4-2307-1 states that "special permits are valid until the approved plans have been satisfactorily completed. " The special permit approved under file sp-047-80 was for a period of "filling and grading" for three years, to be performed under three" annual liscenses, issued in accordance with that permit. Work under special permits per Renton City code 4-3014-E states shall ; be implemented within two years of such approval ", American Memorial has been permited to operate for only one year under special permit SPO-47-84 and annual license issued by the city from August 81 to August of 1982. Under Americans permit they are entitled to two more years of "fill operations", under annual liscenses which are required to be issued by the city in accordance with city ordenances and the terms of the special permit: Mr. Nelsons request for"resubmittal " of SP-047-80 prior to the issuance of an annual lisence under the approved permit and plans is improper and arbitrary. With respect to Mr. Nelsons letter of May 10, 1985 the requirement that a new drainage plan be submitted prior to any mai ntence of the existing approved drainage system, which was installed in accordance with SF'-047-80 and during work under it' s annual lisence is arbitrary and capricious , and does not address t.he ' reguest of American to maintain and repair the exsiting drainage ways, culverts and ponds, as requested repeatedly in Americans correspondence with the City and demanded by them on numerous occasions, and as. required under American' s city and - county permits. Further, American has tendered the dedication of the Kent Highlands/Eradco 60 foot right of way to the city in accordance SP-047-80, and has met the requirements of the hearing examiner with respect to the dedication. American seeks the following relief from the hearing examiner with respect to these decisions; 1 ) The hearing examiner should find that in accordance with the Renton code 4-2307-1 that "special permits are valid until the approved plans have been satisfactorily completed. 2) The annual lisence under permit Sp-047-B0 shall be issued for not more than two - one year periods to permit the three years 'of fill and grade necessary to comlete the reclamation as approved in SP-047-80. 3) that American Memorial shall proceed to maintain the site in a safe condition, and may immediatley begin maintaining the existing drainage and retention system on the site, and can continue to do so during any administrative proceedings, or appeals of findings to the contrary by City of Renton authoritys relating to the filling and grading performed at the site under the annual lisence issued by the city according to SF'-047-80. The hearing examiner has the right to grant the relief requested herein as described in Renton City code 4-3011-B-4 wherein he shall have all the powers of the office from whom the appeal is taken. American further requests that apon the evidence and testimony to be provided at the appeal hearing that the City of Renton building department be required to accept American' s application for it' s second annual lisence under SF-047-B0, and that they be' required to issue the annual lisence in accordance with the special permits terms. American will provide expert testimony, documentary evidence, legal argument and further basis for the findings and relief requested -above at the public hearing. Based on the file SF'-047-80 as referenced in Mr. Nelson' s letters, directly and by inference, of May 2 and 10 of 1985, American further requests that the hearing examiner determine based on a review of the correcspondence in those files, and the testimony to be provided at the hearing that ; ACTIONS i r 1 uhAL L Nt, t r F i 5r-L«t i-ts+. .1 'w UL a vtL l i mriL5 WRITTEN CORRESPONI., :E, BECAUSE OF IT' S CONFL.L TING AND CONTRADICTORY NATURE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE PROPER NOTICE OF FINAL DECISIONS, A D SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED FINAL ACTIONS BY THE CITY. plesec, L ' 1 ' Llbrrli tted, Arnel : %a - e . c al Servic se-Inc. arc L. C , 'resident J C/hs Attachments RECEIVED MAY 1a 1985 CITY O WREN ON OF F4 BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOR 9 'MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 • 235-2540 A0911F0 SEPIEMO BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR ' May 2, 1985 American Memorial Services, Inc. P.O.Box 547 Renton, Wa. 98055 Attn: Jim Colt SUBJECT: AMERICAN MEMORIAL SERVICE, MT. OLIVET LANDFILL Dear Mr. Colt: Your letter, dated April 24, 1985 and received by this department on April 30, 1985, has been reviewed and the following is my understanding and 'conclusions of that letter. First, your reference that the City Code Section 4-2307-1, which states special permits are valid until approved plans have been adequately completed and you contend that additional review of the special permit is not needed. In my opinion, the Hearing Examiner has the authority to establish expiration dates. He did so in your case (Mt. Olivet Cemetery Co.) and all of the other dases that come to mind. No timely appeal of that expiration date requirement was made that' I am aware of and, therefore, we will require resubmittal for a special permit and approval prior to this department issuing any further annual licenses. Your comments with regard to King County are still being reviewed and we should be able to respond soon on that subject. This department is in complete agreement with the comment on working together and hope that this will continue. Sincerely,' f na G. Nelson Building G Zoning Director RECEIVED RGN:'plp MAY to 1985 CITYo RENTON l NOTICE Please be advised that an opinion expressed by a City employee is the opinion of that employee only based upon the information which you have provided. Binding decisions will be issued in writing and only after submittal of complete documentation and review of that documentation by the appropriate City department, the Mayor's office, or the Renton City Council . You are also placed on notice that the relevant rules and regulations governing your inquiry are contained in the Code of the City of Renton, but may also be contained in the Revised Code of Washington, the Washington Administrative Code, the United States Code, and other legal documents. You should make inquiry of other jurisdictions to determine if their laws may affect your inquiry. 1_• ..-. ..../-• . k. .•pc rI, Barbara Y. Shinpoch, Mayor X4.4.4...fir:74?" Presiden , Renton City Council I - 7/1 ) t • - .Ni i-iC . h 1I, Lawrence J. War , City Attorney 7''. ..'.. .RECEIVED it. ..o.. .• MAY 16 198 r- ,<r,.-,e1-5 cCITYOFRENTONe.AR5kARINGEXAMINgR. t ' f' OF R4, BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOR O MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON. WASH. guns 235-2 409,0 co' 0, 91TE0 SEP1 MO BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR May 10, 1985 American Memorial Service, Inc. P.O.Box 547 Renton, Wa. 98055 Attn: James Colt SUBJECT: MT. OLIVET CEMETERY Dear Mr. Colt: In reference to my conversation with Mr. Houghton, Public Work Director, on your request for assistance in preparing the dedication to the City of the property required by Special Permit SP-047-80. Mr. Houghton asks youlor your representative to make a submittal and Public Works will review and process same. The request to work on the drainage ways, clean or replace the culverts, and ,in general put together and maintain the surface water is an excel- lent idea. Before this work can be accomplished, we will need two (2) copies of a plan that can be approved by the Public Works Department. The plan submitted is a partial plan by Donald Hogan & Assoc. Engineers and not a complete plan. Sincerely, n ld G. Nelson Building & Zoning Director RGN:PLP cc: Richard Houghton, Public Works Director REC1VED MAY 16 1985 CITY OF RENTNEARINGEXAMINEIPN American Memorial Services, Inc. dir 100 Blaine,. Avenue NE • PD Box 547 Renton, Washington 98055 April 24, 1985 CITY OF RENTON FiRRIOEUTEMr. Ron Nelson City of Renton Uu MAY 2 1985 200 Mill Ave. S. Renton, Wa. 98055 BUILDINIiaL4 iNG OZPT. Dear Mr. Nelson, This letter is a response to your letter of April 12, 1985, and to the letter of February 2, 1984, attached thereto. I appreciate your directing myself to deal directly with you in • matters regarding Americans Property, and our permits. Hopefully we will be able to complete our project as required by our permits and plans, which have been approved by the City of Renton, King County Department of Public Health, and appropriate State agencys. In examining the Renton Code and in discussions with various City, County and State officials, we realize, as pointed out in comments from the various City departments, that our approved reclamation project has not been completed. City code specifies that a special permit is valid until the work is completed according to the approved plans. This basically is also the position of the other agencys involved in Permiting our site. As you are aware we have spent many months in Superior Court with Kent Highlands, and the State Attorney Generals Office, all of which were directly related to our Permits, our Land Reclamation Project, and our developement as represented on the various plans submitted to the City. During this time we were necessarily delayed in completing our projects in accordance with the approved plans. We presently have a CONFORMING permit from King County to complete the reclamation project according to those approved plans. We are submitting the Bonds required under our special permit to your department, so that our annual liscense from the City may be issued so that our project may be completed as approved. The delays caused by litigation hopefully are all past, and we will be able to complete this project, in accordance with the •plans, and as generally outlined in the attachment to your April 12, 1985 letter. We are willing to work with all of the necessary city departments thru you and hope that completion of this project can be accomplished in short order._ S - We have prepared the $2,000.00 street cleaning bond, and have secured the $35,000.00 bond from the contractor as required. ' American Memorial is willing to immediatley dedicate to the City the portion of the easement granted to Kent Highlands so that the City is in posession of the southern alignment across our property of Edmonds Ave. We are willing to work with yourself and City departments to secure the appropriate legal for the dedication. With respect to the items listed in your letter of February 2, 1984, we are willing to work with the City to see that these items are resolved, as most of these are required by our permits, the completion of the project will correct those areas of concern. Hopefully with the renewed bonds, and dedication, and the conclusion of the litigation we can proceed to complete the project approved under SP-047-60 without further delay. Thank you for you assistance in this matter. Sincerely, , i. Jame " L. Colt American Memorial Services Inc. Enclosures; $35,000.00 bond 2,000.00 Letter of Credit 1985 King County Permit & Letter 4-19-85 AMS Dedication Letter 4-19-85 Mond Number 987134)+ Know all men by these presents , That we , c- n & 1AC L J FRRY E. W; nn'd Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland , a Maryland Corporatio having its principal- office in the City of (Baltimore , Maryland, as Surety , are held and firmly bound unto the City of Renton , WA he reinafter called the Obligee , in the penal rum of Thirty-Five Thounand and no/100ths Dollars ( $35 .000) , lawful money of the United States of America to be paid to the said Obligee , for which payment well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves , our heirs , executors , administrators , successors , and assigns , jointly and a'1everally , firmly by these presents. Whereas a license or permit has been granted by the Obligee to the above bounded Principal authorizing him to fill and grade at Mt. Olivet fill site in accordance with Ordinance/Permit SI' 0li7-80, Renton , Washington . Now therefore , the Condition of thin Obligation is such, that if the said Principal shall fnithfully observe theehpprovisions of uance of the Lava , Ordinances , and Resolutions , governing this License or Permit , then this Obligation shall be null and void , otherwise to remain in full force and effect. Liability under this bond shall terminate April 2h+ , 1986. The Surety may cancel thin bond at any time by filing with the Obligee thirty ( 30 ) days written notice of its desire to be relieved of liability. The Surety shall not b-e discharged from already accrued under this bond, or which shall any liability period.accrue hereunder before the expiration of the thirty day Signed and sealed this 24t day of April, 1985 . JERRY E. WARFIELD t yt C DAVIS pialittENTON et 11 Y: MAY 21985 Fidelity & Deposit Company of Mary: BUILDING;7.'- i 1 n. ..nct r.. VY'D 9:r V. r..Ytaeo r.%u/ FIDEL t AND DEPOSIT COMPAN d;F MARYLAND HOPA4 OFfICI.twlIursOtt.ntD KNOW Au.MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:That the FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND.a corporation of the State of Maryland,by C. M. PECOT, JR. Vice-President,and C. W. ROBBINS Assistant Secretary,in pursuance of authority granted by Article VI,Section 2,of the By-Laws of said Company,which reads as follows: The Chairman of the Board.or the President,or any Eseeutive Vice-President.or ony of the Senior Vice-Presidents or Vice-Presidents epresslly sus homed so so do by the Board of Directorsor by she Eseeutive Committee.shall hese power,by and with the concurrence of she Secretary or any one of she Assistant Srrretsrses.so appoint Resident Vice-Presidents.Assistant V ice.Presidents and Attorneys-in-Fact sa she business of the Ca'ripen 'nay require.or So authorise any person or persons to execute on behalf of ohs Company any bonds. undersa seas.rerognissncea, stspulassons,policies.eons racss.agreements.deeds,end releases and sosignments of Iudgements,decrees,mortgages and instruments in the nature of mortgages....and to affis the seal of she Company thereto." does hereby nominate constitute and appoint Dan B. Hauff, R. D. Humble, Lee Hunt and Jean Herod, all of Renton, Washington, EACH rue an aw u agent and Attorney-in-Fact.to make.execute.seal and deliver.for.and on its behalf as surety.and as its act and deed: any and all bonds and undertakings, each in a penalty not to exceed the sum of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($100,000) to execution of such bonds or undertakings in pursuance of these presents, shall be as binding upon said Company,as fully and amply.to all intents and purposes.as if they had been duly executed and acknowledged by the regularly elected officers of the Company at its office in Baltimore.Md..in their own proper persons. This power of attorney revokes that issued on behalf of Dan B. Hauff, etal, dated, October 25, 1976. The said Assistant Secretary does hereby certify that the aforegoing is a true copy of Article VI,Section 2.of the By-Laws oasaid Company.and is non in force. IN,WITNESS WHEREOF,the said Vice-President and Assistant Secretary have hereunto subscribed their names and affixed the Corporate Seal of the said FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND. this 13th day of January A.D. 1983 FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND sell ce ro3,, ATTEST: o SEAL L1By Assistant Secretary Nsee•Preadaa STATE or MAITLAND" ; 55: CTY or BaLTIMORE 7 On this 13th day of January A.D.19 83 •before the subscriber,a Notary Public of the State of Maryland.in and for the City of Baltimore.duly commissioned and qualified.came the above-named Vice-President and Assistant Secretary of the FIDELITY ANDDEPOSITCOMPANYOrMaIYLAND.to me personally known lobe the individuals and officers described in and who executed the preceding instrument,and they each acknowledged the execution of the same.and being by me duly sworn,severally and each for himself deposed'and with,that they arethesaidofficersoftheCompanyaforesaid,and that the seal affixed so the preceding instrument is the Corporate Seal of said Company,and that she said Corporate Seal and their signatures as such officers were duly affix ei and subscribed to the said instrument by the authority and direction of the said Corporation. IN TESTIMONY WNEaEOr.I have hereunto set my hand and affixed by Official Sept.*,the City of Baltimore.the day and year first above written. Notary Public Commis-.or sees my 1a 1986CyP;•'• CERTIFICATE t:the undersigned.Assistant Secretary of the FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY or MARYLAND.do hereby certify that the original Power ofAttorneyofwhichtheforegoingisafull,true and correct copy.is in full force end effect on the date of this certificate:and I do further certify that sheVsce•President who executed the said Power of Attorney was one of the additional Vire•President•specially authorised by the Board of Directors so appoint any Attorney-in-Fact as provided in Article VI.Section 2 of the Bylaws of the FtLLUTv AND DEPOSIT Cuss/ANY or MAaYLAND. This Certificate may be signed by facsimile under and by authoritiof the following resolution of the Board of Directors of the FIDELITY ANDDEPOSITCOMPANYorMaaTtANDatameetingdulycalledandheldonthe16thdayofJuly.1969. BESOLVLD:"That the facsimile or mechanically reproduced signature of any Assistant Secretary of she Company,whether made heretofore orhereafter.wherever appearing upon a certified copy of any ewer of attorney issued by the Company.shall be volid and binding upon the Company nsth the same force and effect as though manually affixed. 1 TESTIMONY Wtetacor,I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the corporate seal of the said Company.this....2.4 31 day of 19...8.5.. Han .:I —180-2747 AssuraatSecretary FOR YOUR PROTECTION LOOK FOR '1'! Ii: 1'&I) \VATTERMMARK • V..r..MwaA fW I • aexe -Y i•Y.ae i.•{Nr1h.,•,r4.. I,.... .. i J • J i 11 Evr9iBank April 1,9, 1985 IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT NUMBER: 1-20 TO: City of Renton 1 EvergreenBank does hereby establish this Irrevocable Letter of Credit in your favor for• the account of AMERICAN MEMORIAL SERVICES, INC. to the extent of TWO THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($2,000.00), available by your sight draft drawn on this bank at Seattle, Washington, accompanied by the following documents: Responsible official statement that the improvements secured hereby have not been fully and timely installed. Specifically: . . Statement of a balance outstanding and unpaid by American.Memorial Services, Inc. thirty (30) days after demand for payment by the City of Renton to Cemetery for cleaning of street as required by SP-047-80, Decision 05. This credit shall not expire or be revoked until sixty (60) days after the end of the deferral date of this project, sixty (60) days after that deferral date being April 19, 1986. AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE EVERGREENBANK • CITY OF RENTONgiVEnntl Dan Cuftis, Vice President MAY , 2 1965 BUILDING/ZONING DEPT. 301 Eastlake Avenue East•Seattle,WA 98109•(206)628-4250/(800)552-7430 toll-4ree statewide 0870E M y`I SS T flQfj;d OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON D MAY 1 71985 REPORT AND DECISION. p UU I v APPELLANT: AMERICAN MEMORIAL SERVICEPSIA I'. G/NN TDEPT. CEMETERY FILE NO. AAD-028-85 ADDRESS: 100 Blaine Avenue N.E. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Appeal of an administrative decision by the Zoning Administrator to request additional information on a proposed fill project involving 119,172 cubic yards of material on approximately four (4) acres of property. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Appellant's letter of March 18, 1985, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing as follows: The hearing was opened on March 14, 1985 at 1:40 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit #1 - Yellow file, SP-116-85, containing application and other documents pertinent to this hearing. Exhibit #2 - Letter dated January 4, 1985 from Roger Blaylock to James Colt. Exhibit #3 - Letter dated March 8, 1985 from Roger Blaylock to James Colt. Exhibit #4 - Manila work file from the Building and Zoning Department, SP-028-85. Exhibit #5 - Letter from Ron Nelson to James Colt, dated February 2, 1984. Exhibit #6 - Letter from Ron Nelson to James Colt, dated July 19, 1982. Exhibit #7 - Series of Engineering drawings, date stamped June 23, 1983 and May 2, 1985. APPEARING: Lawrence Warren, Attorney for the City of Renton Seth Fulcher, Jr., Attorney for the Appellant James L. Colt, Appellant Ronald Nelson, Director, Building & Zoning Department James Hansen, Assistant Building Official Roger Blaylock, Zoning Administrator Don Monaghan, Design Engineer for the City of Renton Attorney Warren opened testimony by questioning the basis and necessity for this hearing stating he felt the letter from Roger Blaylock to Mr. Colt precipitating this appeal was not an administrative decision, merely a request for more information before Mr. Colt's application could move along within the City's departments. The Hearing Examiner stated the sole issue for discussion at this hearing is whether or not Mr. Colt's attempt to apply for a fill and grade permit met City conditions. Other information referring to previous applications on this site need not be discussed. Mt. Olivet Cemetery/James Colt AAD-028-85 May 17, 1985 Page 2 Attorney Fulcher stated to the Examiner his concern with regard to the policies followed by City departments with respect to the cross-referencing of information and other documentation received from applicants. He questioned the use of more than one file (i.e. master file for City Clerk, work file for the Building Department and yet another file for the Hearing Examiner's Office). Attorney Fulcher continued stating it was felt due to responses received from various City departments cross-referencing prior applications, that the material submitted in support of prior applications should be accepted. It was his contention that the issue before the Hearing Examiner was to determine City policies in terms of incorporating and using previous information, and feels his client should be permitted to reference, and have accepted, information and documentation from previous applications to fulfill the City's requirements for the current permit request. He indicated his displeasure with what he considered to be inconsistent information as relates to city policies and procedures with regard to acceptance and processing of applications. He feels the City is acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner on Mr. Colt's current permit application. He suggested the Hearing Examiner review the procedures for acceptance and review of applications, and was advised by the Examiner that it was not within his jurisdiction to set policy, nor were the policies and procedures an issue in today's hearing. The Examiner again reiterated the single issue in this hearing was to determine if Mr. Colt did in fact submit an application for a grade and fill permit, and did that application meet City requirements. Mr. Colt began by calling the city Zoning Administrator, Roger Blaylock, to testify. He requested Mr. Blaylock to verbally review all of the documents contained in the official yellow file for this special permit. After this review Mr. Colt stated he had information to show that documents had been deleted from the original application presented. He presented a manila file containing additional information on the current permit request, bearing the same file number as the official file. The Examiner requested Mr. Colt at some point in the hearing to present the documents he felt were deleted from the original application, and in the interest of time, to advise what additional information the City required of him on his permit application. Mr. Colt referred to a letter from Mr. Blaylock dated March 8, 1985 setting out the additional information requested. Mr. Colt questioned the time frame used by the City in the processing of applications and their obligation to respond. He felt from the time he presented the permit application on December 27, 1984, until he received the letter from Mr. Blaylock on March 8, 1985, he had complied with all requirements for the permit application. He stated he felt when the Building Department signed his permit as "accepted", it was the City's way of saying he had complied with their procedure. It was pointed out by Attorney Warren that a signature in the "accepted" portion of the application merely means the department had received the application and would then begin the review procedure within the various city departments. Attorney Warren reiterated "accepted" did not mean "approved". He also pointed out that even after the application is accepted, the ERC must review, and that SEPA regulations take precedent over other departments until it's review is made. The ERC is also permitted to set out requirements other than those made by other city departments. Their review must also be considered in the processing time frame before a hearing date is set before the Hearing Examiner. Referring to a time frame for processing, Roger Blaylock referred to City Code Section 4-2808(b)(3) He also reviewed Section 4-2307 setting out requirements for new applications. At this point the Hearing Examiner asked Mr. Colt, both attorneys and members of staff present if they would like to consider a short recess to see if they would like to consider remanding the application back to staff for a 15 day period to consider new information, and if at the end of that time it is found that the application is considered complete, a recommended date could be presented for a hearing before the Hearing Examiner. At this time the Hearing Examiner called for a short recess. The hearing resumed at 3:20 P.M., with all original parties present. Attorney Fulcher advised the Examiner that Mr. Colt did not wish to remand the application, he wished to proceed with the hearing. Mr. Colt proceeded to call Ron Nelson, Building and Zoning Department Director to testify. Under direct questioning from Mr. Colt, Mr. Nelson described his participation in the review process as pertains to this application and how the other departmental information was interpreted by his department. Mr. Nelson stated that until this appeal was filed Mr. Colt's application was progressing, and would have been further along in the review process if the applicant had presented the additional information as requested. Reference was made to Exhibit # 5, and Mr. Colt questioned why documents presented as support for previous permits/applications could not be used to support SP-116-85. Attorney Warren objected to constant reference of documents and applications prior to the March 8, 1985 letter requesting a hearing. He stated the letter of March 8, 1985 setting out additional information needed would serve to let Mr. Colt know at that time that his application was not acceptable as presented to the City. Mr. Nelson stated there Mt. Olivet Cemetery/James Colt AAD-028-85 May 17, 1985 Page 3 are major problems of erosion on the site and no documents presented addressed this concern. At this point, the Examiner read from the sections of the City Code which set out requirements for a permit to grade and fill a site. There was continued discussion on terminology used with regard to an application being accepted and/or incomplete, as well as reference to previous documentation submitted on past permit requests. Attorney Warren argued that it is not the duty of the various city departments to go back through old files and pick and choose documentation to be added to the current application. A review was made of a previously submitted drainage drawing and separate topographical map. Mr. Nelson advised the topographical map is not acceptable, had not been submitted with the application, did not show boundaries and did not address the concerns expressed regarding erosion on the site. The hearing continued when Mr. Colt called upon Jim Hanson from the Building and Zoning Department to testify. Mr. Colt questioned if Mr. Hanson had based his negative decision for this permit request on past applications, and was told he did not. Mr. Hanson reviewed City code section 4-2307 setting out the requirements to be met for a fill and grade permit and said Mr. Colt's application was incomplete. Mr. Colt asked him to review a topographical map and tell him why it was incomplete. Mr. Hanson reviewed the map and stated the document presented was a topographical sketch, not a fill and grade plan as required, there were no property lines shown, and no limits of the site are shown on the sketch. Mr. Hanson reiterated that Mr. Colt had not presented a complete packet with the permit application, thereby making it impossible to process. The sketch presented had not been approved by Mr. Bray in the Engineering Department. Mr. Hanson continued reviewing code sections setting out requirements and noting Mr. Colt had not met those requirements. Again the Hearing Examiner suggested that Mr. Colt and staff get together and review the application, and within a 15 day period determine what needed to be done to bring the application into compliance, with all documentation attached. Attorney Warren advised the Examiner there would be no remanding to staff as it was agreed by departmental staff present that the application as submitted was not complete. At this point in the hearing the Examiner called for a 10 minute recess. The hearing continued at 5:00 P.M. with all original parties in attendance. Mr. Colt called on Don Monaghan, Design Engineering Department, to testify. In reply to questions from Mr. Colt, Mr. Monaghan responded that he had reviewed the current plans that had been submitted and they were incomplete. He said a complete plan was needed so any individual not familiar with the site could go out to the site and review to see what phase the work might be in. Mr. Colt inquired if Mr. Monaghan knew the property, and he responded stating it was not identifiable as to the sketch presented. When asked if he had reviewed the same sketch in 1983, Mr. Monaghan stated he was unsure when he had first viewed the plan. Attorney Warren asked Mr. Monaghan if there was adequate information on the,plan for a fill and grade permit, are the exact boundaries shown, landscaping shown, reclaimation information shown, and to all of those inquiries Mr. Monaghan replied in the negative. Mr. Monaghan further stated the plans required should be drawn up by a certified engineer. He also said there are problems on the site at this time that need to be corrected because the City feels the site is unstable. Mr. Colt requested the Hearing Examiner to find that due to the vagueness of the correspondence from the City of Renton to American Memorial Services regarding a request for additional information, that he had been denied his right of due process by not having all of the information necessary available to them. He stated he feels decisions have been fluctuating, and asked the Examiner to find that staff acted in a arbitrary and capricuous manner in refusing to further process his application. Attorney Warren argued that it was felt Mr. Colt was trying to give the City drawings" that had not been approved by staff and make said drawings work for the current application. He said the City is only required to respond to an application as it is presented, and Mr. Colt's application was not complete. In closing, Mr. Colt reviewed the actions that took place leading up to and the presentation of a permit application for grading and filling for the subject site. He referred to a previous file, SP-047-80 as he feels it relates to his current application. He said he feels the City has conditioned the application before it has been presented before the Hearing Examiner. He reiterated his feeling that American Memorial Services, Inc. has met their obligations under City code even though the code numbers have changed, and feels the City is acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner. There were no closing statements from either attorney, or further comments from staff. The hearing was closed at 5:50 P.M. Mt. Olivet Cemetery/James Colt AAD-028-85 May 17, 1985 Page 4 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: INTRODUCTION The appellant, American Memorial Services, which operates the Mt. Olivet Cemetery at 100 Blaine Avenue N.E., in Renton, has had a number of permits issued to grade and fill an old quarry/gravel extraction site. Those permits have been the subject of various administrative and court appeals but are not part of this appeal. The City refused to issue an annual license and ordered work on the site halted. In order to continue to fill the subject site the appellant filed a new request for a special permit. The appellant submitted various documents as part of the application and cited the contents, of the earlier permit files. The City, in written correspondence, indicated information necessary for evaluation was not submitted, and stated processing could not continue. The appellant submitted additional information. The information was routed to various City departments for routine evaluation. Various departments commented that the information was incomplete and requested additional information. A letter from the Building and Zoning Department, the department responsible for processing the application, was sent to the appellant indicating that the application was incomplete and requesting additional information. The appellant thereafter, and in a timely fashion, filed this appeal from the decision that the application was incomplete. Parties to the proceeding were the appellant, American Memorial Services (Mt Olivet Cemetary Company, Inc.) by James L. Colt, and Counsel, Seth Fulcher, Jr. Appearing for the City of Renton was City Attorney, Lawrence J. Warren. Testifying for the City were Roger Blaylock, Zoning Administrator, Ronald Nelson, Building Director, James Hanson, Assistant Building Director, and Donald Monaghan, Design Engineer. FINDINGS . 1. The Special Permit which gave rise to this appeal is identified in City documents as SP-116-84. The permit was filed with the City on December 27, 1984 on a form titled Master Application. The form is a general form which contains boxes to check off the type of application. It also provides the applicant blanks in which other relevant information about the projected use may be provided. The form indicates the site address as 100 Blaine Avenue N.E., Renton; 4 acres are involved, the existing use as land fill site, the proposed use as complete land fill, and then any allowable use. Two separate cover letters accompanied the Master Permit Application. One letter was addressed to Ronald Nelson the Building Director. The second letter was addressed to the Building and Zoning Department. Also submitted to the Building and Zoning Department as part of the packet of information was an affidavit of ownership, a separate sheet containing the legal description of the site, an Environmental Checklist, a xeroxed map (apparently a copy of a Kroll Map) showing Mt. Olivet Cemetery and surrouding property, another map again showing Mt. Olivet Cemetery and surrounding property with zoning classifications, an engineering estimate sheet for landscape earthwork prepared by Giaudrone and Associates and a topographic sketch of what would appear to be the fill site, prepared by the same firm. 2. For purposes of this appeal, the two earlier special permits issued to the appellant, American Memorial Services (AMS), SP-034-77 and SP-047-80, are not subject to this appeal. 3. Both cover letters to the City, the one to Nelson and the general letter to the Building Department referenced the "complete sets of plans for this project in files SP-034-77 and SP-047-80." 4. The Master Application was received by Jerry F. Lind on December 27, 1984. In addition to the information provided by the appellant on the form, there is a section reserved for "Staff Use Only -- Administrative Processing." Lind marked the box provided on the form 'Accepted' under the phrase "Application determined to be:" The other choice on the form would have been 'Incomplete.' Lind signed the form. 5.The affidavit of ownership signed by the appellant had the following language: Acceptance of this application and required filing fee does not constitute a complete application. Plans and other materials required to constitute a complete application are listed in the 'Application Procedure.' Mt. Olivet Cemetery/James Colt AAD-028-85 May 17, 1985 Page 5 6.The copy of the Kroll map which is scaled 1" = 200' appears to have been the map prepared by the City for the earlier permit application SP-034-77 since it bears information containing that number. It does not particularly identify the subject site or the location of the fill area. 7.The zoning map submitted with the application showing Mt. Olivet Cemetery also appears to have been prepared for SP-034-77 since it again contains that permit's reference number. The information contained in the map would appear to be at least 7 to 8 years old. Certain zoning designations noted on the map, including that of the subject site, are no longer used in the City of Renton and have not been used for more than a year. 8.The landscape earthwork quantity estimate sheet was originally prepared on September 16, 1983. The topographic sketch was scaled at 1" = 50' and would appear to show a deep depression with a low elevation of approximately 242 feet and a high elelavtion of approximately 300 feet. It also appears to show the finished elevations ranging from approximately 270 feet to 300 feet. A road easement is designated and the phrase Mt. Olivet Cemetery appears on the map. A power right-of-way is also shown. No complete boundaries are represented on the map. 9.As additional background, the appellant had begun work under the auspices of the earlier special permits. That work was stopped when the City refused to issue an annual license. Work in progress was stopped. This stoppage may have resulted in unsafe conditions on portions of the old fill site, as correspondence indicates that the City determined that potentially unstable conditions resulted from the failure to complete the work authorized by the special permits. The appellant was informed that the site would, among other things, have to be stablized even in the absence of an annual license. As what appears to be the result of correspondence on this matter, the appellant submitted various plans to the City on June 23, 1983. The record does not reflect approval of those plans nor whether any work was performed pursuant to those plans. The record reflects the City's belief that the site is still unsafe. While the City had in its possession the June 23, 1983 plans, they do not appear to have been deliberately submitted as part of the Master Application packet on December 27, 1984, nor is there any reason to believe they were considered or should have been considered as part of that application. Those June, 1983 plans appear to have been submitted again on May 2, 1985 subsequent to the filing of this appeal since they bear a date receipt stamp with the later date. 10. The Zoning Administrator, Roger Blaylock, wrote the appellant on January 4, 1985, approximately 5 working days after submission of the Master Application that: Our plan checking has revealed that the required information has not been submitted in order for us to evaluate [your plans]. Unfortunately, the City cannot reference documentation in previous land use files (SP-034-77 and SP-047-80) as you have suggested in your cover letter." The letter from Blaylock concludes: Please be advised that the Building and Zoning Department cannot process the application any further until it is completed." 11. The City.'s method of processing an application and compiling an official file does not appear to be an exact science. Apparently until a public hearing is scheduled, documents, both copies and originals are, placed in various files, routed to different departments for review and circulated internally. After such routing and review, an 'official file' is compiled containing the original Master Application, supporting documentation, original comment sheets from the various departments and other original correspondence. Until such compilation is made, the City maintains various working files. 12. The City was in receipt of various other documents and plans submitted over an approximately 8 year period. These materials were related to prior applications, the correspondence generated as a result of those permits and the lack of completion of those permits. Blaylock's letter indicates clearly that those materials could not be considered as part of the current request. Mt. Olivet Cemetery/James Colt AAD-028-85 May 17, 1985 Page 6 13. The appellant submitted additional materials on February 11, 1985, apparently in response to the January 4th letter and a telephone conversation with Mr. Blaylock. Included in those materials was again the "Topographic Sketch", a three page narrative, "Mt. Olivet Cemetery, Inc. Method of Reclamation" and a cover letter from appellant indicating a desire for a March 19, 1985 hearing date on the request. The narrative indicated the types of materials to be used, the density of the materials after compaction, the cell size (layers of fill material and covering materials), the completion materials which included replacing natural fill materials, topsoil and hydroseeding, including the mix of seed, fertilizer and water. The setbacks of the tops and toes of slopes was not specified but was to provide safety and benefit for adjacent property, and be not less than 10 feet. Distance to undefined structures was given. A buffer strip on the north and west property lines in which natural vegetation would be maintained was specified as 50 feet. 14. The Master Application form indicates that the documents. including the material submitted on February 11, was routed on February 12, 1985. The material was routed to the Building, Design Engineering, Fire, Parks, Police, Policy Development, Traffic Engineering and Utility departments or divisions. 15. The routing appears to serve two purposes. One purpose is to solicit comments for an environmental determination, while the other is to solicit information for an analysis of the request on its merits. The routing is via two separate forms: a Development Application Review Sheet and an Environmental Checklist Review Sheet. Comments from departments are expected to result from the circulation of these two review sheets. Don Monaghan, Design Engineer, on both review sheets cited a separate memo which indicated that he needed more information. The memo requested "a detailed before and after grading plan," "a detailed temporary erosion control plan ...," "a phasing plan for the partial completion of the filling, stabilization and hydroseeding," " identification of the ground water aquifer and the direction of its flow," and "all of the above prepared by a licensed engineer." The Utility Engineer, Ronald Olsen wrote: "Note this area in ground water protection area which must be protected." 16. Jim Hanson, Assistant Building Director, responded on the Environmental sheet: application is not complete, plans and/or checklist does not show compliance with Sec 2307, Sec 2306, or 2303 of the Mining & Grading Ord." On the Development Review Sheet he wrote: "plans do not comply with Mining & Grading Ord. Sec. 2303, 2306 & 2307. Project must comply with Sec 4-2310, 2, Eng. Grading. Past Permit has not been completed as proposed." 16. Clinton Morgan of the Traffic Engineering Department, wrote on the Environmental sheet: "Not enough detailed plans to make appraisal of proposed file." Traffic Engineering noted on the Development Sheet: "No (sic) enough detailed plans for site and where the fill will occur." 17. These routing sheets appear to include not only the requests or comments relating to more detailed information, but also statements referring to conditions or requests for conditions. Such conditions are usually referred to the Environmental Review Committee, the City's responsible State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) official and the Hearing Examiner, who reviews the requests on their merits at a public hearing. 18. In referencing these comments, Roger Blaylock, the City's liaison with applicants, including the appellant, wrote the appellant on March 8, 1985. The letter referenced almost verbatim, the comment sheets of Don Monaghan, the Design Engineer, and Jim Hanson, the Assistant Building Director. While Mr. Blaylock introduced the verbatim statements as a request from the departments for additional information. The letter also included some of the proposed conditions those departments would have imposed on a permit, if it were approved. While not clearly a request for just additional information, the letter from Mr. Blaylock clearly indicates that additional information was necessary "prior to formally accepting the application as complete." 19. After receiving this letter the appellant filed the instant appeal and the matter was set for this hearing. Mt. Olivet Cemetery/James Colt AAD-028-85 May 17, 1985 Page 7 20. Other correspondence appears to have occurred subsequent to the setting of the appeal hearing. Additional plans were also submitted which appear to be the same or similar to plans submitted on June 23, 1983, since these plans show receipt by the City on two dates: June 23, 1983 and May 2, 1985. The plans are not considered as part of the application for purposes of this decision. If the plans were received later than the appeal date, there is no evidence they were reviewed by City officials who should be given first chance to determine their respective suitability per ordinance requirements. Since they were submitted more than a year earlier then the instant application, there is no evidence that the City culled all of its old records to find any information relevant to all aspects of the appellant's prior requests or current application. The record actually demonstrates that the appellant was informed that old records could not be relied upon, and new documents and plans clearly outlining the current request were necessary. 