Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
LUA00-169
a © CITY OF RENTON =`'` ►2. ,: : . ;:;... mu. Planning/Building/Public Works _; 1055 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 DEC 21'O 0 ` `"�,.n 0 3 ® 5 PoMaTER rl� ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED Mettal .U:s• 4eT:�i: ,�.1 i r 242.30490060J , KING COUNTY DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES j :_ 506 2ND AVE#708 M/S 7ST Q.-j SEATTLE WA 98104 �. r 9 3`nut,m TO SENDER h ,- Wd � • RUMP cti-- 98184 If4�44�1414 �P�11�44941$1�14 ����(�1,1 ukiolllt I� I I I F Proposed Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are proposed for this zoning change which is consistent - . with Comp Plan Land Use Map designation,Employment Area—Valley. Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Don Erickson,AICP,Project Manager,Development • Services Division,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055,by 5:00 PM on January 3,2001. This matter is also tentatively scheduled for a public hearing on January 30,2001,at 9:00 AM,Council Chambers,Seventh Floor,Renton . City Hall,1055 South Grady Way,Renton. If you are interested in attending the hearing,please contact the project manager to:ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled. If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date ' indicated above,you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions,about this proposal,or wish to be made a party of;record and receive additional information by mail,please contact the project manager.'Anyone who submits written`comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on•this project: Rd P• RC(P) — Co I - 1.�� ,,,o� ,.d . Co. rx ,.-- AP / ' .'9 _____ .., iis , v. / ,\\\ c) . III ,% 0 - 00 ,/ 0 . \ A 4 A .,,, , , -aril 0._- /j... ® . • .v) e► . . i .IMi . , * :. " . - " ' ' 0 500 1,000 LANDUSE ACTION FILE # GUA-eal/69,A;;EeF REZONES FIIE TO I# • Z P1 M(P) 1:6,000 ////// Site r`Q BDNSP • Sue c.rmoa,eamw.u•.wr Zone boundaries lU Daaamb.r.000 ni�ou ' 1 Renton corporate boundary CONTACT:PERSON: DONALD ERICKSON (425)430-6581; PROJECT NO:LUA-00-169,R,ECF • PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION NOTICE OF APPLICATIONn.doc .. . ha 'NTO� • • NOTICE,O,F APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON- - . SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) • DATE: • December 20,2000 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-00-169,R,ECF APPLICATION NAME:' RENTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT REZONE PROJECT•DESCRIPTION: This proposal Is for the rezoning of an irregularly shaped,.8.42 acre site located between Monster Road SW on the west and Oakesdale Avenu8e SW on the east, south of the 96.5 acre Black River Conservation Area and north of SW Grady Way from the Public Use(P-1)zone to the Industrial Medium(IM)zone. It is one of a series of approximately 50 rezones of the P-1 zone that is being phased out pursuant to Council's 1994 directive to do so. No change of use is anticipated as a consequence of this proposed rezone. Under the IM zoning governmental facilities are permitted as a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use. A P-suffix overlay zone is proposed in conjunction with the proposed IM zoning. • PROJECT LOCATION: 1200 Monster Road SW OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE, . (DNS): As the Lead Agency,the City of Renton - has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore,as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110,the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS process to give notice thata DNS is likely to;be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated ' • (DNS). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: December 20,2000 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: ' December 20,2000 • Permits/Review Requested: Environmental(SEPA)Review,Rezone Other Permits which may be required: N/A Requested Studies: N/A • Location where application may be reviewed: Planning/Building/Public Works Division,Development Services Department, iI 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearing scheduled for January 301°,2001 before the Renton Hearing • Examiner in Renton Council Chambers. Hearings begin at 9:00 AM on the 7th _• floor of the new Renton City Hall located at 1055 Grady Way South. - ``�. CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: . Analytical process Project consistency refers to whether a project is consistent with adopted and applicable development regulations,or in their absence,comprehensive plan policies. RCW 36.70B.110(2)(g)provides that the Notice of Application(NOA)include • a statement of the preliminary determination of a project's consistency with the type of land use,level of development, infrastructure,and character of development if one has been made at the time of notice. At a minimum,every NOA shall ' .. . include a determination of the project's consistency with the zoning,comprehensive plan and development regulations. Land Use: ., • Regional sewage treatment and processing plant(industrial) Environmental Documents That ' ` - , . Evaluate the Proposed Project: Environmental Checklist dated December 18t,2000 and the Final Environmental • 'Impact State for the Land Use Element of the Renton=Comprehensive Plan,Vol. . 1 &2,February 1,1993. Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: Not applicable. This is a non-project legislative action that is not associated with any new development at this time. . ' • NOTICE OF APPLICATIONn Mousier Rd. I loWie \\\ 44.>'k\ 8-L .ado oosa DO • r I .A? _ 94 12 4 • " • ,•••• , ..t 7•V: S. • P4 r "4 I • ••• • , '41 I •1 '441111' 4 • 4.."• • • • • 31 •• art. LO • 4 : • Ito ; 1 • r I , t 7' . r 1 P , 1 , i lig:4 . . ).. 1 ii t. , 4 t i cn , . . ..., I , .,,is • ' -; "." I : ei i., III / . 1 , . 7,1 , 110' • to i ' ... J . i ,... ..3 .. .,. . LA .4 (1.; • - - NI• .7 . l.. '7 )Ili 1 .i n_.n _11 Smooth Feed SheetsTM " Use template for 5160® 918800014709 918800014303 - - 242304904400 BLACKNER JV LLC PHASE V BLACKRIVER-RIVERTECH L L C BNSF RWY CO C/O SMITH MARTIN INC 700 FIFTH AVE STE 6000 PO BOX 961089 1109 1ST AVE#500 SEATTLE WA ; FORT WORTH TX SEATTLE WA 98101 ' 98104 76161 '918800014808 " '242304909904 " '242304906108 :I ESA 0418 GRADY WAY II LLC GUY GLENN LEE 450 E LAS OLAS BLVD#1100 P O BOX 27069 10948 SE 284TH FORT LAUDERDALE FL SEATTLE WA , KENT WA 33301 : 98125 98031 r '242304912304 " '242304900606 ' '242304906603 K&M HOLDINGS IV L L C KING COUNTY KING COUNTY 16400 SOUTHCENTER PKWY#502 500 4TH AVE#500 DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES SEATTLE WA SEATTLE WA . 506 2ND AVE#708 M/S 7ST 98188 98104 SEATTLE WA 98104 '242304910605 ' '242304912106 '242304910803 ` MANUFACTURERS MINERAL CO OPUS NORTHWEST LLC , PIERRE JAMES P , 1215 MONSTER RD SW 915 118TJ AVE SE#300 PO BOX 27069 RENTON WA BELLEVUE WA , SEATTLE WA 98055 98005 , 98125 "242304900804 "918800014501 "242304903709 SMURFIT STONE CONTAINER COR I UNIVERSITY STREET PROPERTIES II VECTRA L L C , PO BOX 479 1301 FIFTH AVE#3500 1400 MONSTER RD SW RENTON WA SEATTLE WA RENTON WA 1 98057 98101-2647 98055 1 1 6 AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5160® AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION _ Barbara Alther, first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL - _ _ _ 600 S. Washington Avenue, Kent, Washington 98032CITY OF RENTON NOTICE OF ORDINANCES ADOPTED BY a daily newspaper published seven (7)times a week. Said newspaper is a legal ` RENTON CITY COUNCIL . newspaper of general publication and is now and has been for more than six Following is summary of ordinances; months prior to the date of publication, referred to, printed and published in the adopted by the Renton City Council on May 14,2001: English language continually as a daily newspaper in Kent, King County, ; ORDINANCE NO.4902 Washington. The South County Journal has been approved as a legal f An ordinance of the City of Renton, newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King Washington,classiication of changing.7cres of the operty, County. located at 12000Monster RoadpSW,1 _1 The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the South within the City of Renton from the P-1 i i. CountyJournal not in supplemental form)which was regularly distributed to Heavy)(Publiy Use) zone withto the IH (Industrial- uffx' (andPP 9 Y zone a P-suffix the subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a designation. (Metro Wastewater Treatment Plant Rezone,File No.LUA- Ord 4902 &4903 00-169,R,ECF) Effective: 5/23/2001 ORDINANCE NO.4903 as published on: 5/18/01 , An ordinance of the City of Renton,' Washington, adding new Sections 1-3- The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of 3,Nuisances,1-3-6,Conflicts,and 1-3- 7,$81.00, charged to Acct. No. 8050640. to Severability, and adding i definitions to Section 1-3-4, Definitions, of ' Chapter 3, Penalties, of Title I' The cost above includes a $6.00 fee for the printing of the affidavits. . (Administration)of Ordinance No.4260. entitled "Code of General Ordinances Legal Number 9055 of the City of Renton, Washington" 9 , establishing and defining what '; constitutes a nuisance, providing for: correction, abatement and, ° enforcement,and for recovery of costs I and. attorney's fees and declaring' .t ill ,6; `interference to be a misdemeanor and Legal Clerk, South County Journal establishing penalties. ' Effective: 6/17/2001 Complete text of these ordinances' Subscribed and sworn before me on this_ . day ofIN\Oi , 2001 can be read at Renton ,ty 5 City ' Clerk Division 7th Fl000 r, 1055 So. Grady Way, and at the Renton Public `````` 111 ilia'''''' rLebrary,quest 1t 0 Mill Clerk's Avenue South.c Upon request to the City Clerk's office (425 E E i� , 430-6510), copies will also be mailed %`.rL �gS101V 4•.y( i,. , fora fee. ' �.:er :• � �/V ',f, , Marilyn J.Petersen 1 • ....cc? 9 1. --;c City Clerk/Cable Manager , �O TA q y • Published in the South County _ Y _ = Journal May 18,2001.9055 Notary Public of the State of ashington C • �- ,•,0^ '°,_A.,� as_ - residing in Renton 1.%��•� e ., � t,oe ez?.` King County, Washington .. �. CITX - .3F RENTON c. - y Jity Clerk Jesse Tanner,Mayor Marilyn .Petersen May 17, 2001 Verna P. Bromley 'Office of the Prosecuting Attorney,King County 900 King County Administration Building - 500 Fourth Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 • Re: Ordinance No. 4902,Wastewater Treatment Plant Rezone - Dear Ms. Bromley: Enclosed please find City of Renton Ordinance No:"4902, for the above referenced - rezone,which was approved by the City Council May 142001 and will be effective May 23, 2001. . : - - If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to call our office. • Sincerely, - 66-714 - - Bonnie I. Walton - - -- - - - Records Management Specialist bw . Enclosure cc: - Jennifer Henning,Development Services Division Dori Erickson, EDNSP Department. - File.No: 1901. 200 . 1055 South Grady Way- Renton,'-Washington 98055 -"(425)430-65101 FAX (425) 430-6516 .�,_V6. �'��.���.,°� C. This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer Alt alga. May 14,2001 Renton City Council Minutes Page 155 Community Services: Capital An ordinance was read appropriating monies from the Fire Mitigation Fund Projects Coordinator(Fire balance,increasing the expenditures in the Fire Mitigation Fund,and increasing Station#12 Construction), the 2001 Budget by$54,000 for the purpose of hiring a limited term employee Temporary Hire to manage the design and construction of the new Fire Station#12. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY CORMAN,COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 5/21/2001. CARRIED. The following ordinances were presented for second and final reading and adoption: Ordinance#4902 An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of 90.7 acres located Rezone:King County South at 1200 Monster Rd. SW,at the intersection of Oakesdale Ave. SW and Grady Wastewater Treatment Plant, Way,from the P-1 (Public Use)zone to the IH(Heavy.Industrial)zone with a Monster Rd SW,P-1 to IH(R- P-suffix designation(Wastewater Treatment Plant Rezone;File No.R-00-169). 00-169) MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, vs COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance#4903 An ordinance was read adding new Sections 1-3-3,Nuisances, 1-3-6,Conflicts, Development Services: and 1-3-7, Severability,and adding defmitions to Section 1-3-4,Definitions,of Nuisance Abatement Chapter 3,Penalties, of Title I(Administration)of City Code establishing and Procedure defining what constitutes a nuisance,providing for correction, abatement and enforcement,and for recovery of costs and attorney fees and declaring interference to be a misdemeanor and establishing penalties. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY CORMAN,COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. EXECUTIVE SESSION MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL ADJOURN INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR 16 MINUTES TO DISCUSS LITIGATION. CARRIED. Time: 8:26 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 8:42 p.m.;roll was called; all Councilmembers present except Briere,previously excused. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY PARKER, COUNCIL ADJOURN. CARRIED. Time: 8:45 p.m. D214/ ry) MARIL J. TERSEN,CMC,City Clerk Recorder: Michele Neumann May 14,2001 r CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 490 2 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON FROM THE P-1 (PUBLIC USE) ZONE TO THE IH (INDUSTRIAL HEAVY) ZONE WITH A P-SUFFIX DESIGNATION. (WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT • REZONE, FILE NO. LUA-00-169, R, ECF) WHEREAS, under Section 4.2.020 of Chapter 2, Land Use Districts, of Title IV. (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," as amended, and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction therewith, the property hereinbelow described has heretofore been zoned as P-1 (Public Use); and WHEREAS, the City of Renton initiated a proceeding for change of zone classification of said property on or about December 20, 2000. This matter was duly referred to the Hearing Examiner for investigation, study, and public hearing, and a public hearing having been held thereon on or about January 30, 2001, and said matter having been duly considered by the • Hearing Examiner, and said zoning request having been recommended for approval without conditions by the Hearing Examiner or by the Environmental Review Committee; and WHEREAS, said zoning request being in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended by Ordinance No. 4855, and the City Council having duly considered all matters relevant thereto, and all parties having been heard appearing in support thereof or in opposition thereto; 1 1 ORDINANCE NO. 4902 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. -- The following described property in the City of Renton is hereby rezoned to IH (Industrial Heavy) with a P-suffix designation, as hereinbelow specified. The Economic Development, Neighborhoods, and Strategic Planning Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to change the maps of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to evidence said rezoning, to wit: See Exhibit "A"attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. (One parcel consisting of 90.7 acres, address 1200 Monster Road SW, at the intersection of Oaksdale Ave SW and Grady Way.) SECTION IL This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and five days after publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 14th day of May , 2001. Marilyn . P t rsen, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 14th day of May , 2001. Je ,4F anner, Mayor Approved o form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: 5/18/2001 (Summary) ORD.919:5/14/01:ma 2 • ORDINANCE NO. 4902 EXHIBIT A Legal Description Rezone Metro Wastewater Treatment Plant Site That portion of Section 24, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., City of Renton, King County, Washington, lying southerly, southwesterly and westerly of 80 feet-wide Oakesdale Avenue SW as constructed, easterly and northeasterly of Monster Road SW and the realignment of a portion of Monster Road SW as recorded under King County Rec. No. 9709090061, and northerly and northwesterly of the following described line: Beginning at the intersection of the westerly right-of-way margin of Oakesdale Avenue SW and the south line of property deeded to the City of Renton under King County Recording No. 8212090480; Thence southwesterly along the south line of said property, to the southwest corner thereof, said southwest corner also being the southeast corner of a tract of land established by King County Superior Court Cause No. 84-2-07769-7, said Superior Court tract recorded under King County Recording No. 8406149003 and amended under King County Recording No. 8504110606; Thence southwesterly along the south line of said Superior Court tract, to the southwest corner thereof, said south line also being the southerly right-of-way margin of a former Burlington Railroad Company(former Northern Pacific Railroad) railroad line; Thence continuing southwesterly along said southerly right-of-way margin,to an intersection with the northeasterly right-of-way line of realigned Monster Road SW, as recorded under King County Recording No. 9709090061 and the termination of the herein described line; EXCEPT that portion of said above described property conveyed to the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle by First City Equities per Deed recorded under King County Recording No. 8707080246. ORDINANCE NO. 4902 ''-_- // RC P) RC(P) . Nt gp / - • I 1M �O -d ., Co -: r ______Y J -.:-,' er , . , tr i, II\ cn /1/11#1# / o- 4/ 0 C0 /\\\,/ ,- \\ IMO / ''.. .*-. -- - / $14* 1 111410, .� M 1 4 , -1 1000 111 0elli."1 401j11 , 00 likk 0 500 1 ,000 LANDUSE ACTION FIDE # LU_.4=DD-ZgA . ' REZONES FILE &(P) FROM/P-1 TOO 1:6,000 1//////// Site �4 EDNSP Q_ Sue carzzoa, Administrator _— —— — Zone boundaries D. Ericlwon. 0. Dennison k„ 19 December 2000 Renton corporate boundary May 7,2001 Renton City Council Minutes Page 146 CITY COUNCIL TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE Don Persson,Kathy Keolker-Wheeler,Terri Briere ADMINISTRATOR,PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Gregg Zimmerman NON-VOTING MEMBERS Renton Municipal Airport Manager Gail Reed City Department Representative Rebecca Lind WSDOT Aviation Division Representative Theresa Smith,WSDOT Aeronautics Division 8900 East Marginal Way KC International Airport/Boeing Field Seattle,WA 98108-4204 Federal Aviation Administration Cayla Morgan,Seattle Airports District Office(SEA-ADO) 1601 Lind Ave SW Renton,WA 98055-4056 MOVED BY NELSON,SECONDED BY CORMAN,COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. ORDINANCES AND The following ordinances were presented for first reading and referred to the RESOLUTIONS meeting of 5/14/2001 for second and fmal reading: Rezone: King County South An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of property Wastewater Treatment Plant, consisting of 90.7 acres located at 1200 Monster Rd. SW,at the intersection of Monster Rd. SW,P-1 to III(R- Oakesdale Ave. SW and Grady Way,from the P-1 (Public Use)zone to the IH 00-169 (Industrial Heavy)zone with a P-suffix designation(Wastewater Treatment Plant Rezone,File No.R-00-169). MOVED BY CLAWSON,SECONDED BY NELSON,COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 05/14/2001. CARRIED. Development Services: An ordinance was read adding new Sections 1-3-3,Nuisances, 1-3-6, Nuisance Abatement Procedure Conflicts,and 1-3-7, Severability, and adding definitions to Section 1-3-4, Defmitions,of Chapter 3,Penalties,of Title I(Administration)of City Code establishing and defming what constitutes a nuisance,providing for correction, abatement and enforcement,and for recovery of costs and attorney fees and declaring interference to be a misdemeanor and establishing penalties. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 05/14/2001. CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS Councilwoman Keolker-Wheeler described her recent trip to Angola Council: Training Session in SE sponsored by the State Department as part of a new pilot program to Africa(Keolker-Wheeler) encourage women to run for public office and get involved in businesses. Ms. Keolker-Wheeler stated that the training classes received excellent press coverage and a follow-up session is planned. Fire: "Prom Night DUI Councilman Parker stated that he attended the"Prom Night DUI Choices Choices"Program Program"at Renton High School sponsored by the Fire Department,and found the demonstration to be enlightening. May 7,2001 Renton City Council Minutes Page 143 Appointment:Civil Service . Mayor Tanner appointed Mij Charbonneau,3909 SE 11''St.,Renton, 98058, Commission to the Civil Service Commission for a six-year term expiring 12/31/2006. Refer to Community Services Committee. Court Case: Jacob and Kris Court Case filed in King County Superior Court by Clayton King,3906 S. 74th Ahlsted, CRT-01-004 St., Suite 201,Tacoma, 98409,and John S. Stocks of Van Siclen, Stocks& Firkins,on behalf of plaintiff Jacob Ahlstedt and Kris M.Ahlstedt,alleging unlawful detention,arrest and battery on 10/13/99. Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Services. Court Case:Estate of Elsie Court Case filed in King County Superior Court by Matthew Jeffrey Bellmer, Delos Reyes, CRT-01-005 Attorney at Law,P.O.Box 58066, Seattle, 98138, on behalf of Amado Delos Reyes,Amanda Delos Reyes and Jody Delos Reyes,for wrongful death in a traffic accident on 2/2/98,allegedly caused by officers in pursuit. Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Services. Rezone: King County South Hearing Examiner recommended approval of King County South Wastewater Wastewater Treatment Plant, Treatment Plant rezone located at 1200 Monster Rd. SW, from Public Use (P- Monster Rd.SW,P-1 to IH(R- 1)to Industrial Heavy(III)zone with P-Suffix designation(R-00-169). 00-169 Council concur. (See page 146 for ordinance) Plat: Wilkinson Plat II, Hearing Examiner recommended approval,with conditions,of the Wilkinson Shattuck Ave S(PP-00r161) Plat II preliminary plat; five single-family lots on.94 acres located at 2245 Shattuck Ave. S.(PP-00-161). Council concur. Public Works: Hazards to Planning/Building/Public Works Department reported natural safety hazards Boaters and Recreationalists at to boaters and recreationalists within Ron Regis Regional Park due to the Ron Regis Regional Park 2/28/2001 earthquake-induced landslide and submitted their intent to take steps,along with the Community Services Department,to reduce the City's potential legal liability. Information. . MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY NELSON,COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED,WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ITEM 7.c.,PREVIOUSLY APPROVED. CARRIED. CORRESPONDENCE Correspondence was read from King County Executive Ron Sims regarding Citizen Comment: Sims— transit service reductions in Renton, advising that recent sales tax increases Metro Transit Service Changes will not fund restoration of Routes 108, 109, 110, 149, 153 and 247 in Renton; however,funds will be allocated towards improving service on other overloaded routes. Citizen Comment:Christianson Correspondence was read from Delores T. Christianson,owner of Kohl —Request for Zoning text Excavating,Inc.,3330 East Valley Road,Renton,98055,requesting zoning Amend re Boat&Recreational text amendment to allow boat and recreational vehicle storage on their four Vehicle Storage acres of property. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY KEOLKER- WHEELER,COUNCIL REFER THIS LETTER TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Citizen Comment:Patterson— Letter and petition signed by 50 residents,received from Dora M.Patterson, I-405 Corridor Program 3217 Mountain View Ave.N.Renton,98056,stated opposition to any efforts by the I-405 Corridor Program to acquire right-of-way along the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad tracks in Renton for use as the future High Speed Transit corridor. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY PERSSON,COUNCIL SUSPEND THE RULES AND ADVANCE TO THE PROPOSED LETTER • AND RESOLUTION REGARDING THIS MATTER CARRIED. WSDOT:I-405 Corridor Proposed letter,addressed to the project manager of the Washington State Program Department of Transportation(WSDOT)I-405 Corridor Program,stating the City's opposition to the inclusion of the provision to secure use of the CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Al #: . SUBMITTING DATA: FOR AGENDA OF: 5/7/200/ Dept/Div/Board.. HEARING EXAMINER Staff contact... Fred J. Kaufman, ext. 2593 AGENDA STATUS: Consent XX SUBJECT: City sponsored rezone of King County South Wastewater Public Hearing.. Treatment Plant from P-1 (Public Use)to Industrial Correspondence.. Heavy(IH)with P-Suffix Designation attached. Ordinance XX File No.LUA-00-169,R,ECF Resolution Old Business.... EXHIBITS: 1. Hearing Examiner's Report&Recommendation New Business.... 2. Ordinance Study Session... 3. Requests for reconsideration and Hearing Examiner's response Other RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve Hearing Examiner's Recommendation APPROVALS: and adopt ordinance. Legal Dept Finance Dept.... Other FISCAL IMPACT: N/A Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment.. Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated... SUMMARY OF ACTION: In June 1994, City Council directed Planning/Building/Public Works to proceed with assimilation of the P-1 zone into the other zones adopted in June 1993. The other zones do accommodate most, if not all of the uses that were typically allowed in the P-1 zone. The recommendation of the Hearing Examiner for approval of the City-sponsored rezone was published February 22, 2001. Three requests for reconsideration were received during the appeal period which ended • March 8, 2001. The Examiner recommends that City Council approve reclassification of the subject property from P-1 to Industrial Heavy (IH) with P-Suffix Designation attached. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. February 22,2001 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION APPLICANT: Susan Carlson,Administrator EDNSP Department File No.: LUA00-169,R,ECF LOCATION: 1200 Monster Road SW SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Rezope of a 90.7 acre industrial site used for treating wastewater from Public Use(P-1)One to the Industrial Medium (IM)Zone or Industrial Heavy(IH)Zone SUMMARY OF ACTION: Development Services Recommendation: Approve DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on January 23,2001 PUBLIC HEARING: In accordance with Section 4-8-14(C)(2),the Hearing Examiner shall determine if a change of zone classification is advisable, in the public interest,tends to further the preservation and enjoyment of any substantial property rights of the petitioner, is not materially detrimental to the public welfare of the properties of other persons located in the vicinity thereof,and is in harmony with the purposes and effect of the Comprehensive Plan. In such event,the Hearing Examiner may recommend that the City Council approve the change of the zone classification. MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the Tuesday, January 30,2001 hearing. The legal record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Tuesday, January 31,2001,at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Verna Bromley, Civil Division,King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office, 900 King County Administration Bldg, 500 4th Avenue, Seattle,WA 98104 requested a brief continuance of the hearing to allow her office and the client at the Department of Natural Resources some additional time to consider what, if any, impacts may result to the Treatment Plant as a result of this rezone petition.. The hearing adjourned at 9:09 a.m.,continued to 9:00 a.m.,Tuesday,February 13,2001. • ************************************************* Wastewater Treatment Plant File No.:LUA00-169,R,ECF February 22,2001 Page 2 The hearing opened on Tuesday,February 13,2001 at 10:04 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow land use file,LUA00- Exhibit No.2: Zoning Map 169,R,ECF,containing the original application,proof of posting,proof of publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No.3: Vicinity Map Exhibit No.4: Power Point Presentation Exhibit No.5: Written Comments by Ms.Bromley f Exhibit No. 6: Visual of Treatment Plant Site Don Erickson, Senior Planner,Economic Development Division, 1055 S Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 presented the staff report. The applicant for this rezone is the City of Renton. The owner of record is King County Wastewater Treatment Division. The subject proposal is the rezoning of a 90.7 acre industrial site used for treating regional wastewater from the Public Use(P-1)Zone to the Industrial Medium (IM)Zone or the Industrial Heavy(IH)Zone. The site is located at 1200 Monster Road SW,at the intersection of Oaksdale Ave SW and Grady Way. The subject site is in the northwest quadrant of this intersection. The plant lies between Monster Road on the west and Oaksdale Avenue SW on its north and east edges. Mr.Erickson reviewed the applicable sections of the comprehensive Plan and went on to discuss the background of the rezone. The current proposal is part of a series of approximately fifty P-1 rezones,most of which have already been changed to other more traditional zones that reflect the characteristics of the use and surrounding area.This consolidation is based in part upon a June 1994 directive of Council to proceed with the assimilation of the P-1 Zone into the City's other zones. The P-1 Zone allows a vast array of uses not all of which are necessarily compatible with the areas in which they are located.•Also,because it was most typically applied to individual parcels, it could be challenged as"spot"zoning. Another factor was that it had been inconsistently applied with nearly half of all public facilities located in more traditional zones. The Environmental Review Committee(ERC)issued a Determination of Non-Significance for this non-project legislative action on January 9,2001. There were no mitigation measures imposed,since this is a non-project legislative action Mr.Erickson continued by reviewing consistency with rezone criteria. The rezone is in the public interest since it is consistent with the Employment Area—Valley Comprehensive Plan land use designation for this area. The new zoning will provide greater land use predictability than the current P-1 Zone,and the P-Suffix will ensure future public notification if any major change of use,tenancy or ownership occurs on the site in the future. The rezone maintains the property rights of the County since sewage disposal and treatment plants are a permitted use in both the IM and IH Zones subject to Hearing Examiner approval. The rezone is not detrimental to the public welfare of properties of other persons located in the vicinity since it narrows the uses permitted on the subject site,makes the existing use a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use,and ensures that persons located in the vicinity will be notified at least 60 days in advance of any proposed substantial change in use,tenancy or ownership at the treatment plant. The rezone meets the criteria in subsections Flb and Flc of Section 4-9- • 170F.2. The subject site was not specifically considered at the time of the last area land use analysis and area zoning,because at that time it was understood that staff were studying the P-1 Zone and were preparing recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council on whether this special zoning should be Wastewater Treatment Plant Re—... File No.:LUA00-169,R,ECF February 22, 2001 Page 3 retained or assimilated into the City's other zoning classifications. Nearby uses to the west,north,east, and south were rezoned in June 1993 to the IM and CO zones. This and a number of other P-1 zoned sites were not rezoned at that time, awaiting recommendations from planning staff for future zoning. There have been no significant or material changes affecting the subject property since the most recent land use analysis of the area that in itself justify a change in zoning. Staff recommends approval of the King County South Wastewater Treatment Plant P-1 Rezone from the Public Use(P-1)Zone to either the Industrial Medium (IM)or the Industrial Heavy(IH)Zone,with a P-suffix designation,for the following reasons: (1)The rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation for the parcel,as Employment Area—Valley,which encourages a mix of employment-based uses. The site is used for industrial purposes,and had,it been rezoned in 1993,it likely would have received an industrial designation at that time. (2) The proposed rezone would be consistent with earlier citywide rezones of other properties in the area that were zoned IM in 1993 and/or 1995. This rezone is also consistent with the existing use of the property since it is used for sewage treatment and disposal, a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use in either the IM or IH Zones. (3)The subject rezone is a non-project action under SEPA and is a legislative act that is not expected to significantly alter the development potential of the site. The rezone reduces the scope of the uses allowed in the P-1 Zone to Intermediate Industrial or Heavy Industrial use and makes the current use a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use rather than a Council Unclassified Use. Verna Bromley, Civil Division,King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office, 900 King County Administration Bldg, 500 4th Avenue, Seattle,WA 98104 stated that King County has no objection to the proposed rezone for the Renton Plant, as long as the rezone is from a P-1 to an IH Zone. Because of the size of the subject site and the unique heavy industrial characteristics of the treatment plant,City staff now believes IH may be more representative of the plant's characteristic than IM zoning. King County believes that the recommendation of an alternative IM designation creates possible concerns with regard to the continuing ability of the Renton Plant to expand in response to regional needs. The IM designation allows a wide range of industrial uses. King County is concerned that certain abutting uses may in the future be deemed incompatible with the expansion of the facilities at the Renton Plant. A second concern relates to the conditional P-suffix designation attached to the IM Zone and the IH Zone. The Renton Plant serves as an essential public facility as defined under the Washington State Growth Management Act. This regional facility addresses the wastewater needs of a significant portion of King County communities and jurisdictions, including Renton. The Renton Plant will also serve as part of the regional solution in addressing the growing wastewater needs over the next 20 years. Ms.Bromley read into the record portions of King County Code Section 28.86.050 and Section 28.86.180 dealing with treatment plant capacities and potential expansion. This is significant because this plant is an essential public facility and the relevance of this GMA designation and adopted RWSP goes to the importance of facilitating any future expansion required at the Renton Plant to meet regional needs. King County has no objection to a proposed rezone to the IH Zone provided any future review of any expansion of the Renton Plant take into account the fact that it is an essential public facility under GMA Ms.Bromley stated that the IH Zone is more characteristic of the types of processes and the scale of the facility that is actually in place. King County is concerned with incompatible uses surrounding the plant with an IM designation. Joe Fernandes,King County,201 South Jackson St., Seattle,WA 98104 reviewed his work experience with King County and his educational background. He described the geographical area and the population served by the Renton Plant. He described the size of the plant and how much of the site is taken up by equipment. The Examiner asked for clarification of why the IH zoning would be preferable to IM zoning for this plant. Wastewater Treatment Plant R.