21. The Ordinance itself advises: "For advice and assistance before the application for a special permit from the Hearing Examiner and an annual license to operate under this Ordinance from the Building and Public Works Department, the applicant should consult early and informally with the Building and Public Works Departments." (Section 4-2303 (1)). While various plans 'floated' around City Hall, any such plans were not part of the official application which was received by the City on December 27, 1984. Some of the information the appellant urges be considered as part of the current application was received by the City more than a year earlier. The packet presented in December, 1984 would have to meet the requirements of the ordinance. Other information, even if viewed, reviewed or even approved earlier, would be part, at best, of a preliminary or informal process. The applicant has the burden of presenting current information for City review. No where in the Ordinances is there an affirmative duty for the City to cull, examine, copy and prepare documents from old records or submissions for inclusion in the applicant's application. Even if files were hanging around, the applicant had the responsibility to compile them into a coherent application. There was no way the City could know, nor does it appear it had the responsibility'to determine, if old information was relevant in part or in its entirety to the subject application. 22. The Ordinance specifically requires a variety of maps, plans and details. The sections, requirements and appellant's submissions are presented below. 4-2307(4)(A) Adequate information shall be submitted for the entire project which may include work over several years. The appellant submitted various maps from 1977, a topographic sketch, the environmental checklist, and an engineering estimate of fill material. 4-2307(5) Map scale, Information on Plans and Specifications. Plans shall be drawn on 22 by 34 inch sheets with a vertical scale of 1" representing 40 horizontal feet and 1" representing 10 vertical feet. All Plans shall be of sufficient clarity to indicate the nature and extent of the work proposed and show in detail that they will conform to the provision... The topographic sketch, while on the correct size page, is in the wrong scale. It shows a segment of property, no particular standardized reference point or section lines. It is what its title purports it to be - a sketch. 4-2307(5)(A) General vicinity map of the proposed site showing adjacent land uses on a 1" representing 600 or 800 feet. The two maps which the appellant extracted from an old file do not show adjacent land uses, they show zoning which only indicates a potential land use. The zoning which is shown contains outdated information from 1977. The scale on one map is 1" = 200 feet which would appear to show much less of the surrounding area then required by a scale of 1" to 600 feet. There is no scale evident on the other map which indicates the acreage for the fill at approximately 11.3 acres. The Master Application form filled out by the appellant indicated only 4 acres would be filled. 4-2307(5)(B) Property limits and accurate contours of at least 10 foot intervals of existing ground and details of terrain and area drainage. Only one contour map exists and it does not show property limits. Mt. Olivet Cemetery/James Colt AAD-028-85 May 17, 1985 Page 8 4-2307(5)(D) Existing natural drainage systems including both perennial and intermittent streams and the presence of bordering vegetation. No such plans are part of the Master Application. The narrative discusses vegetation but its extent, nature and type is not indicated. 4-2307(5)(E) Detail plans of all surface and subsurface drainage devices, walls, cribbing, dams and other protective devices to be constructed. There were no plans submitted on December 27, 1984 as part of the Master Application showing such plans. 4-2307(5)(F) Location of any buildings or structures on the property. The narrative indicates a distance to such structures but they are not shown on any plans, nor is their location or characteristics shown. 4-2307(5)(H) Setbacks and those areas that are not to be disturbed. Again, while setbacks are indicated in the reclaimation narrative, they are not shown on plans, and the specificity is limited to setbacks of "at least 10 feet." 23. The comments from the Utility Engineer, Ronald Olsen, which state: "Note this area in ground water protection area which must be protected," would appear to lend substance to a request which Mr. Monaghan formulated as: "All of the above to be prepared by a licensed engineer." Section 4-2307(4) permits Public Works to require the plans and specifications to be prepared and signed' by a licensed engineer. 24. Plans, if the topographic sketch could be considered such, and it is not, prepared almost 2 years earlier would not appear to satisfy this requirement. Since work was in progress when halted in an earlier period, erosion cited as a hazard may have occurred, and two years have passed, the topographic sketch is not sufficiently current to serve any meaningful purpose. Any plan for the site should not only be signed by a licensed engineer, but to be meaningful, the plan should be current. CONCLUSIONS 1.The appellant has the burden of demonstrating that the Building and Zoning Department's decision from which he is appealing was either in error, or was otherwise contrary to law or constitutional provisions, or was arbitrary and capricious. (Section 4-3011(B)(4))1. The appellant has failed to demonstrate that the decision of the Zoning Administrator that the application was incomplete should be modified or reversed. While a number of issues were raised, including past conduct, and the time frame for review, the only substantive issue to resolve is: Was the Master Application complete on March 8, 1985? The ''answer, after a review of the evidence, supports the determination of the Zoning Administrator that the application was not complete. In fact, not only was additional information required, but the minimum requirements of the Ordinance, particularly those contained in Section 4-2307, were not satisfied. 2. While the appellant may have held a good faith belief that the application was complete, the supposedly surprise determination of the Zoning Administrator would not appear to have prejudiced the appellant. City staff indicated that without sufficient information they could snot have recommended that the Special Permit the appellant sought should be approved. 3. In addition, any belief the appellant founded upon the 'check-off' box on the Master Application which indicated acceptance should have been countered by a similar careful reading of the last paragraph of the Affidavit of Ownership the appellant also signed and received! Quoting again, "Acceptance of this application and required filing fee does not constitute a complete application. Plans and other materials required to constitute a complete application are listed in the Application Procedure." Coupled with the letter that Mr. Blaylock sent on January 4, 1985, the appellant cannot still claim as he does, that he was led to believe by the 'check-off' box the application was complete. Within approximately 5 working days he should have been clearly disabused of this belief, since the City informed him his application was not complete. Mt. Olivet Cemetery/James Colt AAD-028-85 May 17, 1985 Page 9 At this date the appellant cannot claim he was deceived by a 'check-off' box. He even submitted additional information without any recorded evidence of resistance or protest when informed that old records could not be referenced in the new request. 4. Since it appears the City reserved the right to determine after submission of an application, its completeness or incompleteness, the question is - was the information submitted on December 27, 1984 in the Master Application, and as supplemented by subsequent submissions, complete under the provisions of Section 4-2307? The findings indicate that the appellant failed to provide maps of the appropriate scale (Section 4-2307(5)), provided maps lacking property limits Section 4-2307(5)(B)) and adjacent land uses (Section 4-2307(5)(A)), submitted information with conflicting figures on acreage to be filled - 4 acres in one instance and approximately 11.3 in another; submitted a 7 year old zoning map with incorrect zoning designations for the subject site, provided no information on drainage features or control measures, included an ambiguous narrative indicating a distance to structures which are not identified as to location or type, imprecise setbacks and no landscape buffer details. City staff also indicated the area was part of the ground water protection zone and that a licensed engineer should prepare the plans. 5.The plans drawn up and entitled a topographic sketch, even accompanied by the earthworks quantity estimate, were drafted in 1983, and would not necessarily satisfy today's on-site conditions. Those plans may or may not represent current conditions, and City officials should not be required to speculate regarding current on-site conditions. 6. Any plans which the appellant may have submitted and which pertain to prior applications, enforcement actions or other actions of the City, do not appear to be clearly part of the current application. As the. findings indicate, the City does not have a responsbility to perfect the appellant's application. Over'seven years the City may have amassed large volumes of paper, plans and maps since there had been two prior special permits. It was not the City's responsiblity to determine if somewhere in those files and old applications sufficient information containing current information existed to satisfy its permit requirements. The responsibility was solely the appellant's. 7.Therefore, under the various provisions of the Mining, Excavation and Grading Ordinance, and particularly the provisions contained within Section 4-2307, the application was not complete on March 8, 1985 when Zoning Administrator Roger Blaylock so informed the appellant by letter. A cursory review of the information . which appellant insists was part of the Master Application, either by incorporation by reference or any other means which the appellant might suggest, requires the City to consider it, whether old information submitted prior to December 27, 1984 or even new information submitted after the appeal was filed, still indicates many of the items of information required are not provided. 8. Arbitrary and capricious action has been defined as willful and unreasoning action in disregard of the facts and circumstances. A decision, when exercised honestly and upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances, is not arbitrary and capricious (Northern Pacific Transport Co. v Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, 69 Wn. 2d 472 (1966)). The decision of the Building and Zoning Department that the application was incomplete is founded upon a fair review of input from staff and a clear reading of the Ordinance. Information was either not provided, was provided in the wrong format, or was incorrect, outdated or both. The decision was not unreasoning nor does it appear willful. It is not arbitrary and capricious. 9. An action is likewise clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing body on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. (Ancheta v Daly, 77 Wn. 2d 255, 259 (1969)). The appellant has failed to demonstrate with cogent evidence that a mistake was made. Even if all the material the appellant indicates should have been considered as part of the application is considered, the requirements of Section 4-2307 have not been met. The application is incomplete and it is, therefore, impossible to determine with a do ",ite and firm conviction that the Building and Zoning Department made a m2 r Mt. Olivet Cemetery/James Colt AAD-028-85 May 17, 1985 Page 10 10. To allay, if possible, any need to further appeal a decision of the Building Department or the Public Works Department in the matter of who should draw up plans, the following determination was made. The declaration that the site is in the ground water protection area, which should easily be verifiable by map reference, is a reasonable ground to determine that "the plans and specifications be prepared and signed by a licensed civil engineer" as provided by Sections 4-2307(4), 7) and (8). 11. In light of the foregoing Findings and Conclusions, the decision of the Building and Zoning Department is affirmed. DECISION The decision of the Building and Zoning Department is affirmed.: ORDERED THIS 17th day of May, 1985. FRED J. KAU AN HEARING EX INER TRANSMITTED THIS 17th day of May, 1985 to the parties of record: Lawrence Warren 100 So. Second Ave. Renton, Wa. 98055 Seth Fulcher, Jr., Attorney 210 Union Trust Annex Seattle, Wa. 98104 James L. Colt 100 Blaine Ave. N.E. Renton, Wa. 98055 Ronald Nelson City of Renton James Hansen City of Renton Roger Blaylock City of Renton Don Monaghan City of Renton TRANSMITTED THIS 17th day of May, 1985 to the following: Mayor Barbara Y. Shinpoch Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Richard Houghton, Public Works Director Larry M. Springer, Policy Development Director Members, Renton Planning Commission Ronald Nelson, Building & Zoning Director Jim Matthew, Fire Marshall Roger Blaylock, Zoning Administrator Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Renton Record-Chronicle Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before May 31, 1985. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific errors relied upon by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. Mt. Olivet Cemetery/James Colt AAD-028-85 May 17, 1985 Page 11 Any appeal is governed by Title IV, Section 3011, which requires that such appeal be filed with the Superior Court of Washington for King County within twenty (20) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning 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 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. American MemorialInc. , 100 z80 p o Services,=~ Renton, Washington 98055 May 29, 1985 Mr. Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner Renton City Hall Renton, Wa. 98055 Re: American Memorial Services request for reconsideration regarding its appeal filed May 16, 1985. Dear Mr. Kaufman: American Memorial Services Inc pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City" s Code, requests reconsideration of the Determination by The Examiner that the letters attached to the appeal of May 16, 1985 do not contain decisions. Clearly the statements contained therein are decisions, the letter of May 10, 1985 contains the following decisions which are appealed; 1 ) that the engineering drawing of Mr. Donald Hogan is not complete, this is in error and at the hearing we will have Mr. Hogan testify as to the instructions he received from the ' city in preparing these documents. 2> the decision that prior to maintaining and repairing the existing drainage system approved by the City and County, that new plans will have to be submitted, is clearly a decision, and is in error, and attempts to force American to Violate its King County Health Permit, County Rules and Regulations, and the terms of its Bonds, and SP-047-80, referred to in Mr. Nelsons letter, exceeds the authority and jurisdiction of the City Official Clearly these are DECISIONS from which American is entitled under City Code cited above to take an appeal , and American requests that the Examiner reconsider his decision, and grant American an appeal so that we may present evidence and testimony in responce to these decisions by a City Official . 8ased on U js r quest letter and the letter of request for reconsideration of AAD-028-85, and all of the files and records su mitted there*ith, which ars a part of this request r reconsideration by reference as if fully set forth herein, American formally requests the Examiner grant uur appeal as requested in our letter of May 155 1985. CI.TV OF- N C OF RA,A 41Fik 0THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 zo BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR 0 LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER O F 9,0 FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 O, 9q D SEP1- 14" May 17, 1985 Mr. James L. Colt American Memorial Services, Inc. P. O. Box 547 Renton, Washington, 98055 Re: Appeal Letter dated May 15, 1985 Dear Mr. Colt: I have reviewed your letter of May 15, 1985 and find that if does not present any appealable decision. The letter from Mr. Nelson, Building Director, contains, as I read it, information in response to inquiries by yourself to the Building and Zoning Department. A mere restatement of facts does not amount to a decision which is subject to an appeal. The time for filing an appeal has long since passed and this office has no jurisdiction in this matter at this late date. Very truly yours, FRED J. KAT1FMAN HEARING EXAMINER FJK/dk cc: Mayor Shinpoch Ron Nelson, Building & Zoning Director Lawrence Warren, City Attorney City Clerk 0 CITY OF RENTON N® 11146 H • FINANCE DEPARTMENT RENTON, WASHINGTON 9 8 0 5 5 0 19 'S RECEIVED OF or-1,(\ 2}'/O\L.7.117. TOTAL Received by TOTAL 17777.777,7'.7 s, s". •• AMERICAN MEMORIAL SERVICES, INC. P. O. BOX 547 Renton, Washington, 98057-0547 Nx ^ N^._, R / #~ P` u - 1K May 15, 1985 Mr. Fred J. Kaufman CITY MrSARING Hearing Examiner EXAMINER City Of Renton 200 Mill Ave. South Renton, Washington, 98055 RE: Appeal of Administrative Determinations contained in letters dated May 2, and 10th' , 1985, from Ronald G. Nelson Building And Zoning Director, and undated attachment thereto. Dear Mr. Kaufman; American Memorial Services hereby formally appeals the decisions of the building and zoning director, Mr. Ron Nelson, contained in his letter dated May 2, 1985. His determinitation that a "resubmital " for a speacial permit is required before the issuance of "further" annual lisecences " under Sp-047-80 is based upon his "opinion" and is made without reguard to the Renton City code, and is arbitrary and capricious. His decision is incorrect in that it fails to consider the Renton City Code nor the record and file # Sp-047-80, nor the findings and conditions of the hearing examiner therein, which granted the permit for three years of filling and grading. Renton code section 4-2307-1 states that "special permits are valid until the approved plans have been satisfactorily completed. " The special permit approved under file sp-047-80 was for a period of "filling and grading" for three years, to be performed under three" annual liscenses, issued in accordance with that permit. Work under special permits per Renton City code 4-3014-E states shall be implemented within two years of such approval " , American Memorial has been permited to operate for only one year under special permit SP0-47-80 and annual license issued by the city from August 81 to August of 1982. Under America ; s permit they are entitled to two more years of "fill operations", under annual liscenses which are required to be issued by the city in accordance with city ordenances and the terms of the special permit. Mr. Nelsons request for"resubmittal " of SP-047-80 prior to the issuance of an annual lisence under the approved permit and plans is improper and arbitrary. With respect to Mr. Nelson; s letter of May 10, 1985 the requirement that a new drainage plan be submitted prior to any maintence of the existing approved drainage system, which was installed in accordance with SP-047-80 and during work under it' s annual lisence is arbitrary and capricious , and does not address the request of American to maintain and repair the exsiting drainage ways, culverts and ponds, as requested repeatedly in Americans correspondence with the City and demanded by them on numerous occasions, and as required under American' s city and county permits. Further, American has tendered the dedication of the Kent Highlands/Eradco 60 foot right of way to the city in accordance SP-047-80, and has met the requirements of the hearing examiner with respect to the dedication. American seeks the following relief from the hearing examiner with respect to these decisions; 1 ) The hearing examiner should find that in accordance with the Renton code 4-2307-1 that "special permits are valid until the approved plans have been satisfactorily completed. 2> The annual lisence under permit Sp-047-80 shall be issued for not more than two - one year periods to permit the three years of fill and grade necessary to comlete the reclamation as approved in SP-047-80. 