—Jae File No.: LUA00-169,R,ECF February 22,2001 Page 4 Ms.Bromley stated that King County believes the IH designation is more representative of the plant's characteristics than the IM zoning. This is also set forth in the City's staff report. The City was considering an IH designation in 1996 and 1997 when this plant was originally considered for a rezone. Mr.Fernandes continued by describing the how the treatment processes at the plant works. He then described the equipment used at the plant site. He stated that approximately 110 employees work at the plant. The plant is run on a 24-hour basis,with two 12-hour shifts. Ms.Bromley stated that the types of activities,the types of processes,and the scale of the plant is fundamentally different than the IM designated businesses that are located around the plant. Mr.Erickson read into the record the Zoning Code descriptions of the IM Zone and the IH Zone. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 10:55 a.m. FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS&RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, City of Renton,filed a request to reclassify the subject site from P-I (Public/Quasi- public)to either IM (Medium Industrial)or IH(Heavy Industrial). 2. The City of Renton has filed requests for approval of a series of approximately forty(40)to fifty(50) separate rezones involving a series of separate properties generally, but not always,owned by public agencies including the City,King County and the Renton School District. The City proposes phasing out its P-1 Zone, a zone that in the past was designed to accommodate public and quasi-public uses. Each of the proposals requests that the new zoning be changed to closely, if not exactly match, surrounding zoning districts and the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The yellow file containing the staff report,the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit#1. 4. The Environmental Review Committee(ERC),the City's responsible official, issued a Declaration of Non-Significance(DNS)for the subject proposal. 5. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 6. While the background information on the study and proposed abolition of the P-1 zone will be the same for each report,each site will receive separate attention and a separate decision. 7. The P-1 (Public/Quasi-Public)Zone was established in the early 1950's to accommodate governmental facilities as well as certain private uses such as private medical clinics and private hospitals,as well as private schools,museums and the like that accommodated the public. The permitted uses were expanded over the years to accommodate an even wider range of uses while other zoning districts also broadened their range of respective uses, in effect, duplicating the permitted uses in the P-1 zone. The current zoning categorization generally appears to accommodate most, although not all,of the uses the current P-1 zone permits. The City Council directed staff to make a recommendation as to the Wastewater Treatment Plant Re File No.: LUA00-169,R,ECF February 22, 2001 Page 5 continued need for a distinct P-1 zone. A result of that study was presented to the Planning Commission (May 4, 1994 Report). The Planning Commission recommended the assimilation of the P-1 zone. The City Council then directed that individual parcels be assimilated into nearby,compatible zones after appropriate public hearings. The current action is the result of those decisions. 8. The subject site is the location of the Metro King County South Wastewater Treatment Plant located at 1200 Monster Road South. The site is located north of Grady Way and west of Oakesdale Avenue. The site is approximately 90.7 acres in size. The parcel is a large, irregular shaped parcel. 9. The City had originally proposed reclassifying the subject site to IM. At the originally scheduled public hearing King County,the owner and operator iof the plant,asked for more time and was concerned about the IM designation. Between the time of the original hearing and the reconvened hearing, staff altered their recommendation and suggested that either IM or IH might be an appropriate designation. 10. The applicant strongly supported the IH zoning and was opposed to the IM. The County claimed the plant is an essential facility under enacted laws and they would make sure that it could be expanded in response to need and that local government,under GMA,cannot block an essential facility. 11. There are CO(Commercial Office)districts immediately north and east of the subject site. These districts are developed with office and commercial uses. South,adjacent to Grady Way,are a number of IM(Medium Industrial)parcels. There are additional IM parcels located west of the subject site. 12. There are no IH Districts close to the subject site. 13. Staff noted that both the IM and IH zone would accommodate the activities that occur at the treatment plant. Staff and the applicant indicated that the size of some of the facilities seem more related to heavy industrial activities,while the processes are generally not as intensive as heavy industrial since there is no heavy fabrication or machining occurring. 14. Both the IM and IH zones would require further review of any plant expansions. ' 15. The City has proposed attaching a special P-suffix designation to any public property which will be reclassified from P-1. This suffix is used to trigger a public comment period if substantial changes in ownership or sale are intended. 16. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development Employment Area-Valley,but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 17. The Zoning Code contains the following purpose language for the two respective zones: R INDUSTRIAL-MEDIUM ZONE(IM): The purpose of the Medium Industrial Zone(IM) is to provide areas for medium-intensity industrial activities involving manufacturing,processing, assembly and warehousing in areas designated as Employment Area-Industrial in the Comprehensive Plan.Uses in this District may require some outdoor storage and may create some external emissions of noise, odor, glare,vibration,etc.,that are largely contained on site. Compatible uses which directly serve the needs of other uses permitted within the district are also allowed. Wastewater Treatment Plant - File No.:LUA00-169,R,ECF February 22,2001 Page 6 S INDUSTRIAL-HEAVY ZONE(IH): The purpose of the Heavy Industrial Zone(IH) is to provide areas for high intensity industrial activities involving heavy fabrication,processing of raw materials,bulk handling and storage,construction and heavy transportation in areas designated as Employment Area-Industrial in the Comprehensive Plan. Uses in this District may require large outdoor areas in which to conduct their operations and produce environmental impacts beyond their own sites that require their isolation from more sensitive land uses. Compatible uses which directly serve the needs of other uses permitted within the district are also allowed. (Ord.4404, 6-7-1993)uses and surrounding zoning. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The proponent of a rezone must demonstrate that the request is in the public interest,that it will not impair the public health, safety and welfare,and in addition complies with at least one of the criteria found in Section 4-8-14,which provides in part that: a. The subject site has not been considered in a previous area-wide rezone or land use analysis;or b. The subject site is potentially designated for the new classification per the Comprehensive Plan; or c. There has been a material and substantial change in the area in which the subject site is located since the last rezoning of the property or area. The IM classification appears appropriate. 2. The P-1 district and its associated properties were removed from the city-wide reclassification effort to study the basis for the zone itself. This site as well as the other P-1 properties were segregated for special review. The public hearing that preceded this recommendation is the first analysis since that study demonstrated that there is no reason to maintain the P-1 zones. 3. The Comprehensive Plan designates the area as suitable employment generating. It also has designated areas to the immediate north and east for commercial office uses. In addition,to those uses,the other zoning in the area is generally IM,one of the categories that staff recommended be considered for the subject site. IM zoning matches the zoning immediately to its south and west. 4. There have been a number of changes to the Grady Way corridor,particularly east of the subject site. In addition,the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code have themselves undergone a profound change. The need for a separate holding zoning for public and quasi-public uses has been questioned for a long time and the adoption of these new land use provisions just provided the impetus to review the P-1 zone. In that light,the current proposal is appropriate. 5. Given the surroundings and the Comprehensive Plan designations for the subject site and neighboring sites,IH zoning does not appear appropriate. IH would appear to sanction offsite spillover of industrial impacts to surrounding areas. This does not appear to be what is envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan for the subject site,or particularly for the surrounding areas,which are zoned and developed with commercial office uses and office parks. Wastewater Treatment Plant Re_r File No.: LUA00-169,R,ECF February 22,2001 Page 7 6. The applicant's use of the subject site is not by itself enough to control future zoning. The aim of the elimination of the P-1 zone was to absorb properties that were zoned P-1 into zoning categories compatible with surrounding zoning categories. In addition,the overall public welfare must be considered when determining appropriate classification for zoning. As staff noted,their treatment plant would be permitted in the IM Zone and would be subject to similar review whether in the IM or IH zone. 7. There is no need to discuss the merits or legal issues regarding expansion of the treatment plant at this time. As noted,the plant would be a legal, conforming use in the IM zone. Changes to the plant would be handled under the various codes and regulations when such changes are proposed. 8. The P-suffix appears an appropriate "sub labe " for this publicly owned site although sale or change of use seems a most remote possibility. 9. It would be appropriate for the City Council to rezone the parcel to IM. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should approve the reclassification of the subject site from P-1 to IM with a P-suffix. ORDERED THIS 22"d day of February,2001. FRED J. MA :lif HEARIN XAMINER TRANSMI 1"1'bD THIS 22nd day of February,2001 to the parties of record: Don Erickson • Verna Bromley Joe Fernandes 1055 S Grady Way King County Prosecuting King County Renton, WA 98055 Attorney's Office 201 South Jackson Street 900 King County Admin.Bldg. Seattle,WA 98104 500 4th Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 1RANSMI 1"1'ED THIS 22"d day of February,2001 to the following: Mayor Jesse Tanner Gregg Zimmerman,P1anBldg/PW Admin. Members,Renton Planning Commission Neil Watts,Development Services Director Larry Rude,Fire Marshal Sue Carlson,Econ.Dev.Administrator Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Larry Meckling,Building Official Transportation Systems Division Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer • Utilities System Division Councilperson Kathy Keolker-Wheeler South County Journal Betty Nokes,Economic Development Director Wastewater Treatment Plant Rccune File No.: LUA00-169,R,ECF February 22,2001 Page 8 Pursuant to Title IV,Chapter 8, Section 100Gof the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., March 8,2001. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure,errors of law or fact,error in judgment,or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14)days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant,and the Examiner may, after review of the record,take further action, as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110,which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk,accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department,first floor of City Hall. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants,the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte(private one-on-one)communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. Rc P) ROW) \'— it . 1 co . I IM = ► ri •i CO . /fp______A____ _ , cni I..- Al#v A ism i ,:). _v./ ArArarI . \\\\\\ / Co /,//\\\\ I . \ oF „tot .61). Fri,, .. . / - - - .• . Ti �i M ILI i , 11M_•Viti l, do . ht. 0 500 1 ,000 LANDUSE ACTION FILE # LO4.00-/6yt e, ' REZONES FILE &(P) FROM /P-1/ 1 :5,000 V�/ //� Site 0:1,TO) EDNSP Sue Carlson, Administrator Zone boundaries D. Erickson. Q. Dennison 19 December 2000 — — —— — Renton corporate boundary :: • ry . . CIT' 'OF;RENTON •..; • Hearing Examiner Jesse Tanner,Mayor Fred J.Kaufman • March 20,2001 . ' • •Verna.P.Bromley Office of the Prosecuting Attorney,King County 900 King County Administration Building 500 Fourth Avenue Seattle,.WA 98104 • • • Sue.Carlson,Administrator '. . • EDNSP Department City of Renton . . • 1055 S. Grady Way • . Renton,WA 98055 • Jennifer Henning,Principal Planner • PBPW/Dev. Services City of Renton • 'x 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 • •Re: .Request for Reconsideration,;King,County,:Wastewater Treatment Plant Rezone File No.LUA00-169,R,ECF Dear Ms.Bromley,Ms. Carlson, and Ms:_Henning: This office has received three requests to reconsider the recommendation to the City Council on the rezoning of the Metropolitan King County South Wastewater Treatment Plant This office recommended that the City Council reclassify the subject site from P-1 to IM with a P-suffix. The requests were received from Sue Carlson,EDNSP Administrator;Jennifer Henning, • Principal Planner,PBPW/Dev. Services;and from.the.Office of the King County Prosecutor, representing the property owner,King County. ; The King County reaction can be characterized as overblown,overly dramatic and frankly, intemperate. In the fifty(50)or so P-1 Zoning decisions over the past 6 or 7 years,sites have been rezoned to meld with surrounding zoning and did.not necessarily.represent exact matches for the underlying use. School properties were reclassified to residential: Park properties were reclassified to residential. Reservoir sites were reclassified residential; Church properties were reclassified residential. Some other school and park•sits were zoned commercial or even light industrial. The zoning enacted in each of these.cases attempted to match the reclassified site to • • surrounding zoning and not necessarily mirror the uses of the site. The treatment plant is.permitted in.the IM zone. The treatment plant is permitted in the IH zone. The plant requires a Conditional Use Permit in the IM zone. The plant requires a Conditional Use • • 1055 South Grady Way Renton,'Washington 98055 -(425) 430-6515 . _ Request for Reconsideration File No.: LUA00-169,R,ECF Page 2 Permit in the IH zone. As can be seen, either zoning would not significantly, if at all,restrict the use of the subject site. The zoning surrounding the subject site is IM. Actually, in some cases, providing IH zoning could be considered a spot zone,distinct as it is from adjoining properties and zoning. The references in the Examiner's decision to the "original staff recommendation"to IM zoning was the staff recommendation made two weeks earlier,prior to the originally scheduled public hearing, and not to some yague discussion made years ago regarding potential zoning. The original staff report delivered to the Examiner before the continuance was requested suggested that IM zoning was appropriate. As a matter of fact,staff still suggested either IM or IH zoning when the hearing finally did occur. There was no dramatic demarcation according to staff, although they ultimately suggested,but not strongly,that IH would be appropriate. Be that as it may, it would appear that the;City'now believes IH zoning is more appropriate. Therefore,the recommendation to,the"City. Council will be fitodified to suggest they consider rezoning the subject site to IH., The City,Council ultimatelymust.make the decision. " Since an appeal of this matter has already been filed with the"`City:Council,there is not need to further delay the time periods and the appeal,period will notbe'`extended. ,P If this office can be of further assistance,please feel"free'.to write. Sincerely, h.� Fred J.Kauf Hearing Examiner •�se -trr 3. • FJK:jt • cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Larry.Warren,City Attorney Neil Watts,PBPW/Development Services Director Don Erickson,Economic Development • Parties of Record OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON CIVIL DIVISION Natural Resources Norm Maleng 900 King County Administration Building Prosecuting Attorney 500 Fourth Avenue Seattle,Washington 98104 (206)296-8820 FAX(206)296-0415 March 8, 2001 Fred J.Kaufman Hearing Examiner • City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98056 • Re: Request for Reconsideration File No. LUA00-169, R, ECF Dear Mr. Kaufman: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100G of the Renton Municipal Code, King County respectfully requests reconsideration of the findings, conclusions & recommendation set forth in the Hearing Examiner's Report and Recommendation dated February 22, 2001. King County bases this request on the grounds discussed below. A. The findings and conclusions are not supported by the facts or the law. The following findings and conclusions contain errors of fact and/or law and/or errors in judgment. Finding 9, that the City had originally proposed classifying the subject site to IM is an error of fact. King County presented uncontested testimony at the hearing in this matter that as early as 1996, the City staff proposed to re-zone the King County Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant site ("the South Plant") to Heavy Industrial (IH) zoning. It was not until January 30, 2001 that City staff reported for the first time that the City proposed an IM designation for the South Plant property. The City's position was later modified in the February 13, 2001 staff report in which the City agreed that "because of the size of the subject site and the unique heavy industrial characteristics of the treatment plant, staff now believe IH may be more representative of the plant's characteristic than IM zoning" (February 13, 2001 Preliminary Report, page 5, section F(5)(d)(1)). Finding 10, that King County claimed that "it would make sure that (the South Plant) could be expanded in response to need and that local government, under GMA, cannot block an essential public facility" is an error of fact and is prejudicial to King County. The language in Finding 10 implies that King County is indifferent to any local land use processes which may be required in the future. This is untrue. King County does contend that the South Plant is an essential public facility under GMA, as acknowledged by the City. At the hearing in this matter, King County merely stated that in November 1999 the King County Council by Ordinance 13680 adopted the Prosecuting Attorney King County Fred J.Kaufman March 8,2001 Page 2 Regional Wastewater Services Plan ("RWSP"). The RWSP identifies the continued need for the South Plant and its role in meeting the growing wastewater needs in the region in the years ahead. In its Preliminary Report dated February. 13, 2001, the City acknowledged the regional nature of the South Plant, stating that "the treatment plant is a regionally recognized public facility that is not likely to change in terms of use or location in the foreseeable future." (Preliminary Report, page 4, Section F(5)) . Finding 13, that because the processes at the South Plant do not include heavy fabrication or machining, the Plant's processes are not as intensive as heavy industrial is an error of law and fact and an error in judgment. King County presented uncontested testimony at the hearing in this matter concerning the treatment and other processes present at the South Plant property. King County presented testimony that that there are 12 primary sedimentation tanks, for primary treatment, 24 secondary clarifiers and 3•aeration basins with large aeration blowers for secondary treatment, a chlorine building, 12 miles of 96" diameter concrete cylinder pipe to the Puget Sound, including a chlorine contact channel at the South Plant, with four duty pumps and 4 peaking pumps for effluent discharge, capable of discharging up to 325 mgd of effluent to the Puget Sound, that there are six dissolved air flotation thickeners, four digesters and one blending storage tank for solids treatment,. that there is a dewatering process utilizing eight belt filter presses, that there is digester gas re-use, i.e. the gas is scrubbed through two gas scrubbing towers and is sold at cost to Puget Sound Energy. In addition, King County presented uncontested testimony at the hearing in this matter, that there are numerous pumps, blowers, transformers, switchgear, and variable frequency drives located at the South Plant. Uncontested testimony presented by King County established that fifty-six percent of the property at the South Plant is taken up by facilities and related equipment, that the South Plant is operated 24 hours a day, with two shift crews at 12 hours each. That there are additional lab and process control staff during the day and 40 maintenance staff. The South Plant generates 1.3 mgd of recycled or re-use effluent, referred to as Class A effluent. This effluent is used on site for irrigation and is sold to cities, such as Tukwila for other permitted uses. Finding 13 is also inconsistent with Finding 17 of the Hearing Examiner's Report and Recommendation. As set forth at Finding 17, the Renton Zoning Code contains, in relevant part, the following purpose statement for the Industrial-Heavy Zone (IH): "The purpose of the Heavy Industrial Zone (IH) is to provide areas for high intensity industrial activities involving heavy fabrication, processing of raw materials. bulk handling and storage, construction and heavy transportation in areas designated as Employment Area-Industrial.... Uses in this District may require large outdoor areas in which to conduct their operations ..." (Emphasis added). The Hearing Examiner's Report and Recommendation erroneously states that there is no heavy fabrication or machining occurring at the South Plant and thus the"processes are generally not as intensive as heavy industrial."This is an error of fact and of law and an error in judgment. The Prosecuting Attorney King County Fred J.Kaufman March 8,2001 Page 3 City's Code does not require heavy fabrication or machining for an IH zone. Furthermore, the Hearing Examiner's decision does not acknowledge the unique heavy industrial characteristics of the South Plant, including but not limited to the processing and treatment of raw materials, the production of recycled or re-use water and biosolids and the requirement for large outdoor areas for the South Plant's processes, that make the IH zoning classification more representative of the Plant's characteristic than the IM zoning. These processes and characteristics of the South Plant support the contrary finding and conclusion that IH is the proper zone designation. By contrast, the City's purpose statement for:the IM zone states that it is to provide areas for activities involving "manufacturing, processing, assembly and warehousing" and which "may require "some outdoor storage...." The South Plant is not a warehouse. There is no mention in the IM zone designation for the need for large outdoor areas in which to conduct operations, which now occurs at the South Plant. The City, as proponent of the re-zone, carries the burden of proof in this matter. The City presented no testimony that the processes and handling of raw materials at the South Plant are not"as intensive as heavy industrial." In fact the City's position on this matter as set forth in the February 13, 2001 staff report is that"because of the size of the subject site and the unique heavy industrial characteristics of the treatment plant, staff now believe IH may be more representative of the plant's characteristic than IM zoning" (February 13, 2001 Preliminary Report, page 5, section F(5)(d)(1)). Conclusion 1, that the criteria for change of zone classification have been met and that the IM classification appears appropriate is an error of law and fact and an error in judgment. The criteria for change of zone classification, as set forth in the Renton Municipal Code at section 4-9-170 F(2) have not been-met.-The City, as the proponent of the re-zone must establish all of the following: (a) that the rezone is in the public interest, (b) that the rezone tends to further the preservation and enjoyment of any substantial rights of the County (c) that the rezone is not detrimental to the public welfare or the properties of other persons located in the vicinity thereof and(d)that the rezone meets the review criteria in subsection Flb and Flc of Section 4-9-170 F. The rezone to an IM classification does not meet these criteria. The rezone is not in the public interest as it does not accurately reflect the unique heavy industrial characteristics of the South Plant or the current uses at the plant. The rezone does not tend to further the preservation and enjoyment of any substantial rights of the County as it does not accurately reflect the South Plant's characteristics or uses. The rezone is materially detrimental to the public welfare in that certain abutting uses may in the future be deemed incompatible with the facilities and uses existing and anticipated at the South Plant. The rezone does not meet the criteria set forth in Renton Code section 4-9-170 Flb and ic, as the potential rezone does not meet the policies set forth in the Renton Comprehensive Plan. For all of these reasons, the IM classification is not appropriate. • Prosecuting Attorney King County Fred J.Kaufman March 8,2001 Page 4 Conclusion 4, that the adoption of new land use provisions to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code provided the impetus to review the P-1 zone and therefore the current proposal is appropriate is an error of fact and law to the extent that the only rationale in the record of this case for the rezone of the South Plant is that "This zone (P-1 zone) is being phased out pursuant to Council's 1994 direction to do so." There is no support in the record for Conclusion 4. Conclusion 5 that "(g)iven the surroundings,and the Comprehensive Plan designations for the subject site and neighboring sites, IH zoning does not appear appropriate" is an error of fact and law and an error in judgment. The only information in the record on this issue is the City's position as set forth in the February 13, 2001 staff report that "the recommended IH zoning would be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan." (February 13, 2001 Preliminary Report,page 4, section F(5)(d)). The South Plant property is in the Valley PIanning Area and IH is a permitted zoning designation. The IH zone would still require the site to obtain Hearing Examiner Conditional Use approval and site plan review for substantial change in use or change of ownership. Furthermore, the IH zone more accurately reflects the South Plant's current uses and characteristics as set forth above. Conclusion 5 that "IH would appear to sanction offsite spillover of industrial impacts to surrounding areas" is an error of fact and law and an error in judgment. This Conclusion is also misleading and prejudicial, as it implies that King County would ignore or violate existing local, state and federal laws and regulations with regard to its operations, if the South Plant were to be zoned IH. This is not true. The IH zoning does not permit offsite spillover of industrial impacts to surrounding areas as stated in conclusion 5. The South Plant has properly mitigated its impacts so as not to create offsite impacts to the surrounding areas. Additionally, any substantial change in use under an IH zoning classification would require a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use approval which would likely impose appropriate mitigation measures to insure that any potential impacts from the South Plant's activities do not impact surrounding areas. Furthermore, local, state and federal laws and regulations regarding noise, air quality, water quality and surface water effects, do not allow the South Plant to create offsite impacts to the surrounding areas. The South Plant is now, has been, and is committed to be in the future, in compliance with all laws and regulations with respect to its operations and activities. Conclusion 6 that the applicant's use of the subject site is not by itself enough to control future zoning and that in addition the overall public welfare must be considered when determining appropriate classifications for zoning is an error of fact and an error of law. The proponent for this rezone is not King County but the City of Renton. The criteria for change of zone classification is set forth in the Renton Municipal Code section 4-9-170 F(2). As set forth above under the discussion of conclusion 1, the Code requires that the reviewing official consider a number of specific criteria, one of which is that the rezone not be materially detrimental to the public welfare. As set forth above the rezone to IM is materially detrimental to the public welfare. Moreover,the other criteria for change of zone classification to IM have not been met. Prosecuting Attorney King County Fred J.Kaufman March 8,2001 Page 5 Conclusion 9, that it would be appropriate for the City Council to rezone the parcel to IM is an error of fact and law and an error in judgment for all of the reasons set forth above. The Recommendation that the City Council should approve the reclassification of the subject property from P-1 to IM with a P-suffix is an error of fact and law and an error in judgment for all of the reasons set forth above. B. The Hearing Examiner should consider additional evidence on the issue of processes at the South Plant. Renton Municipal Code Title IV, Chapter 8, section 100G4 allows reconsideration on the ground of discovery of new evidence that was not reasonably available at the time of hearing. As presented by King County at the hearing in this matter, the South Plant already beneficially reuses digester gas,by scrubbing it and selling it at cost to Puget Sound Energy. With the recent volatility in the electrical energy market, King County has experienced a 1000% increase in its electrical rates at the South Plant, from $ 0.04 to $0.40 per kilowatt hour. As a result of this energy crisis, on February 15, 2001 (after the hearing in this matter), King County filed a petition to intervene in the consolidated actions against Puget Sound Energy pending before the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission to obtain some rate relief. On March 6, 2001 the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission granted King county's petition to Intervene. A true and correct copy of the Order Granting King County's Petition to Intervene is attached hereto. In addition, King County has begun to explore other alternatives to respond to the energy crisis and the dramatic increase in energy costs at the- South Plant. One of these options is for King County to generate electrical energy at the South Plant, as a hedge against escalating power costs. King County acknowledges that such an option would require certain City approvals. However, this option further demonstrates the heavy industrial nature of the South Plant property and supports a contrary finding to that of the Hearing Examiner that in fact the South Plant property is more appropriately zoned IH and not IM. The Renton Municipal Code expressly provides the Hearing Examiner with authority to accept additional evidence in connection with this request. (Renton Municipal Code Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110 G 4). King County respectfully requests permission to provide the Hearing Examiner with additional evidence on this matter. C. Conclusion For the reasons set forth herein, King County respectfully requests that the Hearing Examiner modify his recommendation to the City Council and recommend that the City Council approve a reclassification of the South Plant property from P-1 to IH with a P-suffix. In the alternative, King County requests that the Hearing Examiner accept additional information on the processes and intended processes at the South Plant and modify Conclusion 9 and his recommendation based on this additional evidence. Prosecuting Attorney • King County Fred J.Kaufman March 8,2001 Page 6 In order to preserve its appeal rights, King County is filing an appeal to the City Council concurrently with this request for reconsideration. King County requests that the appeal to the City Council be stayed pending resolution of this request for reconsideration. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Very truly yours, For NORM'MALENG,King County Prosecuting Attorney I/VOW \'erna P.Bromley Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney cc: Don Theiler, Manager Wastewater Treatment Division Enclosure: • vv wv a I L?. v.+•Vs/ III ry U IV I'C1 I IU. JUO JOU 1 1 UV 1. UC/ SERVICE DATE MAR 0 6 2001 BEFORE THE WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Air Liquide America Corporation, Air ) Products and Chemicals, Inc,,The ) Boeing Company, CNC Containers, ) Equilon Enterprises,LLC, Georgia- ) Pacific West, Inc., Tesoro Northwest ) Company, The City of Anacortes, ) Washington, and Intel Corporation ! ) Complainants, ) DOCKET NO. UE-001952 ) (consolidated) v. ) Puget Sound Energy,Inc. ) • Respondent. ) ). In re: Petition of Puget Sound Energy, ) DOCKET NO.UE-001959 Inc. for an Order Reallocating Lost ) (consolidated) Revenues Related to any Reduction in ') the Schedule 48 or G-P Special ) NTNTR SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER: Contract Rates ) GRANTING PETITION TO ) INTERVENE OUT OF TIME ) ) ) PROCEEDINGS: Air Liquide,et al. filed their original Formal Complaint Requesting Emergency Adjudicative Proceeding in Docket No. UE-001952 on December 12, 2000. Complainants filed an Amended Complaint on December 18, 2000, and a Second Amended Complaint on December 28,2000. PSE filed its Petition in Docket No. UE-001959 on December 13,2000. PSE filed its Answer to the first Amended Complaint on January 2,2001. 2 The Commission,after hearing, found and concluded that Schedule 48 and the Special Contract, which include retail rates that are pegged via Mid-Columbia index pricing to Western wholesale power markets that are volatile and exceedingly high, are not fair,just, and reasonable because,under current conditions, customers do not • have effective options to achieve price stability and reasonable rates under the - ...nil/ 11 r. U0/U4 DOCKET NOS. UE-001952 and UE-001959 PAGE 2 Optional Price Stability provisions of Schedule 48 and the Special Contract. Sixth Supplemental Order at ¶¶ 99 and 103 (January 22, 2001) (citing RCW 80.28.010 and RCW 80.28.020). The Commission ordered immediate proceedings in Phase Two of this docket to establish temporary terms under the Optional Price Stability provisions of Schedule 48 and the Georgia-Pacific/PSE Special Contract that will provide customers effective options to achieve price stability and reasonable rates, consistent with the Commission's discussion in the body of its Sixth Supplemental Order. Id at ¶ 106. By Notice issued and served simultaneously with its Sixth Supplemental Order, the Commission set January 29, 2001, as the date on which to commence the Phase Two hearings to finalize and implement the relief ordered. During proceedings held on January 29, 2001,the Commissioh heard additional testimony regarding remedies and considered Staffs oral motion for a continuance. Following argument by the parties,the Commission granted a brief continuance until February 5, 2001. 3 On February 5, 2001,the parties stated they had resumed settlement discussions and requested a recess to determine whether a further continuance would facilitate their efforts. During their discussions,the parties agreed it would be worthwhile to continue settlement negotiations with the assistance of Administrative Law Judge C. • Robert Wallis in the role of mediator. The Commission granted the parties' request for a continuance until February 8,2001,to permit the parties an opportunity to pursue settlement. The continuance to February 8, 2001, was granted with the understanding that the parties could request additional time informally if the progress of their discussions warranted a further continuance. The parties did request additional time; they reported via an agreed statement on February 9,2001,that they had achieved a settlement in principle. The parties have reported informally from time to time that they continue to work to produce a final settlement agreement for the Commission's consideration. 4 PARTIES: Melinda Davison,Davison Van Cleve, P.C.,Portland, Oregon, represents Air Liquide America Corporation,Air Products and Chemicals,Inc.,The Boeing Company, CNC Containers,Equilon Enterprises,LLC, Georgia-Pacific West, Inc., and Tesoro Northwest Company. Stan Berman,Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe, LLP, Seattle,Washington, and James M.Van Nostrand, Stoel Rives, Seattle, Washington,represent Puget Sound Energy,Inc. (PSE). Jim Pemberton appeared pro se to represent the interests of the City of Anacortes and its water utility. John A. Cameron and Traci Grundon,Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Portland, Oregon, represent Bellingham Cold Storage Company(BCS). Public Utility District No. 1 of Whatcom County (Whatcom PUD),by prior arrangement, did not appear at prehearing and will designate its legal counsel or permanent representative later; Whatcom PUD did appear via its written Petition To Intervene,signed by Tom Anderson,pro se.Frank Prochaska appeared pro se to represent the AWPPW. Simon flitch and Robert Cromwell,Assistant Attorneys General, Seattle, Washington, represent the Public Counsel Section, Office of Attorney General (Public Counsel). DOCKET NOS.UE-001952 and UE-001959 • PAGE 3 Robert D. Cedarbaum and Donald Trotter, Assistant Attorneys General, Olympia, Washington,represent the Commission's regulatory staff(Staff). 5 LATE-FILED PETITION TO INTERVENE: On February 15, 2001, King County Washington petitioned for leave to intervene out of time. King County certified service of its Petition on February 20, 2001. The County is a customer of PSE under Schedule 48,which is central to the subject matter of this proceeding. King County's petition states that its interest in participating in this proceeding matured in light of ongoing settlement discussions among the parties. The County states that it will consider becoming a signatory to a settlement agreement, and states that it does not intend to broaden the issues. Staff and Public Counsel filed letters on February 23,2001, stating that they do not oppose late intervention by King County. No party filed to oppose King County's petition. 6 DISPOSITION: The Commission determines that King County has demonstrated an interest in this proceeding, has established good cause for its late filing, and that its participation would be in the public interest. In short, King County's petition is well- taken under the circumstances and should be granted. ORDER 7 THE COMMISSION ORDERS That the Petition To Intervene Out of Time of King County is granted. 8 THE COMMISSION ORDERS FURTHER That King County will take the record as it is found on this date and will not be permitted to broaden the issues in this proceeding. DATED at Olympia, Washington, and effective this 6th day of March,2001. WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DE IS J. SS Adm rust tive Law Judge MAR 8 ..21'3U's CITY OF RENTON -,-i`r FACE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS,AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: March 8,2001 TO: Fred Kaufman Renton Hearing Examiner FROM: Sue Carlson,Administrator EDNSP Department STAFF CONTACT: Don Erickson (X6581) SUBJECT: Metropolitan King County South Wastewater Treatment Plant P-1 Rezone We respectfully request that you reconsider your recent reclassification of the Metro Wastewater Treatment Plant from Public Use (P-1) to Industrial Medium (IM), with a P-suffix. We are requesting the Industrial Heavy(IH)Zone,with a P-suffix. At a recent meeting between Renton and King County officials it was revealed that King County is interested in developing a co-generation facility at their South (Renton) Wastewater Treatment Plant that would reduce their reliance on "spot" market electricity which is currently driving up their operations costs. It was the consensus of those attending this meeting, including the Mayor,that the Industrial Heavy(IH)zoning classification would better accommodate this new use as well as reflect the scale of the operations now occurring at the plant. It was understood by all parties in attendance that the approval process was identical in both the IM • - and IH zones with "sewage disposal and treatment plants" being a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use in both zones. In closing, the Industrial Heavy (IH) designation would be consistent with our recent recommendation to you for reclassification "with either the Industrial Medium or the Industrial Heavy Zone,with a P-suffix designation". Thank you. • cc: Don Erickson \\TS_SERVER\SYS2:\COMMON\-C:\WINNT\Profiles\derickson\Personal\Metro Reconsideration Memo.doc\d CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MAR MEMORANDUM 3:)40 OFFiCcz DATE: 03/08/01 TO: Fred Kaufman FROM: Jennifer Toth Henning SUBJECT: Request for Reconsideration-King County(Metro)Wastewater Treatment Plant Rezone(File LUA-00-169,R, ECF) Development Services Division respectfully requests reconsideration of the Examiner's recommendation for proposed rezone of the King County Wastewater Treatment Plant. Economic Development/Neighborhoods/Strategic Planning staff recommended that the P-1 (Public)zoning designation be removed and that the property be rezoned to either IM (Industrial- Medium) or HI (Industrial-Heavy)with a.P-suffix. You have recommended that the Council approve a rezone of the subject property from P-1 (Public)to IM-P (Medium Industrial,P-suffix). Development Services believes that the III Zone with a P-suffix would better reflect the present and future use and operation of the Metro Wastewater facility. According to RMC Section 4-2- 020:R,the purpose of the Industrial-Heavy Zone is to provide areas for high intensity industrial activities involving processing of raw materials,bulk handling and storage. Uses in the IH Zone. may require large outdoor areas in which to conduct their operations and produce environmental impacts beyond their own sites that require their isolation from more sensitive land uses. The IM Zone is intended for medium-intensity industrial activities that may create some external emissions of noise, odor, glare,vibration, etc.that are largely contained on site. The Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant conducts the majority of its operations out-of-doors. And current impacts from the facility, especially noise and odor,have the potential to affect area's beyond the site boundaries. For these reasons,the IH-P designation is more appropriate than the IM-P majority of the 90.7 acre site should be zoned IH-P. cc: Neil Watts \\CENTRAL\SYS2\DEPTS\PBPW\DIVISION.S\DEVELOP.SER\DEV&PLAN.INGVTHUnetro rezone reconsideration.doc\cor • CITY OF RENTON,WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON FROM THE P-1 (PUBLIC USE) ZONE TO THE IH (INDUSTRIAL HEAVY) ZONE WITH A P-SUFFIX DESIGNATION. (WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT REZONE, FILE NO. LUA-00-169,R,ECF) WHEREAS, under Section 4.2.020 of Chapter 2, Land Use Districts, of Title IV. (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," as amended, and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction therewith, the property hereinbelow described has heretofore been zoned as P-1 (Public Use); and WHEREAS, the City of Renton initiated a proceeding for change of zone classification of said property on or about December 20, 2000. This matter was duly referred to the Hearing Examiner for investigation, study, and public hearing, and a public hearing having been held . thereon on or about January 30, 2001, and said matter having been duly considered by the: Hearing Examiner, and said zoning request having been recommended for approval without conditions by the Hearing Examiner or by the Environmental Review Committee; and WHEREAS, said zoning request being in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended by Ordinance No. 4855, and the City Council having duly considered all matters relevant thereto,- and all parties having been heard appearing in support thereof or in opposition thereto; 1 - ORDINANCE NO. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The following described property in the City of Renton is hereby rezoned to IH (Industrial Heavy) with a P-suffix designation, as hereinbelow specified. The Neighborhood and Strategic Planning Director is hereby authorized and directed to change the maps of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended,to evidence said rezoning,to wit: • See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. (One parcel consisting of 90.7 acres, address 1200 Monster Road SW, at the intersection of Oaksdale Ave SW and Grady Way.) SECTION II. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and five days after publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of _ , 2001. Marilyn J. Petersen, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2001. Jesse Tanner, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD.91 9:5/1/0 1:ma 2 EXHIBIT A Legal Description Rezone Metro Wastewater Treatment Plant Site • That portion of Section 24, Township 23.North, Range 4 East, W.M., City of Renton, King County, Washington, lying southerly, southwesterly and westerly of 80 feet-wide Oakesdale Avenue SW as constructed, easterly and northeasterly of Monster Road SW and the realignment of a portion of Monster Road SW as recorded under King County Rec.No. 9709090061, and northerly and northwesterly of the following described line: Beginning at the intersection of the westerly right-of-way margin of Oakesdale Avenue SW and the south line of property deeded to the City of Renton under King County Recording No. 8212090480; Thence southwesterly along the south line of said property.to the southwest corner thereof, said southwest corner also being the southeast corner of a tract of land established by King County Superior Court Cause No. 84-2-07769-7. said Superior Court tract recorded under King County Recording No. 8406149003 and amended under King County Recording No. 8504110606; Thence southwesterly along the south line of said Superior Court tract,to the southwest corner thereof, said south line also being the southerly right-of-way margin of a former Burlington Railroad Company (former Northern Pacific Railroad)railroad line; Thence continuing southwesterly along said southerly right-of-way margin,to an intersection with the northeasterly right-of-way line of realigned Monster Road SW, as recorded under King County Recording No. 9709090061 and the termination of the herein described line; EXCEPT thatportion of said above described property conveyed to the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle by First City Equities per Deed recorded under King County " Recording No. 8707080246. ,, �, CITY IF RENTON City Clerk Jesse Tanner,Mayor Marilyn J. Petersen May 15, 2001 Verna P. Bromley Office of the Prosecuting Attorney,King County 900 King County Administration Building 500 Fourth Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 Re: Refund of Appeal Fee/King County Wastewater Treatment Plant Rezone File No. LUA-00-169, R,ECF Dear Ms. Bromley: Enclosed please find City of Renton check#0192592 in the amount of$75.00,refunding the appeal fee for the above referenced rezone application. Your appeal and required fee were received by our office 3/8/2001 and withdrawn 4/30/2001, per Marilyn Petersen, City Clerk. If you have any questions on this matter, please do not hesitate to call our office. Sincerely, 449-1f.ou.iNi.watta,•_) Bonnie I. Walton Records Management Specialist bw Enclosure cc: Jennifer Henning,Development Services Division Don Erickson, EDNSP Department unto 1901 200 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425) 430-6510 / FAX (425) 430-6516 r, , ' OF RENTON ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK NO. 0192592 JOICE NUMBER DATE P.O. ER DESCRIPTION DISCOUNT AMOUNT Ind 04/30 /01 Refund appeal fee 0 . 00 75 . 00 DETACH BEFORE DEPOSITING ,. 1 0 :CITY OF RENTON U.S BANK OF WASHINGTON 19-10/21 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE RENTON BRANCH 1250 ♦ 1055 S. GRADY WAY VENDOR CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT RENTON, WA 98055 NUMBER NUMBER - Phone: (425) 430-6918 Fax: (425) 430-6855 �'N`r � 041610 05/04/01 0192592 75 . 00 PAY Seventy Five Dollars and No Cents VOID AFTER 6 MONTHS TO THE KING COUNTY , OFFICE PROSECUTING ATTRNY 821 2ND AVENUE ;46444- /.1 c, MAYOR ORDER SEATTLE , 'WA 98104 D,,,,v,--wAytito TREASURER 00000 L 9 2 5 9 211' 1: L 2 5000 L0 51: L 535006983 La City of Renton Finance Departm- Request for Clai or Treasurer's Check Date of Request 4/30/2001 Date Required asap Requesting Department Exec/City Clerk Authorized Signature REASON FOR CHECK Deposit Refund X Name King County, Office of the Amount $75.00 Prosecuting Attorney Finance Receipt No 03—)003668 Receipt Date 3/30/2001 Other Describe Circumstances Requiring Issuance of Check: Due to withdrawal of appeal, refund of appeal fee received by City Clerk Div. 3/8/2001 for Metro Wastewater Treatment Plant rezone application and decision. File No. LUA-00—i69, EC:, B.. CHECK PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS • /` j Amount $ 75.00 Charge to Account(s) 000.000.000.3450.81.00.0000O3 Payable To King County, Office of Prosecuting Attc.rney Address 821 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 0 Mail Check to Payee f, Return to Dept: Soc Sec or IRS ID No CHECK AUTHORIZATION - Finance Department Use Only CITY OF RENTON Approved l� `) _ � ra Date �, r i ,2_.// . MAY 0 9 2001 0 Claims 0 Treasurer's Check No: CITY C ER RECEIVED OFFICE FIN 101 7/87 City of Renton Finance Departm Request for Clai or Treasurer's Check Date of Request 4/30/2001 Date Required asap � l Requesting Department Exec/City Clerk Authorized Signature / 4 REASON FOR CHECK Deposit Refund g Name King County, Office of the Amount $75.00 Prosecuting Attorney Finance Receipt No 03—D003668 Receipt Date 3/30/2001 Other Describe Circumstances Requiring Issuance of Check: Due to withdrawal of appeal, refund of appeal fee received by City Clerk Div. 3/8/2001 for Metro Wastewater Treatment Plant rezone application and decision. File No. LUA-00-169, ECF, R. CHECK PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS Amount $ 75.00 Charge to Account(s) 000.000.000.3450.81.00.000003 Payable To King County, Office of Prosecuting Attorney Address 821 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 0 Mail Check to Payee Vt Return to Dept: Soc Sec or IRS ID No 0 Other: CHECK AUTHORIZATION - Finance Department Use Only Approved tel.. Date • 0 Claims 0 Treasurer's Check No: FIN 101 7/87 • • • NOTES RECEIPT DATE -2a V O ' ,+ NO. 5203 RECEIVED FROM �, ADDRESS • )Ll �il t-p2 _s�n-r t A L ��'r� F / r Cr � . G?�! $Y ti UO 1 FOR l t,�,� fr-N(3_4') - C/ ACCOUNT HOW PAID �J 1 AMT.OF CASH f' '//''CC -1 �lyy. /'n/ ACCOUNT 1/`-�as fe c/"!i-1 c` I reA U kr •.� ANT. CHECK //'' PAID 7 V() BALANCE HONEY i I DUE ORDER By ����•{ ��v. -+J7i�f {,/4� ♦� 1) 01999 REDIFORM®9L902 HEARING EXAMINER VRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXt►.1vi NER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDA 1 i.)N TO RENTON CIT COUNT ILE NO. LUA00-169, R, ECT / taid v2t.1.4anflAtiiU '&874 .PPLICATION NAME: WRITTEN APPEAL OF FEARING EXAMINER"S RECOIS1ENDATION TO :20140 CITY COUNC 'he undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendati►n of the Land t. Tearing Examiner, dated February 22, 2001 . ` . IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: KING COUNTY REPRESENTATIVE (IF • NY): Name: c/o Don Theiler, Manager WTD Name: Verna P. Broml'y Address: 201 South Jackson Street Address: King County ''ros. Attys Office Seattle, WA 98104 500 4th Avenue, S::ttle, WA 98104 Telephone No. (206) 684-1551 Telephone No. (20 ) 296-0430 • SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal 's based: FINDING OF FACT: (Please designate number as denoted in the Exa• er's report) No. Error: Ste; ATTACETF.D SPFFTS Correction: SZE ATTACHED SIZM'S o\ CONCLUSIONS: ?fu No. Error: SF:F: TAR n SrS Correction: SEE Z ACHED i_4ti _ OTHER: No. Error: SEE ATTACHED .HEFTS • Correction: SH' ' ATTACHED SHEETS 3. SUMMARY OF ACTI• REQUESTED: The City Council is requested to grant the following relief; (Attach explanation, i desired) PRASE SEE ATTACHED SI EhTS Y Reverse , e decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: See Attached Sheet, Quest: Modify e decision or recommendation as follows: Rem. .d to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Othe r Il � /� ,'�I f. � 'h'1'ix�'`� March 8, 2001 Appellant/R. •resentative Sig ture Date NOTE: Please refer to Title IV, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8-110F. for specific procedres. _appcal.duc l►7 CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON FROM THE P-1 (PUBLIC USE) ZONE TO THE IH (INDUSTRIAL HEAVY) ZONE WITH A P-SUFFIX DESIGNATION. (WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT REZONE, FILE NO. LUA-00-169,R,ECF) WHEREAS, under Section 4.2.020 of Chapter 2, Land Use Districts, of Title IV. (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," as amended, and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction therewith, the property hereinbelow described has heretofore been zoned as P-1 (Public Use); and WHEREAS, the City of Renton initiated a proceeding for change of zone classification of said property on or about December 20, 2000. This matter was duly referred to the Hearing Examiner for investigation, study, and public hearing, and a public hearing having been held . thereon on or about January 30, 2001, and said matter having been duly considered by the Hearing Examiner, and said zoning request having been recommended for approval without conditions by the Hearing Examiner or by the Environmental Review Committee; and WHEREAS, said zoning request being in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended by Ordinance No. 4855, and the City Council having duly considered all matters relevant thereto,- and all parties having been heard appearing in support thereof or in opposition thereto; • ORDINANCE NO. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The following described property in the City of Renton is hereby rezoned to IH (Industrial Heavy) with a P-suffix designation, as hereinbelow specified. The Neighborhood and Strategic Planning Director is hereby authorized and directed to change the maps of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to evidence said rezoning,to wit: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. (One parcel consisting of 90.7 acres, address 1200 Monster Road SW, at the intersection of Oaksdale Ave SW and Grady Way.) SECTION II. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and . five days after publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2001. Marilyn J. Petersen, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2001. Jesse Tanner, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD.919:5/1/01:ma 2 40: EXHIBIT A Legal Description Rezone Metro Wastewater Treatment Plant Site That portion of Section 24, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., City of Renton, King County, Washington, lying southerly, southwesterly and westerly of 80 feet-wide Oakesdale Avenue SW as constructed, easterly and northeasterly of Monster Road SW and the realignment of a portion of Monster Road SW as recorded under King County Rec.No. 9709090061, and northerly and northwesterly of the following described line: Beginning at the intersection of the westerly right-of-way margin of Oakesdale Avenue SW and the south line of property deeded to the City of Renton under King County Recording No. 8212090480; Thence southwesterly along the south line of said property. to the southwest corner thereof, said southwest corner also being the southeast corner of a tract of land established by King County Superior Court Cause No. 84-2-07769-7. said Superior Court tract recorded under King County Recording No. 8406149003 and amended under King County Recording No. 8504110606; Thence southwesterly along the south line of said Superior Court tract, to the southwest corner thereof, said south line also being the southerly right-of-way margin of a former Burlington Railroad Company (former Northern Pacific Railroad)railroad line; Thence continuing southwesterly along said southerly right-of-way margin,to an intersection with the northeasterly right-of-way line of realigned Monster Road SW, as recorded under King County Recording No. 9709090061 and the . _- __ termination of the herein described line; EXCEPT that portion of said above described property conveyed to the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle by First City Equities per Deed recorded under King County - Recording No. 8707080246. td CITY OF RENTON t `- HEARING EXAMINER Pki? /1,,o MEMORANDUM �iq ii96/v Qp, • c• Date: April 30, 2001 To: Larry Warren, City Attorney From: Joan Thompson, Hearing Examiner's Secretary Re: Wastewater Treatment Plant Rezone LUA00-169,R,ECF Would you please prepare the appropriate documents for the attached rezone. The City Clerk has scheduled the a first read-through of the ordinance for the Council meeting on Monday, May 7. Thanks 06 , 7"or 'fliotte \, c�� `D CIT' DF RENTON ..LL Office of the City Attorney Jesse Tanner,Mayor Lawrence J.Warren RECEIVED MEMORANDUM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, AND ST• IGHBORC PO NN MAY 2 2001 PLATING . To: • Don Erickson,PBPW From: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date: 5/2/01 Subject: Ordinance rezoning wastewater treatment 'plant' from P-1 to,III with P- suffix I have enclosed a copy of the above-mentioned ordinance: The original has been sent to the City Clerk. SENT WITI TOUT SIGNATURE TO AVO I D ,DELAY Lawrence J. Warren' LJW:ma. Enc. cc: Jay Covington : . Marilyn Petersen • • • • into 1901 _2001 Post Office Box 626:-. 100 S 2nd Street--•Renton, Washington 98057 - (425) 255-8678 Clenten This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON FROM THE P-1 (PUBLIC USE) ZONE TO THE IH (INDUSTRIAL HEAVY) ZONE WITH A P-SUFFIX DESIGNATION. (WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT REZONE, FILE NO. LUA-00-169,R, ECF) WHEREAS, under Section 4.2.020 of Chapter 2, Land Use Districts, of Title N. (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinancesof the City of Renton, Washington," as amended, and the.maps and reports adopted in conjunction therewith, the property hereinbelow described has heretofore been zoned as P-1 (Public Use); and WHEREAS, the City of Renton initiated a proceeding for change of zone classification of said property on or about December 20, 2000. This matter was duly referred to the Hearing Examiner for investigation, study, and public hearing, and .a public hearing having been held • thereon on or about January 30, 2001, and said matter having been duly considered by the Hearing Examiner, and said zoning request having been recommended for approval without conditions by the Hearing Examiner or by the Environmental Review Committee; and WHEREAS, said zoning request being in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended by Ordinance No. 4855, and the City Council having duly considered all matters relevant thereto, and all parties having been heard appearing in support thereof or. in. : opposition thereto; 1 ORDINANCE NO. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The following described property in the City of Renton is hereby rezoned to IH (Industrial Heavy) with a P-suffix designation, as hereinbelow specified. The Neighborhood and Strategic Planning Director is hereby authorized and directed to change the maps of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended,to evidence said rezoning,to wit: See Exhibit "A"attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. (One parcel consisting of 90.7 acres, address 1200 Monster Road SW, at the intersection of Oaksdale Ave SW and Grady Way.) SECTION II. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and five days after publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2001. Marilyn J. Petersen, City Clerk _ APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2001. Jesse Tanner, Mayor Approved as to form: • Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD.919:5/1/01:ma 2 . `\1 1 EXHIBIT A Legal Description Rezone Metro Wastewater Treatment Plant Site That portion of Section 24, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., City of Renton, King County, Washington, lying southerly, southwesterly and westerly of 80 feet-wide Oakesdale Avenue SW as constructed, easterly and northeasterly of Monster Road SW and the realignment of a portion of Monster Road SW as recorded under King County Rec. No. 9709090061, and northerly and northwesterly of the following described line: Beginning at the intersection of the westerly right-of-way margin of Oakesdale Avenue SW and the south line of property deeded to the City of Renton under King County Recording No. 8212090480; Thence southwesterly along the south line of said property. to the southwest corner thereof, said southwest corner also being the southeast corner of a tract of land established by King County Superior Court Cause No. 84-2-07769-7, said Superior Court tract recorded under King County Recording No. 8406149003 and amended under King County Recording No. 8504110606; Thence southwesterly along the south line of said Superior Court tract, to the southwest corner thereof, said south line also being the southerly right-of-way margin of a former Burlington Railroad Company (former Northern Pacific Railroad) railroad line; Thence continuing southwesterly along said southerly right-of-way margin,to an intersection with the northeasterly right-of-way line of realigned Monster Road SW, as recorded under King County Recording No. 9709090061 and the termination of the herein described line; EXCEPT that portion of said above described property conveyed to the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle by First City Equities per Deed recorded under King County Recording No. 8707080246. Ai A urs.ar HEARING EXAMINER WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING 'MINER'S DECISION/RECOMMEP' TION TO RENTON CIT COUNCII. ?ILE NO. LUA00-169, R, ECF ') (,{ a�(.a1'Iti4tie �C �f7t�C• LPPLICATION NAME: WRITTEN APPEAL OF BEARING EXAMINER"S RF,COITIENDATION TO' :� i�,�._`CITY COUNCTT,- Che undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendath of the Land Use fearing Examiner, dated February 22, 2001 . E �s��� U 0 LJ 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: KING COUNTY REPRESENTATIVE (I • ;,IcY)t._;:L;c; Name: c/o Don Theiler, Manager WTD Name: Verna P. Broml-y Address: 201 South Jackson Street Address: King County 'Pros. Attys Office Seattle WA 98104 500 4th Avenue, S=.ttle, WA 98104 Telephone No. (206) 684-1551 Telephone No.. (2►..) 296-0430 • 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets. if necessary Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal -s based: FINDING OF FACT: (Please designate number as denoted in the Exa n i er's report) No. Error: SFFLA,'TTPACHFD SHF:FTT'S Correction: _c,T F ATTAC ED SHEETS 01 CONCLUSIONS: rd'- No. Error: SF'F: ATTAC`FTF'.T) Sf�FTS Correction: OTHER: SEE ATTACHED S t.t�+ - No. Error: SEE ATTACHED .FIEF TS ' Correction: S ' . ATTACHED SHEETS 3. SUMMARY OF ACTI a REQUESTED: The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation, i desired) PLEASE SKr; ATTACHFI SHEETS x Reverse , e decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: See Attached Sheet, Question Modify e decision or recommendation as follows: Re is-Ad to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Oth,r I/J j' / a /5-Yol March 8, 2001 Appellant/R, •resentative Si tune Date NOTE: Please refer to Title IV, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code,and Section 4-8-I10F, for specific proccd es. uappeal.duc APPEAL HEARING EXAMINER WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL APPELLANT: King County 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS FINDING OF FACT: • No. 9 Error: Finding 9 states that the City had originally proposed classifying the subject site to IM. This is an error of fact. Correction: Finding 9 should be corrected to state that as early as 1996, City staff proposed to re-zone the King County Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant site ("the South Plant") to Heavy Industrial (IH) zoning. It was not until January 30, 2001 that City staff reported for the first time that the City proposed an IM designation for the South Plant. The City's position was later modified in the February 13, 2001 staff report in which the City agreed that "because of the size of the subject site and the unique heavy industrial characteristics of the treatment plant, staff now believe IH may be more representative of the plant's characteristic than IM zoning" (February 13, 2001 Preliminary Report,page 5, section F(5)(d)(1)). No. 10 Error: Finding 10 states that King County claimed that"it would make sure that(the South Plant) could be expanded in response to need and that local government, under GMA, cannot block an essential public facility."This is ari error of fact and is prejudicial to the County. The language in Finding 10 implies that King County is indifferent to any local land use processes which may be required in the future. This is untrue. Correction: Finding 10 should be corrected to state that King County contends that the South Plant is an essential public facility under GMA. In November 1999 the King County Council by Ordinance 13680 adopted the Regional Wastewater 1 WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL Services Plan("RWSP"). The RWSP identifies the continued need for the South Plant and its role in meeting the growing wastewater needs in the region in the years ahead. In its Preliminary Report dated February 13, 2001, the City acknowledges the regional nature of the South Plant, stating that"the treatment plant is a regionally recognized public facility that is not likely to change in terms of use or location in the foreseeable future." (Preliminary Report, page 4, Section F(5)) . No. 13 Error: Finding 13 states that because the processes at the South Plant do not include heavy fabrication or machining, the Plant's processes are not as intensive as heavy industrial. This is an error of law and fact and an error in judgment. Correction: Finding 13 should be modified to state that the processes at the South plant are heavy industrial and that the uncontested evidence is that the South Plant has 12 primary sedimentation tanks, for primary treatment, 24 secondary clarifiers and 3 aeration basins with large aeration blowers for secondary treatment, a chlorine building, 12 miles of 96"diameter concrete cylinder pipe to the Puget Sound, including a chlorine contact channel at the South Plant, with four duty pumps and 4 peaking pumps for effluent discharge, capable of discharging up to 325 mgd of effluent to the Puget Sound,that there are six dissolved air flotation thickeners, four digesters and one blending storage tank for solids treatment, that there is a dewatering process utilizing eight belt filter presses, that there is digester gas re-use, i.e. the gas is scrubbed through two gas scrubbing towers and is sold at cost to Puget Sound Energy. The South Plant has numerous pumps, blowers, transformers, switchgear, and variable frequency drives. Fifty-six percent of the 90.7 acre property at the South Plant is taken up by facilities and related equipment,that the South Plant is operated 24 hours a day, with two shift crews at 12 hours each. That there are additional lab and process control staff during the day and 40 maintenance staff. The South Plant generates 1.3 mgd of recycled or re-use effluent, referred to as Class A effluent. This effluent is used on site for irrigation and is sold to cities, such as Tukwila for other permitted uses. 2 WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL No. 13 Error: Finding 13 is inconsistent'with Finding 17 of the Hearing Examiner's Report and Recommendation. The Hearing Examiner's Report and Recommendation erroneously states that there is no heavy fabrication or machining occurring at the South Plant and thus the"processes are generally not as intensive as heavy industrial."This is an error of fact and of law and an error in judgment. The City's Code does not require heavy fabrication or machining for an IH zone. Furthermore, the Hearing Examiner's decision does not acknowledge the unique heavy industrial characteristics of the South Plant that make the IH zoning classification more representative of the Plant's characteristic than the IM zoning, including but not limited to the processing of raw materials, the production of recycled or re-use water and biosolids or the large outdoor areas required by the South Plant's processes. As set forth at Finding 17, the Renton Zoning Code contains, in relevant part, the following purpose statement for the Industrial-Heavy Zone (IH): "The purpose of the Heavy Industrial Zone (IH) is to provide areas for high intensity industrial activities involving heavy fabrication,processing of raw materials, bulk handling and storage, construction and heavy transportation in areas designated as Employment Area- Industrial.... Uses in this District may require large outdoor areas in which to conduct their operations ..." (Emphasis added). Correction: Finding 13 should be further corrected to state that the unique heavy industrial characteristics of the South Plant, including but not limited to the processing and treatment of raw materials, the production of recycled or re-use water, the production of biosolids and the requirement for large outdoor areas, demonstrates that the IH zoning classification is more representative of the Plant's characteristic than the IM zoning. These processes and characteristics of the South Plant support a finding and conclusion that IH is the proper zone designation for the South Plant property. 