3] that American Memorial shall proceed to maintain the site in a safe condition, and may immediatley begin maintaining the existing drainage and retention system on the site, and can continue to do so during any administrative proceedings, or appeals of findings to the contrary by City of Renton authoritys relating to the filling and grading performed at the site under the annual lisence issued by the city according to SP-047-80. The hearing examiner has the right to grant the relief requested herein as described in Renton City code 4-3011-B-4 wherein he shall have all the powers of the office from whom the appeal is taken. American further requests that apon the evidence and testimony to be provided at the appeal hearing that the City of Renton building department be required to accept American' s application for it' s second annual lisence under SP-047-80, and that they be required to issue the annual lisence in accordance with the special permits terms. American will provide expert testimony, documentary evidence, legal argument and further basis for the findings and relief requested above at the public hearing. Based on the file SP-047-80 as referenced in Mr. Nelson' s letters, directly and by inference, of May 2 and 10 of 1985, American further requests that the hearing examiner determine based on a review of the correcspondence in those files, and the testimony to be provided at the hearing that ; FINDING; IT IS HEREBY DETERMINED THAT CITY OFFICIALS ACTIONS IN DEALING WITH SP-047-80, AND AMERICAN/OLIVET THRU ' WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE, BECAUSE OF IT' S CONFLICTING AND CONTRADICTORY NATURE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE PROPER NOTICE OF FINAL DECISIONS, AND SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED FINAL ACTIONS BY THE CITY. Nec u l ubmitted A nc. L. Go-l4~-President C/hs Attachments Ems Y CITYnJr 'U @ M s J ~ " =v. Y0ER O R v 40 +'" BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT RONALD G. NELSON — DIRECTOR o 0 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 O 235-2540 AOlTED SEPjE4# BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR May 2, 1985 American Memorial Services, Inc. P.O.Box 547 Renton, Wa. 98055 Attn: Jim Colt SUBJECT: AMERICAN MEMORIAL SERVICE, MT. OLIVET LANDFILL Dear Mr. Colt: Your letter, dated April 24, 1985 and received by this department on April 30, 1985, has been reviewed and the following is my understanding and conclusions of that letter. First, your reference that the City Code Section 4-2307-1, which states special permits are valid until approved plans have been adequately completed and you contend that additional review of the special permit is not needed. In my opinion, the Hearing Examiner has the authority to establish expiration dates. He did so in your case (Mt. Olivet Cemetery Co.) and all of the other cases that come to mind. No timely appeal of that expiration date requirement was made that I am aware of and, therefore, we will require resubmittal for a special permit and approval prior to this department issuing any further annual licenses. Your comments with regard to King County are still being reviewed and we should be able to respond soon on that subject. This department is in complete agreement with the comment on working together and hope that this will continue. Sincerely, na G. Nelson Building & zoning Director RECEIVE"y RGN:plp MAY is 1985 CITY OF RENTONHEARINGEXAns,v6r: NOTICE Please be advised that an opinion expressed by a City employee is the opinion of that employee only based upon the information which you have provided. Binding decisions will be issued in writing and only after submittal of complete documentation and review of that documentation by the appropriate City department, the Mayor's office, or the Renton City Council . You are also placed on notice that the relevant rules and regulations governing your inquiry are contained in the Code of the City of Renton, but may also be contained in the Revised Code of Washington, the Washington Administrative Code, the United States Code, and other legal documents. You should make inquiry of other jurisdictions to determine if their laws may affect your inquiry. t.l~- I c r 1.. Barbara Y. Shinpoch, Mayor Presiderve, Renton City Council i x/ l , . ' '! L'i t . / Lawrence J. Warr , City Attorney CIT ECE r MAY 16 1985.... LAR9EATRON Sim F o BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENTv0i1z c‘4 RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOR ba z Po MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 0$055 0 235-2 540 0I" ED SEple-- BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR May 10, 1985 American Memorial Service, Inc. P.O.Box 547 Renton, Wa. 98055 Attn: James Colt SUBJECT: MT. OLIVET CEMETERY Dear Mr. Colt: In reference to my conversation with Mr. Houghton, Public Work Director, on your request for assistance in preparing the dedication to the City of the property required by Special Permit SP-047-80. Mr. Houghton asks you or your representative to make a submittal and Public Works will review and process same. The request to work on the drainage ways, clean or replace the culverts, and in general put together and maintain the surface water is an excel- lent idea. Before this work can be accomplished, we will need two (2) copies of a plan that can be approved by the Public Works Department. The plan submitted is a partial plan by Donald Hogan & Assoc. Engineers and not a complete plan. Sincerely, nald G. Nelson Building & Zoning Director RGN:PLP cc: Richard Houghton, Public Works Director MAY 16 1985 CITY OF RENT°HEARING EXAMINERPtil American Memorial Inc. 0 l 7 ' ,Blaine°°""= .~ u m ~. . 0~~5 May 29, 1985 Mr, Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner Renton City Hall Renton, Wa. 98055 Re: American Memorial Services Special Permit # 047-80, and the application to complete the reclamation in accordence with the approved plan, identified variously as SP-116-84, SP-028-85, B-8527, ECF-119-84, and the appeal , findings and conclusions and decision resulting from said files and public hearing referred to as AAD-028-85. Dear Mr. Kaufman: American Memorial Services, Inc. , pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City' s Code, requests reconsideration of the rulings, determinations, restriction of admisability of testimony and factual pertinant evidence and files, at the public hearing held on the above referenced application and appeal of May 14, 1985. American further request pursuant to 4-3015 of the City Code that the hearing Examiner Reconsider those Findings and Conclusions cited herein, with respect to The Examiners Report and Decision dated May 17, 1985, under file # AAD-028-85. American requests that the examiner modify and correct those findings and conclusions as noted herein. American Memorial Further requests the Examiner to reconsider his decision based on City Code 4-3015 that " your letter of May 15, 1985. . . . does not present any appealable decision. ", and that the Examiner ammend his findings of May 17, 1985, as requested herein in " exhibit 5-17-85 A " attached hereto, RE: American Memorials Appeal letter dated May 15, 1985, and the attachments thereto, and the Examiners replay attached hereto dated May 17, 1985. With respect to the Examiners Report and Decision of 5/17/85, American request reconsideration and modification of the following: The Hearing Examiner' s Finding #1 : "That the Special Permit which gave rise to this Appeal is identified in City documents as SP-116-84. " is clearly in error. This is indicated i by the Exhibits admitted by the Hearing Examiner: L Exhibit #1 is SP-116-85 containing some of the Application documents itself, while Exhibit #4 is SP-028-85, which contain some of the same documents and others pertaining to the application filed by AMERICAN MEMORIAL for the final phase/completion of its approved land reclamation project SP-047-80, which is the ACTUAL Special Permit which gave rise to this appeal ~ Mr. Fulcher raised one of AMERICANS issues in this appeal as being " the fact that the use of more than one file with more than one identifying number, by the City of Renton, for THE SAME APPLICATION (SP-047-80) should be the subject of this Hearing. American was prevented from providing evidence and testimony which would have indicated that the " various files " circulated internally" as stated by the Examiner in Finding # 11 , and as evidenced by the files and documents referenced in the application submitted in Dec. 1984, would have, if maintained by the City in Americans only Special Permit File # SP-047-80, have been a complete file containing all of the APPROVED PLANS of both the City and County for the Land Reclamation project for which the the Dec. 84 application (for the final phase of reclamation under SP-047-80) was submitted to complete, as American had been requested by City Officials to submit. The decision by The Examiner was an Error in Procedure, in denying American the right to present pertinant facts pertaining to the application submitted in Dec. 84 and permit SP-047-80) which was an intergral part of the application. It is indicated by the Hearing Examiner further in his Finding #1 that there are two separate cover letters accompanying the Permit Application, LETTERS WHICH STATE and both of which specify that the Application WAS TO COMPLETE SP-047-80. The Hearing Examiner' s Finding should be modified to state that the Special Permit which gave rise to this Appeal was American Memorial Service' s attempt to secure the Fill & Grade Permit Annual License, required under SP-047-80, as is clearly stated in the Application and in all of the documents submitted therewith. And that the City was in error in assigning multiple new file or permit numbers and "various files" for the processing of this application for the completion of work APPROVED under SP-047-80. On page one of the Hearing Examiner' s Report & Decision, the Hearing Examiner stated that " the sole issue for discussion at this Hearing is whether or not Mr. Colt, s attempt to apply for a Fill & Grade Permit met City conditions. " Yet the Hearing Examiner, in the next sentence, states that "Information referring to previous Applications on this site need not be discussed. " THIS IS CLEARLY IN ERROR, when the Application itself and all the cover letters attached to the application and submitted therewith CLEARLY refer to COMPLETION of the project under SP-047-80 and under King County Permit No. 17-011 . This decision by the Examiner constitutes an error in procedure, when the Hearing Examiner is directed under Renton City Ordinance No. 4-3011-B, Sub-paragraph 4: "The Examiner may Year and consider any pertinent facts pertaining to the Appeal . " The application submitted clearly applies to SP-047-80 and the Examiners decision denied American its right to submit documents and testimony CLEARLY pertinant to the application, which was the subject of this appeal . The Examiner should amend his decision and admit all of the City files, which relate to the land reclamation Approved on Americans property as evidence and exhibits to this appeal and evaluate their completeness AS A COMPLETE FILE # SP-047-80, rather than to prohibit the admission of the PERTINENT FACTS contained there as they relate to the completeness of AMERICANS application to COMPLETE its project as stated in the application. The Hearing Examiner further states on Page 2 of his Decision, Paragraph 1 , final sentence: That " the single issue in this hearing was to determine if Mr. Colt did in fact submit an application for a Fill & Grade Permit, and did that application meet City requirements. " The Hearing Examiner has not addressed THIS issue which HE STATES was an issue of this Appeal . Whether the Application submitted on December 27, 1984, was submitted to complete SP-047-80 as is stated in the application, and should have been a part of SP-047-80r as Mr. Colt testified to, as referenced on Page 3 of the Hearing Examiner' s Report & Decision, in the next to the last paragraph. The Hearing Examiner even after stating that the issue was to determine if Mr. Colt American) submitted an Application for a Fill & Grade Permit license to complete under SP-047-80) ; refused to hear testimony and refused to consider the actual evidence submitted in the files which contained the Application. THIS IS CLEARLY A PROCEDURAL ERROR, AND SERVES TO DENY AMERICAN ITS RIGHTS TO PROVIDE PERTINENT EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS APPEAL. The Examiners decision to prevent the admission of the files and recordscontained in SP-047-80 should be reconsidered and the entire Special Permit File ( SP-047-80 ) should be considered in judging Americans application to complete the final phase of its reclamation project. The Examiner further found in Finding #1 that only four acres are involved in this final phase of reclamation, and that the existing use is as a land fill site, and that the proposed use was to complete the land fill to finished contours. The cover letters, which are referred to in Finding #1 and also referred to in Finding 43, as being cover letters to the City of Renton with the Application which referenced the complete set of plans for this project in Files SP-034-77 and SP-047-80; are consistant with letter of Mr. Larry Setchell of November 9, 1984, which was submitted to the City of Renton on December 27. 1984, with the Master Application, which states that it is for a Land Fill Permit necessary to COMPLETE the development of it' s four acre project. It also references the King County Department of Public Health Permit, the current topographical drawings by Giaudrone and copies of the APPROVED plans on file with various City of Renton Departments concerning the fill operations connected with the site. Further, Mr. Setchell ' s letter of November 9, 1984, which was submitted to the City with the Application of December 27, 1984, clearly states in the second paragraph that it is the Owner' s plan: "To complete the fill of the property in question to finished contours as per designs of record. " ; referring to those designs of record in File SP-047-80 and referred to continually throughout the Application, submitted on December 27, 1984. Based upon Finding #1 and Finding #3 of the Hearing Examiner, Finding #2 is totally contradictary where it states that " for the purposes of this Appeal , the two earlier Special Permits issued to the Appellant, American Memorial Services (AMS) , SP-034-77 and SP-047-80, are not subject to this Appeal . " Those Permits and the existing Permit #SP-047-80 ARE the Special Permit which gave rise to this Appeal , for which the City has chosen to identify by a variety of City document numbers. Finding #2, should be reconsidered and based upon the record should be ammended to state that they "ARE" subject to this appeal , as they are contained in the application, as submited to the city to comply with SP-047-80. On Page 2 of the Examiner' s Report & Decision, Paragraph 2, the Examiner refers to Mr. Blaylock, and CITY CODE 4-2808(b) (3) which doesnot refer to a time frame for processing, and is an errorof fact, he further states, HE also reviewed Section 4-2307 setting out requirements for new applications. This is clearly an error in judgement due to the fact that the Application submitted on December 27, 1984, IS NOT a NEW Application but is an application to complete the work under SP-047-80, which is an existing and approved Special Permit, which per the Renton City Code, Section 4-2307 ( 1 ) states: "Special permits are valid until the approved plans have been satisfactorily completed. " In closing statements by Mr. Colt, it was clearly testified to that the existing Application was made in conformance with SP-047-80, as had been requested by the Hearing Examiner and made a condition of that Permit and that the existing applications related to that current Special Permit #SP-047-80. The Examiner' s Determination that the Appeal of American Memorial Service' s should be limited only to those items stated above is inconsistant and the documents which were offered that the Hearing Examiner refused to accept and the files which the Hearing Examiner refused to consider are a part of the Application to complete the project under SP-047-80 and per Page 2 of the Examiner' s Report, Paragraph 1 , the Hearing Examiner has made an error in procedure, in law, and in judgement and has not made a Determination, based upon the complete record with respect to " if Mr. Colt did in fact submit an Application for a Fill & Grade Permit and did that Application meet City requirements. " The Application that was submitted, when taken in conjunction with the approved plans and the File SP-047-80 and the Building Department files for the Annual License, as issued under that Special Permit-B-8527, clearly indicate that the file and application are complete and that the APPROVED PLANS are contained therein and that this Application, as stated in the Application, was for the final phase of that approved Special Permit' s completion. The Hearing Examiner' s Finding #1 should be revised to state that the Special Permit which gave rise to this Appeal is Special Permit #047-80 and that that file shall have to be considered in conjunction with the Hearing Examiner' s Finding #2 based upon the record, should be modified to say that the two Special Permits, including the existing Permit #SP-047-80, was a subject for testimony in this Appeal , as this Appeal was a part of and should have been identified by the City with that document number (SP-047-80) . That the Hearing Examiner' s Finding #7 with regard to the map that was submitted showing Mt. Olivet Cemetery, clearly states that it was prepared for SP-034-77, which was then resubmitted under SP-047-80 and was approved thereby and when taken with the existing Application to complete the reclamation under that project, is an approved map contained in SP-047-80 and that the information contained on that map is the same information that is approved under that Permit. The Hearing Examiner' s Finding 08 clearly states that a road easement is designated and the phrase Mt. Olivet Cemetery appears on the map and the power right70f-way is shown. When SP-047-80 is referenced, which is the subject of this Application and Appeal , it clearly shows that the plans that are approved for access, drainage and easement right-of-way and approved by the City of Renton, are those plans prepared by Hugh Goldsmith and Associates, Civil Engineers and Land Planners, and submitted with the Application which clearly shows the vicinity map, which has already previously been approved by the City of Renton. The Hearing Examiner' s Finding #9 clearly refers to the result of correspondence on the matter resulting from the previous Special Permits for which the Hearing Examiner found that he would not accept testimony and that they need not be discussed, and yet it is clear from the record that he refers to SP-047-80, and the correspondence relating thereto, which is the subject of the earlier Special Permit referred to in Paragraph 9. This is a procedural error and an error at law wherein the examiner may consider the existing permit SP-047-80, and some of the correspondence related thereto, but denies American the right to submit documents from the file, or elicet testimony pertaining thereto. Sub-paragraph 2 of Hearing Examiner'.s Paragraph 9 indicates that the City had in its possession the June 23, 1983 plans and those plans are clearly a part of SP-047-80, and were referenced, and clearly indicated as being part of the Application filed for the Annual License and permit on December 27, 1984, in compliance with the Hearing Examiner' s condition for SP-047-80, and in compliance with the Cities requests during the Fall and Winter of 1984. The Hearing Examiner' s Finding #11 places the burden of directing the City as to how to file the Applications and documents that it receives regarding the same applications upon the Applicant. Applications submitted in conjunction with a Special Permit (SP-047-80) should be processed and placed in that file (SP-047-80) by the fact that they relate thereto, and are referenced to those files by the applicant. The Examiner should reconsider the evidence of the "various Files" covering the same project, (Sp-047-80) , and amend his finding to indicate that the City should maintain one master file on property which is the subject of a SPECIL PERMIT. The Examiner' s Decision #12 is clearly in error. , He states that the City was in receipt of various other documents and plans submitted over approximately an eight year period and the statement that these materials were related to prior applications is totally inconsistant with the APPLICATION of Dec. 84, itself and the attached letters from Mr. Larry Setchell and American Memorial Services and Mr. Colt, which refer to and incorporate therein by reference and attach thereto, the plans in SP-047-80. The Examiner should reconsider the total file and find that the various files" should be combined forming one complete SPECIAL PERMIT FILE # SP-047-80. The Hearing Examiner's Finding #13 should be modified to indicate that the Appellant was informed by the City that they would have a Hearing on March 19, 1985 (as indicated in appellants letter) and that the plans were complete and that the Applicant' s letter requested an earlier hearing date. The Hearing Examiner' s Finding #14 indicates the documents were routed on February the 12th of 1985 and a review of the file indicates that on February 20, 1985 the Environmental Review Committee scheduled the SP-116-84 under New Business and assigned it a new number: ECF-119-84. , The examiner refused to consider available evidence which would have indicated that the review of the COMPLETED application, was described and placed on the agenda of the ERC Committee, for Feb. 20, 1984 as: "The project will involv e filling approximatley four acres with 119, 172 cubic yards of material as THE FINAL PHASE OF A RECLAMATION PROJECT; located in the vicinity of 100 Blaine ame N. E. " . Clearly this " FINAL PHASE OF A RECLAMATION PROJECT" refers to the application in question of Dec. 84, and the "Phasing required to occur voer the three years of fill and grade permited by SP-047-80, which was the subject of the application. Based on the record, The' Hearing Examiner' s conclusion 44 that there are conflicting figures on acreage to be filled is in error, and should be modified to indicate that the Application clearly was for four acres of land, the FINAL FOUR ACRES (phase) of the total 11 . 