3 WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL No. 13 Error: The City, as proponent of the re-zone, has not met its burden of proof for the finding that the processes and handling of raw materials at the South Plant are not"as intensive as heavy industrial." In fact the City's position on this matter as set forth in the February 13, 2001 staff report is that"because of the size of the subject site and the unique heavy industrial characteristics of the treatment plant, staff now believe IH may be more representative of the plant's characteristic than IM zoning" (February 13, 2001 Preliminary Report, page 5, section F(5)(d)(1)). Correction: As set forth above, Finding 13 should be corrected to state that the unique heavy industrial characteristics of the South Plant, including but not limited to the processing and treatment of raw materials, the production of recycled or re-use water, the production of biosolids and the requirement for large outdoor areas, demonstrates that the IH zoning classification is more representative of the Plant's characteristic than the IM zoning. These processes and characteristics of the South Plant support a finding and conclusion that IH is the proper zone designation for the South Plant property. CONCLUSIONS: No. 1 Error: Conclusion 1, that the criteria for change of zone classification have been met and that the IM classification appears appropriate is an error of law and fact and an error in judgment. The criteria for change of zone classification, as set forth in the Renton Municipal Code at section 4-9-170 F(2)have not been met. The City, as the proponent of the re-zone has not established all of the following: (a) that the rezone is in the public interest, (b) that the rezone tends to further the preservation and enjoyment of any substantial rights of the County(c) that the rezone is not detrimental to the public welfare or the properties of other persons located in the vicinity thereof and (d) that the rezone meets the review criteria in subsection F lb and F l c of Section 4-9-170 F. Correction: Conclusion 1 should be modified to state that the rezone of 4 WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL the South Plant property to an IM classification does not meet the criteria for change of zone classification, as set forth in the Renton Municipal Code at section 4-9-170 F(2). The rezone is not in the public interest as it does not accurately reflect the unique heavy industrial characteristics of the South Plant or the current uses at the plant. The rezone does not tend to further the preservation and enjoyment of any substantial rights of the County as it does not accurately reflect the South Plant's characteristics or uses. The rezone is materially detrimental to the public welfare in that certain abutting uses may in the future be deemed incompatible with the facilities and uses existing and anticipated at the South Plant. The rezone does not • meet the criteria set forth in Renton Code section 4-9-170 Flb and lc, as the potential rezone does not meet the policies set forth in the Renton Comprehensive Plan. For all of these reasons, the IM classification is not appropriate. No. 4 Error: Conclusion 4, states that the adoption of new land use provisions to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code provided the impetus to review the P-1 zone and therefore the current proposal is appropriate is an error of fact and law to the extent that the only rationale in the record of this case for the rezone of the South Plant is that"This zone (P- 1 zone) is being phased out pursuant to Council's 1994 direction to do so." There is no support in the record for Conclusion 4. Correction: Conclusion 4 should be modified to state that the P-1 zone is being phased out pursuant to the City Council's 1994 policy directive. No. 5 Error: Conclusion 5 states that"(g)iven the surroundings and the Comprehensive Plan designations for the subject site and neighboring sites, IH zoning does not appear appropriate." This is an error of fact and law and an error in judgment. The only information in the record on this issue is the City's position as set forth in the February 13, 2001 staff report that"the recommended IH zoning would be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan." (February 13, 2001 Preliminary Report, page 4, section F(5)(d)). The South Plant site is in the Valley Planning Area and IH is a 5 • WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL permitted zoning designation. The IH zone would still require the site to obtain Hearing Examiner Conditional Use approval and site plan review for substantial change in use or change of ownership. Furthermore, the IH zone more accurately reflects the South Plant's current uses and characteristics as set forth above. Correction: Conclusion 5 should be modified to be consistent with the City's staff report, as follows: (1) IH zoning is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan." (February 13, 2001 Preliminary Report,page 4, section F(5)(d)), (2) the South Plant property is in the Valley Planning Area and IH is a permitted zoning designation and (3) the IH zone more accurately reflects the South Plant's current uses and characteristics as described above. No. 5 Error: Conclusion 5 states that"IH would appear to sanction offsite spillover of industrial impacts to surrounding areas." This is an error of fact and law and an error in judgment. This Conclusion is also misleading and prejudicial, as it implies that King County would ignore or violate existing local, state and federal laws and regulations with regard to its operations, if the South Plant were zoned IH. This is not true. The IH zoning does not permit offsite spillover of industrial impacts to surrounding areas as stated in conclusion 5. The South Plant has properly mitigated its impacts so as not to create offsite impacts to the surrounding areas. Additionally, any substantial change in use under an IH zoning classification would require a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use approval which would require mitigation measures to insure that any potential impacts from the South Plant's activities do not impact surrounding areas. Furthermore, local, state and federal laws and regulations regarding noise, air quality, water quality and surface water effects, do not allow the South Plant to create offsite impacts to the surrounding areas. The South Plant is now, has been, and is committed to be in the future, in compliance with all laws and regulations with respect to its operations and activities. Correction: Conclusion 5 should be deleted as written and modified to to state that the unique heavy industrial characteristics of 6 WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL the South Plant, including but not limited to the processing and treatment of raw materials, the production of recycled or re-use water, the production of biosolids and the requirement for large outdoor areas, demonstrates that the IH zoning classification is more representative of the Plant's characteristic than the IM zoning. These processes and characteristics of the South Plant support a finding and conclusion that IH is the proper zone designation for the South Plant property. No. 6 Error: Conclusion 6 states that the applicant's use of the subject site is not by itself enough to control future zoning and that in addition the overall public welfare must be considered when determining appropriate classifications for zoning. This conclusion is an error of fact and an error of law. The criteria for change of zone classification is set forth in the Renton Municipal Code section 4-9-170 F(2). As set forth above under the discussion of conclusion 1, the Code requires that the reviewing official consider a number of specific criteria, one of which is that the rezone not be materially detrimental to the public welfare. As set forth above the rezone to IM is materially detrimental to the public welfare. Moreover, the other criteria for change of zone classification to IM have not been met. Correction: Conclusion 6 should be reversed. The City Council should approve a reclassification of the South Plant property from P-1 to IH with a P-suffix. No. 9 Error: Conclusion 9, states that it would be appropriate for the City Council to rezone the parcel to IM. This is an error of fact and law and an error in judgment for all of the reasons set forth above. Correction: Conclusion 9 should be reversed. The City Council should approve a reclassification of the South Plant property from P-1 to IH with a P-suffix. 7 WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL OTHER: Rec. Error: The Recommendation that the City Council should approve the reclassification of the subject site from P-1 to IM with a P-suffix is an error of fact and law and an error in judgment for all of the reasons set forth above. Correction: The Recommendation should be reversed. The City Council should approve a reclassification of the South Plant property from P-1 to IH with a P-suffix. 8 WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED: King County has concurrently filed a request for reconsideration with the Hearing Examiner, requesting that the Hearing Examiner modify his recommendation to the City Council, and in the alternative, requesting that the Hearing Examiner accept additional information not available at the time of the hearing of this matter. In order to preserve its appeal rights, King County is filing this appeal to the City Council concurrently with the request for reconsideration. King County requests that the appeal to the City Council be stayed pending resolution of its request for reconsideration. If the Request for Reconsideration by the Hearing Examiner is not granted, then King County respectfully requests that the City Council reverse the Recommendation of the Hearing Examiner and approve a reclassification of the South Plant property from P-1 to IH with a P-suffix for the reasons set forth in this Appeal. 9 • I NOTES RECEIPT DATE 4 i/ `e ir 09 NO. 1 0 / RECEIVED FROM A - (err,. - _ADDRESS () .1� - rc- 0t ,.nA,—iw A d `^ CD I 1 FOR /1 nr�,.,,: .P..-2 :1 + A—) - j f t c) �j , ' ACCOUNT HOW PAID " �� I 1 AMT.OF ACCOUNT CASH (em s fe(/JI,L'- 1 rea-A�eA-- Pt(� -J' PAD CHECK -2:1 0d BALANCE MONEY By ,,,,,4...y-4..r_ ,;_...,cr,�.,,li;;.a.f,. .! 1 I 1988 REdFORM®8L802 f _ Ue DER p` -- { • CIT:`_• OF:RENTON Exain er •. Hearingm e • Jesse Tanner,Mayor. Fred J.Kaufman March 20,2001 . Verna.P. Bromley. . Office'of the Prosecuting Attorney,King County 900'King County Administration Building • - 500 Fourth Avenue Seattle,;:WA 98104 Sue:Carlson;Administrator EDNSP Department. - City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way • . Renton,WA 98055.. Jennifer Henning,Principal Planner, ;':.: - PBPW/Dev. Services City of Renton - 1055 S. Grady Way • Renton,WA 98055 =. -Re: Request for Reconsideration,K.n:g County;Wastewater Treatment Plant Rezone File No:LUA00--169 R;ECF :;.:•.:;`:: Dear Ms.Bromley,Ms.Carlson;and Ms.:Henning:. This office has received three requests to reconsider the recommendation to the City Council on • the rezoning:ofthe Metropolitan King CountySouth Wastewater Treatment Plant.. This office recommended that the City Council`reclassify the subject site fromP-1 to IM with a P-suffix.' The requests were received from Sue lcarlscin,EDNSP:Administrator;Jennifer.Henning, -- .. Principal Planner,PBPW/Dev: Services;'and from the Office of the King.County.Prosecutor, representing the property owner,King County:. The King.County:reaction can be characterized as overblown,overly dramatic and frankly, • intemperate. In the fifty(50)or,so P-1•Zoning decisions over the past 6 or 7 years; sites have :been rezoned to meld with surrounding zoning and did:'not necessarily represent exact matches, • :for;the underlying use. School properties were reclassified to residential: Park properties were reclassified to residential. Reservoir sites were reclassified residential:. Church properties were • reclassified residential: Some other school and park sits were zoned commercial or even light .industrial: The zoning enacted in each of these cases attempted to match the reclassified site to surrounding zoning and not.necessarily-mirror,the uses of the.site ".._. The•treatment plant is,permitted in the.IM zone... The treatment plant is permitted in the IH zone. • The plant requires a;Conditional Use Permit_in the IM zone.• The::plant requires a Conditional Use 1901�20OI ..1055.South Grady Way,-'Renton;:Washington.98055~="(425)430=6515 Request for Reconsideration • File`No:: LUA00-169,R,ECF Page 2 • Permit in the IH zone'. As can be seen, either zoning would not significantly, if at all,restrict the use of the subject site. The zoning surrounding the subject site is IM. Actually, in some cases, providing IH zoning could be considered a spot zone, distinct as it is from adjoining properties and zoning: • The references in the Examiner's decision to the"original staff recommendation"to IM zoning was the staff recommendation made two weeks earlier,prior to the originally scheduled public hearing; and not to some vague discussion made years ago regarding potential zoning. The. original staff report delivered to the Examiner before the continuance was requested suggested that IM zoning was appropriate. As a matter of fact, staff still suggested either IM or IH zoning when the hearing finally did occur. There was no dramatic demarcation according to staff, although they ultimately suggested,but not strongly,that IH would be appropriate. Be that as it may, it would appear that ihe;City now believes IH zoning is more appropriate. Therefore,the recommendation to the City Council will be`modified to suggest they consider rezoning the subject site to IH.,The City_Council ultimately'must;make the decision. Since an appeal of this matter,has already been filed with the-City..Council,there is not need to further delay the time periods and the appeal period will not be extended. If this office can be of further assistance,Please feel free::to write.. Sincerely, Fred J. Kauf :. Hearing Examiner - • FJK:jt cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Larry.Warren, City Attorney Neil Watts,PBPW/Development Services Director Don Erickson,Economic Development Parties of Record • OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON CIVIL DIVISION Natural Resources Norm Maleng 900 King County Administration Building Prosecuting Attorney 500 Fourth Avenue Seattle,Washington 98104 (206)296-8820 FAX(206)296-0415 March 8, 2001 Fred J.Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98056 . Re: Request for Reconsideration File No. LUA00-169,R, ECF Dear Mr. Kaufman: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100G of the Renton Municipal Code, King County respectfully requests reconsideration of the findings, conclusions &recommendation set forth in the Hearing Examiner's Report and Recommendation dated February 22, 2001. King County bases this request on the grounds discussed below. A. The findings and conclusions are not supported by the facts or the law. The following findings and conclusions contain errors of fact and/or law and/or errors in judgment. Finding 9, that the City had originally proposed classifying the subject site to IM is an error of fact. King County presented uncontested testimony at the hearing in this matter that as early as 1996, the City staff proposed to re-zone the King County Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant site ("the South Plant") to Heavy Industrial (IH) zoning. It was not until January 30, 2001 that City staff reported for the first time that the City proposed an IM designation for the South Plant property. The City's position was later modified in the February 13, 2001 staff report in which the City agreed that "because of the size of the subject site and the unique heavy industrial characteristics of the treatment plant, staff now believe IH may be more representative of the plant's characteristic than IM zoning" (February 13, 2001 Preliminary Report, page 5, section F(5)(d)(1)). Finding 10, that King County claimed that "it would make sure that (the South Plant) could be expanded in response to need and that local government, under GMA, cannot block an essential public facility" is an error of fact and is prejudicial to King County. The language in Finding 10 implies that King County is indifferent to any local land use processes which may be required in the future. This is untrue. King County does contend that the South Plant is an essential public facility under GMA, as acknowledged by the City. At the hearing in this matter, King County merely stated that in November 1999 the King County Council by Ordinance 13680 adopted the Prosecuting Attorney King County Fred J.Kaufman March 8,2001 Page 2 Regional Wastewater Services Plan ("RWSP"). The RWSP identifies the continued need for the South Plant and its role in meeting the growing wastewater needs in the region in the years ahead. In its Preliminary Report dated February 13, 2001, the City acknowledged the regional nature of the South Plant, stating that "the treatment plant is a regionally recognized public facility that is not likely to change in terms of use or location in the foreseeable future." (Preliminary Report,page 4, Section F(5)) . Finding 13, that because the processes at the South Plant do not include heavy fabrication, or machining, the Plant's processes are not as intensive as heavy industrial is an error of law and fact and an error in judgment. King County presented uncontested testimony at the hearing in this matter concerning the treatment and other processes present at the South Plant property. King County presented testimony that that there are 12 primary sedimentation tanks, for primary treatment, 24 secondary clarifiers and 3•aeration basins with large aeration blowers for secondary treatment, a chlorine building, 12 miles of 96" diameter concrete cylinder pipe to the Puget Sound, including a chlorine contact channel at the South Plant, with four duty pumps and 4 peaking pumps for effluent discharge, capable of discharging up to 325 mgd of effluent to the Puget Sound, that there are six dissolved air flotation thickeners, four digesters and one blending storage tank for solids treatment, that there is a dewatering process utilizing eight belt filter presses, that there is digester gas re-use, i.e. the gas is scrubbed through two gas scrubbing towers and is sold at cost to Puget Sound Energy. In addition, King County presented uncontested testimony at the hearing in this matter, that there are numerous pumps, blowers, transformers, switchgear, and variable frequency drives located at the South Plant. Uncontested testimony presented by King County established that fifty-six percent of the property at the South Plant is taken up by facilities and related equipment, that the South Plant is operated 24 hours a day, with two shift crews at 12 hours each. That there are additional lab and process control staff during the day and 40 maintenance staff. The South Plant generates 1.3 mgd of recycled or re-use effluent, referred to as Class A effluent. This effluent is used on site for irrigation and is sold to cities, such as Tukwila for other permitted uses. Finding 13 is also inconsistent with Finding 17 of the Hearing Examiner's Report and Recommendation. As set forth at Finding 17, the Renton Zoning Code contains, in relevant part, the following purpose statement for the Industrial-Heavy Zone (IH): "The purpose of the Heavy Industrial Zone (IH) is to provide areas for high intensity industrial activities involving heavy fabrication, processing of raw materials, bulk handling and storage, construction and heavy transportation in areas designated as Employment Area-Industrial.... Uses in this District may require large outdoor areas in which to conduct their operations ..." (Emphasis added). The Hearing Examiner's Report and Recommendation erroneously states that there is no heavy fabrication or machining occurring at the South Plant and thus the"processes are generally not as intensive as heavy industrial."This is an error of fact and of law and an error in judgment. The Prosecuting Attorney King County Fred J.Kaufman March 8,2001 Page 3 City's Code does not require heavy fabrication or machining for an IH zone. Furthermore, the Hearing Examiner's decision does not acknowledge the unique heavy industrial characteristics of the South Plant, including but not limited to the processing and treatment of raw materials, the production of recycled or re-use water and biosolids and the requirement for large outdoor areas for the South Plant's processes, that make the IH zoning classification more representative of the Plant's characteristic than the IM zoning. These processes and characteristics of the South Plant support the contrary finding and conclusion that IH is the proper zone designation. By contrast, the City's purpose statement for the IM zone states that it is to provide areas for activities involving "manufacturing, processing, assembly and warehousing" and which "may require "some outdoor storage...." The South Plant is not a warehouse. There is no mention in the IM zone designation for the need for large outdoor areas in which to conduct operations, which now occurs at the South Plant. The City, as proponent of the re-zone, carries the burden of proof in this matter. The City presented no testimony that the processes and handling of raw materials at the South Plant are not"as intensive as heavy industrial." In fact the City's position on this matter as set forth in the February 13,2001 staff report is that"because of the size of the subject site and the unique heavy industrial characteristics of the treatment plant, staff now believe IH may be more representative of the plant's characteristic than IM zoning" (February 13, 2001 Preliminary Report, page 5, section F(5)(d)(1)). Conclusion 1, that the criteria for change of zone classification have been met and that the IM classification appears appropriate is an error of law and fact and an error in judgment. The criteria for change of zone classification, as set forth in the Renton Municipal Code at section 4-9-170 F(2) have not been met. The City, as the proponent of the re-zone must establish all of the following: (a) that the rezone is in the public interest, (b) that the rezone tends to further the preservation and enjoyment of any substantial rights of the County (c) that the rezone is not detrimental to the public welfare or the properties of other persons located in the vicinity thereof and(d) that the rezone meets the review criteria in subsection Flb and Flc of Section 4-9-170 F. The rezone to an IM classification does not meet these criteria. The rezone is not in the public interest as it does not accurately reflect the unique heavy industrial characteristics of the South Plant or the current uses at the plant. The rezone does not tend to further the preservation and enjoyment of any substantial rights of the County as it does not accurately reflect the South Plant's characteristics or uses. The rezone is materially detrimental to the public welfare in that certain abutting uses may in the future be deemed incompatible with the facilities and uses existing and anticipated at the South Plant. The rezone does not meet the criteria set forth in Renton Code section 4-9-170 Flb and lc, as the potential rezone does not meet the policies set forth in the Renton Comprehensive Plan. For all of these reasons, the IM classification is not appropriate. Prosecuting Attorney King County Fred J.Kaufman March 8,2001 Page 4 Conclusion 4, that the adoption of new land use provisions to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code provided the impetus to review the P-1 zone and therefore the current proposal is appropriate is an error of fact and law to the extent that the only rationale in the record of this case for the rezone of the South Plant is that "This zone (P-1 zone) is being phased out pursuant to Council's 1994 direction to do so." There is no support in the record for Conclusion 4. Conclusion 5 that "(g)iven the surroundings and the Comprehensive Plan designations for the subject site and neighboring sites, IH zoning does not appear appropriate" is an error of fact and law and an error in judgment. The only information in the record on this issue is the City's position as set forth in the February 13, 2001 staff report that "the recommended IH zoning would be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan." (February 13, 2001 Preliminary Report, page 4, section F(5)(d)). The South Plant property is in the Valley Planning Area and IH is a permitted zoning designation. The IH zone would still require the site to obtain Hearing Examiner Conditional Use approval and site plan review for substantial change in use or change of ownership. Furthermore, the IH zone more accurately reflects the South Plant's current uses and characteristics as set forth above. Conclusion 5 that "IH would appear to sanction offsite spillover of industrial impacts to surrounding areas" is an error of fact and law and an error in judgment. This Conclusion is also misleading and prejudicial, as it implies that King County would ignore or violate existing local, state and federal laws and regulations with regard to its operations, if the South Plant were to be zoned IH. This is not true. The IH zoning does not permit offsite spillover of industrial impacts to surrounding areas as stated in conclusion 5. The South Plant has properly mitigated its impacts so as not to create offsite impacts to the surrounding areas. Additionally, any substantial change in use under an IH zoning classification would require a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use approval which would likely impose appropriate mitigation measures to insure that any potential impacts from the South Plant's activities do not impact surrounding areas. Furthermore, local, state and federal laws and regulations regarding noise, air quality, water quality and surface water effects, do not allow the South Plant to create offsite impacts to the surrounding areas. The South Plant is now, has been, and is committed to be in the future, in compliance with all laws and regulations with respect to its operations and activities. Conclusion 6 that the applicant's use of the subject site is not by itself enough to control future zoning and that in addition the overall public welfare must be considered when determining appropriate classifications for zoning is an error of fact and an error of law. The proponent for this rezone is not King County but the City of Renton. The criteria for change of zone classification is set forth in the Renton Municipal Code section 4-9-170 F(2). As set forth above under the discussion of conclusion 1, the Code requires that the reviewing official consider a number of specific criteria, one of which is that the rezone not be materially detrimental to the public welfare. As set forth above the rezone to IM is materially detrimental to the public welfare. Moreover,the other criteria for change of zone classification to IM have not been met. Prosecuting Attorney King County Fred J.Kaufman March 8,2001 Page 5 Conclusion 9, that it would be appropriate for the City Council to rezone the parcel to IM is an error of fact and law and an error in judgment for all of the reasons set forth above. The Recommendation that the City Council should approve the reclassification of the subject property from P-1 to IM with a P-suffix is an error of fact and law and an error in judgment for all of the reasons set forth above. B. The Hearing Examiner should consider additional evidence on the issue of processes at the South Plant. Renton Municipal Code Title IV, Chapter 8, section 100G4 allows reconsideration on the ground of discovery of new evidence that was not reasonably available at the time of hearing. As presented by King County at the hearing in this matter, the South Plant already beneficially reuses digester gas, by scrubbing it and selling it at cost to Puget Sound Energy. With the recent volatility in the electrical energy market, King County has experienced a 1000% increase in its electrical rates at the South Plant, from $ 0.04 to $0.40 per kilowatt hour. As a result of this energy crisis, on February 15, 2001 (after the hearing in this matter), King County filed a petition to intervene in the consolidated actions against Puget Sound Energy pending before the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission to obtain some rate relief. On March 6, 2001 the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission granted King county's petition to Intervene. A true and correct copy of the Order Granting King County's Petition to Intervene is attached hereto. In addition, King County has begun to explore other alternatives to respond to the energy crisis and the dramatic increase in energy costs at the South Plant. One of these options is for King County to generate electrical energy at the South Plant, as a hedge against escalating power.costs. King County acknowledges that such an option would require certain City approvals. However, this option further demonstrates the heavy industrial nature of the South Plant property and supports a contrary finding to that of the Hearing Examiner that in fact the South Plant property is more appropriately zoned IH and not IM. The Renton Municipal Code expressly provides the Hearing Examiner with authority to accept additional evidence in connection with this request. (Renton Municipal Code Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 11.0 G 4). King County respectfully requests permission to provide the Hearing Examiner with additional evidence on this matter. C. Conclusion For the reasons set forth herein, King County respectfully requests that the Hearing Examiner modify his recommendation to the City Council and recommend that the City Council approve a reclassification of the.South Plant property from P-1 to IH with a P-suffix. In the alternative, King County requests that the Hearing Examiner accept additional information on the processes and intended processes at the South Plant and modify Conclusion 9 and his recommendation based on this additional evidence. Prosecuting Attorney - King County Fred J.Kaufman March 8,2001 Page 6 In order to preserve its appeal rights, King County is filing an appeal to the City Council concurrently with this request for reconsideration. King County requests that the appeal to the City Council be stayed pending resolution of this request for reconsideration. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Very truly yours, For NORM MALENG,King County Prosecuting Attorney 14M011 151/all \ erna P. Bromley Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney cc: Don Theiler, Manager Wastewater Treatment Division Enclosure: eHrt vv wt.,1 1 vt. vv•vv 1 11 YY U I V rn[1 11V. QUO UUU 1 1:1U r. u[/I SERVICE DATE MAR 0 6 2001 • BEFORE THE WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Air Liquide America Corporation, Air ) Products and Chemicals, Inc.,The ) Boeing Company, CNC Containers, ) Equilon Enterprises,LLC, Georgia ) Pacific West, Inc., Tesoro Northwest ) Company, The City of Anacortes, ) Washington, and Intel Corporation ) ) Complainants, ) DOCKET NO. UE-001952 ) (consolidated) v. ) Puget Sound Energy,Inc. ) • Respondent. ) ) In re: Petition of Puget Sound Energy, ) DOCKET NO, UE-001959 Inc. for an Order Reallocating Lost ) (consolidated) Revenues Related to any Reduction in ) the Schedule 48 or 0-P Special ) NINTH SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER: Contract Rates ) GRANTING PETITION TO ) INTERVENE OUT OF TIME. ) ) ) PROCEEDINGS: Air Liquide, et al. filed their original Formal Complaint Requesting Emergency Adjudicative Proceeding in Docket No. UE-001952 on December 12, 2000. Complainants filed an Amended Complaint on December 18, 2000, and a Second Amended Complaint on December 28,2000. PSE filed its Petition in Docket No. UE-001959 on December 13, 2000. PSE filed its Answer to the first Amended Complaint on January 2,2001. 2 The Commission, after hearing, found and concluded that Schedule 48 and the Special Contract, which include retail rates that are pegged via Mid-Columbia index pricing to Western wholesale power markets that are volatile and exceedingly high, are not fair,just, and reasonable because,under current conditions, customers do not have effective options to achieve price stability and reasonable rates under the DOCKET NOS. UE-001952 and UE-001959 PAGE 2 Optional Price Stability provisions of Schedule 48 and the Special Contract. Sixth Supplemental Order at ¶¶99 and 103 (January 22, 2001) (citing RCW 80.28.010 and RCW 80.28.020). The Commission ordered immediate proceedings in Phase Two of this docket to establish temporary terms under the Optional Price Stability provisions of Schedule 48 and the Georgia-Pacific/PSE Special Contract that will provide customers effective options to achieve price stability and reasonable rates, consistent with the Commission's discussion in the body of its Sixth Supplemental Order. Id at ¶ 106. By Notice issued and served simultaneously with its Sixth Supplemental Order, the Commission set January 29, 2001, as the date on which to commence the Phase Two hearings to finalize and implement the relief ordered. During proceedings held on January 29, 2001,the Commission heard additional testimony regarding remedies and considered Staffs oral motion for a continuance. Following argument by the parties,the Commission granted a brief continuance until February 5, 2001, 3 On February 5,2001, the parties stated they had resumed settlement discussions and requested a recess to determine whether a further continuance would facilitate their efforts, During their discussions,the parties agreed it would be worthwhile to continue settlement negotiations with the assistance of Administrative Law Judge C. Robert Wallis in the role of mediator. The Commission granted the parties' request for a continuance until February 8,2001,to permit the parties an opportunity to pursue settlement. The continuance to February 8, 2001, was granted with the understanding that the parties could request additional time informally if the progress of their discussions warranted a further continuance. The parties did request additional time;they reported via an agreed statement on February 9,2001, that they had achieved a settlement in principle. The parties have reported informally from time to time that they continue to work to produce a final settlement agreement for the Commission's consideration. 4 PARTIES: Melinda Davison,Davison Van Clew, P.C.,Portland, Oregon, represents Air Liquide America Corporation,Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.,The Boeing Company, CNC Containers,Equilon Enterprises, LLC, Georgia-Pacific West, Inc., and Tesoro Northwest Company. Stan Berman,Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe,LLP, Seattle,Washington, and.Tames M.Van Nostrand, Stoel Rives, Seattle,Washington,represent Puget Sound Energy,Inc. (PSE). Jim Pemberton appeared pro se to represent the interests of the City of Anacortes and its water utility. John A. Cameron and Traci Grundon,Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Portland, Oregon, represent Bellingham Cold Storage Company(BCS). Public Utility District No. 1 of Whatcom County (Whatcom PUD),by prior arrangement, did not appear at prehearing and will designate its legal counsel or permanent representative later; Whatcom PUD did appear via its written Petition To Intervene, signed by Tom Anderson,pro se.Frank Prochaska appeared pro se to represent the AWPPW. Simon ffitch and Robert Cromwell,Assistant Attorneys General, Seattle, Washington, represent the Public Counsel Section, Office of Attorney General (Public Counsel), . .... ..... .... ....... •• DOCKET NOS.UE-001952 and UE-001959 PAGE 3 Robert D. Cedarbaum and Donald Trotter, Assistant Attorneys General, Olympia, Washington,represent the Commission's regulatory staff(Staff). 5 LATE-FILED PETITION TO INTERVENE: On February 15, 2001, King County Washington petitioned for leave to intervene out of time. King County certified service of its Petition on February 20,2001. The County is a customer of PSE under Schedule 48,which is central to the subject matter of this proceeding. King County's petition states that its interest in participating in this proceeding matured in light of ongoing settlement discussions among the parties. The County states that it will consider becoming a signatory to a settlement agreement, and states that it does not intend to broaden the issues. Staff and Public Counsel filed letters on February 23,2001, stating that they do not oppose late intervention by King County. No party filed to oppose King County's petition. 6 DISPOSITION: The Commission determines that King County has demonstrated an interest in this proceeding, has established good cause for its late filing, and that its participation would be in the public interest. In short, King County's petition is well- taken under the circumstances and should be granted. ORDER 7 THE COMMISSION ORDERS That the Petition To Intervene Out of Time of King County is granted. 8 THE COMMISSION ORDERS FURTHER That King County will take the record as it is found on this date and will not be permitted to broaden the issues in this proceeding. DATED at Olympia, Washington, and effective this 6th day of March,2001. WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DE IS J. SS Adm nisi tive Law Judge CITY Y OF RF F1A,R 0 8 2 E O CITY OF RENTON ::;1"1-Y OLE" c'S OFFICE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS,AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: March 8,2001 TO: Fred Kaufman Renton Hearing Examiner FROM: Sue Carlson,Administrator EDNSP Department STAFF CONTACT: Don Erickson (X6581) SUBJECT: Metropolitan King'County South Wastewater Treatment Plant P-1 Rezone We respectfully request that you reconsider your recent reclassification of the Metro Wastewater Treatment Plant from Public Use (P-1) to Industrial Medium (IM), with a P-suffix. We are requesting the Industrial Heavy(IH)Zone,with a P-suffix. At a recent meeting between Renton and King County officials it was revealed that King County is interested in developing a co-generation facility at their South(Renton) Wastewater Treatment Plant that would reduce their reliance on "spot" market electricity which is currently driving up their operations costs. It was the consensus of those attending this meeting, including the Mayor, that the Industrial Heavy(IH)zoning classification would better accommodate this new use as well as reflect the scale of the operations now occurring at the plant. It was understood by all parties"in attendance that the approval process was identical in both the IM and IH zones with "sewage disposal and treatment plants" being a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use in both zones. In closing, the Industrial Heavy (IH) designation would be consistent with our recent recommendation to you for reclassification "with either the Industrial Medium or the Industrial Heavy Zone,with a P-suffix designation". Thank you. cc: Don Erickson \\TS SERVER\SYS2:\COMMON\-C:\WINNT\Profiles\derickson\Persona1\Metro Reconsideration Memo.doc\d • CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MAR ,lif=` MEMORANDUM DATE: 03/08/01 TO: Fred Kaufman FROM: Jennifer Toth Henning SUBJECT: Request for Reconsideration-King County(Metro)Wastewater Treatment Plant Rezone(File LUA-00-169,R, ECF) Development Services Division respectfully requests reconsideration of the Examiner's recommendation for proposed rezone of the King County Wastewater Treatment Plant. Economic Development/Neighborhoods/Strategic Planning staff recommended that the P-1 (Public)zoning designation be removed and that the property be rezoned to either IM(Industrial- Medium)or IH(Industrial-Heavy)with a P-suffix. You have recommended that the Council approve a rezone of the subject property from P-1 (Public)to IM-P.(Medium Industrial,P-suffix). Development Services believes that the IH Zone with a P-suffix would better reflect the present and future use and operation of the Metro Wastewater facility. According to RMC Section 4-2- 020:R,the purpose of the Industrial-Heavy Zone is to provide areas for high intensity industrial activities involving processing of raw materials,bulk handling and storage. Uses in the IH Zone may require large outdoor areas in which to conduct their operations and produce environmental impacts beyond their own sites that require their isolation from more sensitive land uses. The IM Zone is intended for medium-intensity industrial activities that may create some external emissions of noise, odor, glare,vibration, etc.that are largely contained on site. The Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant conducts the majority of its operations out-of-doors. And current impacts from the facility, especially noise and odor,have the potential to affect areas beyond the site boundaries. For these reasons,the IH-P designation is more appropriate than the IM-P majority of the 90.7 acre site should be zoned IH-P. cc: Neil Watts \\CENTRAL\SYS2\DEPTS\PBPW\DIVISION.S\DEVELOP.SER\DEV&PLAN.INGVTH\metro rezone reconsideration.doc\cor �; FICE OF THE PROSECUTING ATTORNE KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON CIVIL DIVISION Natural Resources Norm Maleng 900 King County Administration Building Prosecuting Attorney 500 Fourth Avenue Seattle,Washington 98104 (206)296-8820 �,I__r _ FAX(206)296-0415 C i 1 ' March 8, 2001 . ., Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner Ci i Y • „-.;- City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98056 Re: Request for Reconsideration File No. LUA00-169, R,ECF Dear Mr. Kaufman: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100G of the Renton Municipal Code, King County respectfully requests reconsideration of the findings, conclusions & recommendation set forth in the Hearing Examiner's Report and Recommendation dated February 22, 2001. King County bases this request on the grounds discussed below. A. The findings and conclusions are not supported by the facts or the law. The following findings and conclusions contain errors of fact and/or law and/or errors in judgment. Finding 9, that the City had originally proposed classifying the subject site to IM is an error of fact. King County presented uncontested testimony at the hearing in this matter that as early as 1996, the City staff proposed to re-zone the King County Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant site ("the South Plant") to Heavy Industrial (IH) zoning. It was not until January 30, 2001 that City staff reported for the first time that the City proposed an IM designation for the South Plant property. The City's position was later modified in the February 13, 2001 staff report in which the City agreed that "because of the size of the subject site and the unique heavy industrial characteristics of the treatment plant, staff now believe IH may be more representative of the plant's characteristic than IM zoning" (February 13, 2001 Preliminary Report, page 5, section F(5)(d)(1)). Finding 10, that King County claimed that "it would make sure that (the South Plant) could be expanded in response to need and that local government, under GMA, cannot block an essential public facility" is an error of fact and is prejudicial to King County. The language in Finding 10 implies that King County is indifferent to any local land use processes which may be required in the future. This is untrue. King County does contend that the South Plant is an essential public facility under GMA, as acknowledged by the City. At the hearing in this matter, King County merely stated that in November 1999 the King County Council by Ordinance 13680 adopted the Prosecuting Attorney King County Fred J.Kaufman March 8,2001 Page 2 Regional Wastewater Services Plan ("RWSP"). The RWSP identifies the continued need for the South Plant and its role in meeting the growing wastewater needs in the region in the years ahead. In its Preliminary Report dated February 13, 2001, the City acknowledged the regional nature of the South Plant, stating that "the treatment plant is a regionally recognized public facility that is not likely to change in terms of use or location in the foreseeable future." (Preliminary Report, page 4, Section F(5)) . Finding 13, that because the processes at the South Plant do not include heavy fabrication or machining, the Plant's processes are not as intensive as heavy industrial is an error of law and fact and an error in judgment. King County presented uncontested testimony at the hearing in this matter concerning the treatment and other processes present at the South Plant property. King County presented testimony that that there are 12 primary sedimentation tanks, for primary treatment, 24 secondary clarifiers and 3'aeration basins with large aeration blowers for secondary treatment, a chlorine building, 12 miles of 96" diameter concrete cylinder pipe to the Puget Sound, including a chlorine contact channel at the South Plant, with four duty pumps and 4 peaking pumps for effluent discharge, capable of discharging up to 325 mgd of effluent to the Puget Sound, that there are six dissolved air flotation thickeners, four digesters and one blending storage tank for solids treatment, that there is a dewatering process utilizing eight belt filter presses, that there is digester gas re-use, i.e. the gas is scrubbed through two gas scrubbing towers and is sold at cost to Puget Sound Energy. In addition, King County presented uncontested testimony at the hearing in this matter, that there are numerous pumps, blowers, transformers, switchgear, and variable frequency drives located at the South Plant. Uncontested testimony presented by King County established that fifty-six percent of the property at the South Plant is taken up by facilities and related equipment, that the South Plant is operated 24 hours a day, with two shift crews at 12 hours each. That there are additional lab and process control staff during the day and 40 maintenance staff. The South Plant generates 1.3 mgd of recycled or re-use effluent, referred to as Class A effluent. This effluent is used on site for irrigation and is sold to cities, such as Tukwila for other permitted uses. Finding 13 is also inconsistent with Finding 17 of the Hearing Examiner's Report and Recommendation. As set forth at Finding 17, the Renton Zoning Code contains, in relevant part, the following purpose statement for the Industrial-Heavy Zone (IH): "The purpose of the Heavy Industrial Zone (IH) is to provide areas for high intensity industrial activities involving heavy fabrication, processing of raw materials, bulk handling and storage, construction and heavy transportation in areas designated as Employment Area-Industrial.... Uses in this District may require large outdoor areas in which to conduct their operations ..." (Emphasis added). The Hearing Examiner's Report and Recommendation erroneously states that there is no heavy fabrication or machining occurring at the South Plant and thus the "processes are generally not as intensive as heavy industrial."This is an error of fact and of law and an error in judgment. The Prosecuting Attorney King County Fred J.Kaufman March 8,2001 Page 3 City's Code does not require heavy fabrication or machining for an IH zone. Furthermore, the Hearing Examiner's decision does not acknowledge the unique heavy industrial characteristics of the South Plant, including but not limited to the processing and treatment of raw materials, the production of recycled or re-use water and biosolids and the requirement for large outdoor areas for the South Plant's processes, that make the IH zoning classification more representative of the Plant's characteristic than the IM zoning. These processes and characteristics of the South Plant support the contrary finding and conclusion that IH is the proper zone designation. By contrast, the City's purpose statement for the IM zone states that it is to provide areas for activities involving "manufacturing, processing, assembly and warehousing" and which "may require "some outdoor storage...." The South Plant is not a warehouse. There is no mention in the IM zone designation for the need for large outdoor areas in which to conduct operations, which now occurs at the South Plant. The City, as proponent of the re-zone, carries the burden of proof in this matter. The City presented no testimony that the processes and handling of raw materials at the South Plant are not"as intensive as heavy industrial." In fact the City's position on this matter as set forth in the February 13, 2001 staff report is that"because of the size of the subject site and the unique heavy industrial characteristics of the treatment plant, staff now believe IH may be more representative of the plant's characteristic than IM zoning" (February 13, 2001 Preliminary Report, page 5, section F(5)(d)(1)). Conclusion 1, that the criteria for change of zone classification have been met and that the IM classification appears appropriate is an error of law and fact and an error in judgment. The criteria for change of zone classification, as set forth in the Renton Municipal Code at section 4-9-170 F(2) have not been met. The City, as the proponent of the re-zone must establish all of the following: (a) that the rezone is in the public interest, (b) that the rezone tends to further the preservation and enjoyment of any substantial rights of the County (c) that the rezone is not detrimental to the public welfare or the properties of other persons located in the vicinity thereof and(d) that the rezone meets the review criteria in subsection Flb and Flc of Section 4-9-170 F. The rezone to an IM classification does not meet these criteria. The rezone is not in the public interest as it does not accurately reflect the unique heavy industrial characteristics of the South Plant or the current uses at the plant. The rezone does not tend to further the preservation and enjoyment of any substantial rights of the County as it does not accurately reflect the South Plant's characteristics or uses. The rezone is materially detrimental to the public welfare in that certain abutting uses may in the future be deemed incompatible with the facilities and uses existing and anticipated at the South Plant. The rezone does not meet the criteria set forth in Renton Code section 4-9-170 Flb and lc, as the potential rezone does not meet the policies set forth in the Renton Comprehensive Plan. For all of these reasons, the IM classification is not appropriate. Prosecuting Attorney King County Fred J.Kaufman March 8,2001 Page 4 Conclusion 4, that the adoption of new land use provisions to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code provided the impetus to review the P-1 zone and therefore the current proposal is appropriate is an error of fact and law to the extent that the only rationale in the record of this case for the rezone of the South Plant is that "This zone (P-1 zone) is being phased out pursuant to Council's 1994 direction to do so." There is no support in the record for Conclusion 4. Conclusion 5 that "(g)iven the surroundings and the Comprehensive Plan designations for the subject site and neighboring sites, IH zoning does not appear appropriate" is an error of fact and law and an error in judgment. The only information in the record on this issue is the City's position as set forth in the February 13, 2001 staff report that "the recommended IH zoning would be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan." (February 13, 2001 Preliminary Report, page 4, section F(5)(d)). The South Plant property is in the Valley Planning Area and IH is a permitted zoning designation. The IH zone would still require the site to obtain Hearing Examiner Conditional Use approval and site plan review for substantial change in use or change of ownership. Furthermore, the IH zone more accurately reflects the South Plant's current uses and characteristics as set forth above. Conclusion 5 that "IH would appear to sanction offsite spillover of industrial impacts to surrounding areas" is an error of fact and law and an error in judgment. This Conclusion is also misleading and prejudicial, as it implies that King County would ignore or violate existing local, state and federal laws and regulations with regard to its operations, if the South Plant were to be zoned IH. This is not true. The IH zoning does not permit offsite spillover of industrial impacts to surrounding areas as stated in conclusion 5. The South Plant has properly mitigated its impacts so as not to create offsite impacts to the surrounding areas. Additionally, any substantial change in use under an IH zoning classification would require a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use approval which would likely impose appropriate mitigation measures to insure that any potential impacts from the South Plant's activities do not impact surrounding areas. Furthermore, local, state and federal laws and regulations regarding noise, air quality, water quality and surface water effects, do not allow the South Plant to create offsite impacts to the surrounding areas. The South Plant is now, has been, and is committed to be in the future, in compliance with all laws and regulations with respect to its operations and activities. Conclusion 6 that the applicant's use of the subject site is not by itself enough to control future zoning and that in addition the overall public welfare must be considered when determining appropriate classifications for zoning is an error of fact and an error of law. The proponent for this rezone is not King County but the City of Renton. The criteria for change of zone classification is set forth in the Renton Municipal Code section 4-9-170 F(2). As set forth above under the discussion of conclusion 1, the Code requires that the reviewing official consider a number of specific criteria, one of which is that the rezone not be materially detrimental to.the public welfare. As set forth above the rezone to IM is materially detrimental to the public welfare. Moreover, the other criteria for change of zone classification to IM have not been met. Prosecuting Attorney King County Fred J.Kaufman March 8,2001 Page 5 Conclusion 9, that it would be appropriate for the City Council to rezone the parcel to IM is an error of fact and law and an error in judgment for all of the reasons set forth above. The Recommendation that the City Council should approve the reclassification of the subject property from P-1 to IM with a P-suffix is an error of fact and law and an error in judgment for all of the reasons set forth above. B. The Hearing Examiner should consider additional evidence on the issue of processes at the South Plant. Renton Municipal Code Title IV, Chapter 8, section 100G4 allows reconsideration on the ground of discovery of new evidence that was not reasonably available at the time of hearing. As presented by King County at the hearing in this matter, the South Plant already beneficially reuses digester gas, by scrubbing it and selling it at cost to Puget Sound Energy. With the recent volatility in the electrical energy market, King County has experienced a 1000% increase in its electrical rates at the South Plant, from $ 0.04 to $0.40 per kilowatt hour. As a result of this energy crisis, on February 15, 2001 (after the hearing in this matter), King County filed a petition to intervene in the consolidated actions against Puget Sound Energy pending before the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission to obtain some rate relief. On March 6, 2001 the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission granted King county's petition to Intervene. A true and correct copy of the Order Granting King County's Petition to Intervene is attached hereto. In addition, King County has begun to explore other alternatives to respond to the energy crisis and the dramatic increase in energy costs at the South Plant. One of these options is for King County to generate electrical energy at the South Plant, as a hedge against escalating power costs. King County acknowledges that such an option would require certain City approvals. However, this option further demonstrates the heavy industrial nature of the South Plant property and supports a contrary finding to that of the Hearing Examiner that in fact the South Plant property is more appropriately zoned III and not IM. The Renton Municipal Code expressly provides the Hearing Examiner with authority to accept additional evidence in connection with this request. (Renton Municipal Code Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110 G 4). King County respectfully requests permission to provide the Hearing Examiner with additional evidence on this matter. C. Conclusion For the reasons set forth herein, King County respectfully requests that the Hearing Examiner modify his recommendation to the City Council and recommend that the City Council approve a reclassification of the South Plant property from P-1 to IH with a P-suffix. In the alternative, King County requests that the Hearing Examiner accept additional information on the processes and intended processes at the South Plant and modify Conclusion 9 and his recommendation based on this additional evidence. Prosecuting Attorney King County Fred J.Kaufman March 8,2001 Page 6 In order to preserve its appeal rights, King County is filing an appeal to the City Council concurrently with this request for reconsideration. King County requests that the appeal to the City Council be stayed pending resolution of this request for reconsideration. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Very truly yours, For NORM MALENG,King County Prosecuting Attorney &Wit Verna P. Bromley Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney cc: Don Theiler, Manager Wastewater Treatment Division Enclosure: CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: March 1, 2001 TO: Joan Thompson FROM: Sonja J. Fessert SUBJECT: Wastewater Treatment Plant Rezone Format and Legal Description Review Bob Mac Onie and I have just revised the legal description for the above referenced property. See the attachment. Please do not use the legal description that was attached to your request for our review. cc:Don Erickson \U:\SFESSER\MTROPLNT.DOC EXHIBIT A Legal Description Rezone Metro Wastewater Treatment Plant Site That portion of Section 24, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., City of Renton, King County, Washington, lying southerly, southwesterly and westerly of 80 feet-wide Oakesdale Avenue SW as constructed, easterly and northeasterly of Monster Road SW and the realignment of a portion of Monster Road SW as recorded under King County Rec. No. 9709090061, and northerly and northwesterly of the following described line: Beginning at the intersection of the westerly right-of-way margin of Oakesdale Avenue SW and the south line of property deeded to the City of Renton under King County Recording No. 8212090480; Thence southwesterly along the south line of said property, to the southwest corner thereof, said southwest corner also being the southeast corner of a tract of land established by King County Superior Court Cause No. 84-2-07769-7, said Superior Court tract recorded under King County Recording No. 8406149003 and amended under King County Recording No. 8504110606; Thence southwesterly along the south line of said Superior Court tract, to the southwest corner thereof, said south line also being the southerly right-of-way margin of a former Burlington Railroad Company (former Northern Pacific Railroad) railroad line; Thence continuing southwesterly along said southerly right-of-way margin, to an intersection with the northeasterly right-of-way line of realigned Monster • Road SW, as recorded under King County Recording No. 9709090061 and the termination of the herein described line; EXCEPT that portion of said above described property conveyed to the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle by First City Equities per Deed recorded under King County Recording No. 8707080246. CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER MEMORANDUM Date: February22, 2001 To: Sonja Fesser From: Joan Thompson Re: Wastewater Treatment Plant Rezone LUA00-169,R,ECF Would you please verify that the attached legal is correct before we send it on to City Council for approval. Thanks , . r . METRO KING LINTY RENTON WASTEWATER TI_ CMENT PLANT LEGAL DESCRIPTION • Former Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way(former NPRR Belt) and portion of southeast.quarter of northwest quarter lying easterly of west line of said railroad right-of-way and northerly of north margin of state highway SR-405 junction,less any portion thereof lying westerly of or within Monster Road SW; Also portion of said former railroad belt in the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter of said section lying 70 feet from the centerline of the state highway, per stipulation of state code #84-2-07769-7 less portion described as follows: Beginning at the northeast corner of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 24-23-4, thence along the north line of said section, N 87 26'22", W 2693.05 feet to the northwest corner of Government Lot 1 Thence along the west line of said Government Lot and of Government Lot 5, S 0 26'19"W 22999.77 feet; Thence S 98 33'44"E 1909.89 feet to the intersection with the east margin of Monster road; Thence southerly along the said margin radius 367.11 feet, an arc distance of 55.20 feet to the intersection with the westerly Metro (former Burlington Northern) boundary per Volume 40,page 180 of survey, said point of intersection being on a curve to the left with a radius of 1134 feet; Thence southerly along said curve having an arc distance of 250.14 feet to the westerly margin of the realigned portion of Monster Road and the point of beginning; Thence along said westerly margin of S 41 55'32",E 68.65 feet; Thence S 06 22'-10",E 321.59 feet; Thence S 04 18'03",E 14.69 feet to a line parallel with and 70 feet northwesterly of the centerline of State Highway 1-L; Thence along the said westerly Metro boundary and curve to the left with a radius of 1134 feet; Thence northerly along said curve, having an arc distance of 399.09 feet to the point of beginning less portion of Government Lot 6 and Government Lot 8 in the westerly half of Section 24-23-04 lying southwesterly of the realigned roadway; Beginning at the northeast corner of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter; Thence N 82 26'22"W 2,693.05 feet to the northwest corner of Government Lot 1; Thence S 00 26'19"W,2299.77 feet; Thence S 89 31'41" E 1909.89 feet to the intersection with the easterly right-of-way margin of Monster Road being a point on a curve concave to the southwest radius point bearing S 63 48'40"W 367.11 feet; Thence southerly along said.easterly right-of-way margin and along said curve arc distance 182.73 feet through a central angle of 28 31'04"to an intersection with the southwesterly margin of said realignment of Monster Road; • Thence southeasterly along said southwesterly margin of S 69 31'09" E 11.12 feet and S 41 55'32" E 194.64 feet to the point of beginning; Thence S 41 55'32" E 270.82 feet to the intersection with the northwesterly right-of-way margin of Highway 1-1, said point of intersection being a point on the curve concave to the southeast radius,bearing S 68 18'28' E 905.37 feet; Thence southwesterly along said northwesterly right-of-way margin and along said curve arc a distance of 88.21 feet through a central angle of 05 34'57" to the intersection with a line parallel with and 70 feet northwesterly of a central angle of said highway; Thence along said parallel line S 66 53'08"W 125.69 feet; Thence N 04 18'03"W 14.69 feet; and Thence N 06 22'10"W 321.59 feet to point of beginning. CIT`s OF:RENTO N - Hearing Examiner ' Jesse Tanner,Mayor Fred'J.Kaufman March 20,2001 • Verna:P:Bromley Office of the Prosecuting Attorney,King County 900 King County Administration Building 500 Fourth Avenue Seattle,WA 98104 Sue Carlson;Administrator • EDNSP Department. • City of Renton ' • • 1055 S. Grady Way . Renton,WA 98055 Jennifer Henning,Principal Planner' - PBPW/Dev. Services ' City of Renton • 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Re: Request for Reconsideration,King,County;Wastewater Treatment Plant Rezone File No:LUA00=169,R;ECF .:,:. ''': :;;` ":. ; :' . ,. . Dear.Ms.Bromley,Ms. Carlson, and Ms:;Henning:. This office has received three requests to reconsider the recommendation to the City Council on the rezoning:of the Metropolitan King CountySouth Wastewater Treatment.Plant_ This office recommended that the City Council-reclassify:the subject site from P-1 to IM with a P-suffix.' The requests were received from Sue Carlson,EDNSP:Administrator;Jennifer.Henning, .. Principal Planner,PBPW/Dev- Services;and from..the'Office.of the King County Prosecutor, representing the property owner,King County. The King County reaction can be characterized as overblown, overly dramatic and frankly, intemperate. In the fifty(50)or.so P-1'Zoning decisions over the past 6 or 7 years;sites have been rezoned to meld with surrounding zoning and did not necessarily represent exact matches for the underlying:use. School properties were reclassified to residential: Park,properties were , reclassified to residential. Reservoir sites were reclassified residential. Church properties were • reclassified residential. Some other school and park sits were zoned commercial or even light industrial- The zoning enacted in each of these cases attempted to match the reclassified site to • surrounding zoning and not necessarily-mirror:the uses of the site. The treatment plant is permitted in the IM zone. The,treatment plant is permitted in the IH zone. • The plant requires a',Conditional Use Permit in the IM zone. The plant requires:a Conditional Use • • 19Oi OOI • . 1055 South Grady Way. Renton;•Washington-98055 -(425) 430.