3 acre site, approved under SP-047-80. The Examiners Finding 420 is clearly in error due to the fact that the plans submitted in Dec. 84 , also indicate receipt by the City, indicating there having been submitted on June 23, 1983 and again on May 2, 1985 were submitted on June 23, 1983 as part of the final phase of reclamation under SP-047-80 and the fact that this Application for completion under SP-047-80 using the same plans was assigned a new number by the City, should be found to be an error on the part of the City , as the Application should have been processed in conjunction with and as part of the final phase completing SP-047-80 and an Annual License issued for completion of the project in accordance with that plan. The fact that these were submitted more than a year earlier than the instant Application is incorrect in the fact that they are a part of the approved plan for the site which exists with the City of Renton at the present time. The Examiners Finding #21 , which quotes from the Renton City Code regarding the Applicant consulting early and informally with the Building & Public Works Department is totally inconsistant with his statements that other information from previous Applications would not be considered in this Appeal . The information compiled in the record contained in SP-047-80 and all of the documents classified by the City as either SP-116-85, SP-028-85 or other classifications such as ECF-119-84 are clearly a part of and relate to this Application for an Annual License under Special Permit 4047-80 and should be' part of SP-047-80 and/or the Building Permit #B-8527. The Hearing Examiner' s statement that other information reviewed or approved earlier are part of a preliminary or informal process is in error, when a SPECIAL PERMIT is approved then all information submitted pertaining to it SP-047-80) including the instant Application are part of the official file or should be, of the City of Renton, #SP-047-80. The Hearing Examiner' s statement in Paragraph 21 , Finding #21 , that there was no way the City would know or have the responsibility to determine if old information is relevant is inconsistamt with the record contained in SP-047-80 and with all of the correspondence submitted with the existing #SP-116-85. The Hearing Examiner should find that SP-047-80 is a continuation of Permit #SP-034-77, using the same plan and the same methods of reclamation and covering the same site and that the City of Renton` s Departments involved in the permit and licensing process, who have reviewed and examined SP-034-77 and accepted the documents filed therewith making them a part of SP-047-80 and that Qhe Application submitted to the City in February of 1984 and again in December of 1984 are part of the Application for the FILL and GRADE permit and Annual License ,to complete the project as specified in the Application, under SP-047-80 and the King County Health Department Permit. Any review of the Annual License for the subject site or for any additional permit for the subject site must conform with the approved plans in SP-047-80 and that the continuation of the reclamation project should be in accordance with those approved plans. The basis for this Finding should be Renton City Code 4-2306, 2 which provides that "the rehabilitation shall take place in accordance with the approved plan" and further states that final approval shall not be given until all work. . . have been completed in accordance with the final approved grading plan. The Renton Code further states that bonding is required so that if the work is not completed in accordance with the approved plan, that it shall be. The Examiner should reconsider all the files pertinant to this case, and FIND THAT: There is only one approved plan and one official file for American Memorial Service' s land reclamation site located in Renton and that is SP-047-80 and any Applications submitted to complete the work at that site according to those approved plans should be filed and referenced under SP-047-80. The Examiner' s Finding #22, Paragraph 2, pertaining to the topographical sketch is an actual topographical map prepared at the request of the City and submitted in October 1983, at the City' s request to cover the balance of the property to be filled under SP-047-80 and was accepted by the City, in 1983, at that time as covering the property that was left to be completed under that project. The Hearing Examiner' s Conclusion #1 , paragraph 2, states that the only substantive issue to resolve is was the Master Application complete on March 18, 1985. The actual question as stated by the Hearing Examiner on Page 2, was to determine if Mr. Colt did in fact submit an Application for a Fill & Grade Permit. The Conclusion and the statement and the inital statement on Page 2 are inconsistant And both statements are inconsistant with the Application which was clearly an Application to complete the land reclamation project approved under SP-047-80' The Application was submitted in compliance with the Cities requests, an is Americans attempt to secure the Annual License to complete that project, as a condition applied by the Hearing Examiner to that Permit. The Hearing Examiner has refused to consider, or reference his own Decisions under SP-047-80, which required the submission of new applications and other documents in conjunction therewith. The Hearing Examiner based his findings and conclusions on erroneous procedures by only hearing those items which he has outlined as being the subject of Americans appeal , denying American the right to submit documents and present testimony on its behalf which are pertinent to the facts in this appeal regarding Americans Approved reclamation project. The Hearing Examiner' s Conclusion #6 that any plans which the Appellant may have submitted and which pertain to prior applications, enforcement actions or other actions of the City, do not appear to be clearly a part of the current Application, is clearly erroneous and not based upon the facts or the evidence submitted at the Hearing. The Hearing Examiner is in error and his statement is clearly erroneous in view of the entire record as submitted and this Conclusion should be ammended. The Hearing Examiner failed to consider whether the Application that was submitted was to comply with information requested in accordance with SP-047-80 and whether the City erred in finding it incomplete. The Hearing Examiner by refusing to accept testimony about anything occurring prior to March 8, 1985 clearly denies American Memorial its rights under due process. The Hearing Examiner errd under Conclusion #8 in that The City acted unreasonably in disregard of the facts and circumstances as described by the correspondence, which the Hearing Examiner refused to weigh with regard to File #SP-047-80 and the record contained therein and the documents and letters and correspondence leading up to the Application, which the City chose to classify as either SP-116-85 or SP-028-85. The Hearing Examiner should find that their action in failing to combine the two files under one number and to consider them as they actually are (SP-047-80) and to try and take them apart and make them separate applications or separate documents is willfull and unreasoning action in disregard of the facts and the circumstances leading up to the Application and the application itself which was filed in conjunction with BP-047-80. The Hearing Examiner' s Finding #9 that American Memorial failed to show that a mistake was made is incorrect. It is clear from the multitude of files maintained by the City and the fact that the City did not file the documents under the file which they should have been filed- namely SP-047-80 was clearly a mistake in that the Application itself clearly referenced those documents that the Application itself clearly stated that it was a completion of that project and that clearly the Application and the documents submitted were or should have been filed under SP-047-80. Further, the Hearing Examiner' s Conclusion #10 that the plans and specifications be prepared and signed by a licensed engineer, is correct, except in light of ihe documents submitted with the application, his judgement clearly is in error , as THE PLANS SUBMITTED to the City of Renton by American Memorial under SP-047-80, SP-028-85 and SP-116-85 as they relate to the grade and fill and topographical plans HAVE been prepared and signed by a registered engineer and ARE stamped with the registered engineer' s official stamp. The Hearing Examiner is requested TO RECONSIDER his findings and conclusions, TO MODIFY those determinations as described, and further, TO ADMIT AS EVIDENCE, AND RE EXAMINE the complete group of City files, described by the Examiner in this appeal as the various Files" , that relate to this application to complete the reclamation and rehabilitation approved under existing permit SP-047-80. American further requests his review of the City Codes which address SPECIAL PERMITS as referenced herein, and in Americans letter of May 14, 1984 attached hereto, and to find that Americans application to complete the approved reclamation IS COMPLETE as approved and that with the power granted to the Examiner by the City Code, He issue the grading and fill annual liscense for the completion of the project in accordence with the approved plans as contained in the Dec. 1984 application to Special Permit # SP-047-80. Based upon the transcript of the proceedings the examiner refused to admit evidence and documents which clearly are pertinant to the Various Files" which were found by the Examiner to be circulating internally prior to compiling and OFFICIAL FILE, and the examiner should have permitted submission of the pertinant documents which American had provided for the completion of its project, under SP-047-80, including all of the "Various Files" relating to the application, and referenced therein. Clearly the actions of the Examiner in refusing to address the completeness of the application when the Various files are all weighed in their proper context, and the actions of the City Officials in separating the applications and permit files into many separate files, constitutes "Arbitrary and Capricious actions of administrative bodies" which means willfull and unreasoning action, taken WITHOUT consideration and in disregard of the Facts or circumstances. " By Failing to consider the facts and files referenced in and the subject of the instant application, the examiner and the City Officials have failed to give due and careful consideration to all factors involved which resulted in the instant application, the appeal from decisions relating to the application and Various Files, and the subsequent actions and decisions of the city after March 8, 1984, but prior to the public hearing date. The Examiner in refusing to consider the record, at the time of the Public Hearing is both an error at law, and an error in procedure, as the appeal process, as described in the City Code, and the "Procedure for appeals of administrative determinations" provided by the Examiners Office, and the City of Renton, provide that " The appeal letter . . . . should attempt to show in a GENERAL MANNER . . . . areas the city official or board errd It further states that the Examiner will NOT decide the matter based on the letter of appeal . " Clearly as evidenced by the statements at the onset of the public hearing the Examiner HAD, (Prior to permiting American to Testify or submit documents on which to base any decision) DECIDED to limit the scope of the appeal irrespective of the application itself , and the related files which resulted in the application, and appeal . This is clearly and error in procedure as described in the appeal procedure document. Further Procedure was violated and in error by not permiting American Memorial or its Attorney their right to " present their arguements first" as outlined in the Appeal Procedure. The Hearing Examiner has not considered "All of the information submitted concerning the matter" and in fact refused to permit American to Submit documents in direct contridiction to the Appeals Procedure. The Examiner in his letter granting this appeal made no restrictions with regard to documents which would or would not be permited, and gave no indication of his DECISION (made prior to the Public Hearing , or examination of the documents to be offered, or testimony to be offered) limiting the testimony, documents and scope of the appeal to his pre-concieved determination as to the scope of the application itself and the resultant appeal . The Examiners DECISIONS prior to weighing the evidence and testimony is both arbitrary and capricious, and a procedural error as described in the "APPEALS PROCEDURE" provided by the City to appellant. American seeks relief from the actions of the City Officials, in separating the various files related to Americans SPECIAL PERMIT SP-047-80, and the current application to complete the work approved under that SPECIAL PERMIT from the Hearing Examiner, who has the authority to combine the Various files related to the American Memorial Special permit under SP-047-80 and he is requested to find that the Various Files when taken on the whole as THE SPECIAL PERMIT FILE contain all of the approved plans, and is the complete file covering the current application for the annual liscense for fill and grade to complete the FINAL PHASE of land reclamation under SP-047-80. The hearing Examiner is granted the authority to provide the relief requested by CITY CODE 4-3011-B-4 which states " The Examiner shall have all of the powers of the office from whom the appeal is taken " The refusal of the Examiner to consider the documents relating to the King County Health Department permits and the requirements accompaning that permit which is referenced in the instant application, and attached thereto, and in the Various Files is clearly a procedural error. The actions of the CITY as evidenced in the Complete SPECIAL PERMIT FILE SP-047-80 and all of the correspondence thereto, in preventing Americans compliance with Rentons demands and requests to repair and maintain the Site in What the examiner NOW FINDS (9) is a "potentially unstable condition" which may have been caused by the Citys preventing American "to complete the work authorized by special permits. " the Examiner finds that "WORK IN PROGRESS WAS STOPPED" . These actions by the CITY are clearly made upon unlawful procedure, are in violation and disregard of SEPA regulations, and in violation of the RENTON CITY CODE, and in direct violation of King County Health Dept. Rules and Regulations, which the City Attorney fully acknowledged in 1982, and in the context of the CITY Attorneys letter to Ron Nelson, Dave Clemons, and cc: Mayor of May 21 , 1982 a copy of which is attached hereto , clearly reflect that the actions of the City officials with regard to James Colt, American Memorial Services, SP-047-80, and the current application to COMPLETE the work required under SP-047-80 have been taken and are made with WILLFULL DISREGARD of the facts and circumstances evidenced in the application file, and SP-047-80. The actions of the city as outlined and described herein with regard to the APPROVED Special Permit # SP-047-80, must be found to be, per 4-3012 (B) -4- (b) " IN EXCESS OF THE AUTHORITY OR JURISDICTION OF THE AGENCY, (e) CLEARLY ERRONEOUS IN VIEW OF THE ENTIRE RECORD AS SUBMITTED, AND (f ) IS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS. Based on these facts, documents and the record, the Examiner is empowered to grant the relief being sought by American, and to issue the appropiate City liscence for the completion of the APPROVED RECLAMATION under SP-047-80, and Americans County Permit, as referenced in the instant application. When the correspondence in the "various Files" is examined, specifically the letter from the City Attorney of May 21 , 1982 which was provide by the Building and Zoning dept. in their files which were made available to the General Public as pertaining to this public hearing on AAD-028-85, in accordence with the Public Notice and Posting for this appeal , copies of which were provided to the public, and Appellant the week preceeding the Hearing) accompanied by the letter from Ronald Nelson Bldg. & Zoning Director of May 2, 1985, and the "NOTICE" signed by the Mayor, President of the City Council , and Mr. Warren City Attorney, and as noted thereon by the Assistant City Clerk, as being given to Mr. Colt on 5-2-85, it is clear from a reading of these documents, that the Examiners statements in his report of May 17, 1985 pertaining to the "appearance of fairness doctrine" has not been met and complied with in regard to actions taken by the various City officials in dealing with Mr. Colt, American Memorial Services, the instant application, or the files pertaining thereto, SP-047-80 et. al . The City has willfully acted to prevent all interested parties to know the contents of the communication, " and the Examiners refusal to allow American to submit evidence from the files which are pertinant to their appeal , and application further denied American " to openly rebut the evidence " as stated on page 11 of the Examiners report. This action by the Examiner, restricting testimony and evidence, is a procedural error as outlined previously, and further violates the appearance of fairness doctrine, and constitutes a denial of Americans rights to a fair hearing of all of the evidence relating to the instant application, resulting from SP-047-80. The letter Of Mr. Warren of 5-21-82 which was only made available to the public from the City one week prior to the PUBLIC HEARING directly discriminates against Mr. Colt and American Memorial Services, and appears to violate the Federal Civil Rights Act, and all areas of the Renton City Code 4-3011 (B) 4. a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f ) . The May 21 , 1982 letter, May 2, 1985 Nelson letter, and the undated Notice recieved May 2, 1985, clearly indicate the errors of law and procedure and judgement that have been outlined herein, and the Examiner should find that the Citys actions in dealing with American Memorial have been Discriminatory, Arbitrary and Capricious, and that due to the conflicting nature, vagueness and inconsistancy of the statements made in all of the correspondence, arising from various City Officials, has served to deny American due process under the law, and been inconsistant and vague to the point of NOT CONSTITUTING PROPER NOTICE OF FINAL DECISIONS, AND SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED FINAL ACTIONS BY THE CITY. This request for reconsideration as stated herein also incorporates by reference, all of the files and documents listed on the attached "list of Attachments" , and those files referenced herein, but in the City of Rentons possession. This request for reconsideration also incorporates the Examiners letter of May 17, 1985 with respect to the appeal filed regarding this same Application of 12/27/84, and SP-047-80, as represented in the appeal of those decisions filed by American Memorial on May 16, 1985, and the letter of reconsideration attached thereto as provided in Title IV, Sec. 3015 0f the City Code. American Memorial throughout all of the correspondence in all of the "Various Files" has sought only to complete its reclamation project in accordence with the approved plans filed with the City of Renton and King County Health Dept. , The City in accepting Americans application in 1984 was fully aware that its purpose was to secure the completion of this project under SP-047-80, and by placing the various documents , all of which are part of SP-047-80 in the "Various Files" referred to by the Examiner and in other yet unidentified City Files have frustrated Americans attempts to complete its approved project in accordence with its approved plans. Attached hereto are copies of BONDS reciepted by the city which were not evidenced in the City files upon inspection by Aserican, and which were not in the "OFFICAL" sic files of the City at the Hearing. American is not aware of how many files the City may be trying to maintain on this one project, SP-047-80, and the multitude of file numbers and files being kept is improper and confusing. American seeks to complete its project, approved as SP-047-80, and requests the Examiner, by the authority granted to Him under the City code 4-3011 (B) 4. to issue the annual liscense required under that permit and in a(7cordence with the approved plans, and to acknowledge reiept f 'the Bonds, covering completion of the work regardless of whatever files the City has chosen to place them in. a' Q ~~~ N' Jam s ~ CdIt, President 1Aachmentsn/n, .w JLC/hs 8 po onHARvm«mmXA80INIER nv AMERICAN MEMORIAL SERVICES INC. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION HEARING EXAMINERS DECISIONS MAY 17, 1985 12/20/84 LETTER NELSON FOR COMPLETION OF SP-047-80 12/20/84 LETTER BLDG. & ZONING DEPT. RE; COMPLETION OF SP-047-80, REF. KING COUNTY 11/09/84 LETTER AMS ATTY. SETCHELL REF; COMPLETION OF SP-047-80 PER DESIGNS OF RECORD, AND FINAL 4 ACRES WITH ENGINEER GIADURONES PLAN. KING COUNTY HEALTH DEPT CONFORMING LANDFILL PERMIT QUANITY ANALYSIS PREPARED BY ENGINEER GIAUDRONE ENGINEER GIAUDRONE PLAN FOR FINAL 4 ACRES COVERED UNDER PERMIT # SP-047-80 05/02/85 AMS LTR. TO NELSON WITH RE SUBMITTED DRAINAGE PLANS 04/19/85 KING COUNTY HEALTH DEPT APPROVALS OF SITE CC TO CITY OF RENTON 09/22/83 GIAUDRONE ENGINEER LETTER RE; QUANITY COMPUTATIONS FOR FINAL PHASE OF LAND FILL. AND 4 PAGES OF ATTACHMENTS JUNE 23, 1983 DRAINAGE CONTROL PLANS, AND DETAIL SHEET PREPARED BY REGISTERED ENGINEER HOGAN, AND RECIEVED BY CITY 11/4/83 ENGINEER DRAWING BY CITY OF RENTON REGARDING NEW ALIGNMENT OF ACESS ROADWAY, STAMPED BY DEPUTY CITY CLERK APRIL 2, 1985 LETTER GRANTING APPEAL OF AMERICAN BY F. J KAUFMAN HEARING EXAMINER MAY 14, 1985 REQUEST TO HEARIN6 EXAMINER REGARDING AMERICANS APPEAL APRIL 24, 1985 LTR. AMS TO NELSON WITH ATTACHED BONDS, PERMITS, LETTER OF CREDIT AND DEDICATION LETTER. MAY 24, 1982 LTR. FROM CITY ATTORNEY MADE AVAILABLE TO GENERAL PUBLIC AND APPELLANT IN MAY 1985. FEB. 20, 1985 AGENDA ERC COMMITTEE FEB. 27, 1985 ERC COMITTEE AGENDA PROCEDURE FOR APPEALS OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS, FROM CITY OF RENTON LETTER FROM RONALD NELSON OF MAY 2, 1985, WITH ATTACHED "NOTICE " SIGNED BY MAYOR , CITY ATTORNEY AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT MAY 17, 1985 LTR. FROM HEARING EXAMINER RE; AMERICANS APPEAL OF MAY 15, 1985 AMERICANS MAY 15, 1985 APPEAL LETTER TO EXAMINER WITH ATTACHMENTS KNOWN FILES IN THE CITY OF RENTONS POSSESSION: SPECIAL PERMIT 047-80 SP-028-85 SP-034-77 AAD-028-85 BLDG. DEPT. B-8527 EXHIBIT 5-17-85 A" . ' . PERTAINING TO THE APPEAL FILED BY AMERICAN MEMORIAL HEREWITH FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ITS APPEAL OF DECISIONS IN THIS FILE RECIVED BY 74E EXAMINER ON MAY 16, 1985 AS INDICATED BY THE CITY STAMPS THEREON. ATTACHMENTS TO RECONSIDERATION REQUEST DATED MAY 29, 1985 AAD-028-85 MT0 OL]IVET December 20, 1984 Mr. Ronald G. Nelson Building and Zoning Director City of Renton 300 Mill Ave. South Renton, Wash. 98055 Re: Mt. Olivet Cemetery / American Memorial land fill Dear Mr. Nelson, Enclosed herewith are new copies of. the " Master Application " for the completion of our land reclamation project. The city has several complete sets of plans for this project in files # SP-034-77, and SP-047-80, and I have enclosed complete copies of the current topographical plans and quantity analysis of only that portion of the property to be completed under this application. These plans were originally submited in Sept. 1983. Additional site plans as requested by the city, and a complete Master Application were filed in October of 198)., with the Cemeteries check # 7449 in the amount of $200.00, as required by the city. This check was returned to us in July 1984. Upon my inquiry regarding our application I was given a new Master Application form, and asked to update our checklist. I have included a copy of the Checklist and the cover letter from Mr. Setchell with your set of plans only. When these were brought to your department in November 1984, I was informed that a new " Master Application, and Checklist " would be needed before you could proceed. Thus the current "Master Application & Checklist" submitted herewith. Also enclosed is a check in the amount of 461.00, which Mr. Blaylock indicated would cover. the Grading and Filling Permit for 4 (four) acres in the amount of $400.00, and 61.00 for Checklist Review. These documents and all of the existing files, though duplicative, cover the last four acres of our property to be completed. Thank you for your past assistance with our permits. S ncer L CITY OF jRE1 TON rN Ja L. Colt MtOlivet Cemetery Co. Inc. DEC 2 7 I9 n Enclosures F3.UJ.LD,ING./.ZON,I,N .pE,PT. cc: Larry Setchell Cemetery, Mausoleum, Crematory & Gardens Box 547 0 100 Blaine Ave. N.E., Renton, WA. 98057 0 206-2.55-0323 MT. OLIVET December 20, 1984 Building and Zoning Department City of Renton 300 Mill Ave. South Renton, Wash. 98055 Re: Mt. Olivet Cemetery / American Memorial Land Fill. Permit Gentlemen, Enclosed herewith are copies of the " Master. Application " for the completion of our land reclamation project. The city has several complete sets of plans for this project in files # SP-034-77, and SP-047-80, and I have enclosed complete copies of the current topographical plans and quantity analysis of only that portion of the property to be completed under this application. The Cemetery proposes to complete it's land reclamation using the method of fill and the same type of fill materials as previously approved under our permits cited above. This approved method of operating is also as required under our King County Health Dept. conforming permit, # 17-011. We propose to complete our project, and reclaim a rough unusable site, restoring a mined out gravel pit to an open parklike area. We believe this is in the public interest,and will substantially benefit the City of Renton . Sin erel ' jdm s L. Colt CITY OF REN TON Mt; Olivet Cemetery Co. Inc. 1 JLC/hs Enclosures 1.OEC 2 7 V84 BUILDINGLDJN_ /ZO,N,I,N,O LD,CfP'T. Cemetery, Mausoleum, Crematory & Gardens Box 547 o 100 Blaine Ave. N.E., Renton, WA. 98057 o 206-255-0323 LAW OFFICES OF LARRY SETCHELL SETH M. (KELLY) FULCHER,Jr. 4111 East Madison Street Seattle,Washington 98112 206/328-2204 November 9, 1984 Mr. Ronald Nelson, Superintendent Building and Zoning Department City of Renton 300 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington Re: Application of American Memorial Services, Inc. for Land Fill Permit Dear Mr. Nelson: Enclosed herewith is the original "Master Application" to the city of Renton by American Memorial Services, Inc. for the Land Fill Permit necessary to complete the development of its four acre project located at Mt. Olivet Cemetery. Enclosed with the permit is a copy of the conforming permit issued by the Seattle King County Department of Public Health, current topographical drawings rendered by Giaudrone and Associates, and a copy of the approved plans on file with various city of Renton departments concerning the fill operations conducted at the site. It is the plan of the owner to complete the fill of the property in question to finish contours as per designs of record, and thereby reclaim a rather rough, unusable site. We believe the plan and the operation contemplated by the permit application are in the public interest, will substan- tially benefit the city of Renton,and are within easy achievement now that previously existing obstacles have been successfully overcome by the owner. We anticipate no serious opposition to the enclosed application, understand that state and county agencies are supportive, and look for- ward to working with your various departments to discuss any issues or concerns which may arise. We look forward to meeting with you to expedite the handling of this application. Very truly yours, CITY OF fENTON r l (t) 5 I I \V/ 12 T LARRY SETCHELL, P.S . n] DEC 271984 - J By Ie . Larry etchell BUILDING/ZONING D+=PT. LS/jec Enclosure cc: American Memorial Services, Inc. ia«.r am ti_ ,a IHr 1,11VAL^.wka" f tAAJ1A .1. iIAI! 3, ;1114 1 I )111p1I 1: 44 , 'T ..11• }1r, s Ili' No. 1 7-01 1 SZATTtL'-VZING COUNTY EPART'PJiENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH A.