-65.15 ;; .' ;ti► .. Request for Reconsideration File No.: LUA00-169,R,ECF Page 2 - Permit in the IH zone: As can be seen,either zoning would not significantly, if at all,restrict the use of the subject site. The zoning surrounding the subject site is IM. Actually, in some cases, providing IH zoning could be considered a spot zone,distinct as it is from adjoining properties and zoning. The references in the Examiner's decision to the"original staff recommendation"to IM zoning was the staff recommendation made two weeks earlier,prior to the originally scheduled public hearing,and not to some yague discussion made years ago regarding potential zoning. The original staff report delivered to the Examiner before the continuance was requested suggested that IM zoning was.appropriate. As a matter of fact, staff still suggested either IM or IH zoning when the hearing finally did occur. There was no dramatic demarcation according to staff,_ although they ultimately suggested,but not strongly,that IH would be appropriate. Be that as it may, it would appear that the City now believes IH zoning is more appropriate. Therefore,the recommendation to the City.Council will be'modified to suggest they consider rezoning the subject site to IH.,The Citys;Council ultimately must.make the decision. Since an appeal of this matter has already been filed with"the City Council,there is not need to further delay the time periods and the appeal period will not"be extended. If this office can be of further assistance,please;feel=free"to write. Sincerely, Fred J. Kauf n Hearing Examiner FJK:jt cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer Larry.Warren,City Attorney Neil.Watts;PBPW/Development Services Director Don Erickson,Economic Development Parties of Record OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON CIVIL DIVISION Natural Resources Norm Maleng 900 King County Administration Building Prosecuting Attorney 500 Fourth Avenue Seattle,Washington 98104 (206)296-8820 FAX(206)296-0415 March 8, 2001 Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner -. .. City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98056 Re: Request for Reconsideration File No. LUA00-169,R, ECF Dear Mr. Kaufman: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100G of the Renton Municipal Code, King County respectfully requests reconsideration of the findings, conclusions & recommendation set forth in the Hearing Examiner's Report and Recommendation dated February 22, 2001. King County bases this request on the grounds discussed below. A. The findings and conclusions are not supported by the facts or the law. The following findings and conclusions contain errors of fact and/or law and/or errors in judgment. Finding 9, that the City had originally proposed classifying the subject site to IM is an error of fact. King County presented uncontested testimony at the hearing in this matter that as early as 1996, the City staff proposed to re-zone the King County Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant site.("the South Plant") to Heavy Industrial (IH) zoning. It was not until January 30, 2001 that City staff reported for the first time that the City proposed an IM designation for the South Plant property. The City's position was later modified in the February 13, 2001 staff report in which the City agreed that "because of the size of the subject site and the unique heavy industrial characteristics of the treatment plant, staff now believe IH may be more representative of the plant's characteristic than IM zoning" (February 13, 2001 Preliminary Report, page 5, section F(5)(d)(1)). Finding 10, that King County claimed that "it would make sure that (the South Plant) could be expanded in response to need and that local government, under GMA, cannot block an essential public facility" is an error of fact and is prejudicial to King County. The language in Finding 10 implies that King County is indifferent to any local land use processes which may be required in the future. This is untrue. King County does contend that the South Plant is an essential public facility under GMA, as acknowledged by the City. At the hearing in this matter, King County merely stated that in November 1999 the King County Council by Ordinance 13680 adopted the Prosecuting Attorney King County Fred J.Kaufman March 8,2001 Page 2 Regional Wastewater Services Plan ("RWSP"). The RWSP identifies the continued need for the South Plant and its role in meeting the growing wastewater needs in the region in the years ahead. In its Preliminary Report dated February 13, 2001, the City acknowledged the regional nature of the South Plant, stating that "the treatment plant is a regionally recognized public facility that is not likely to change in terms of use or location in the foreseeable future." (Preliminary Report, page 4, Section F(5)) . Finding 13, that because the processes at the South Plant do not include heavy fabrication or machining, the Plant's processes are not as intensive as heavy industrial is an error of law and fact and an error in judgment. King County presented uncontested testimony at the hearing in this matter concerning the treatment and other processes present at the South Plant property. King County presented testimony that that there are 12 primary sedimentation tanks, for primary treatment, 24 secondary clarifiers and 3.aeration basins with large aeration blowers for secondary treatment, a chlorine building, 12 miles of 96" diameter concrete cylinder pipe to the Puget Sound, including a chlorine contact channel at the South Plant, with four duty pumps and 4 peaking pumps for effluent discharge, capable of discharging up to 325 mgd of effluent to the Puget Sound, that there are six dissolved air flotation thickeners, four digesters and one blending storage tank for solids treatment, that there is a dewatering process utilizing eight belt filter presses, that there is digester gas re-use, i.e. the gas is scrubbed through two gas scrubbing towers and is sold at cost to Puget Sound Energy. In addition, King County presented uncontested testimony at the hearing in this matter, that there are numerous pumps, blowers, transformers, switchgear, and variable frequency drives located at the South Plant. Uncontested testimony presented by King County established that fifty-six percent of the property at the South Plant is taken up by facilities and related equipment, that the South Plant is operated 24 hours a day, with two shift crews at 12 hours each. That there are additional lab and process control staff during the day and 40 maintenance staff. The South Plant generates 1.3 mgd of recycled or re-use effluent, referred to as Class A effluent. This effluent is used on site for irrigation and is sold to cities, such as Tukwila for other permitted uses. Finding 13 is also inconsistent with Finding 17 of the Hearing Examiner's Report and Recommendation. As set forth at Finding 17, the Renton Zoning Code contains, in relevant part, the following purpose statement for the Industrial-Heavy Zone (IH): "The purpose of the Heavy Industrial Zone (IH) is to provide areas for high intensity industrial activities involving heavy fabrication, processing of raw materials, bulk handling and storage, construction and heavy transportation in areas designated as Employment Area-Industrial.... Uses in this District may require large outdoor areas in which to conduct their operations ..." (Emphasis added). The Hearing Examiner's Report and Recommendation erroneously states that there is no heavy fabrication or machining occurring at the South Plant and thus the"processes are generally not as intensive as heavy industrial."This is an error of fact and of law and an error in judgment. The Prosecuting Attorney King County Fred J.Kaufman March 8,2001 Page 3 City's Code does not require heavy fabrication or machining for an IH zone. Furthermore, the Hearing Examiner's decision does not acknowledge the unique heavy industrial characteristics of the South Plant, including but not limited to the processing and treatment of raw materials, the production of recycled or re-use water and biosolids and the requirement for large outdoor areas for the South Plant's processes, that make the IH zoning classification more representative of the Plant's characteristic than the IM zoning. These processes and characteristics of the South Plant support the contrary finding and conclusion that IH is the proper zone designation. By contrast, the City's purpose statement for the IM zone states that it is to provide areas for activities involving "manufacturing, processing, assembly and warehousing" and which "may require "some outdoor storage...." The South Plant is not a warehouse. There is no mention in the IM zone designation for the need for large outdoor areas in which to conduct operations, which now occurs at the South Plant. The City, as proponent of the re-zone, carries the burden of proof in this matter. The City presented no testimony that the processes and handling of raw materials at the South Plant are not"as intensive as heavy industrial." In fact the City's position on this matter as set forth in the February 13, 2001 staff report is that "because of the size of the subject site and the unique heavy industrial characteristics of the treatment plant, staff now believe IH may be more representative of the plant's characteristic than IM zoning" (February 13, 2001 Preliminary Report, page 5, section F(5)(d)(1)). Conclusion 1, that the criteria for change of zone classification have been met and that the IM classification appears appropriate is an error of law and fact and an error in judgment. The criteria for change of zone classification, as set forth in the Renton Municipal Code at section 4-9-170 F(2) have not been met. The City, as the proponent of the re-zone must establish all of the following: (a) that the rezone is in the public interest, (b) that the rezone tends to further the preservation and enjoyment of any substantial rights of the County (c) that the rezone is not detrimental to the public welfare or the properties of other persons located in the vicinity thereof and(d) that the rezone meets the review criteria in subsection Flb and Flc of Section 4-9-170 F. The rezone to an IM classification does not meet these criteria. The rezone is not in the public interest as it does not accurately reflect the unique heavy industrial characteristics of the South Plant or the current uses at the plant. The rezone does not tend to further the preservation and enjoyment of any substantial rights of the County as it does not accurately reflect the South Plant's characteristics or uses. The rezone is materially detrimental to the public welfare in that certain abutting uses may in the future be deemed incompatible with the facilities and uses existing and anticipated at the South Plant. The rezone does not meet the criteria set forth in Renton Code section 4-9-170 Flb and lc, as the potential rezone does not meet the policies set forth in the Renton Comprehensive Plan. For all of these reasons, the IM classification is not appropriate. Prosecuting Attorney - ' King County Fred J.Kaufman March 8,2001 Page 4 Conclusion 4, that the adoption of new land use provisions to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code provided the impetus to review the P-1 zone and therefore the current proposal is 'appropriate is an error of fact and law to the extent that the only rationale in the record of this case for the rezone of the South Plant is that "This zone (P-1 zone) is being phased out pursuant to Council's 1994 direction to do so." There is no support in the record for Conclusion 4. Conclusion 5 that "(g)iven the surroundings,and the Comprehensive Plan designations for the subject site and neighboring sites, IH zoning does not appear appropriate" is an error of fact and law and an error in judgment. The only information in the record on this issue is the City's position as set forth in the February 13, 2001 staff report that "the recommended IH zoning would be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan." (February 13, 2001 Preliminary Report, page 4, section F(5)(d)). The South Plant property is in the Valley Planning Area and IH is a permitted zoning designation. The IH zone would still require the site to obtain Hearing Examiner Conditional Use approval and site plan review for substantial change in use or change of ownership. Furthermore, the IH zone more accurately reflects the South Plant's current uses and characteristics as set forth above. Conclusion 5 that "IH would appear to sanction offsite spillover of industrial impacts to surrounding areas" is an error of fact and law and an error in judgment. This Conclusion is also misleading and prejudicial, as it implies that King County would ignore or violate existing local, state and federal laws and regulations with regard to its operations, if the South Plant were to be zoned IH. This is not true. The IH zoning does not permit offsite spillover of industrial impacts to surrounding areas as stated in conclusion 5. The South Plant has properly mitigated its impacts so as not to create offsite impacts to the surrounding areas. Additionally, any substantial change in use under an IH zoning classification would require a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use approval which would likely impose appropriate mitigation measures to insure that any potential impacts from the South Plant's activities do not impact surrounding areas. Furthermore, local, state and federal laws and regulations regarding noise, air quality, water quality and surface water effects, do not allow the South Plant to create offsite impacts to the surrounding areas. The South Plant is now, has been, and is committed to be in the future, in compliance with all laws and regulations with respect to its operations and activities. Conclusion 6 that the applicant's use of the subject site is not by itself enough to control future zoning and that in addition the overall public welfare must be considered when determining appropriate classifications for zoning is an error of fact and an error of law. The proponent for this rezone is not King County but the City of Renton. The criteria for change of zone classification is set forth in the Renton Municipal Code section 4-9-170 F(2). As set forth above under the discussion of conclusion 1, the Code requires that the reviewing official consider a number of specific criteria, one of which is that the rezone not be materially detrimental to the public welfare. As set forth above the rezone to IM is materially detrimental to the public welfare. Moreover, the other criteria for change of zone classification to IM have not been met. Prosecuting Attorney King County Fred J.Kaufman March 8,2001 Page 5 Conclusion 9, that it would be appropriate for the City Council to rezone the parcel to IM is an error of fact and law and an error in judgment for all of the reasons set forth above. The Recommendation that the City Council should approve the reclassification of the subject property from P-1 to IM with a P-suffix is an error of fact and law and an error in judgment for all of the reasons set forth above. B. The Hearing Examiner should consider additional evidence on the issue of processes at the South Plant. Renton Municipal Code Title IV, Chapter 8, section 100G4 allows reconsideration on the ground of discovery of new evidence that was not reasonably available at the time of hearing. As presented by King County at the hearing in this matter, the South Plant already beneficially reuses digester gas, by scrubbing it and selling it at cost to Puget Sound Energy. With the recent volatility in the electrical energy market, King County has experienced a 1000% increase in its electrical rates at the South Plant, from $ 0.04 to $0.40 per kilowatt hour. As a result of this energy crisis, on February 15, 2001 (after the hearing in this matter), King County filed a petition to intervene in the consolidated actions against Puget Sound Energy pending before the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission to obtain some rate relief On March 6, 2001 the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission granted King county's petition to Intervene. A true and correct copy of the Order Granting King County's Petition to Intervene is attached hereto. In addition, King County has begun to explore other alternatives to respond to the energy crisis and the dramatic increase in energy costs at the South Plant. One of these options is for King County to generate electrical energy at the South Plant, as a hedge against escalating power costs. King County acknowledges that such an option would require certain City approvals. However, this option further demonstrates the heavy industrial nature of the South Plant property and supports a contrary finding to that of the Hearing Examiner that in fact the South Plant property is more appropriately zoned IH and not IM. The Renton Municipal Code expressly provides the Hearing Examiner with authority to accept additional evidence in connection with this request. (Renton Municipal Code Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110 G 4). King County respectfully requests permission to provide the Hearing Examiner with additional evidence on this matter. C. Conclusion For the reasons set forth herein, King County respectfully requests that the Hearing Examiner modify his recommendation to the City Council and recommend that the City Council approve a reclassification of the South Plant property from P-1 to IH with a P-suffix. In the alternative, King County requests that the Hearing Examiner accept additional information on the processes and intended processes at the South Plant and modify Conclusion 9 and his recommendation based on this additional evidence. Prosecuting Attorney - King County Fred J.Kaufman March 8,2001 Page 6 In order to preserve its appeal rights, King County is filing an appeal to the City Council concurrently with this request for reconsideration. King County requests that the appeal to the City Council be stayed pending resolution of this request for reconsideration. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Very truly yours, For NORM MALENG,King County Prosecuting Attorney !,;t�1�'ll i \'ema P.Bromley Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney cc: Don Theiler, Manager Wastewater Treatment Division Enclosure: 1111.1 UU L_UU a 1 UL. Vs.,•UU 1 11 YV U l V rn[1 i v. JUU i0U 1 1:1u r. UL/U4 • SERVICE DATE MAR 0 6 2001 BEFORE THE WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Air Liquide America Corporation, Air ) Products and Chemicals, Inc.,The ) Boeing Company, CNC Containers, ) Equilon Enterprises,LLC, Georgia- ) Pacific West, Inc., Tesoro Northwest ) Company, The City of Anacortes, ) Washington, and Intel Corporation ) ) Complainants, ) DOCKET NO. UE-001952 ) (consolidated) v. ) Puget Sound Energy,Inc. ) • Respondent. ) ) In re: Petition of Puget Sound Energy, ) DOCKET NO, UE-001959 Inc. for an Order Reallocating Lost ) (consolidated) Revenues Related to any Reduction in ) the Schedule 48 or G-P Special ) NINTH SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER: Contract Rates ) GRANTING PETITION TO ) INTERVENE OUT OF TIME. ) ) ) PROCEEDINGS: Air Liquid;et al. filed their original Formal Complaint Requesting Emergency Adjudicative Proceeding in Docket No. UE-001952 on December 12, 2000. Complainants filed an Amended Complaint on December 18, 2000, and a Second Amended Complaint on December 28,2000. PSE filed its Petition in Docket No. UE-001959 on December 13, 2000. PSE filed its Answer to the first Amended Complaint on January 2,2001. 2 The Commission, after hearing, found and concluded that Schedule 48 and the Special Contract, which include retail rates that are pegged via Mid-Columbia index pricing to Western wholesale power markets that are volatile and exceedingly high, are not fair,just, and reasonable because,under current conditions, customers do not have effective options to achieve price stability and reasonable rates under the DOCKET NOS. UE-001952 and UE-001959 PAGE 2 Optional Price Stability provisions of Schedule 48 and the Special Contract. Sixth ,Supplemental Order at ¶¶ 99 and 103 (January 22, 2001) (citing RCW 80.28.010 and RCW 80.28.020). The Commission ordered immediate proceedings in Phase Two of this docket to establish temporary terms under the Optional Price Stability provisions of Schedule 48 and the Georgia-Pacific/PSE Special Contract that will provide customers effective options to achieve price stability and reasonable rates, consistent with the Commission's discussion in the body of its Sixth Supplemental Order. Id at ¶ 106. By Notice issued and served simultaneously with its Sixth Supplemental Order, the Commission set January 29, 2001, as the date on which to commence the Phase Two hearings to finalize and implement the relief ordered. During proceedings held on January 29, 2001,the Commission heard additional testimony regarding remedies and considered Staffs oral motion for a continuance. Following argument by the parties,the Commission granted a brief continuance until February 5, 2001. 3 On February 5,2001,the parties stated they had resumed settlement discussions and requested a recess to determine whether a further continuance would facilitate their efforts. During their discussions,the parties agreed it would be worthwhile to continue settlement negotiations with the assistance of Administrative Law Judge C. Robert Wallis in the role of mediator. The Commission granted the parties' request for a continuance until February 8,2001,to permit the parties an opportunity to pursue settlement. The continuance to February 8, 2001, was granted with the understanding that the parties could request additional time informally if the progress of their discussions warranted a further continuance. The parties did request additional time;they reported via an agreed statement on February 9,2001,that they had achieved a settlement in principle. The parties have reported informally from time to time that they continue to work to produce a final settlement agreement for the Commission's consideration. 4 PARTIES: Melinda Davison,Davison Van Cleve,P.C.,Portland, Oregon, represents Air Liquide America Corporation,Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.,The Boeing Company, CNC Containers,Equilon Enterprises, LLC, Georgia-Pacific West, Inc., and Tesoro Northwest Company. Stan Berman,Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe, LLP, Seattle,Washington, and James M.Van Nostrand, Stoel Rives, Seattle, Washington,represent Puget Sound Energy,Inc. (PSE). Jim Pemberton appeared pro se to represent the interests of the City of Anacortes and its water utility. John A. Cameron and Traci Grundon,Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Portland, Oregon, represent Bellingham Cold Storage Company(BCS). Public Utility District No. 1 of Whatcom County (Whatcom PUD),by prior arrangement, did not appear at prehearing and will designate its legal counsel or permanent representative later; Whatcom PUD did appear via its written Petition To Intervene, signed by Tom Anderson,pro se. Frank Prochaska appeared pro se to represent the AWPPW. Simon ffitch and Robert Cromwell,Assistant Attorneys General, Seattle,Washington, represent the Public Counsel Section, Office of Attorney General (Public Counsel). • DOCKET NOS.UE-001952 and UE-001959 PAGE 3 Robert D. Cedarbaum and Donald Trotter, Assistant Attorneys General, Olympia, Washington,represent the Commission's regulatory staff(Staff). 5 LATE-FILED PETITION TO INTERVENE: On February 15, 2001, King County Washington petitioned for leave to intervene out of time. King County certified service of its Petition on February20, 2001. The County is a customer of PSE under Schedule 48,which is central to the subject matter of this proceeding. King County's petition states that its interest in participating in this proceeding matured in light of ongoing settlement discussions among the parties. The County stales that it will consider becoming a signatory to a settlement agreement, and states that it does not intend to broaden the issues. Staff and Public Counsel filed letters on February 23,2001, stating that they do not oppose late intervention by King County. No party filed to oppose King County's petition. 6 DISPOSITION: The Commission determines that King County has demonstrated an interest in this proceeding, has established good cause for its late filing, and that its participation would be in the public interest. In short, King County's petition is well- taken under the circumstances and should be granted. ORDER 7 THE COMMISSION ORDERS That the Petition To Intervene Out of Time of King County is granted. 8 THE COMMISSION ORDERS FURTHER That King County will take the record as it is found on this date and will not be permitted to broaden the issues in this proceeding. DATED at Olympia, Washington, and effective this 6th day of March,2001. WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DE IS J, SS Adm nisi tive Law Judge • �06 p AS.. CITY OF RENTON cfrY C `- ii4.. OFFICE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS,AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: March 8,2001 TO: Fred Kaufman Renton Hearing Examiner FROM: Sue Carlson,Administrator EDNSP Department STAFF CONTACT: Don Erickson (X6581) SUBJECT: Metropolitan King County South Wastewater Treatment Plant P-1 Rezone We respectfully request that you reconsider your recent reclassification of the Metro Wastewater Treatment Plant from Public Use (P-1) to Industrial Medium (IM), with a P-suffix. We are requesting the Industrial Heavy(Ill)Zone,with a P-suffix. At a recent meeting between Renton and King County officials it was revealed that King County is interested in-developing a co-generation facility at their South (Renton) Wastewater Treatment Plant that would reduce their reliance on "spot" market electricity which is currently driving up their operations costs. It was the consensus of those attending this meeting, including the Mayor, that the Industrial Heavy(IH)zoning classification would better accommodate this new use as well as reflect the scale of the operations now occurring at the plant. It was understood by all parties in attendance that the approval process was identical in both the IM and IH zones with "sewage disposal and treatment plants" being a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use in both zones. In closing, the Industrial Heavy (IH) designation would be consistent with our recent recommendation to you for reclassification "with either the Industrial Medium or the Industrial Heavy Zone,with a P-suffix designation". Thank you. • cc: Don Erickson \\TS SERVER\SYS2:\COMMON\-C:\WINNT\Profiles\derickson\Personal\Metro Reconsideration Memo.doc\d i' Y OF .._.{.. _ CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MAR ° MEMORANDUM 3r OFF iC; DATE: 03/08/01 • TO: Fred Kaufman �,�{ FROM: Jennifer Toth Henning O 1 r SUBJECT: Request for Reconsideration-King County(Metro)Wastewater Treatment Plant Rezone(File LUA-00-169,R, ECF) Development Services,Division respectfully requests reconsideration of the Examiner's recommendation for proposed rezone of the King County Wastewater Treatment Plant. Economic Development/Neighborhoods/Strategic Planning staff recommended that the P-1 (Public)zoning designation be removed and that the property be rezoned to either IM(Industrial- Medium) or IH(Industrial-Heavy)with a P-suffix. You have recommended that the Council approve a rezone of the subject property from P-1 (Public)to IM-P.(Medium Industrial,P-suffix). Development Services believes that the IH Zone with a P-suffix would better reflect the present and future use and operation of the Metro Wastewater facility. According to RMC Section 4-2- 020:R,the purpose of the Industrial-Heavy Zone is to provide areas for high intensity industrial activities involving processing of raw materials,bulk handling and storage. Uses in the 1H Zone may require large outdoor areas in which to conduct their operations and produce environmental impacts beyond their own sites that require their isolation from more sensitive land'uses. The IM Zone is intended for medium-intensity industrial activities that may create some external emissions of noise, odor, glare,vibration, etc.that are largely contained on site. The Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant conducts the majority of its operations out-of-doors. And current impacts from the facility, especially noise and odor,have the potential to affect areas beyond the site boundaries. For these reasons,the IH-P designation is more appropriate than the IM-P majority of the 90.7 acre site should be zoned IH-P. cc: Neil Watts \\CENTRAL\SYS2\DEPTS\PBPW\DIVISION.S\DEVELOP.SER\DEV&PLAN.INGUTH\metro rezone reconsideration.doc\cor 1111'11 VU LUU L I UL U.)• Ill l l W U 1 I nil RV, duU .-au,-0 a a vv . . vv v' • SERVICE DATE MAR 0 6 2001 BEFORE THE WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Air Liquide America Corporation, Air ) Products and Chemicals,Inc.,The ) Boeing Company, CNC Containers, ) Equilon Enterprises, LLC, Georgia- ) Pacific West, Inc., Tesoro Northwest ) - Company, The City of Anacortes, ) Washington, and Intel Corporation ) ) Complainants, ) DOCKET NO. UE-001952 ) (consolidated) v. ) Puget Sound Energy,Inc. ) • Respondent. ) In re: Petition of Puget Sound Energy, ) DOCKET NO, UE-001959 Inc. for an Order Reallocating Lost ) (consolidated) Revenues Related to any Reduction in ) the Schedule 48 or G-P Special ) NINTH SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER: Contract Rates ) GRANTING PETITION TO ) INTERVENE OUT OF TIME ) ) ) PROCEEDINGS: Air Liquide, et al. filed their original Formal Complaint Requesting Emergency Adjudicative Proceeding in Docket No. UE-001952 on December 12, 2000. Complainants filed an Amended Complaint on December 18, 2000, and a Second Amended Complaint on December 28,2000. PSE filed its Petition in Docket No. UE-001959 on December 13, 2000. PSE filed its Answer to the first Amended Complaint on January 2,2001. 2 The Commission, after hearing, found and concluded that Schedule 48 and the Special Contract,which include retail rates that are pegged via Mid-Columbia index pricing to Western wholesale power markets that are volatile and exceedingly high, are not fair,just, and reasonable because,under current conditions, customers do not have effective options to achieve price stability and reasonable rates under the DOCKET NOS. UE-001952 and UE-001959 PAGE 2 Optional Price Stability provisions of Schedule 48 and the Special Contract. Sixth Supplemental Order at ¶¶ 99 and 103 (January 22, 2001) (citing RCW 80.28.010 and RCW 80.28.020). The Commission ordered immediate proceedings in Phase Two of this docket to establish temporary terms under the Optional Price Stability provisions of Schedule 48 and the Georgia-Pacific/PSE Special Contract that will provide customers effective options to achieve price stability and reasonable rates, consistent with the Commission's discussion in the body of its Sixth Supplemental Order, Id at ¶ 106, By Notice issued and served simultaneously with its Sixth Supplemental Order, the Commission set January 29, 2001, as the date on which to commence the Phase Two hearings to finalize and implement the relief ordered. During proceedings held on January 29, 2001,the Commission heard additional testimony regarding remedies and considered Staff's oral motion for a continuance. Following argument by the parties,the Commission granted a brief continuance until February 5, 2001, 3 On February.5, 2001, the parties stated they had resumed settlement discussions and requested a recess to determine whether a further continuance would facilitate their efforts, During their discussions,the parties agreed it would be worthwhile to continue settlement negotiations with the assistance of Administrative Law Judge C. Robert Wallis in the role of mediator. The Commission granted the parties' request for a continuance until February 8,2001,to permit the parties an opportunity to pursue settlement. The continuance to February 8, 2001, was granted with the understanding that the parties could request additional time informally if the progress of their discussions warranted a further continuance. The parties did request additional time;they reported via an agreed statement on February 9,2001, that they had achieved a settlement in principle. The parties have reported informally from time to time that they continue to work to produce a final settlement agreement for the Commission's consideration. 4 PARTIES: Melinda Davison,Davison Van Cleve, P.C.,Portland, Oregon, represents Air Liquide America Corporation,Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.,The Boeing Company, CNC Containers,Equilon Enterprises, LLC, Georgia-Pacific West, Inc., and Tesoro Northwest Company. Stan Berman,Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe, LLP, Seattle,Washington, and.Tames M.Van Nostrand, Stoel Rives, Seattle, Washington,represent Puget Sound Energy,Inc. (PSE). Jim Pemberton appeared pro se to represent the interests of the City of Anacortes and its water utility, John A. Cameron and Traci Grundon,Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Portland, Oregon, represent Bellingham Cold Storage Company(BCS). Public Utility District No. 1 of Whatcom County (Whatcom PUD),by prior arrangement, did not appear at prehearing and will designate its legal counsel or permanent representative later; Whatcom PUD did appear via its written Petition To Intervene, signed by Tom Anderson,pro se. Frank Prochaska appeared pro se to represent the AWPPW. Simon flitch and Robert Cromwell,Assistant Attorneys General, Seattle, Washington, represent the Public Counsel Section, Office of Attorney General (Public Counsel). • a • -- DOCKET NOS.UE-001952 and UE-001959 PAGE 3 Robert D. Cedarbaum and Donald Trotter, Assistant Attorneys General, Olympia, Washington,represent the Commission's regulatory staff(Staff). 5 LATE-FILED PETITION TO INTERVENE: On February 15, 2001, King County Washington petitioned for leave to intervene out of time. King County certified service of its Petition on February 20, 2001. The County is a customer of PSE under Schedule 48,which is central to the subject matter of this proceeding. King County's petition states that its interest in participating in this proceeding matured in light of ongoing settlement discussions among the parties. The County states that it will consider becoming a signatory to a settlement agreement, and states that it does not intend to broaden the issues. Staff and Public Counsel filed letters on February 23,2001, stating that they do not oppose late intervention by King County. No party filed to oppose King County's petition. 6 DISPOSITION: The Commission determines that King County has demonstrated an interest in this proceeding, has established good cause for its late filing, and that its participation would be in the public interest. In short, King County's petition is well- taken under the circumstances and should be granted. ORDER 7 THE COMMISSION ORDERS That the Petition To Intervene Out of Time of King County is granted. 8 THE COMMISSION ORDERS FURTHER That King County will take the record as it is found on this date and will not be permitted to broaden the issues in this proceeding. DATED at Olympia,Washington, and effective this 6th day of March,2001. WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DE IS J. SS Adm rust tive Law Judge CITY OF RENTON MAR 0821101 :oa RECEIVED n • CITY OF RENTON CITY CLERK'S OFFICE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS,AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: March 8, 2001 TO: Fred Kaufman Renton Hearing Examiner FROM: Sue Carlson,Administrator EDNSP Department STAFF CONTACT: Don Erickson (X6581) SUBJECT: Metropolitan King County South Wastewater Treatment Plant P-1 Rezone We respectfully request that you reconsider your recent reclassification of the Metro Wastewater Treatment Plant from Public Use (P-1) to Industrial Medium (IM), with a P-suffix. We are requesting the Industrial Heavy(IH)Zone,with a P-suffix. At a recent meeting between Renton and King County officials it was revealed that King County is interested in developing a co-generation facility at their South (Renton) Wastewater Treatment Plant that would reduce their reliance on "spot" market electricity which is currently driving up their operations costs. It was the consensus of those attending this meeting, including the Mayor, that the Industrial Heavy(IH)zoning classification would better accommodate this new use as well as reflect the scale of the operations now occurring at the plant. It was understood by all parties in attendance that the approval process was identical in both the IM and IH zones with "sewage disposal and treatment plants" being a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use in both zones. In closing, the Industrial Heavy (IH) designation would be consistent with our recent recommendation to you for reclassification "with either the Industrial Medium or the Industrial Heavy Zone,with a P-suffix designation". Thank you. • cc: Don Erickson \\TS SERVER\SYS2:\COMMON\-C:\WINNT\Profiles\derickson\Personal\Metro Reconsideration Memo.doc\d CITY Oi- RENT ON CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MARy MEMORANDUM RECEIVED 3:-to CITY Y C ERf 1 :i OFF JP. DATE: 03/08/01 TO: Fred Kaufman FROM: Jennifer Toth Henning SM SUBJECT: Request for Reconsideration-King County(Metro)Wastewater Treatment Plant Rezone(File LUA-00-169,R, ECF) Development Services Division respectfully requests reconsideration of the Examiner's recommendation for proposed rezone of the King County Wastewater Treatment Plant. Economic Development/Neighborhoods/Strategic Planning staff recommended that the P-1 (Public)zoning designation be removed and that the property be rezoned to either IM(Industrial- Medium) or IH(Industrial-Heavy)with a P-suffix. You have recommended that the Council approve a rezone of the subject property from P-1 (Public)to IM-P (Medium Industrial,P-suffix). Development Services believes that the IH Zone with a P-suffix would better reflect the present and future use and operation of the Metro Wastewater facility. According to RMC Section 4-2- 020:R,the purpose of the Industrial-Heavy Zone is to provide areas for high intensity industrial activities involving processing of raw materials,bulk handling and storage. Uses in the IH Zone may require large outdoor areas in which to conduct their operations and produce environmental impacts beyond their own sites that require their isolation from more sensitive land uses. The IM Zone is intended for medium-intensity industrial activities that may create some external emissions of noise, odor, glare,vibration, etc.that are largely contained on site. The Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant conducts the majority of its operations out-of-doors. And current impacts from the facility, especially noise and odor,have the potential to affect areas beyond the site boundaries. For these reasons,the IH-P designation is more appropriate than the IM-P majority of the 90.7 acre site should be zoned IH-P. cc: Neil Watts \\CENTRAL\SYS2\DEPTS\PBPW\DIVISION.S\DEVELOP.SER\DEV&PLAN.INGUTH\metro rezone reconsideration.doc\cor CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 204 day of v\uaN , 2008, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Report to tie. Neatet►ul Ex.a.tmiKiCk3tuments. This information was sent to: Name Representing IMero (Signature of Sender) SQY c_. K. Se -neY- STATE OF WASHINGTON ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that ->0 7\8 U(, -0-e _091. signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the- es and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated< ,r ,Qi."" Q0/ /) 1 y is d 9�L7 ?4/14 ���� Notary Public i and for the State of Washi g� NOTi,i i I i :.si...�tia „ STATE OF WASHINGTON Notary (Print)MYARILYN KAMCHEFF Cr MMISSION EXPIRES My a pointment a pir s�TMENT EXPIRES:6-29-03 IUNE 29, 2003 -�-, Project Name: L1 tewarter- --I-veil-merit Ptav P-( Relary Project Number: L.UA . 00 • I(o9, R, EL# NOTARY2.DOC No-n . : • NOTt . J ........d ..... ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION , PROJECT NAME: WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT REZONE PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-00-189,R,ECF City sponsored rezone of 90.7-acre Industrial site used for treating regional wastewater(sewage)from Public Use(P-I)Zone to Industrial Medium(IM)Zone with a P-suffix designation because of Its public ownership. No new development is anticipated as a consequence of this rezone. As in the case of the Public Use Zone,wastewater treatment plants are a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use In the IM Zone. Location:1200 Monster Road SW between Monster Road on the west and Oakesdale Avenue on the east/northeast,north of Grady Way and I-405. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed In writing on or before 5:00 PM,January 29,2001. Appeals must be filed In writing together with the required 375.00 application fee with:Hearing Examiner,City of Renton,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-0.110. Additional Information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office,(425)-430-8510. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting In the Council Chambers on the 7th floor of City Hall,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,Washington,on January 30,2001,at 9:00 AM to consider the proposed Rezone. If the Environmental Determination Is appealed,the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. RC(P) pri ill ` , CO u CO 7. lit ///%////// / li�i2 Ili L. will kN . 0 6Mr i A.,....„..,.11,.1�rrli�t��:c 'I FOR FURTHER INFORMATION,PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON,DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT(425)430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please Include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file Identification. CERTIFICATION I, illA v 2 Q 0„)hereby certify that (o copies of the above document were posted by me in (o conspicuous places on or nearby the described property on, 3 c, \ \ l ?no i • Signed: U l, ,/ ATTEST: Subcribed and sworn before me, a Nortary Pub lc, in and for the State of Washington residing in i�le7? , on the &nc day of `22)u-t.4 ,--Q0. �- � MARILYN Y PUBLIC �� ���-e N�JTAR F STATE OF WASHINGTON s;AT 1'1 q; 7; T-7. COMMISSION EXPIRES �roq tr ,g �s JUNE 2 N, 2003 �j 1r Fti'^8'3.ai�'Y"i�i'�e:eJ�tiil itCM�.(�ee"ux..+G? iG..,.,�-�J3 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION r Barbara Alther, first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 600 S. Washington Avenue, Kent, Washington 98032 RENT CO MITTEE HINGTON The Environmental Review a daily newspaper published seven (7) times a week. Said newspaper is a legal Committee has issued a Determination newspaper ofgeneralpublication and is now and has been for more than six of Non-Significance for the following project under the authority of the months prior to the date of publication, referred to, printed and published in the Renton Municipal Code. English language continually as a daily newspaper in Kent, King County, WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT REZONE Washington. The South County Journal has been approved as a legal LUA-00-169,ECF,R newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King City sponsored rezone of 90.7- acre industrial site used for County. treating regional wastewater The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the South (sewage) from Public Use (P-I) County Journal (and not in supplemental form) which was regularly distributed to Zone to Industrial Medium (IM) the subscribers duringthe below statedperiod. The annexed notice, a Zonea with a P-suffix designation wnhp. because of its public ownership. Location:1200 Monster Road SW. Wastewater Treatment Plant Rezone Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM January 29, as published on: 1/13/01 2001. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of application fee with:Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady $68.75, charged to Acct. No. 8051067. Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Legal Number 8622 Renton Additional information Section re garding gardi g the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, /, (425)430 6510. 4.41 _ /j/®" A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Legal Clerk, ouch County Journal Council Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall, on January 30, 2001 at 9:00 AM to consider the proposed Subscribed and sworn before me on this dayof4L,L 2001 rezone. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public .011tIIiirii, hearing. ``�tt11 ri ,,7i,,,' Published in the South County `�� _+\- .-. 1. :,r A y{�, Journal January 13,2001.8622 CEO ihN1 ▪: y• . o! = Notary Public of the State of Washington N% Auer\c a:1 residing in Renton '%�9�,•�?6 20��,�0?: King County, Washington '//ii/ WA S kl-% `��\ f ^ivrFICE OF THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON CIVIL DIVISION Natural Resources Norm Maleng 900 King County Administration Building Prosecuting Attorney 500 Fourth Avenue Seattle,Washington 98104 (206)296-8820 FAX(206)296-0415 Memorandum To: City of Renton Hearing Examiner / From: King County Department artment of Natural Resources V0, Date: February 12, 2001 Subject: File No. LUA-00-167,R, ECF -Proposed Rezone From Public Use (P- 1) Zone to Industrial Medium(IM) Zone or Industrial Heavy Zone With a P-Suffix Designation Attached-King County Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant Site: Comments of King County Department of Natural Resources ("King County DNR") King County Department of Natural Resources is in charge of the management of the King County Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant site located in Renton which is the principal use on the subject property of this rezone ("the Renton Plant"). King County Department of Natural Resources ("King County DNR") has had an opportunity to review the Preliminary Report submitted by City staff and makes the following comments for the record. King County has no objection to a proposed rezone for the Renton Plant so long as the rezone is from a P-1 to an IH Zone. As stated in the Preliminary Report, "because of the size of the subject site and the unique heavy industrial characteristics of the treatment plant, staff now believe IH may be more representative of the plant's characteristic than IM zoning." King County is prepared to present evidence, in the form of both testimony and documentary evidence, on this issue, to support the IH Zone designation, if necessary. The recommendation of an IM designation creates possible concerns with regard to the continuing ability of the Renton Plant to expand in response to regional needs. First, the City IM zone designation allows a wide range of industrial uses. King County DNR is concerned that certain abutting uses may in the future be deemed incompatible with the expansion of facilities at the Renton Plant. A second concern relates to the conditional P-Suffix designation attached to the IM zone (and the IH zone). The Renton Plant serves as an Essential Public Facility ("EPF") as defined under the Washington State Growth Management Act at Chapter 36.70A.200. This regional facility addresses the wastewater needs of a significant portion of King County communities and jurisdictions. It is identified in the County Comprehensive Plan and those of many of the cities within King County as the facility for treatment of wastewater generated by these communities. / Prosecuting Attorney King County City of Renton Hearing Examiner February 12,2001 Page 2 The Renton Plant will also serve as part of the regional solution in addressing the growing wastewater needs over the next 20 years. The King County Council adopted the Regional Wastewater Services Plan in November 1999 ("RWSP"). The RWSP identifies the continuing need for the Renton Plant and its role in meeting the growing wastewater needs in the region in the years ahead. As acknowledged by the City in the Preliminary Report, "the treatment plant is a regionally recognized public facility that is not likely to change in terms of use or location in the foreseeable future." (Preliminary Report, Section F (5), page 4). The relevance of this GMA designation and adopted RWSP goes to the importance of facilitating any future expansion required at the Renton Plant to meet regional needs. King County has no objection to a proposed rezone for the Renton Plant from a P-1 Zone to an IH Zone, provided that any future review of any expansion of the Renton Plant take into account the fact that it is an essential public facility under GMA. Under the GMA, a local jurisdiction may not preclude the expansion of an existing Essential Public Facility. It is not entirely clear from the Preliminary Report in this matter what particular conditions or criteria might be associated with any proposed future expansion of the Renton Plant. Section 4-9-030 of Title Four of the Renton Municipal Code, dealing with conditional use permits, sets forth the decisional criteria relating to conditional use permits. While many of these relate to appropriate mitigation for a • project proposal, it is not clear to what extent these broad criteria might be used to limit or preclude issuance of a conditional use permit for the expansion of the Renton Plant, an Essential Public Facility. The mitigation imposed as part of any future conditional use permit process on an expansion of the Renton Plant must not be so extensive as to preclude this expansion. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. 3.disposal of treated effluent;4.production and recycling of biosolids;5.regulation of I/I;6.control of com binedseweroverflows;and7.productionofreclai medwater. Y. "Waterreuse"meansusingreclaimedwater.(Ord.13680§1,1999) 28.86.020 Comprehensive water pollution abatement plan—readoption and ratification Resolution No.23 and all subsequent resolutions that amended and implemented the comprehensive waterpollution abatement plan,dulyenacted bythe council of the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro)and notexpressly repealed bythat bodyeffective not laterthan midnight,December31,1993, and thatare not inconsistentwith the King CountyCharterorcounty ordinances,are hereby readopted and ratified as the comprehensive water pollution abatement plan for King County. (Ord.13680§2, 1999). 28.86.030 Regional wastewater services plan as supplement to comprehensive water pollution abatementplan. Undertheprovisionsofthe King County CharterandRCW 35.58.200,the RWSP, set forth in K.C.C. 28.86.010 and 28.86.040 through 28.86.150, is hereby adopted as a supplementtothecomprehensivewaterpollutionabatementplanforKingCounty.TheRW SP provides policyguidanceforthewastewatersystemthroughtheyear2030.(Ord.13680§3,1999). 28.86.040 Regional wastewater services plan policies and explana tory material,financial policiesforcomprehensivewaterpollution abatementplan-application.A.The RWSP policies, as set forth in this chapter,shall provide direction for the operation and further development of the wastewatersystem,itscapitalimprovementprogramand,asnecessary,thedevelopmentofsubsequent policies. B. TheRWSPexplanatorymaterial,assetforthinthischapter,providesbackgroundinformation andgenerallydescribestheobjectivesoftheRWSPpolicies. C. Financial pol iciesforthecomprehensivewaterpollution abatement plan and its supplement, theRW SP,areseparatelyadoptedinK.C.C.28.86.160.(Ord.13680§4,1999). 28.86.050 Treatment plant policies(TPP). A. Explanatory material. The treatment plant policies are intended to guidethe county in providing treatment at its existing plants and in expanding treatmentcapacitythroughtheyear2030.Thepoliciesdirectthatsecondarytreatmentwill be provided toallbasesanitaryflows.Thecountywill investigatepossibletertiarytreatmentwithafreshwateroutfal I to facilitate water reuse. The policies also direct howthe county will provide the expanded treatment capacitynecessaryto handlethe projected increases in wastewaterflows resulting from population and employment growth. The policies provide for the construction of a new treatment plant(the north treatment plant)to handleflows in a newnorth service area,expansion ofthe south treatment plantto handleadditionalsouthandeastKingCountyflows,andthereservationofcapacityatthewesttreatment plantto handle Seattleflows and CSOs.The potential for expansion atthe west and south treatment plants will be retained for unanticipated circumstances such as changes in regulations. The policies address goals for odor control at treatment plants and direct that water reuse is to continue and potentially expand attreatment plants.The policies also describe a cooperative siting process for the newnorthtreatm entpl antand itsoutfa l 1. B. Policies. TPP-1: King County shall provide secondary treatment to all base sanitaryflowdelivered to its treatment plants. Treatment beyond the secondary level may be provided to meet water quality standards and achieve other goals such as furthering the water reuse program or benefiting species listedundertheESA. • (KingCounty12-99) 28.86.050 METROPOLITANFUNCTIONS 28-82 TPP-2: King County shall provide additional wastewater treatment capacity to serve growing wastewaterneedsbyconstructing a newnorthtreatmentplantin north King countyorsouth Snohomish countyandthenexpandi ngthetreatmentcapacityatthesouthtreatmentplant.Thewesttreatmentplant shall be maintained at its rated capacity of one hundred thirty-three mgd. The south treatment plant capacity shall be limited tothat needed to serve the eastside and south King County,exceptforflows fromtheNorthCreekDiversionprojectandtheplannedsix-million-gallonstoragetank.Thepotentialfor expansion at the west treatment plant and south treatment plant should be retained for unexpected circumstanceswhichshall include,butnotbe limitedto,higherthananticipated populationgrowth,new facilitiestoimplementtheCSOreductionprogramornewregulatoryrequirements. TPP-3: Any changes in facilities of the west treatment plant shall comply with the terms of the WestPointsettlementagreement. TPP-4: King County shall establish goals for odor control at all treatment plants. In order to establish these goals,the executive shall investigate potential technologies and costs for odor control andrecommendapolicytothecouncilforinclusionintheRW SP.Thisinvestigationshal I becompleted and a policyadopted in atimely mannersothatodors are controlled atexisting plants and at any new plant.Odorcontrolfaci litiesandequipmentshall bedesignedandoperatedtomeetthesegoals.Inthe caseofthesouthtreatmentplant,KingCounty'sgoalshallbetosignificantlyreduceodorbelowbaseline levelsestablishedinthedevelopmentofthe1993southtreatmentplantairmodel. TPP-5: King County shall undertake studies to determine whether it is economically and environmentally feasible to discharge reclaimed water to systems such as the Lake Washington and LakeSammamishwatershedsincludingtheBallardLocks. TPP-6: WhenthereareopportunitiestotransferflowsbetweenKingCounty'streatmentfacilities andtreatmentfacilities owned and operated by otherwastewater utilities inthe region,thecountyshall evaluatethem.Suchevaluationshall include,butnotbelimitedtocost,environmental and community impacts,liability,engineeringfeasibility,flexibility,impactstocontractual and regulatoryobligationsand consistencywiththelevelofserviceprovidedatthecountyownedandoperatedfacilities. TPP-7: King County may explore the possibility of constructing one or more satellite treatment plantsinordertoproducereclaimedwater.Thecountymaybuildtheseplantsincooperationwithalocal communityandprovidethecommunitywithreclaimedwaterthrougharegionalwatersupplyagency.In orderto ensure integrated water resource planning,in the interim period priorto the development of a regional water supply plan,King County shall consult and coordinate with regional water suppliers to ensurethatwaterreusedecisionsareconsistentwith regional watersupply plans.Toensurecosts and benefits are shared equal lythroughout the region,all reclaimed water used in the community shall be distributedthrougharegionalwatersupplyagencyconsistentwitharegionalwatersupplyplan. TPP-8: King County shall continue water reuse and explore opportunities for expanded use at existingplants,andshallexplorewaterreuseopportunitiesatall newtreatmentfacilities. TPP-9: A comprehensive public involvement program shall be developed and implemented to providethepublic,ataminimum,theopportunitytogiveinputonthecriteriaandthescreeningprocess usedforselectingthelistofpossiblesitesforthenewnorthtreatmentplant,itsconveyancesystem and outfallandtocommentonthefinalselectionofasite.TheKingCountyexecutiveshallestablishoneor more committeesto aid in the siting of a north treatment plant.The committees shall,ataminimum, evaluatesitingcriteriatobeusedandproposeanarrowedlistofsitesforconsiderationbytheexecutive afterconsulti ngwiththecouncil asfol lows: 1. The King County executive shall transmit a m otion to the council that establishes the criteriabywhichsiteswill beselected;and 2. The executive shall providethecouncil with timelyreportsthatdetail the sitesthat meet thecriteriaandareunderconsiderationand,atalaterdate,thosesitesthatarefinal candidatesforthe sitingofthenorthtreatmentplant. TPP-10: Basedoncriteriaapprovedbythecouncil,theKingCountyexecutiveshallhavethefinal decisiononthesiteforanorthtreatmentplant.(Ord.13680§5,1999). (KingCounty12-99) WASTEWATERTREATM ENT 28.86.060-28.86.070 28-83 customers when the additional monthly sewer rate revenues from these added customers are considered. FP-15: The cost of community treatment systems developed and operated in accordance with WWSP-15 would not be subsidized by the remaining ratepayers of the county 's wastewater treatment system.(Ord.13680§16,1999). 28.86.170 Capital improvement program. The capital improvement program required to implement the comprehensive water pollution abatement plan,as amended,including the RWSP,a supplement to the comprehensive water pollution abatement plan, as amended, shall be prepared pursuanttoK.C.C.4.04.200through4.04.270.(Ord.13680§17,1999). (KingCounty12-99) WASTEWATERTREATMENT 28.86.180 28.86.180 Implementation.A.The executive is herebydirected to prepare and recommend to the council an operational master plan that meets the requirements of K.C.C.chapter 4.04. If any portionoftheproposedoperational masterplanisinconsistentwiththeRWSPpoliciescontained inthis chapter,the executive shall submit at the same time a proposed ordinance amending the affected policies. B. The operational master plan shall contain the following major elements and shall further define as necessary the major projects,projected capacity,projected completion dates and estimated costsreferencedinthischapter.Theoperationalmasterplanshallincludeascheduleandmilestonesfor completion of the north treatment plant by 2010 and a schedule and milestones for completion of the NorthLakel nterceptorasatunnelby2006orsoonerifpossible. 1. Treatment capacity. Population and employment growth is projected to require the wastewater system capacityto expand from two hundred forty-eight mgd tothree hundred four mgd by 2030. The estimated costs of treatment facilities to achieve this expanded capacity by 2030 is two hundredseventy-sevenmilliondollars1998netpresentvalue.Theexpandedcapacityshallbeprovided by: a. constructing a new north treatment plant on a site large enough to accommodate ultimateplantbuildoutinnorthKingCountyorsouthSnohomishcountywithacapacityofthirty-six mgd by 2010 or as soon thereafter as possible to handle wastewater flows from a new north service area • defined intheplan.Thisplantwould providesecondarytreatmentandwould dischargetreated effluent to Puget Sound.Tofacilitatethe production of reclaimed water,the possibility of upgrading to tertiary treatment with a freshwater outfall should be investigated during the initial phase of construction and subsequentexpansions; b. expanding the treatment capacity at the south treatment plant from one hundred fifteen mgdtoonehundredthirty-five mgdby2029.Thisexpansionwouldhandleincreasedwastewater flows from the southern and eastern portions of the service area. Some or all of the plant's capacity couldalsobeupgradedtotertiarytreatment,tomeetwaterqualitystandardsorfacilitatewaterreuse,as partoffutureexpansionsorinadditiontothesecondaryleveloftreatmentusingavailableland reserves attheplantsite;and c. maintaining the west treatment plant a t its capacity of one hundred thirty-three mgd primarilytoservethecityofSeattleand handleflowsfrom thecombinedsewersi nthearea.Additional facilities should be planned in the year 2018 to accommodate the extended peak CSO flows that wi l l occurafterstormsonceCSOcontrolprojectsareconstructed. 2. Conveyancefacilities. a. The conveyance facilities are to be configured,sized and scheduled to support the treatmentplantsbyconveyingwastewatertoandtreatedeffluentfromtheplants.Theestimatedcostsof conveyance facilities isfive hundred eighty-two million dollars 1998 net present value.Major projects, withtheestimateddatethefacilitywillbeonline,shouldinclude: Parallel EastSidelnterceptorSection-1(2000) 28-96 I ncreaseYorkPumpStationcapacitytosixty-eight mgd(2000) ParallelAuburnlnterceptorSections1,2,&3(2004) Constructsixm it liongallonsofoff-li nestorageatNorthCreek(2002) ConstructNorth Lakelnterceptorand pumpstationtoextendfrom the McAleer/LyonTrunkto theKenmorePumpStationsizedtocreatetenmilliongallonsofstorage(2006orsoonerifpossible) ConstructforcemainfromnewKenmorePumpStationtoNorthtreatmentplant(2010) Construct one hundred twenty mgd pump station at Kenmore to pump to North treatment plant(2010) Constructtunnelfrom NorthtreatmentplanttoPugetSourid,sized toaccommodateultimate plantbuildout(2010) ConstructNorthtreatmentplantoutfall,sizedtoaccommodateultimatep lantbuildout(2010) Constructthreetofive million gallons of storage at south treatment plantto achieve a five- yeardesignstormstandardofprotectionfortheEffl uentTransferSystem(2030) ConstructAuburnl nterceptorStorage(2020) I ncreaseNorthCreekPumpStationtofifty mgd(2016) ModifyYorkPumpStationtopumpthirty-five mgdnorth(2016) ConstructforcemaintoconveyflowsfromNorthCreektoKenmorePumpStation(2016) (KingCounty12-99) 28.86.180 METROPOLITANFUNCTIONS b. King County will construct additional conveyance improvements (e.g., increasing conveyance and pumpstation capacity and extending conveyance)toaccomnnodateincreasedflows in otherpartsoftheserviceareatoservepopulationgrowthinthesmallerwastewaterservicebasinsandto preventimproperdischargesfromthesanitarysystem. Extending the county 's ownership of conveyance policy into Snohomish county will increase the amount of conveyance owned and operated by King County.Theassessmentofthis extension will be doneandpresentedtotheKingCountycounci land mayincl ude,butnotbelimitedto,theSwampCreek andNorthCreeklnterceptorscurrentlyownedandoperatedbytheAlderwoodW aterandSewerDistrict. 3. Ill. The estimated cost for assessing the levels of Ill in local sewer systems is sixteen milliondollarsandtheestimatedcostsofpilotprojectsisfifteenmilliondollars,bothin 1998netpresent value. 4. CSOs. a. CSO projects shall be prioritized based on first controlling discharges that impact bathingbeachesandspecieslistedunderESA.ThesecondpriorityisotherCSOlocationsthathavethe potential to affect public health and safety.Third priority are all other CSO locations.The estimated cost for CSO control projects is two hundred twenty million dollars, 1998 net present value. These projectareasshouldbecompletedonthefollowingschedule: Priority Projectareasandprojects Completionperiod 1 PugetSoundbeaches 2009-2011 Norfolk0.8milliongallon(MG)storagetank SouthMagnolial.3MGstoragetank SWAlaska0.7MGstoragetank Murray0.8MGstoragetank BartonPumpStation(PS)U pgrade NorthBeachstoragetank&PSupgrade 2 LakeWashincitonshipcanal,eastside 2015 University/Montlake7.5MGstoragetank 3 DuwamishRiverandElliottBayshoreline 2017- 2027 Hanford#23.3MGstorage/treatmenttank Landerl.5MGstorage/treatmenttank Michigan2.2MGstorage/treatmenttank Brandon0.8'MGstorage/treatmenttank 28-97 Chelan4.0MGstoragetank Connecticut2.1 MGstorage/treatmenttank KingStreetconveyancetoConnecticut HanfordatRainier0.6MGstoragetank 8thAve.S 1.0 MGstoragetank W Michiganconveyanceexpansion Terminal 1150.5MGstoragetank 4 LakeWashingtonshiocanal,westside 2029-2030 Ballardl.OMGstoragetank 3rdAveW5.0MGstoragetank 11 thAveNW 2.0 M Gstoragetank Other Westtreatmentplant-primarvandsecondary treatmentenhancementstohandleincreased flowsfromCSOprojects 2018 b. TheCSOprojectsmayinclude: (1) constructing large underground tanks and tunnels to store combined flows during storms.Theseflowswouldthenbepumpedtothewesttreatmentplantoncetherainsubsides;and (2) treating the combined sewage at existing CSO outfall locations usingtechnologyto removesolidsanddisinfectthecombinedsewagebeforedischarge. Refinements to the CSO program may be required in response to changing conditions and new information.Thelisting ofspeciesundertheESAmayaffectprojectpriorities,scheduleand associated mitigationoptions. • (KingCounty12-99) WASTEWATERTREATMENT 28.86.180 5. Biosolids. a. KingCountywillcontinuetoproduceClassBbiosolidsusinganaerobicdigestionatthe southandwesttreatmentplantsandtoimplementthesameprocessatthenorthtreatmentplantuntil a new technology can be used reliably. The plan also proposes that the county continue to evaluate alternativetechnologiestoreducethewatercontentofbiosolidswhilepreservingtheirmarketability.The primaryobjectiveofthisevaluationwillbetoidentifyalternativestodigestersatthewesttreatmentplant, aconditionoftheWestPointSettlementAgreement. As part of planning for the north treatment plant, King County should evaluate conventional, alternativeand newsolidsprocessingtechnologiesusingcriteriasuchasproductquality(classAorB), marketability,odor and other potential community impacts, impact on sewer rates, reliability of the treatmentprocess,amountoflandneededforthetreatmentfacilityandthenumberoftrucktripsneeded to transport the biosolids produced. Based on the results of this evaluation and public comment,the executive should recommend one of three biosolids handling scenarios at any or all of the treatment plants: (1) continueusinganaerobicdigestion; (2) supplementanaerobicdigestionwithanothertreatmenttechnology;or (3) replaceanaerobicdigestionwithanothertreatmenttechnology. b. Theestimatedcostsfortheexpandedsolidshandlingfacilitiesneededatboththenew northtreatmentplantandthesouthtreatmentplantareeighty-fivemilliondollarsnetpresentvalue. c. The county should continue using a public-private partnership approach to recycling biosolids such as using biosolids on working forests in King County to enhance wildlife habitat and generatelong-termincomefromselectivetimberharvests. 6. Water reuse program.The south and westtreatment plants should continueto produce reclaimedwaterfornonpotableusesandexploretheproductionofreclai medwateratnewfacil ities.The workplanforthewaterreuseprogramistobepreparednolaterthantwelvemonthsfromtheadoptionof theRWSP.KingCountywillworkwithwatersupplierstoplanandimplementanacceleratedwaterreuse programthatcouldaugmentexistingwatersupplies. If a public education and involvement program on water reuse is to be developed and implemented,itshall becoordinatedwithwaterconservationeducationprograms.Theestimatedcostto evaluatepotentialfutureusesofreclaimedwaterandconductpilotstudiesanddemonstrationprojectsis twentymilliondollarsnetpresentvalue. 7. Communitytreatmentsystems. 28-98 , AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) ss. County of King ) 1 ,,,,d0,(.. being first duly sworn,upon oath, deposes and states: That on the 22 jay of -, p4J2A-c ,9 / , affiant deposited in the mail of the United States a sealed envelope(s) taining a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition. Signature: _ \` � o—, SUBSCR Div NIA SWORN to before me this. day of , 2001. +° �G•4;,,,,, b iii _E t' '6, ; . )-0. 