—.e= 1Ir CONFORMING PERMIT r DEMOLITION LANDFILL qaxpi,e:1 Dec. 31 . 1984 GRANTED TO MT . 01 LVET CEMETERY FOR OPERATION OF DEMOLITION I ANDFILI r.._ppear.•-•- ---.. _. . 51 6UOJiCT TO All STATE LAWS.COUNT/SOARO OP HEALTH RULES AND RE DULATIUNS RAND.ON CITY OR COUNTY ORDINANCES Krf•.:,. :PERTAINING THERETO. DIRECTOR OF C HEALLLi 4 c oA4Y0 Dec. 31 . 1983 t'" CITY OF REN T QN Dr y ` 4: J C T1/r0 PlRYI4 YAr OS EU9NQNp®UPON NIOL.TIOH 04 THi HOLD'U1 IJf C'aY OP TN TERNS 0/TW'pLIETHISQRNRISNOTTRANO/ E aMORADLIANDYUT00POOTEDINACONbMCUOUbV1ACTl S. EOULATION3, l 1I p yy 1 by; y7y p y-y Q ] y y qp,DEC VI , V, 1, V rY V 1 f IV V ® . V V f1N1 Y1 A7V r r f I l l , tlC27 8 ' ' a_='_:n-n y--.a.-..e n t1 tJ[a•2 [:.::S t1 t1 t1 l9 .9 Sa S1 " Ea 6i A d1 s A la r. sM W.t+... 4,9..vl.„,•.,i,,, x%' h'' ewo.•w.o..o..• BUILDING/ZONING DEPT. 1- e ,_.:, ,. `7.,,,:r`r±•:1::r..tf-S§"rL.',e.lr•sr'",-..a.e•n,...-,--..try. ?a•"-=,•..:-._=,:w,C^Pmm-,..- y;'r-.Rva''iw'a'1 e"'""• rc +•...s...?y.jvm.•+.c.£r.,^.N-,-+M.l Y.nr r 4. su...s..........w . -,• .'L'- ._4--..,.y`•'.;'' " tt":- tom,,;,v.-Y r+v-, - •-.qn.'l i+a•1.•-. n wPrwxn•., r. ,'.r'z't^......p,.t....,..sr. xcv:,..ors , _.- , -F=v^r,,-.ri''''.- ..•.c,,,1:,.» -o-Z '.. `' ",,,,,, :14.1m "fit- •x.^,a11^4,,,z.. ,?,'.;'".r^2..srr- _non• sr::u:.reR•,.-,:4.,„,.'a.r +,w ,,,,..,,,,..iw,r,,,,, ,,,,,fi:ID,,,,, I89,44I 73, l 29,206 I76,891 5 947"203 35^082 64`"288 884,453 158,103 I 7,9l8 730"515 7'045 126.121 95,391 ISO Ol2695 77,430 387,148 17,665 167.677 G7,OSgL 2]5 -295/ -- --'-I Dl-'----- - --- 57,327 118*5 286'635. ^ 194,434 48,247 IM 6lSS24l,2]3 212 l D 38,377 8.9355Igl,885 22 4087'1n7 4.l5D y 208.040 7xv x v 208,040 208"n4n 7 705 62,I2O 2D7,965 23 I16 5 30 x2lI.U3g 82S 2DI SS2 5 l,037'76 38'l2 6 9.333 206GDO 5 1,033 3B 436 107.769 l.02S OOO 205,084 3B S GJI R423 2S9' I95.478 5 37"9rg ' ^ 184,007 I74 S B73 977 9O7B6 36 DO 220.207 S 7S4 932l5U826 71 l25 S I3D 57s S76 27 9]l" 628,390 280,SO6 99,6R6 S 23^273 lgO83 98 3D3^77S 4327]460S 127 7lq 6 365,415 6SS 13.534 233 277 ll'773 640 34.4lT7vx7 4I3 - 225,241 172 C%13IC YARDS al ON go! I c- zeer m—m 1.)L' V,\ / \ /-/93 i-1 E kr \7_,.,.- z r- i(„,......„..,... y,,,/ 1 1, 1. i, 1 1II 1. I I I J.-, 11.-49 I r1, 0 -"'•-• ...‘ i7 \•N• G140, i M CITY OF RENTON liqr.•\I 1c4's • 4,tril• <I,&lt c;" •'I iBUILD1NG/ZONING DEPT. h. `.• ‘. ..• 1: weas-^saarsoa. 0`rl 7.,...,_ ..... i f f r s. American Memorial Services, Inc. 4Y x' 4'.t 100 Blaine Avenue NE ® PO Box 547 i s Renton, Washington 98055 r May 2, 1985 CITY OF RENTON Mr. Ron Nelson D f @ [ OWE City of Renton D 200 Mill Ave. S. MAY 2 1985 Renton, Wa. 98055 BUILDIiNG/"J,,lNG OEPT. Dear Mr. Nelson, This, letter is in further response to your letter of April 12, 19851, and to the letter of February 2, 1984, attached thereto. I have attached hereto another set of the "plans prepared by a registered engineeer" which have been submitted and reviewed by the City, as indicated by the City Stamps thereon, in June 1983, October 1983, Revised and submitted in Nov. 1983, and during 1984, and 1985. These plans were reviewed by Mr. Monaghan, and Mr. Bergstrom in October 1983, at our site and with our engineer present., at the meeting we were advised that these items would provide the necessary control of drainage during the completion of our reclamation project. This plan was prepared by our engineer after the plan approved and drawn by Mr. Bray had been accepted, and only indicates on the original approved plan drawings for SP-047-80 the detail of Mr. Brays sketches. I trust that since these plans have been a part of our permit file since 1983, and revised as requested and resubmitted that this satisfies your request for the temporary erosion control design. As we discussed in your office on Tue. April 30, 1985 the final alignment of the Citys extension of Edmonds Ave. south across Americans property will necessitate a final drainage plan to relate that roadway to our site. I have attached hereto the copies of our letters which you and I reviewed Tues., and another copy of the letter from the Health Dept. with the typo corrected. Again let me repeat our desire to complete this project as soon as possible, and our willingness to work with the City to those ends. Si' - i 4;;Aii0.0./00„r 1-. "Afff,P7, Illim._"' . L. Colt rican Memorial Services Inc. 1 1 Enclosures; Giadrone Calculations Drainage control Plans Iter City of 8ontue King County Charles Boyer,Mayer ftauly HewHe,Executive Seattle-King County Department of Public health Jesse W.Tapp,M.D.,M.P.I I.Director CITY OF RENTON April 19, 1985 EiiRg O WR MMAY21985 Mt. Olivet Cemetery BUILDING/ZONING DEPT. P.O. Box 547 Renton' WA 98057 Dear Mr. Colt: We have completed final review of the Demolition Landfill Permit Application. Based on the information presented in the application, site visits/inspection reports and related discussion, it has been determined that the Mt. Olivet site DOES currently meet all the pertinent requirements of King County Board of Health Rules and Regulations No. 8. Therefore, the landfill is being classified CONFORMING in line with Rules and Regulations No. 8, Part II, Section 3. We have attached the Mt. Olivet permit' and ask that it be posted in a conspicuous location in the caretaker's house. Your attention is directed to the leachate seeps periodically observed at several points on site. This condition needs to be addressed as soon as possible to prevent an off-site leachate flow. Enclosed you will find your CONFORMING Disposal Site Permit for 1985. Should you have questions or need further information, please contact me at 587-2722. Sincerely, Greg/i sho , Coordinator SOLID WASTE PROGRAM GB:rb Att. ! cc: City of Renton Grading and Fill Permits Attn. Ron Nelson Joan Thomas, Redmond, D.O.E. Jeff Everest Southeast District Health Office 400 Yesler Building Seventh Floor Seattle,Washington 98104 (206)587-4600 GIAUDRONE E. AND ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEERS P.O.Box 808 121 Lake Street S. Kirkland.Washington 98033 208/822-8294 3-632 September 22, 1983 CITY OF R6NYON MAY 21985 Mr. James L. Colt Mt. Olivet Cemetery 100 Blaine N.E.BUILDING/ZONING DEPT. P.O. Box 547 Renton, Washington 98057 • Subject: Mt. Olivet Cemetery - Landfill Site Computations Dear Mr. Colt: The following are our findings based upon the attached computations, our topographic survey and volume calculations, and normal operation of the landfill in accord with Exhibit "A". 1. The volume of compacted debris that may be placed on the site is 150,000 cubic yards. 2. The volume of cover material required for 1 foot of cover over each 5 foot layer of compacted debris together with a 2 foot layer over the top of the hole and an additional 4 foot surcharge over the site is 76,200 cubic yards. This cover material is available within the confines of the exist- ing landfill operation. Should you require additional information or explanation, please give' us a call. Veryitruly yours, GIA r• '• E & ASSO TES J+HN M. GIAUDRONEr sii,TONi -, I. A' tachments:IJ ; ' !. .• ;3 Lju OCT ly1983r, I V o,'nr S VVI r GIAUDRONE Ir, SOCAIATS 1CONSULTINGENGINEERSJOB a;m COL L2.:2,2 121 Lake Stroat S. MAACALCULATEDBY DATE !0 z/75A P.O.Box 808 1 rr Kirkland,Washington 98033 CHECKED BY L--,1— DATE /`z/0 206/822-8294 SCALE WA SHEET NO--.1-OF M. L..C7-C14/4..2 E_ Afza 8.Li R c-reC. = A r e.ram, o-C- Ta-i-o.A moo,cc.e( 1 1 . s Co Acre: - AcecJ.. oC tc. vv erci- 1 G.88 Pt c.cef. = Nei. rc.+,c...c v_. Ay e 01/4 a. CcR A cce S = l a% :,'_e.d LA c,4 1OV1 `+. low CGn ttr v;7.....-1- i tip) G. 1ci Ac.c-e... 1 L Ulmr.. C.. Ac-c-ef: o-C SUa-chQ -ce Aces . -C 1 Cor Co.1Cc.,.l co.'1- IaNS II. S IAcu IAA ta61 C. 7EF..N . = y -cee-t-- L U M _ A2.F_F., x 0 Ir P-t N AC. l,o9 .)9L0 Ccnbi C. .-cf = z81 720 ct-lc«. y1.1-8. S AY cxa P-C-4,' R Vaw Nt F 1 31 S00 CAAk ..yd.: . Ar--- ZSE , \IOLUWII of I\LV ITloKIAL t rroT oc Cc•J ' C.7Jca Lava FILL Atc.t_c . Aa ,t-, ' y . 7S r c..rce 7ro TA +of..:o ry -IL') 1 o(,iuM E _ 4.75 At... X li .erf.co x t . 1--... A cr r., (;!,.j f Zoe Ztc =9 . C4. _ -7711 c.t.A1C.iL yards . CITYOFNTONt¼cs: J) 1US al`? vDLU /tE MAY 2 1985 y I ,..7W;.. nT BUILDING ZONING LE GIAUDRONE£ Assgcu. 5 CONSULTING ENGINEERS JO0 3 121 Lake Street S. CALCULATED 0Y DATE !/Z Z/ S P.O.Boa 808 i J Kirkland.WashinplOn 98033 CHECKED BY DATE 208/822-8294 SCALE SHEET NO ~ OF 3 I 1E . \(o Lail ME AW MLP.e`c Foc - DE..eR-1C ; Vol_tac,A E. = Cc_70.0'-,(1, Voi..1.IME.) - (VoLuMe ot=' AvOrrtoNAL I FooT I GoVE.L) +- C L. ute..G_HAk....G.L Vo LL.M .7)% Lz0 Vo L .1 r.\ - j I ci) 17 cur y et . ($Crx r+ -4'r-re.- t,c r vcyy j AoDET10EJA.L 20' t...• =7) /'?j 'LI.A . . d:. • C rnit\A. t-t- Y .. .:L . PLut.. utt r...t-1 E. Vo uM1/l E_ -3g 50 > Cc l . y d s.., a co Qv. . 4-cty\ X[r I\SET VOL-LAME, Au%uLP.C)4E. 1Fbc - UEE R.1r- = I -16I9z CiA . yd.lr. 1 I 1 A VoLLtmE 1\UAIL • FoR vE. v.i I s-0,000 c.:.1.../AL- 3Z_ \lo L..c.c µE c F Ca v1=z. tiA k-TE t% tL. (Cav.r outs Cook.. l a\icy-., R QLAIfLa•D JE.Ce = 1 cao1 .cues --,)er•/ . .-L lc...ff.r oT 1g`br.' ;eu . TOTAL VoL.4.IME. ;7t= D E. C.LE` olkA Co% f\AAT k.!F L_ . Ea LA a\t-t' -`- I ( y„ r$A€ of G e.e '-t J s 1 O EB c v'::.4 Yo LEA W,E.. = i rs(7)O r-Ci rr\ 1 #e.YY\ ) ro`T'17:. \F ,vI.Y+1•_ _ cz----_-_1_-\ Jl ISO;o .0 = le._. )oGL'7 cz.x...4 . vG!, 1 •d l10l-LNAE:. 0 V-' CO QQ Ek N`\A r t A L = re,-;IA.I, \' l,-_, l.,,L!,,,,I.a L. : `- Vo t.,btw OF- 7,.;L Tc.. ;-t :. Vo LU V\E oP CC 1_6`;0°0) — L1=,)..,0,_3; CITY OF RENTON . 3)i..20 c-u., y a . -. g, @ V VI 11 MAY 21985 BUILDING/ZONING DEPT• i 1 GIAUDRONE. AND 74120- .5,ASSOCKIES Cx•?-•ZCONSULTINGENGINEERSJOB 121 Lake Street S. Cl/Z2/SLCALCULATEDBYDATEP.O.Box 806 Kirkland.Washington 98033 CHECKED BY DATE 2.08/822-8294 SCALE SHEET NO______OF V-1 • V,4.71.4J NA EL, Cew 12_ M A-T L• L 2 5, de, . S• r c\ Vo e Vc-,‘, • 5.x 4r ck I Cc5ci t..1 Zo, 0 CAA t:I- M Atc r f„. • rF1 EA_ MLLLLLI- ctL L-4 ;NM I At,: A. qcn.-L11•11E-._ A vikr LekEd....e_ F . Co rvi PA cT 11E. CD) co L L ''Cr VOLUM.E. C) Ca) Mr L Q.EGuAl D Z.00 a,k i c_ Vast-a:4- CITY OF RENTON rsdMAY 2 1985 BUILDING/ZONING DEFT. L_. I' ' I. ww_ ram 1 l• 4.J I y., S1. c s\ " 1- - , --.4r-,..---4 4.. . e. ., : I. e 4,5) ea ':11}') 1,..__. \.. 1 ,;:' , -- ).{(.-- z,. ,k \ . s\\.::%.‘ .//(..., t , . •'' •774•—•-••--..i• 4 It (.! G \N4 ...'-, . .'!----• 14.[%\ .\\\ ..\\.\\:\\.\- T---N - __ . • 11 J I '-: : 1-‘). ./. , ' i', ' 40.• , I...,..','... . ..,... , . .. J 007,,i• - 4 _... iip? i 114"' . N. 11".4404" ' •• • i t ' . ' '''-' g• l::......„..,... v,.../.''''''''T . . I1 1. Yt° • ` -' y•.•'.: f\ f, r . y: •,;,•..• ,L , Q a,. fi . J. Y • . ° i 1. tic O i3 aa • J a a , a . . a I . , t? I d 'ILL- 1Q4)4 t C I lr , ,d0 dd a I( lit, 5, 6 I n z.. -w- Z dJ1,L...19,a a e . . + •• Z0 3lk.t. a 5.'i it i _4to 0 0 • 1 • I . t t "4 til— r. mtg . % 1 A C: it. 1 1,12..............wf .• 6 '•41 . • i... 4 • oll1 1 : I > g w IN•ri• •••••••• rj 4- tA1 i 4 t 41 0 • .• V • I t • • 11l t I t.• ', a i (I et. I 11 u. a , 1 C. •` F<' I g 1 . 1 i 1 . 1 1 2 . . ... 1 o1I. 1 ..____9 . 411—'-- 77. 44 0 v• a tlilalas; u:Pil i-E li G.011: 41. SV-111...... — 1 I al F ic) . ' CITY OF I:ENTOt I p ;';,. Q4III D 15 EI WI -30 :9 — C4 7..13?) 11 1\11AY 2 198507.6-:,,,., „.. T.....1 — ll LI. v T' r, •• BUILDINGiZGfviNG DEPT.f j i JUN 2 3 1983 1 i SILTINCI T tE.NIC - t7E ;AIL O , I t -2®.'• I Cli'f Of e'((EaAr1,Oinn.NSW A5PHP..LI ROA.PWAY `0.11,? `.r `' !i i S '; 9 JuNJ 3 198311r7 1. IA 71 ril 17,1 1,1 s I',-- , Lam_* i• Ulf li Lit L.l WI I Y1' IL.1 l Ili Ti1I --1 ...nu .,-.. j ThE L,.I i. .. •-_,..<t J1RI i I--1 Ill r_ LI LiiEf F 1 I ON EDE : . UNIMr'RCNeI7 . 12429.1:7 wAY CITY OF RENTON , f @ E T gi MAY 21985 BUILDING/ZONING DEPT. 4 x'4_ _rt:.1'--0_"-"_.SPA, Ems, SPiKE T® Tf E e.ii4tN1P-moYEt7 RGIvtOVAE5LE 8 =T"x Pe'° I R .DWAT . MR. Tt ES t_1/ A'S Pp.V f W GI i0S SUPPOS'T 1 1.4,...,74rTillpilli r v • S. U M F' Mr \/!\/ 4"), T/\)/ / 4 x4 x I =C7"- SPAC E Rlt, SPIKE. 'V0 TEE, ONE AT P_AGd-t l=N c. 4 M I t7Dt..1r OF t:AGI-t I 14 t51 tom.Tt E I r.. .____._.__------'-'-jrllqll-------7:----__ --l 1- C SUrloOKT i 5E.CTIO NV t3 - E r1 \cIFIG LANt7 izecLAIMATION FILL MT. OLIVET • JUNE e5 V.A... t-IOr AN 4_ A.5E,oC..... PAGIFIGC .r:.fin 4ZEGLAIMATiON FILL. NIT. OLIVT • JUNE 85 jII p 0,.:__HBN 4 B.SSOC. •• T 7 T3 T _ N St=fr 1 T'LE , WA ETAlL0 ram Pro gib.r __- ET:2IMENTATIOIq .... VAM I2" ROGK. . Kt. 4 q• y l loos. r j'+: .r QUARRY SPAS-Ls it! V.:t.•Tk •...:/. ' . CITY OF REEENWTTON If . . . FT2HWRO: 1 MAY 2 1985 4 BUILDING,ZONING DEPT. 1 1 A w,•-•-.41 r IFLo4tvMP s=-Low All ILA N n A _.... . • 1 I F a 10'-o" a I FLOW MIN, R--- 1i. 'J - ..._ - - - -- - _. A', -- .. .. W' PLOW I SUMP_ If O'''. v 1 aTY Or r:r;TTON eC:noi.i F3•E 1 175 J t ilk ici id W I iiiiii---),L1 . JUN 2 3 1983 u.. T.lf':i:i vl._Jii:V VLi' r G ] n bERNI 7 -< ° 1 MAXIMUM m_ j 1,. p~ WATER rii 11 -. LEVEL_ 2 co : Q ami- r. l . o v' z ri J 8" PVG cn d PI PE --+ J i 4* 8" PVC. PIPES .• le' 6. •• • ''- o: ' 3, C ". v EL dto s fti mar"• i N2' b,. a Coe. E' PE C7 I8a SYUD v i i -. P -. STASIL. ITY C 1 r PM! Le 6 EI7 I M E I l T". TI O M ... 1, 4• S I N : :. r' r c. D -` rn t. e PACIFIC LANt7 KCI- AIMATION FILL MT.- OLIV - r 12. A. N 1y 4r v Assoc,. 1703 EXTER N. SE. A TLE, v+/. o.. E'EN NIi" vi., /111_.1 1 I I St. / 2:/ • I i 4r-•.„,, 1 4„/ I/.- - 1 4) I / T -- f c s?rumor ; .pe Atiagi x_..1_ ,,,___ __, _ v ?37,40' -,-w I/ rv:P -4 . 0 1 / r-i3;="5,-<-- --04o - /P--- - - (..tn 0 0 Z hap-Air. - . - 1Z1 4ftS r4a F 0f FILL . C.8. ! 7rpf C 8 411 ,62.' ••.&::;..... ir:' I. I-*/:_ i 111.,PE - : - yo3Q 54 - ,^ c off . -- 1 Y; I.6 l'04.00 FEN Q _ _ p 1 O. SEE SHEET J2 a( oE;q1 4111 y • SPEC/frCa f1 g i PtP :::; :. :: , A iE'2/x1 r,1e J: a•:.:...::..::.:-: r:.:::.•.:: v.:::.:::.:.:--:•..:.,.::::::,:-::..":.:•.:: pa•.•. 0 Y —.- , Q n N.: A?. A_. a,,,,, 4., 1z0.).,,, 0,,....:::.:-:.. I...i.,..."-..:.'..::....:.•. v.' f..::.:;:......„::•.....:-.. 1. i::..r.:::.:...::.::::-:..:.:..::.-:......:.:.•:, f..:..-..-...:..„...-:::...:.,....: f:::•:::.:::.:•-:-.:..,:":: 1:,:.:..:::!„.:..:.•.::::.:.:.:.:.::•:.....:.:::.:..•::.::.:....-.-::.::::..::::;.:::.:.::...•:..:-.•:::.-.....::::.::...--..-:.::...::...•.:::...::::... i..:::-:.:•. 0,::-.. m:...: 1:::::::•:-....:::..:.:......„-..P, 1::;:.:.::-.::..:.:::: E.::-.. a;.::.„.,:•.:..::::::.:..:..::.::•.::.....:.::.:•-:: P.::..•.:: i.:.:::.:.. t.::„.-. gi:..:.:„::::-::-::.:.::.• f:.::::-:._::-:•:.-:.„.:- i:: b.:...-::: o-...:. N:•..:.:.„.::.::.::.:.:.."...:...•..:-..:-.:..• 1..:...:.„ r:::.--.:..-..•:.:.•:.-:.:: n7„:.: i....•:.•::.A.....:.:.:::..::.....::::-•.„::....::...::..-:•„::.:..: o.::..„•.:..: k: fi K v- 7, j 1.-:..i'.,-"•-•..„.',•..'...•,,.,-.:.- 7-.-,.,...,:,-.-:..:.:„::.'.:,:,:.::.',:.:.:,:...::'.:-.i.:,—,:.,:,-.:,,-.:i,,:-::..,...::.,.,,:..,H,,-•.: C. L J. . .. • . .. 0 17%.. / 77 N. 7.. ..„, „ v,.. (:) ,_ ,z...... t" 4r -.. zir ; • Ir e--1 . 44,.., .r,„ , . .. . ..., o.A. .1-4 .. TTTn1x 14 1,th'1• 4 >•••• ••.•, DAM 14'5 0 . ..: . R._..., ET =LI S F-t ®S i G i. 1:1-1A1:1-. --/cf:. 0.4 .**: '. .. :1". ‘. \ 2.4 00 :kit: •-...--..--;-• ":"-::-';:-;' `.:-'*-----"---:" --'4i *•-..-_-• - . , j' 4 . T A. ,'H Y 11 i ®A? • FA.N11- ..., ` •Oi•_` a f.- - r 411#1Pr. O T , 04' _ ® w 1 +00 .,1 I +5o 59LTATIO C,AM t,<NNI C7AM TKEN Girl r of FiC H rir"3.710N::.:.:•::::::::, -r . .... PLAN f F••t '.-, •:. VATh 6a2 I M NTh Na An A D. A. HOGAI G L EAN OUT• I= LL EX t S'ri NCB C.S.A •V agt.TS v «> '4 g4a 1703 DEXTER NORTH ITS SI-4 19 ITC.H-t Z 55 • f 1SrlatVaI.•" I16' ' ;r3..' '1'..7. slut-Ars 01.4 ---I---KE HC-Irt 0 - -- -- • : -------. ESTAEIL.ISN I 1 PITS I , ' I l,1 1r r 1l.I, I 1 l :'. I .I I I ••' i r I. t IrI ' • l r i jul JJ 1. 11 p Tar i z a I c, 1 CLMLTLRY o' o) O q SOLID 1 1 T6Aces — / / r c.150rf Piy/COWITY I j I m p 'fe, J i + p.c3] cry " C D . - 11 I Z 11 a J_ II. N6 2,c' - •I I' I I Cr' E+ N. F lr fya-,sty Y''l Cbu 0'+ ; I II 2 V o a r SI.1.I.• 1 s-4+ I CIl`f5,°ps I 4 re Cf1 l I/ i/I• t I1 I Q l cG i 00 tea 111 S` e ' .^ Y I I ff Qd -CS t.:'4- 1lirate$ I 1 U d D 1 'c• Q 1s ,S1 a i C / o I W —1 II / / // g9war i D ram., U j,r. I 3 F¢OsLJ CRTiFIC i' I a o the undersigned, ' DE?f?Y e 'Y Clerk of the ty of Renton, Washington, ee tify that this is a true f 13correct co of 007-47 all4c-166/SA) PAW.) //,./ vs 0' -POUTS To (Fi.' GLY I riii Z LL1 becf gg.C sTeo G ® p{4rr 11 ri.-- i ` rY i ubscnbedand ca dthis ff GTtidayaf ..,19.b. r Low r1rN1Tr 6`OAc7 I In 0 E co 0 j7FPa CI erk I f fi• r` sj. .1.i.I_ 'L°,I!L'1:i'2ej.v, t J r Q SE e r I T r 5 e >,•0 C. OF RA, Agin, xt csl O94TF0 SEPSE# OAP City of Renton Land Use Hearing Examiner will hold a pit r i ' 54 YS t s , ' r r 5 h , h i t1_ y` t 41.r.. : ' I III: CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS , CITY HALL ON MAY 14, 1985 BEGINNING AT 9:00 A.M. P.M. CONCERNING:028-85 L REZONE ' From To to fl SPECIAL ,! CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT To s i SITE, APPROVL I I I SHORT PLAT/SUBDIVISION of . Lots Li PLANNED UNIT , DEVELOPMENT ii VARIANCE FROM. ..., n ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL DECISION GENERAL LOCATION AN®/®R ADDRESS: LOCATED AT 100 BLAINE AVENUE NORTH 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION ON FILE IN THE RENTON BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT. ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION f_1, 0 SIGNIFICANT grA NON-NSIGNIFICANT FOR FURTHER 'INFORMATION CALL THE 'CITY OF RENTON BUILDING&ZONING,DEPARTMENT 235-2550 T- H..". I6 sF. = I.; a V. 1'IG.. 0,... ; .' NO-.. _ T':.-' • 0-.`,B, E 'R: EM/ OVEC G `WITHOUT r .. : EY .:; JIC ,R,I r • 't ' s L T1aATc'rv1 dY" at- A,,,„,,,, tea. il ; . Ar.. J'iK,rje., ,,.:_.„ ,t. i .,.', . r ...: _._ .. . . AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Audrey DeJoie , being first duly sworn on oath states that Public Notice he/she is the Chief Clerk of the NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RENTON HEARING EXAMINER NVALLEYNEWSPAPERS RENTON,Hearin vAwilll be hold bytheAPublig Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular Daily News Journal, Daily Record Chronicle, Daily Globe News meeting in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall,Renton,Washing- Daily newspapers published six (6) times a week.That said newspapers ton on May 14, 1985, at 1:30 p.m. to consider the following petition: are legal newspapers and are now and have been for more than six MT. OLIVET APPEAL months prior to the date of publication referred to,printed and published Appeal by James L.Colt,President,Mt. in the English language continuallyas dailynewspapers in King Olivet Cemetery iCo. Inc., of annv An-gKent, ministrative Decision by the Environ- County, Washington. Valley Newspapers have been approved as legal E mental Review Committee to request newspapers by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for additional information on a proposed fill project involving 119,172 cubic yards ofKingCounty. material on approximately four (4) acres of property(file SP-116-84),file AAD-028-85; property located at 100 The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the Daily News Blaine Avenue North. Legal descriptions of the files notedJournal , Daily Record Chronicle, Daily Globe News , (and above are on file in the Renton Building and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its Zoning Department. subscribers duringthe below statedperiod. The annexed notice a All interested personstot saidt petitions are invited to be present at the public Notice of Public Hearin hearing on May 14, 1985,at 1:30 p.m. toESwaspublishedexpresstheiropinions. on May 3, 1.985 R9851 Ronald G. Nelson Building and Zoning Director Published in the Daily Record Chronicle May 3, 1985. R9851 The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $ 20.79 • CITY OF RENTC'l Subscribed and sworn to before me this 9th day of 19_o'5--.111D JUL 15 1985 ey/ BUILDING/7.ONIN G DEPT. Notary Public for the State of Washington, residing at Federal Way, King County, Washington. VN#87 Revised 10/84 1514Z NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RENTON HEARING EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE SECOND FLOOR OF CITY HALL, RENTON, WASHINGTON ON MAY 14, 1985, AT 1:30 P.M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETITION: MT. OLIVET APPEAL Appeal by James L. Colt, President, Mt. Olivet Cemetery Co. Inc., of an Administrative Decision by the Environmental Review Committee to request additional information on a proposed fill project involving 119,172 cubic yards of material on approximately four (4) acres of property (file SEE!16-84), file AAD-028-85; property located at 100 Blaine Avenue North. Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the Renton Building and Zoning Department. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS TO SAID PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE PRESENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON MAY 14, 1985, AT 1:30 P.M. TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS. PUBLISHED : May 3, 1985 Ronald G. Nelson Building and Zoning Director CERTIFICATION I, JEANETTE M. SAMEK-McKAGUE, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THREE COPIES OF THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS WERE POSTED BY ME IN THREE CONSPICUOUS PLACES ON THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED ABOVE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW. ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington residing in E NT d N on the 3rd day of May, 1985. C OF ' R4' O THE CITY OF RENTON t; 'y MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 0 d rn BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR m LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 09A co-FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593P09q'6o SEP1M April 2, 1985 Mr. James L. Colt, President American Memorial Services , Inc. P. 0. Box 547 Renton, Washington, 98055 Re: Appeal of Administrative Determinations Regarding SP-116-84/Mt. Olivet Cemetery Dear Mr. Colt: IIn reply to your letter to this office of March 18, 1985 regarding the above subject, we wish to advise that a hearing date has now been established for this matter. The Appeal hearing has been set for Tuesday, May 14, 1985 at 1 :30 P.M. , land will be held in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall , Renton, Washington. At that time you will have the burden of proof to show cause why you feel the administrative determinations in this matter were in error. If you have any questions , please feel free to contact this office. Sincerely, FRED J. KAUFMAN A( HEARING EXAMINER I cc: Lawrence Warren, City Attorney Don Monaghan, Public Works Department James Hanson, Building S Zoning Roger Blaylock, Zoning Administrator Ronald Nelson, Director Building & Zoning Bob Bray, Engineering Department i 7 1 - May 14, 1985 Mr. Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner City Of Renton 200 Mill Ave. South Renton, Washington, 98055 j RE: AAD-028-85 appeal . of administrative decisions The hearing examiner is requested. to determine, based on the files presented herewith, and the testimony taken this date, the following findings: 1 1 ) That SP-047-80 is a continuation of permit # SF'-O34-77, using the same plans, the same methods of reclamation and covering the same site, and that the City of Renton Departments involved in the permit and liscensing process reviewed and examined permit # SP-034-77 and accepted the documents filed therewith, making them a part of SP-047-80. I BASIS OF FINDING: Preliminary report to Hearing Examinei'-, dated March 3, 1981 States in part " The Proposal is Identiclal with that presented in 1977 and use many of the EXISTING PLANS' ( emphasis added ) " Further; PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS: 3/3/81 states i" Recomendation is almost identical with the recomendti'on submitted to the Hearing Examiner on April 12, 1977" Further; Planning Dept. review sheets indicate review and comlments relating to SP-034-77 used in reviewing Sp-047-B0. 1 FINDING 2) That any review of Special permit applications for the subject site must conform with the approved plans ill, SP-047-80 and that the continuation of the reclamation project shall be in accordance with those approved plans, and that any new special permits shall cover the "Rehabilitation Plan" as outlined in the original permit SP-047-80 and shall be considered as phasing or " stages" as described in City Code 4-2307, 5) G. BASIS OF FINDING: Renton Code 4-2306, 2 provides; that Rehabilitation shall take place in accordance with. the APPROVED PLAN " l THE CODE further states in 4-2320, 2 that "Final approval shall not be given until all work have been completed in accordance with the final approved grading plan " The Renton .Code further states at 4-2309-1 regarding bonding of the completion of the rehabilitation, that " The work , if not completed or proceeding in accordance with the approved plan, FURTHER BASIS; review of the various departments indicate from their comments that completion of the existing approved plans are required; j James Hanson: " Past permits have not been completed as proposed" 1 i Steve Munson: " Applicant should be REQUIRED to comply with . . . . previous . . permit (SP-047-80) and others if deemed appropriate. " Policy Development Dept. : requests " Compliance with the conditions of . . permit (SP-047-80) " FURTHER BASIS; Per City Code 4-2307, 2,B. The approved plans SP-047-80 have been forwarded to the Dept. of Natural Resources, and the approved -plans have been forwarded to King County Health Dept. , and Permits, requiring completion of the site in accordance with those APPROVED PLANS have been issued by these agencys. KING COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH RULES & REGULATIONS # 85 • states per sec. 2. " A. . solid waste disposal site SHALL NOT be substantially altered . " the Dept of Health requires completion of the landfill (reclamation site) in accordance with the approved plans SP-047-80 which is the basis for their permit # 17-0 1 1. FINDIhJG 3) That the APPROVED PLANS of the site contained in SP-047-80 are representative of the RECLAMATION PROJECT, as APPROVED by the City Of Renton, and that those plans, may be used1by American Memorial to secure any permits or liscenses necessary to complete the APPROVED RECLAMATION PROJECT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THOSE PLANS AND PERMITS. Any such additional permits or liscenses which may be requested by the city are to be for the purpose of COMPLETING the project, and shall cover the final phase or stage of the reclamation. BASIS OF FINDING; Comments from various City Departments including Planning and Development " REQUIRE " compliance with SP-047-80, while Bldg. Dept. states work has not been completed " as proposed " (SP-047-80) . FURTHER BASIS; Renton Code requires bonding to assure COMPLETION of the reclamation project in accordance with the approved plans (SP_047-80) 4-2309-1. City of Renton officials are reviewing SP-047-80 and basing determinations or opinions on the Approved Plans there-in. FINDING 4) Action- by City officials requiring NEW PLANS be filed and approved before reviewing or accepting an application for either the renewal of the special permit as required in SP-047-80 or the issuance of annual liscenses under that permit are not with-in their authority. The application resulting in SP-01,47-80 contained all of the approiate plans required by all of the City Departments, all of which were approved by the City at the time of the Issuance of the special permit and the Annual Liscense to Operate from August 1981 to August 1982. Any determination as to the adaquacy of these approved plans would have had to be raised at the public hearing in 1981. Letters of opinion from various City Officials are inconsistant, and 1 arbitr ry and capricious. BASIS OF-' FINDING; Letter Blaylock /8/85 and the attached r-eview ! sheets are totally inconsistent with his letter of Jan.4, 1985 as it relates to referencing SP-0.47-80 and SP-034-77. Further his March letter is not a request for information but a series of• demands for performance, requests for information without examining the files, and vague references to an incomplete application. His refusal to consider the application and notice of the same was not made in a timley manner as required by code. Specifically, `following his request for additional information in Jan. 85, and meetings to clarify what was needed on Feb. 7th. the additional information as requested was submitted on Feb. 11 , 1985, with a letter verifying the hearing date of Mar. 19, 1985. Per Renton Code 4-3011 , (A) 1. , " With-in ten ( 10) days of reciept of new or additional information, the building dept. shall accept or reject the application. " . Mr. Blaylocks failure to notify American in a timley manner per code, and his failure to alter or change! the Hearing date referenced in our letter of Feb. 8, 1985 has caused another delay in the completion of the Reclamation project per Approved Plans. Mr. Blaylocks Letters are contradictory, and constitute opinions or decisions made willfully, and without regard to the facts or circumstances and those !actions surronding the correspondence regarding this application are "arbitrary and Capricious" 1 1 FINDING 5) In light of the Inconsistencies evident in the correspondence in the Files, SP-047-80, and iri the annual liscense files, and with respect to the Cities demands for performance in accordance with SP-047-B0 and in their actions in preventing Americans ability to perform , as evidenced by the letters referenced, and in preventing Americans taking corrective measures as requested to maintain or repair any alleged deficiencies. And based upon the Letter from Ronald Nelson dated May 2,1 1985 and the attached undated "public" notice from the City Attorney, the President of the City Council , and Rentons Mayor, it is apparent that the requests for performance, and orders not to perform are inconsistant actions taken by various City officials based !upon opinions and or ' decisions without regard for the facts or circumstances surrounding the issues, and as such are found to be " Arbitrary and Caprious " It is further found that due to the inconsistancies in correspondence directed to American/Olivet, as represented in the Citys "notice" as Opposed to Mr. Nelsons "opinion" of May 2, 1985, 1that the Cities correspondence to American has been and is contradictory, Vague, missleading, and was too informal to constitute final administrative decisions with regard to it' s permit SP-047-B0. Further the inconsistancies and references to opinioI as opposed to ' binding decisions after submittal of complete Documentation and review by the city departments, the mayors office, or the renton city council " in the public " Notice " provided American, have served to deny American its rights of appeal and due process in dealing with the City . Due to the inconsistancies and vagueness it has been difficult if not impossible for American to determine with any assurance what is or is not opinion, or decision. IT IS HEREBY DETERMINED THAT CITY OFFICIALS ACTIONS IN DEALING WITH SP-047-80, AND AMERICAN/OLIVET THRU WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE, BECAUSE OF IT' S CONFLICTING AND CONTRADICTORY NATURE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE PROPER NOTICE OF FINAL DECISIONS, AND SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED FINAL ACTIONS BY THE CITY. BASIS OF FINDING; Conflicting, contradictory, and arbitrary correspondence in files, and as listed herewith; A) May 2, 1985 letter Nelson to American A) Notice given American 5/2/85 "opinions" B) 1/4/85 letter Blaylock to Colt B) Review sheets rec. 3/8/85 w/letter C) 1) Ltr. 2/2/84- to Colt from Nelson 2) Ltr. 12/28/83 Warren to Setchell /Colt 3) Ltrs. American Agreeing to work as required; 4/9/85 Bldg. And Zoning RE: maintainance 4/9/85 Public works dept. RE: Paving 4/9/85 Bergstrom RE: Drainage C) Ltr. Nelson to Colt"not to proceed"4/12/85 D) Ltr. Requesting permission to maintain the approved drainage system Colt to Nelson. 5/2/85 D) 1) Ltr. 5/10/85 stating that the (approved) plans are not a complete plan. 2) Ltr. Regarding approved plan, and erosion facilities being obliterated 7/19&20/82 3) Ltr. 5/2/85 with copies of. engineering drawing of the- approved drainage plan. E) Ltr. "contrary to our discussion" 10/25/83 E) Copies of "Detail Plans submitted " 6/23/83 F) City "NOTICE" re: relevant rules being contained in the City Code. F) Nelson ltr. 5/2/85 disregarding City Code Further the letter of Mr. Nelson of April 12, 1985, wherein he states that he is " ultimately responsible " which is contradictory to preceeding and subsequent correspondence with the city requiring American to deal with other City Departments. The Cities demands that repair and maintainance work be performed on the existing drainage system, and the refusal to permit the work is inconsistent. Failure of the City to identify the "Responsible City Official " or differentiate between "OPINIONS of City employees" , as opposed to "official City opinions" or " Final Determinations" has prevented and frustrated Americans attempts to conform and comply !with the conditions of it' s permits, and we respectfully request based on the files and records and the testimony that the Examiner make the above findings and determinations. Respectfully Submitted, Ameri an ,ino . i er ices Inc. i i 1 James . Colt President Attachments fA. ti' b 4 American Memorial Services, Inc. v 100 Blaine Avenue ,.• s;, 1 NE ® PO Box 547 Renton, Washington 98055fir..,,w• H'tiir + ic .ak fi { April 24, 1985 CITY OF RENTON E;INCIEITE)n NelsonMr. Ron of Renton MAY 2 1985 200 Mill Ave. S. Renton, Wa. 98055 0 E3UILDING/::::L;diNG DEPT. Dear Mr. Nelson, This letter is a response to your letter of April 12, 1985, and to the letter of February 2, 1984, attached thereto. I appreciate your directing myself to deal directly with you in matters regarding Americans Property, and our permits. Hopefully we will be able to complete our project as required by our permits and plans, which have been approved by the City of Renton, King County Department of Public Health, and appropriate State agencys. In examining the Renton Code and in discussions with various City, County and State officials, we realize, as pointed out in comments from the various City departments, that our approved reclamation project has not been completed. City code specifies that a special permit is valid until the work is completed according to the approved plans. This basically is also the position of the other agencys involved in Permiting our site. As you are aware we have spent many months in Superior Court with Kent Highlands, and the State Attorney Generals Office, all of which were directly related to our Permits, our Land Reclamation Project, and our developement as represented on the various plans submitted to the City. During this time we were necessarily delayed in completing our projects in accordance with the approved plans l We presently have a CONFORMING permit from King County to complete the reclamation project according to those approved plans. We are submitting the Bonds required under our special permit to your department, so that our annual liscense from the City may be . issued so that our project may be completed as approved. The delays caused by litigation hopefully are all past, and we will be able to complete this project, in accordance with the plans, and as generally outlined in the attachment to your April 12, 1985 letter. We are willing to work with all of the necessary city departments thru you and hope that completion of this project can be accomplished in short order. YL We have prepared the $2,000.00 street cleaning bond, and have secured the $35,000.00 bond from the contractor as required. ' American Memorial is willing to immediatley dedicate to the City the portion of the easement granted to Kent Highlands so that the City is in posession of the southern alignment across our property of [Edmonds Ave. We are willing to work with yourself and City departments to secure the appropriate legal for the dedication. With respect to the items listed in your letter of February 2, 1984, we are willing to work with the City to see that these items are resolved, as most of these are required by our permits, the completion of the project will correct those areas of concern. Ho efully with the renewed bonds, and dedication, and the conclusion of the litigation we can proceed to complete the project approved under SP-047-80 without further delay. Thank you for you assistance in this matter. i Sincerely,., 7 1 //I''''' ''V ,. Jame L. Colt American Memorial Services Inc. Enclosures; $35,000.00 bond 2,000.00 Letter of Credit 1985 King County Permit & Letter 4-19-85 AMS Dedication Letter 4-19-85 Bond Number 9871344 Know all men by these presents , That we , JERKY E. WARFIEI,D & JACK DAVIS and Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland , a Maryland Corporatio having its principal office in the City of Baltimore., Maryland, as Surety ,are held and firmly bound unto the City of Renton , WA hereinafter called the Obligee, in the penal sum of Thirty-Five Thousand and no/100ths Dollars ( $35 .000) , lawful money of the United States of America to be paid to the said Obligee , for which payment well and truly to be made , we bind ourselves , our heirs , executors . administrators , successors , and assigns , jointly and severally , firmly by these presents. Whereas a license or permit has been granted by the Obligee at theMt. aboveli bfilledsitePrincipalaccordanceauthorizingwith Ordinance/Permit gradeatMt. Olivet f sr 07-80. Renton , Washington. Now therefore , the Condition of thin Obligation in such, that lif the said Principal shall fnithfully observe the provisions of the Laws , Ordinances , and Resolutions , governing the issuance of this License or toPermit ,remainhen this in full forceaandn shall effect. be null and void, otherwise Liability under this bond shall terminate April 21; , 1986. The Surety may cancel thin bond at any time by filing with the Obligee thirty ( 30) days written hanotice of its sdesireedtor m be relieved of liability. The Surety any liability already accrued under this bond. or which shall accrue hereunder before the expiration of the thirty day period. Signed and sealed this 2bt d' y of April, 1985 . i JERKY E. WARFIELD C DAVIS f 7.: 7 - L-0c e k CITY OF RENTON r M [ Dd By* 4/ /a34"---- MAY 21985 BUILD1NGi :vi14u i,L1'Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryl' By : ! 11' ``Z' v i n pa AND DEPOSIT COMPAL . .)F MARYLAND HOME OFFICE.BALTIMORE.MD. KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:That the FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND.a corporation of the State of Maryland.by C. M. PECOT, JR. Vice-President,and C. W. ROBBINS Assistant Secretary,in pursuance of authority granted by Article VI,Section 2,of the By-Laws of said Company,which reads as follows: The Chairman of the Board.or the President,or any Executive Vice•Prc.ident.or any of the Senior Viee•Preaidents or Vice-Presidents specialty authorised so todo by the Board of Directors or by the Executive Committee,shall have power,by and with she concurrence of the Secretary or any one of the Aosiarant Secretaries,to appoint Resident Vice-Presidents.Assistant Vice-Presidents end Attorneys-in-Fact as the business of the Company may require,or to authorise any person or persons to circus.on behalf of the Company any bonds.undertakings,recognisance,. stipulations.policies,contracts.agreements,deeds,end releases and assignments of judgements,decrees,mortgages and instruments in the nature of mortgages.... and to elfin the seal of the Company thereto." does hereby nominate constitute and appoint Dan B. Hauff, R. D. Humble, Lee Hunt and Jean Herod, all of Renton, Washington, EACH t rue an aw u agent and Attorney-in-Fact,to make,execute,seal and deliver,for,and on its behalf as surety,and as its act and deed: any and all bonds and undertakings, each in a penalty not to emceed the sum of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($100,000) to execution of such bonds or undertakings in pursuance: of these presents, shall be as binding upon acid Company.as fully and amply.to all intents and purposes,as if they had been duly executed and acknowledged by the regularly elected officers of the Company at its office in Baltimore, Md.,in their own proper persons. This power of attorney revokes that issued on behalf of Dan B. Hauff, etal, dated, October 25,. 1976. The said Assistant Secretary does hereby certify that the aforegoing is a true copy of Article VI,Section 2.of the By-Laws of said Company,and is now in force. IN WITNESS WHEREOF.the said Vice-President and Assistant Secretary have hereunto subscribed their names and affixed the Corporate Seal of the said FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, this 13th day of January A.D. 1983 FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND ATTEST: SEAL S O By aj."4".A' el tritons Secretary Vice•Presidau STATE or MARYLAND" CITY OF BALTIMORL 1 On this 13th day of January A.D.19 83 .before the subscriber.a Notary Public of the State of Maryland.in and for the City of Baltimore,duly commissioned and qualified.came the above-named Vice-President and Aasistant Secretary of the FtDEUTY AND DEPoIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND.to me Personally known to be the individuals and officers described in and who executed the preceding instrument, and they each acknowledged the execution of the some,and being by me duly sworn,severally and each for himself depooeth and mat.that they are the said officers of the Company aforesaid,and that the seal affixed to the preceding instrument is the Corporate Seal of said Company,and that the said Corporate Seal and their signatures GIP ouch officer°were duly affixed and subscribed to the said instrument by the authority and direction of the said Corporation. IN TFsrttroNY WttEREor,I have hereunto set my hand and affixed by Official Seel.at the City of Baltimore.the day and year first above written. ar.A;•. Notary Public Commisr.oe+ t, Aires my 1A1986 i•°""'t CERTIFICATE moo.-r.. I,the undersigned,Assestent Secretary of the FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY or MARYLAND.do hereby certify that the original Power of Attorney of which the foregoing is a full,true and correct copy.is in full force and effect on the date of this certificate;and I do further certify that theVice-President who executed the said Power of Attorney was one of the additional Vice-Presidents specially authorised by the Board of Direction to appoint any Attorney-in-Fact as provided in Article VI.Section 2 of the By-Laws of the FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MAaYt.AND. This Certificate may be signed by facsimile under and by authority of the following resolution of the Board of Directors of the FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND at a meeting duly called and held on the 16th day of July,1969. RESOLVED:"That the facsimile or mechanically reproduced signature of any Assistant Secretory of the Company,whether made heretofore or hereafter.whet appearing upon a certified copy of any cower of attorney issued by the Company,shall be valid and binding upon the Company s.,th the same force end effect as though manually affixed. 1N TESTIMONY Wtttacor,I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the corporate seal of the said Company,this..... C... day of sal.r.i•.1 19...8.5.. Liu& :t -180-2747 isuuaarSecretary I lOR YOUR PR(YI'I',C"'I'ION LOOK FOR 'I'I II: I'&I) WATERMARK. V....wi....r.r.14.'w1.4.hi++ 4 eft im. i e.„i..i.. Evergreen III April 19, 1985 IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT NUMBER: 1-20 TO: City of Renton EvergreenBank does hereby establish this Irrevocable Letter of Credit in your favor for. the account of AMERICAN MEMORIAL SERVICES, INC. to the extent of TWO THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($2,000.00), available by your sight draft drawn on this bank at Seattle, Washington, accompanied by the following documents: Responsible official statement that the improvements secured hereby have not been fully and timely installed. Specifically: 0 Statement of a balance outstanding and unpaid by American Memorial Services, Inc. thirty (30) days after demand for payment by the City of Renton to Cemetery for cleaning of street as required by SP-047-80, Decision #5. This credit shall not expire or be revoked until sixty (60) days after the end of the deferral date of this project, sixty (60) days after that deferral date being April 19, 1986. AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE EVERGREENBANK • CITY OF RENTONE-IIN R. ED Dan Cuftis, Vice President MAY 21985 BUILDING/ZONING DEPT. 301 Eastlake Avenue East s Seattle.WA 98109•(206)628-4250/(800)552-7430 toll-tree statewide 17 OF II RED A. OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY * RENTON,WASHINGTOI 4. 1 iV00 jp/,,';' ' POST OFFICE BOX 626 100 2n0 AVENUE BUILDING O RENTON.WASHINGTON 98055 255-8670 erg sal LAWRENCE J.WARREN, CITY ATTORNEY DANIEL KELLOGG, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNI 90 DAVID M. DEAN, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNI 04 1.E0 SEF4SI° MARK E. BARBER,ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNI rnatMay21, 1982 D~ T°N CONFIDENTIAL 7 1 1% MAY 2 4 1982 TO: RON NELSON and DAVE CLEMENS RU!!p1r`,6; .rJ:r FROM: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RE: Unlawful solid waste disposal at Mount Olivet Cemetery I was contacted by Greg Bishop, the Supervisor of the Solid Waste Program for the Department of Public Health about Mount Olivet Cemetery. He forwarded me a copy of King County Rules and Regulations No. VIII , dealing with solid waste disposal. I initially checked the State law and found that RCW 70. 95 .080 requires the City to prepare and deliver to the County Auditor its' own solid waste management program for integration in the comprehensive County plan, or enter into an agreement with the County in which the City will participate in preparing a joint City-County plan for solid waste , or authorize the County to prepare a plan for the City's solid waste management . Unless I miss my bet, the City chose the third alternative and let the County prepare the plan. If that is the case, then the plan applies to the City by State law. That brings us to our real problem. If I recall Mr. Colt 's permit correctly, he was allowed to put tree stumps and construction debris in his landfill as long as it was not within six feet of theisurface . That authorization apparently violates King County Rules and Regulations No, VIII . Since I do not have a copy of Mr. Colt 's permit in front of me , I have the following questions : 11. Does Mr. Colt 's permit allow both tree stumps and construction debris in his landfill? 2. When does his permit run out? 1 13. Have we contacted him to require that he get a solid waste disposal permit? itr e Page 2 Ron Nelson and Dave Clemens May 21, 1982 If Mr. Colt takes his usual course of action and simply refuses to cooperate in any fashion, then I would suggest that we consider holding a hearing before the Hearing Examiner to change the conditions of his permit. We also should put Mr. Colt on notice that he needs to obtain the solid waste disposal permit . Let me caution you that this is an attorney/client correspondence and is not subject to disclosure to Mr. Colt or anyone . In the same context, let me caution you to put all things in writing to Mr. Colt as he has developed a rather nasty habit of bringing alcompanion with him everywhere who remembers each and every conversation in whatever context Mr. Colt wishes him to remember it . The County is having problems with Mr. Colt as he and his companion remember conversations entirely different than the County people who are involved. Usually he remembers conversations in the fashion that the County Inspector or employee told him he could continue to operate, or if he was told in writing to quit operating in some fashion, he was told by a superior or different department that the original department criticizing him has made a mistake. No oral decisions should be made and communicated to Mr. Colt . We should not permit Mr. Colt to make oral inquiries of the City that are answered, but should require him to put everything in writing so that we can establish a solid documentary trail on everything that is said and done. Lawrence J. ` Warren LJW: ds cc : Mayor II RUNMENTAL REVIEW COMMIT AGENDA FEBRUARY 27, 1985 C.i i;`y THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM: 1 LC7 ::: i :;;COMMENCING AT 10:00 A.M. c',::.; oT i.?. PENDING: ECF-009-85 TOM BARR (ROSA_REZONE) R-009-85 OLD BUSINESS: ECF-092-84 ENCORE ENTERTAINMENT, INC. B-329 The subject application is brought back for ERC's review concerning Encore's proposed hours of operation and for a number of items of concern reported by the Police Department. ECF-119-84 MOUNT OLIVET CEMETERY COMPANY, INC. SP-116-84 Application for special permit for fill and grade permit. The project will involve filling approximately four acres of property with 119,172 cubic yards of material as the final phase of a reclamation project; located in the vicinity of 100 Blaine Avenue N.E. ECF-010-85 CROWN POINTE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP SA-010-85 Application for site plan approval to allow the construction of a multi-family complex having 200 units within nine buildings plus a recreation building and a swimming pool; located on the north side of N.E. 4th Street at the 3700-3800 block. ECF-022-85 RICHARD C. SHORE R-015-85 Application to rezone approximately 1.91 acres of property from G-1 to R-2 and R-3 for future multi-family development; located on the east side of Grant Avenue South at 1626 Grant Avenue South. ECF-023-85 ROGER STROMBERG R-016-85 . Application to rezone approximately 0.78 acre of property from R-1 to R-3 for the future construction of two 9-unit apartment buildings; located on the west side of Sunset Boulevard N.E. at the 900 block. NEW BUSINESS: ECF-024-85 SHOHEN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP SA-017-85 Application for site plan approval to allow the construction of a two-story building containing 6,486 square feet of office space and 6,804 square feet of warehouse space; located at 1420 Maple Avenue S.W. ECF-025-85 HOLVICK, deREGT, KOERING SA-018-85 Application for site plan approval to allow the construction of a 21,000 square foot parking lot having 62 stalls as part of the Washington Technical Center Project; located 360 feet west of Powell Avenue S.W. at the 800 block. 0617N ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA FEBRUARY 20, 1985 Dg./014..Ty C'. r,. :.it THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM: ii ./ th:f ire: COMMENCING AT 10:00 A.M. d cc :cc. : ; y ct 2:ub5cribud Lid Sca! , PENDING: ECF-010-85 CROWN POINTE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP SA-0 10-85 ECF-009415 TOM BARR (ROSA REZONE) R-009-85 ECF-092-84 ENCORE ENTERTAINMENT, INC. B-329 NEW BUSINESS: ECF-119-84 MOUNT OLIVET CEMETERY COMPANY, INC. SP-116-84 Application for special permit for fill and grade permit. The project will involve filling approximately four acres of property with 119,172 cubic yards of material as the final phase of a reclamation project; located in the vicinity of 100 Blaine Avenue N.E. ECF-020-85 FANCHER FLYWAYS SME-002-85 EAST SIDE AIRPARK. The subject project proposes to regrade an existing 1.62 acre site and provide asphalt concrete pavement, drainage and landscaping for an area used for tie-downs for light aircraft; located on the east side of the Renton Municipal Airport adjacent to the Cedar River and approximately 2,500 feet north of Airport Way. ECF-022-85 RICHARD C. SHORE R-015-85 Application to rezone approximately 1.91 acres of property from G-1 to R-2 and R-3 for future multi-family development; located on the east side of Grant Avenue South at 1626 Grant Avenue South. ECF-023-85 ROGER STROMBERG R-016-85 Application to rezone approximately 0.78 acre of property from R-1 to R-3 for the future construction of two 9-unit apartment buildings; located on the west side of Sunset Boulevard N.E. at the 900 block. OF 4 . ,• o THE CITY OF RENTON U MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON.WASH. 98055 enii. • o ® BARBARA' Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR 0 LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 0 FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 0 c,P 47-FD SEPj0.0 PROCEDURE FOR APPEALS OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATIONS Any person or persons may challenge an administrative determination or interpretation by a staff member or city board regarding the city's land use codes and regulations by appealing that determination to the Hearing Examiner of the City of Renton. That is, any person who may be concerned about the effect acisTn .br interpretatio has on their property or project or on another' s property or project and who believes that the decision was wrong may appeal the decision. The person who challenges the decision becomes known as the "APPELLANT." The appeal must be filed with the Examiner within fourteen days from the date the decision was made. In the appeal , the appellant must allege sufficient facts which indicate that a valid reason for challenging the decision exists. Therefore, in the appeal letter the appellant should attempt to show in a general manner in which of• these areas the city., .f.f._oi,cial or. board erredand why the decision should be tianged. y The-Hearing" Examiner will then establish'a date for a public hearing. The Examiner will not decide the matter based on the letter of appeal . At the public hearing, the appellant and other interested citizens may introduce testimony, exhibits , maps , expert witnesses orotier supporting information State law and city ordinances indicate that the determination of the city is entitled to be given "substantial weight ," that is , the challenger must truly demonstrate that the city made a mistake in its review, which means that the appellant has the burden of demonstrating an error was made by the city official or board. The procedure at the hearing is generally informal , but all parties should be aware that in most cases a large amount of funds may be invested in the project and that attorneys may be representing interested parties, and some limited cross-examination or questioning may occur. The appellants present their arguments first , and as ' indicated above, may call witnesses and present other information to support their presentation. The city through its representatives will then attempt to show that the determination was correct by presenting its information. If the appellant is not the project sponsor or developer, then the developer may also present information concerning the proposal . All witnesses should avoid redundant testimony. During the next fourteen days following closure of the hearing, the Hearing Examiner will consider all of the information submitted concerning the matter and will then decide whether or not the city official or board was correct or in error. A report containing minutes, findings, conclusions and the decision will be mailed to all parties who testified. See reverse side) Person(s) not satisfied with the Examiner' s decision may request the Examiner to reconsider his decision within fourteen (14) days of its mailing. Person(s) again not satisfied upon receipt of the reconsideration may appeal within twenty (20) days to King County Superior Court. The appellant should also be aware that the only issue considered at the hearing is the question of the determination or interpretation. The quality, character, or general compatibility of the project is not subject to review. That is, the question - of whether the project is a "good" project or a "bad" project is not at issue; rather, it is whether the project comes within the scope of city ordinances. In preparation for the hearing, a review of the following ordinances , statutes and regulations may prove helpful . Title IV of the city' s Building Regulations contain Chapter 30, the Hearing Examiner' s Ordinance; Chapter 7, the Zoning Code; Chapter 22, the Parking and. Loading Ordinance; and Chapter 23, the Mining , Excavation and Grading Ordinance, which may be purchased in the Finance Department. Title IX of the city's Public Ways and Property Code contains Chapter 11 , the Renton Subdivision Code, which may also be purchased in the Finance Department. These documents may be reviewed in that department or in the public library and copied there. Also available for your review are the application and plans prepared and submitted by the project sponsor/developer. These documents will acquaint you with the various factors which were considered prior to issuance of the decision. These documents are available in the Planning Department or the Building Department for review or available at a cost established by the city. If you require further information regarding procedural matters , you may contact the Hearing Examiner' s office. If there are specific questions about the project , you should contact the Planning or Building Departments. OF R.4,,0 r o THE CITY OF RENTON e z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 o h r ° BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 5)o FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 0 eo SEPTr 6P April 2, 1985 Cny olt op? 3 ti yr e, r apR Li21995 Mr. James L. Co , President ii,Ff`fAmericanMemorialServices, Inc. P.i 0. Box 547 Renton, Washington, 98055 Re: Appeal of Administrative Determinations Regarding SP-116-84/Mt. Olivet Cemetery Dear Mr. Colt: In reply to your letter to this office of March .18, . 1985 regarding the above subject, we wish to advise that a hearing, date has now been established for• thi.s matter. The Appeal hearing has been set 'for Tuesday, •May 14, 1985 at 1 :30 P.M. , and will be held in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall , Renton; Washington. _ At that time you will have the burden of proof to show . cause why you feel the administrative determinations in this matter were in error. . If you have any 'questions, please feel free to contact this office. Sincerely, FRED J. KAUFMAN/K HEARING EXAMINER cc: Lawrence Warren, City Attorney Don Monaghan, Public •Works Department 0James Hanson, Building -Zoning Roger Blaylock, Zoning Administrator Ronald Nelson, Director Building & Zoning Bob Bray, Engineering Department American Memorial Services, Inc 100 Blaine Avenue NE • PO Box 547 t?+ s Washington 98055ti1. Renton, March 18, 1985 e '/ Mr. Fred J. Kaufman Land Use Hearing Examiner City of Renton 200 Mill Ave. South Renton, Wa. 98055 Re: American Memorial/Mt. Olivet Appeal of administrative determinations and interpretations regarding SP-116-84 made from the files of record, and specifically the attached letter dated March 8, 1985. Dear Mr. Kaufman: American Memorial Services, and Mt. Olivet Cemetery hereby formally appeal the interpretation and determinations made by the ERC committee members listed below, with respect to their findings comments and requirements imposed, as represented in the reports provided to American Memorial on March 8,1985. These reports form the basis for the letter from Mr. Blaylock, of the same date which states that the City will not consider the application accepted by the city of American Memorial/Mt. Olivet in Dec. 1984. Page one of the letter states that the following "information is requested", yet item 6. , clearly is not a request for information, but the attempt to impose conditions with-out benefit of the hearing examiner process , and to refuse to accept the application unless work is performed prior to the issuance of a permit. Item #7., also attempts to impose conditions prior to public hearing. These requests for permit requirements clearly should be presiented to the Hearing Examiner by those city departments so that the hearing examiner can hear both the applicants and citys positions and make a determination as to the conditions TO BE attached to the SPECIAL PERMIT. Further to page one, Para. #1. , a detailed plan prepared by a liscensed engineer was accepted by the city on Dec. 27,1984, and again on Feb 11, 1985. Para.#2., is another attempt to impose conditions on a proposed permit with-out benefit of a public hearing, and clearly is an area to be addressed by the hearing examiner. Further appeal of page 2 of the March 8, letter, INFORMATION requested under the heading TRAFFIC ENGINEERING again is not a request for information, but an attempt to impose conditions on a proposed permit, with-out the use of the hearing examiner process. Further, detailed plans, prepared by a licensed engineer clearly locate the area to be filled, and all staff members are y . t, represented on the plans submitted. With regard to the statement that " the application is not complete" this determination by the Building Division is appealed, and expert testimony will be presented as to completeness of the application, as ACCEPTED by the Building Department. During the appeal hearing the "Appellants" will introduce testimony, exhibits, maps, and call witnesses to testify with respect to those items outlined above, and with respect to the Special permit file, and it's acceptance by the city, and to the ERC reports, and all of the statements contained there-in. The "Appellants" appeal those statements made by the following individuals resulting in the attached letter and intend to call these city representatives to testify as to those statements and the application accepted by the city. Don Monaghan Public Works Dept. James Hanson Building & Zoning Roger Blaylock Zoning Administrator Ronald Nelson Director Bldg. & Zoning Bob Bray Engineering The attempt to impose conditions in a special permit, with-out going thru the hearing examiner process, is improper, and the requirement that an applicant perform specific site work, with-out the benefit of a permit, and the refusal to accept an application for' the permit to perform the work, until the work is peformed is contradictory, confusing and not permited by city code. The actions of the city are in error and a formal appeal hearing is here-by requested, as provided by code. Sincerely, American Memorial s,- +i s, Inc. u. Ol u ! •i Inc. 11111 s . Colt r Pr,' ident encls. MAR 2 01985 CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER ih'f,Tae e...,..:?iin?isul:.ia.a'a.`.'.Y:c,::;l.a:8.sw:7arvosti.^..,.,Ati.r........_,s-..e:si3dat. ^. ."e tr,.s.i':,:Ca.::,d:.:W4.::..wt:wi.,,.u.t::':s;sSaa o3.,.. F.:.«.n..........ao.u',.".:...,ai,,......».,,Gaa.at,.::s:;s,`ai:a_;:'xr.w:•,..ar^,-at OF R. O BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOR o kiNp O MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. REOyY00il,WASH. 93055 o 235-2540 co' A Q,o4?" so sEP1 -• BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR March 8, 1985 6 James L. Colt Mt. Olivet Cemetery Co., Inc. P. O. Box 547 Renton, WA 98057 Re: Special Permit for Fill and Grade/File, SP-116-84 Dear Mr. Colt: Thank you for your statements on method of reclamation for the proposed Mt. Olivet Cemetery fill received on February 11, 1985. After our initial conversation, we received additional comments from various City departments concerned with the adequacy of the plans submitted. The City of Renton has become extremely concerned with any fill activity in this general area because of the sensitivity and impact upon City wells. The City has adopted an official ordinance regulating land fills or development within those areas of sensitivity. I have enclosed a brief pamphlet showing the basic areas. 1.'The departments have requested the following information: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARATMENT: 1. The detail before and after the grading plan. 2. A detailed temporary erosion control plan which is to installed and operational before any work is to proceed. 3. A phasing plan for the partial completion of the fill in stabilitation and hydroseeding. 4. Identification of the ground water aquifer and direction of its flow. Quarterly sampling and testing of suffient samples to ensure there is no ground water contamination. Said sampling to continue for five years after the fill in operation is complete. No contamination of ground water will be allowed. s 5. All of the above to be prepared by a licensed engineer. 6. Paving of a hard surface roadway at least 100 feet into the site to contain tracking. 7. Modification of operating hours to 8:30 to 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and eight site) to be observed by an independent observer paid for 1-7 the applicant and approved by the City. Said observer to certify operation of td s site and material disposal in the field. Fill mets or exceeds the requirements of the permit and license. James L. Colt March 8, 1985 Paget TRAFFIC ENGINEERING: 1. Not enough detail plans for site review and where the fill is occurring. 2. Operating hours restricted to 8:30 - 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. 3. Bonding required for roadway cleaning and maintenance. 4. Warning signs of truck crossing to be in place when operating and removed when not in operation. BUILDING DIVISION: The application is not complete. The plans and/or checklist does not show compliance with sections 4-2307 or 4-2306, or 4-2303 of the Mining and Grading Ordinance. I would personally advise you to contact your engineer and have him provide the necessary plans. As a result of the technical detail of the materials necessary, I will have to submit the plans to the Public Works Department for review prior to formally accepting the application as complete to be sent to the Environmental Review Committee. The Environmental Review Committee has taken the position that they will not consider theapplicationuntilitbasicallymeetsthetechnicalrequirementsoftheMiningandGrading Ordinance per the interpretation of the Public Works Department. Again, I must remind you that the cemetery activity is specifically limited to the old cemetery site and new conditional use permit reviews must be conducted to expand the cemetery beyond that. During our conversation you mentioned that the previous owner had used property that was outside of the official recognized cemetery. Those possible illegal actions do not provide you with the rights to extend the cemetery beyond the original designated portion. I have included new application forms if you desire to apply for the conditional use permits at this time. Since the City is presently experiencing a backlog of land use requests through the Hearing Examiner process, I would advise you that it might be expedient to consider the use change at this point. Sincerely, gel J. Bl:ylock Zoning Administrator RJB:1386Z:c1 Enclosures OF FILE FILE TITLE ArD 042 8°' Land Lise El les