4-NA-et/Li& ; ';4',,,op �,�sAA C Not y Public ' and f r he State of Washington, "� _ Residingat � therein. Application, Petition, or Case No.: Wastewater Treatment Plant Rezone LUA00-169,R,ECF The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record. HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT February 22,2001 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION APPLICANT: Susan Carlson,Administrator EDNSP Department File No.: LUA00-169,R,ECF LOCATION: 1200 Monster Road SW SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Rezone of a 90.7 acre industrial site used for treating wastewater from Public Use(P-1)One to the Industrial Medium(IM)Zone or Industrial Heavy(IH)Zone SUMMARY OF ACTION: Development Services Recommendation: Approve DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on January 23, 2001 PUBLIC HEARING: In accordance with Section 4-8-14(C)(2),the Hearing Examiner shall determine if a change of zone classification is advisable, in the public interest,tends to further the preservation and enjoyment of any substantial property rights of the petitioner, is not materially detrimental to the public welfare of the properties of other persons located in the vicinity thereof, and is in harmony with the purposes and effect of the Comprehensive Plan. In such event,the Hearing Examiner may recommend that the City Council approve the change of the zone classification. MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the Tuesday,January 30,2001 hearing. The legal record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Tuesday,January 31,2001, at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Verna Bromley, Civil Division,King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office,900 King County Administration Bldg, 500 4tt'Avenue, Seattle,WA 98104 requested a brief continuance of the hearing to allow her office and the client at the Department of Natural Resources some additional time to consider what, if any, impacts may result to the Treatment Plant as a result of this rezone petition. The hearing adjourned at 9:09 a.m., continued to 9:00 a.m.,Tuesday,February 13,2001. ************************************************* Wastewater Treatment Plant Re File No.: LUA00-169,R,ECF February 22, 2001 Page 2 The hearing opened on Tuesday,February 13,2001 at 10:04 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow land use file,LUA00- Exhibit No.2: Zoning Map 169,R,ECF, containing the original application,proof of posting,proof of publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No.3: Vicinity Map Exhibit No.4: Power Point Presentation Exhibit No. 5: Written Comments by Ms. Bromley Exhibit No.6: Visual of Treatment Plant Site Don Erickson, Senior Planner,Economic Development Division, 1055 S Grady Way,Renton, WA 98055 presented the staff report. The applicant for this rezone is the City of Renton. The owner of record is King County Wastewater Treatment Division. The subject proposal is the rezoning of a 90.7 acre industrial site used for treating regional wastewater from the Public Use(P-1)Zone to the Industrial Medium (IM)Zone or the Industrial Heavy(IH)Zone. The site is located at 1200 Monster Road SW, at the intersection of Oaksdale Ave SW and Grady Way. The subject site is in the northwest quadrant of this intersection. The plant lies between Monster Road on the west and Oaksdale Avenue SW on its north and east edges. Mr.Erickson reviewed the applicable sections of the comprehensive Plan and went on to discuss the background of the rezone. The current proposal is part of a series of approximately fifty P-1 rezones,most of which have already been changed to other more traditional zones that reflect the characteristics of the use and surrounding area. This consolidation is based in part upon a June 1994 directive of Council to proceed with the assimilation of the P-1 Zone into the City's other zones. The P-1 Zone allows a vast array of uses not all of which are necessarily compatible with the areas in which they are located."Also,because it was most typically applied to individual parcels, it could be challenged as"spot"zoning. Another factor was that it had been inconsistently applied with nearly half of all public facilities located in more traditional zones. The Environmental Review Committee(ERC) issued a Determination of Non-Significance for this non-project legislative action on January 9,2001. There were no mitigation measures imposed, since this is a non-project legislative action Mr. Erickson continued by reviewing consistency with rezone criteria. The rezone is in the public interest since it is consistent with the Employment Area—Valley Comprehensive Plan land use designation for this area. The new zoning will provide greater land use predictability than the current P-1 Zone, and the P-Suffix will ensure future public notification if any major change of use,tenancy or ownership occurs on the site in the future. The rezone maintains the property rights of the County since sewage disposal and treatment plants are a permitted use in both the IM and IH Zones subject to Hearing Examiner approval. The rezone is not detrimental to the public welfare of properties of other persons located in the vicinity since it narrows the uses permitted on the subject site, makes the existing use a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use,and ensures that persons located in the vicinity will be notified at least 60 days in advance of any proposed substantial change in use,tenancy or ownership at the treatment plant. The rezone meets the criteria in subsections Fib and F 1 c of Section 4-9- 170F.2. The subject site was not specifically considered at the time of the last area land use analysis and area zoning, because at that time it was understood that staff were studying the P-1 Zone and were preparing recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council on whether this special zoning should be Wastewater Treatment Plant Re_.__ File No.: LUA00-169,R,ECF February 22,2001 Page 3 retained or assimilated into the City's other zoning classifications. Nearby uses to the west,north, east, and south were rezoned in June 1993 to the IM and CO zones. This and a number of other P-1 zoned sites were not rezoned at that time, awaiting recommendations from planning staff for future zoning. There have been no significant or material changes affecting the subject property since the most recent land use analysis of the area that in itself justify a change in zoning. Staff recommends approval of the King County South Wastewater Treatment Plant P-1 Rezone from the Public Use(P-1)Zone to either the Industrial Medium (IM)or the Industrial Heavy(IH)Zone,with a P-suffix designation, for the following reasons: (1)The rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation for the parcel, as Employment Area—Valley,which encourages a mix of employment-based uses. The site is used for industrial purposes, and had it been rezoned in 1993, it likely would have received an industrial designation at that time. (2) The proposed rezone would be consistent with earlier citywide rezones of other properties in the area that were zoned IM in 1993 and/or 1995. This rezone is also consistent with the existing use of the property since it is used for sewage treatment and disposal,a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use in either the IM or IH Zones. (3)The subject rezone is a non-project action under SEPA and is a legislative act that is not expected to significantly alter the development potential of the site. The rezone reduces the scope of the uses allowed in the P-1 Zone to Intermediate Industrial or Heavy Industrial use and makes the current use a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use rather than a Council Unclassified Use. Verna Bromley, Civil Division,King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office, 900 King County Administration Bldg, 500 4th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104 stated that King County has no objection to the proposed rezone for the Renton Plant, as long as the rezone is from a P-1 to an IH Zone. Because of the size of the subject site and the unique heavy industrial characteristics of the treatment plant, City staff now believes IH may be more representative of the plant's characteristic than IM zoning. King County believes that the recommendation of an alternative IM designation creates possible concerns with regard to the continuing ability of the Renton Plant to expand in response to regional needs. The IM designation allows a wide range of industrial uses. King County is concerned that certain abutting uses may in the future be deemed incompatible with the expansion of the facilities at the Renton Plant. A second concern relates to the conditional P-suffix designation attached to the IM Zone and the IH Zone. The Renton Plant serves as an essential public facility as defined under the Washington State Growth Management Act. This regional facility addresses the wastewater needs of a significant portion of King County communities and jurisdictions, including Renton. The Renton Plant will also serve as part of the regional solution in addressing the growing wastewater needs over the next 20 years. Ms.Bromley read into the record portions of King County Code Section 28.86.050 and Section 28.86.180 dealing with treatment plant capacities and potential expansion. This is significant because this plant is an essential public facility and the relevance of this GMA designation and adopted RWSP goes to the importance of facilitating any future expansion required at the Renton Plant to meet regional needs. King County has no objection to a proposed rezone to the IH Zone provided any future review of any expansion of the Renton Plant take into account the fact that it is an essential public facility under GMA Ms.Bromley stated that the IH Zone is more characteristic of the types of processes and the scale of the facility that is actually in place. King County is concerned with incompatible uses surrounding the plant with an IM designation. Joe Fernandes,King County, 201 South Jackson St., Seattle,WA 98104 reviewed his work experience with King County and his educational background. He described the geographical area and the population served by the Renton Plant. He described the size of the plant and how much of the site is taken up by equipment. The Examiner asked for clarification of why the IH zoning would be preferable to IM zoning for this plant. Wastewater Treatment Plant File No.: LUA00-169,R,ECF February 22,2001 Page 4 Ms. Bromley stated that King County believes the IH designation is more representative of the plant's characteristics than the IM zoning. This is also set forth in the City's staff report. The City was considering an IH designation in 1996 and 1997 when this plant was originally considered for a rezone. Mr. Fernandes continued by describing the how the treatment processes at the plant works. He then described the equipment used at the plant site. He stated that approximately 110 employees work at the plant. The plant is run on a 24-hour basis,with two 12-hour shifts. Ms.Bromley stated that the types of activities,the types of processes,and the scale of the plant is fundamentally different than the IM designated businesses that are located around the plant. Mr. Erickson read into the record the Zoning Code descriptions of the IM Zone and the IH Zone. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 10:55 a.m. FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS &RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, City of Renton, filed a request to reclassify the subject site from P-1 (Public/Quasi- public)to either IM(Medium Industrial)or IH(Heavy Industrial). 2. The City of Renton has filed requests for approval of a series of approximately forty(40)to fifty(50) separate rezones involving a series of separate properties generally,but not always, owned by public agencies including the City, King County and the Renton School District. The City proposes phasing out its P-1 Zone, a zone that in the past was designed to accommodate public and quasi-public uses. Each of the proposals requests that the new zoning be changed to closely, if not exactly match, surrounding zoning districts and the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The yellow file containing the staff report,the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit#1. 4. The Environmental Review Committee(ERC),the City's responsible official, issued a Declaration of Non-Significance(DNS)for the subject proposal. 5. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 6. While the background information on the study and proposed abolition of the P-1 zone will be the same for each report, each site will receive separate attention and a separate decision. 7. The P-1 (Public/Quasi-Public)Zone was established in the early 1950's to accommodate governmental facilities as well as certain private uses such as private medical clinics and private hospitals, as well as private schools, museums and the like that accommodated the public. The permitted uses were expanded over the years to accommodate an even wider range of uses while other zoning districts also broadened their range of respective uses, in effect, duplicating the permitted uses in the P-1 zone. The current zoning categorization generally appears to accommodate most, although not all, of the uses the current P-1 zone permits. The City Council directed staff to make a recommendation as to the Wastewater Treatment Plant File No.: LUA00-169,R,ECF February 22,2001 Page 5 continued need for a distinct P-1 zone. A result of that study was presented to the Planning Commission (May 4, 1994 Report). The Planning Commission recommended the assimilation of the P-1 zone. The City Council then directed that individual parcels be assimilated into nearby, compatible zones after appropriate public hearings. The current action is the result of those decisions. 8. The subject site is the location of the Metro King County South Wastewater Treatment Plant located at 1200 Monster Road South.,The site is located north of Grady Way and west of Oakesdale Avenue. The site is approximately 90.7 acres in size. The parcel is a large, irregular shaped parcel. 9. The City had originally proposed reclassifying the subject site to IM. At the originally scheduled public hearing King County,the owner and operator of the plant, asked for more time and was concerned about the IM designation. Between the time of the original hearing and the reconvened hearing, staff altered their recommendation and suggested that either IM or IH might be an appropriate designation. 10. The applicant strongly supported the IH zoning and was opposed to the IM. The County claimed the plant is an essential facility under enacted laws and they would make sure that it could be expanded in response to need and that local government, under GMA, cannot block an essential facility. 11. There are CO(Commercial Office)districts immediately north and east of the subject site. These districts are developed with office and commercial uses. South,adjacent to Grady Way,are a number of IM(Medium Industrial)parcels. There are additional IM parcels located west of the subject site. 12. There are no IH Districts close to the subject site. 13. Staff noted that both the IM and IH zone would accommodate the activities that occur at the treatment plant. Staff and the applicant indicated that the size of some of the facilities seem more related to heavy industrial activities,while the processes are generally not as intensive as heavy industrial since there is no heavy fabrication or machining occurring. 14. Both the IM and IH zones would require further review of any plant expansions. 15. The City has proposed attaching a special P-suffix designation to any public property which will be reclassified from P-1. This suffix is used to trigger a public comment period if substantial changes in ownership or sale are intended. 16. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development Employment Area-Valley, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 17. The Zoning Code contains the following purpose language for the two respective zones: R INDUSTRIAL-MEDIUM ZONE(IM): The purpose of the Medium Industrial Zone(IM) is to provide areas for medium-intensity industrial activities involving manufacturing,processing, assembly and warehousing in areas designated as Employment Area-Industrial in the Comprehensive Plan.Uses in this District may require some outdoor storage and may create some external emissions of noise, odor, glare,vibration, etc.,that are largely contained on site. Compatible uses which directly serve the needs of other uses permitted within the district are also allowed. Wastewater Treatment Plant File No.: LUA00-169,R,ECF February 22, 2001 Page 6 S INDUSTRIAL-HEAVY ZONE(IH): The purpose of the Heavy Industrial Zone(IH) is to provide areas for high intensity industrial activities involving heavy fabrication,processing of raw materials, bulk handling and storage, construction and heavy transportation in areas designated as Employment Area-Industrial in the Comprehensive Plan. Uses in this District may require large outdoor areas in which to conduct their operations and produce environmental impacts beyond their own sites that require their isolation from more sensitive land uses. Compatible uses which directly serve the needs of other uses permitted within the district are also allowed. (Ord. 4404, 6-7-1993)uses and surrounding zoning. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The proponent of a rezone must demonstrate that the request is in the public interest,that it will not impair the public health, safety and welfare, and in addition complies with at least one of the criteria found in Section 4-8-14,which provides in part that: a. The subject site has not been considered in a previous area-wide rezone or land use analysis; or b. The subject site is potentially designated for the new classification per the Comprehensive Plan; or c. There has been a material and substantial change in the area in which the subject site is located since the last rezoning of the property or area. The IM classification appears appropriate. 2. The P-1 district and its associated properties were removed from the city-wide reclassification effort to study the basis for the zone itself. This site as well as the other P-1 properties were segregated for special review. The public hearing that preceded this recommendation is the first analysis since that study demonstrated that there is no reason to maintain the P-1 zones. 3. The Comprehensive Plan designates the area as suitable employment generating. It also has designated areas to the immediate north and east for commercial office uses. In addition,to those uses,the other zoning in the area is generally IM, one of the categories that staff recommended be considered for the subject site. IM zoning matches the zoning immediately to its south and west. 4. There have been a number of changes to the Grady Way corridor,particularly east of the subject site. In addition,the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code have themselves undergone a profound change. The need for a separate holding zoning for public and quasi-public uses has been questioned for a long time and the adoption of these new land use provisions just provided the impetus to review the P-1 zone. In that light,the current proposal is appropriate. 5. Given the surroundings and the Comprehensive Plan designations for the subject site and neighboring sites, IH zoning does not appear appropriate. IH would appear to sanction offsite spillover of industrial impacts to surrounding areas. This does not appear to be what is envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan for the subject site, or particularly for the surrounding areas,which are zoned and developed with commercial office uses and office parks. Wastewater Treatment Plant File No.: LUA00-169,R,ECF February 22, 2001 Page 7 6. The applicant's use of the subject site is not by itself enough to control future zoning. The aim of the elimination of the P-1 zone was to absorb properties that were zoned P-1 into zoning categories compatible with surrounding zoning categories. In addition,the overall public welfare must be considered when determining appropriate classification for zoning. As staff noted, their treatment plant would be permitted in the IM Zone and would be subject to similar review whether in the IM or IH zone. 7. There is no need to discuss the merits or legal issues regarding expansion of the treatment plant at this time. As noted,the plant would be a legal, conforming use in the IM zone. Changes to the plant would be handled under the various codes and regulations when such changes are proposed. 8. The P-suffix appears an appropriate "sub label" for this publicly owned site although sale or change of use seems a most remote possibility. 9. It would be appropriate for the City Council to rezone the parcel to IM. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should approve the reclassification of the subject site from P-1 to IM with a P-suffix. ORDERED THIS 22"d day of February,2001. FRED J. MA HEARIN XAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 22nd day of February, 2001 to the parties of record: Don Erickson Verna Bromley Joe Fernandes 1055 S Grady Way King County Prosecuting King County Renton, WA 98055 Attorney's Office 201 South Jackson Street 900 King County Admin.Bldg. Seattle, WA 98104 500 4th Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 TRANSMITTED THIS 22"d day of February,2001 to the following: Mayor Jesse Tanner Gregg Zimmerman,Plan/Bldg/PW Admin. Members,Renton Planning Commission Neil Watts,Development Services Director Larry Rude,Fire Marshal Sue Carlson, Econ.Dev. Administrator Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Larry Meckling, Building Official Transportation Systems Division Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Utilities System Division Councilperson Kathy Keolker-Wheeler South County Journal Betty Nokes,Economic Development Director Wastewater Treatment Plant • File No.: LUA00-169,R,ECF February 22,2001 Page 8 Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100Gof the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., March 8,2001. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure,errors of law or fact, error in judgment,or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen(14),days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant,and the Examiner may, after review of the record,take further action, as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110,which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department,first floor of City Hall. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants,the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte(private one-on-one)communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. i • Rc P)• .• • Co I IM -dCo ", AL______Y J .4_, _____. mo. Iade 1)(f) / -! CD ,I CD ) - \ III /, c0 / \ , �i 410/ .4i Oftla �i III ��0,40 I /vr*O.Fiall I r, , .4, /OA 0 _ 1 co . , 0 500 1 ,000 LANDUSE ACTION FILE # LUA_OD-/lv ft 4 REZONES FILE L(P) '000 V////// o EDNSp - Site .Q• n Sr Carlson.o Dennison r Zone boundaries , 19 December 2000 Renton corporate boundary CITY OF. RENTON HEARING EXAMINER . PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 13, 2001 AGENDA COMMENCING AT 9:00 AM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7TH FLOOR, RENTON CITY HALL The application(s) listed are in order of application number only and not necessarily the order in which they will be heard. Items will be called for hearing at the discretion of the Hearing Examiner:. PROJECT NAME: City Center Building PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-00-155,SA PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposal includes a six-story 137,370 sq.ft. office building containing a 12,494 sq.ft. grade level garage and 124,876 sq.ft. of leasable space. To serve the needs of the office building the project will also include a six-story parking garage, containing approximately 391 parking stalls, to be located across the street(on the east side of Main Street), on land leased from the City of Renton. Vehicles would enter the City Center office building from Main Avenue South and exit via the alley to the west. Vehicles will enter and exit the parking garage via Main Avenue S. All existing structures will be removed from the site. Location: The proposed location for the office building is 207- 219 Main Avenue South. The proposed location for the parking garage is 212-222 Main Avenue South. PROJECT NAME: Wastewater Treatment Plant P-1 Rezone PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-00-169,R PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The subject proposal is the rezoning of a 90.7-acre industrial site used for treating regional wastewater (sewage)from the Public Use (P-1)Zone to the Industrial Medium (IM) Zone with a P-Suffix designation attached. This rezone is part of a series of approximately fifty(50) P-1 rezones of the City's former Public Use (P-1) Zone. This zone is being phased out pursuant to Council's 1994 direction to do so. No change of use is anticipated as a consequence of this proposed rezone. Under the IM zoning the existing wastewater treatment facility would be allowed to expand pursuant to existing approvals. This is a non-project action and no changes are proposed within the treatment plant as a result of this rezone. Location: King County Southeast Wastewater Treatment Plan, 1200 Monster Road SW.; at the intersection of Oakesdale Ave SW and Grady Way. The subject site is in the northwest quadrant of this intersection. The plant lies between Monster Road on the west and Oakesdale Avenue SW on its north and east edges. Agnda City of Renton EDNSP Department ,reliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner PROJECT NAME:Metro King County Wastewater Treatment Plan P-1 Rezone LUA-00-169,R,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE:January 30,2001 Page 1 of 5 City of Renton PUBLIC Department of Planning/Building/Public Works HEARING PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST: Public Hearing Date: February 13,2001 Project Name: King County South Wastewater Treatment Plant P-1 Rezone Applicant/ Susan Carlson,Administrator Address: EDNSP Department City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Owner/ Same as above Address: File Number: LUA-00-169, R, ECF Project Manager: Don Erickson • Project Description: The subject proposal is the rezoning of a 90.7-acre industrial site used for treating regional wastewater (sewage) from the Public Use (P-1) Zone to the Industrial Medium (IM) Zone with a P-Suffix designation attached. This rezone is part of a series of approximately fifty (50) P-1 rezones of the City's former Public Use (P-1) Zone. This zone is being phased out pursuant to Council's 1994 direction to do so. No change of use is anticipated as a consequence of this proposed rezone. Under the IH zoning the existing wastewater treatment facility would be allowed to expand pursuant to existing approvals. This is a non-project action and no changes are proposed within the treatment plant as a result of this rezone. Project Location: King County Southeast Wastewater Treatment Plan, 1200 Monster Road SW.; Renton, WA 98055 at the intersection of Oaksdale Ave SW and Grady Way. The subject site is in the northwest quadrant of this intersection. The plant lies between Monster Road on the west and Oaksdale Avenue SW on its north and east edges. B. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner of Record: King County Wastewater Treatment Division King County,Washington 2. Zoning Designation: Public Use(P-1)Zone 3. Comprehensive Plan: Employment Area-Valley Land Use Designation 4. Existing Site Use: King County Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant site Metro Treatment Plant Hexreport.doc City of Renton EDNSP Department reliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner PROJECT NAME:Metro King County Wastewater Treatment Plan P-1 Rezone LUA-00-169,R,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE:January 30,2001 Page 2 of 5 5. Neighborhood Characteristics: North: 96-acre Blackriver Riparian Forrest Conservation Area, Oaksdale Avenue SW East: Blackriver Corporate Park, King County DDES offices, Motel, etc.; South: Grady Way right-of-way, 1-405 right-of-way; West: Monster Road SW and miscellaneous manufacturing facilities 6. Access: Monster Road SW and Oaksdale Avenue SW 7. Site Area: 90.7 acres 8. Project Data: area comments Existing Building Area: NA Not applicable for this non-project action New Building Area: NA Not applicable for this non-project action Total Building Area: NA Not applicable for this non-project action C. HISTORICAUBACKGROUND: Action Land Use File No. Ordinance No. Date Council adopts Comp 4496 February 20, 1995 Plan with area-wide Land Use and Zoning Maps including zone name changes (excludes P-1 Zone) Council adopts Draft 4405 June 7, 1993 Comp Plan with area- wide Land Use and Zoning Maps Council adopts 4404 June 7, 1993 Interim Zoning Code D. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE: 1. Section 4-1-050F.2 Hearing Examiner Recommendations 2. Section 4-1-060C.1.a Required Elements of the Comp Plan 3. Section 4-2-020T Public-Use (P-1)Zone 4. Section 4-9-170F.2 Criteria for Rezones Metro Treatment Plant Hexreport.doc City of Renton EDNSP Department eliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner PROJECT NAME:Metro King County Wastewater Treatment Plan P-1 Rezone LUA-00-169,R, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE:January 30,2001 Page 3 of 5 E. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: 1. Objective U-E: Provide and maintain a sanitary sewer collection system that is consistent with public health and water quality objectives of the State of Washington and the City of Renton. 2. Policy U-61. Coordinate with the regional wastewater agency and adjacent jurisdictions in the planning and maintenance of regional wastewater systems in and near the City. 3. Objective LU-EE.a: Provide for a mix of employment-based uses, including commercial, office and industrial development to support the economic development of the City of Renton. 2. Policy LU-212.2 Compatible and related land uses should be encouraged to locate in proximity to one another. 3. Policy LU-212.12 Favorable consideration should be given to rezones in which similar and/or compatible uses are already located in the area. 4. Policy LU 212.16 Favorable consideration may be given to rezones to industrial uses when a mix of wider range of uses is not yet appropriate for a site. F. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND The current proposal is part of a series of approximately fifty(50) P-1 rezones most of which have already been changed to other more traditional zones that reflect the characteristics of the use and the surrounding area. This consolidation of the City's zoning is based in part upon a June 1994 directive of Council to proceed with the assimilation of the P-1 Zone into the City's other zones. The P-1 Zone allows a vast array of uses not all of which are necessarily compatible with the areas in which they are located. Also, because it was most typically applied to individual parcels it could be challenged as"spot"zoning. Another factor was that it had been inconsistently applied with nearly half of all public facilities located in more traditional zones. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended), on January 9, 2001 the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-significance for this non-project legislative action. No mitigation measures were proposed by the ERC for this non-project action. 3 COMPLIANCE WITH ERC MITIGATION MEASURES Because no mitigation measures were imposed on this non-project action, there were no ERC conditions that the applicant was asked to comply with at this time. Metro Treatment Plant Hexreport.doc City of Renton EDNSP Department ?liminary Report to the Hearing Examiner PROJECT NAME:Metro King County Wastewater Treatment Plan P-1 Rezone LUA-00-169,R,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE:January 30,2001 Page 4 of 5 4. STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS Representatives from various city departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address site plan issues from the proposed development. These comments are contained in the official file. 5. CONSISTENCY WITH REZONE APPROVAL CRITERIA Section 4-9-170F.2 Criteria for Rezones Not Requiring Plan Amendment: "The Reviewing Official shall make the following findings:" a. The rezone is in the public interest, The proposed rezone is in the public interest since it is consistent with the Employment Area —Valley Comprehensive Plan land use designation for this area a shown on the Land Use Map. The new zoning will provide greater land use predictability than the current P-1 Zone, and the P-Suffix will ensure future public notification if any major change of use, tenancy or ownership occurs on the site in the future. Also, the treatment plant is a regionally recognized public facility that is not likely to change in terms of use or location in the foreseeable future. b. The rezone tends to further the preservation and enjoyment of any substantial property rights of the petitioner, and The proposed rezone maintains the property rights of the County since sewage disposal and treatment plants are a permitted use in both the IM and IH Zones subject to Hearing Examiner approval. Currently, "waste treatment and disposal facilities" are considered to be "unclassified uses"in the P-1 Zone and as such are subject to review by the City Council and any conditions they might impose to mitigate the impacts of the use. It is only when there is a major change in use, tenancy or ownership that the provisions under the P-suffix would kick in requiring public notification to surrounding property owners. This requirement is not anticipated to be onerous. c. The rezone is not materially detrimental to the public welfare or the properties of other persons located in the vicinity thereof, The proposed rezone is not detrimental to the public welfare or properties of other persons located in the vicinity since it narrows the uses permitted on the subject site, makes the existing use a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use, and ensures that persons located in the vicinity will be notified at least 60 days in advance of any proposed substantial change in use, tenancy or ownership at the treatment plant. This is intended to give affected properties • sufficient time to lobby Council or other agencies against such a change if it is deemed to be detrimental to nearby property owners or tenants. d. The rezone meets the review criteria in subsections F1 b and F1 c of this Section. F1 b:The property is potentially classified for the proposed zone being requested pursuant to the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan; and The subject site has been determined to be potentially classified for the proposed IM or IH Zones based upon the fact that it is designated on the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map as Employment Area-Valley,which encourages a mix of compatible industrial, office and commercial employment based uses. The recommended IH zoning would be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Metro Treatment Plant Hexreport.doc City of Renton EDNSP Department eliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner PROJECT NAME:Metro King County ytewater Treatment Plan P-1 Rezone -- LUA-00-169,R,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE:January 30,2001 Page 5 of 5 F1c:At least one of the following circumstances applies: i. The subject reclassification was not specifically considered at the time of the last area land use analysis and area zoning; The subject site was not specifically considered at the time of last area-wide land use analysis and area-wide rezoning in 1995 since it was understood that Staff were studying the P-1 Zone and were preparing recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council on whether this special zoning should be retained or assimilated into the City's other zoning classifications. Nearby uses abutting the subject site to the west, north, east, and south were rezoned in June 1993 to the IM and CO zones. This and a number of other P-1 zoned sites were not rezoned at that time, awaiting recommendations from planning staff for future zoning. Initially staff had suggested IM zoning but given the scale of the uses at the treatment plant it was felt that IH zoning should also be considered. Although the site does not abut other IH zoned properties in the area and could be considered by some to be a"spot'zone, because of the size of the subject site and the unique heavy industrial characteristics of the treatment plant, staff now believe IH may be more representative of the plant's characteristic than IM zoning. ii. Since the most recent land use analysis or the area zoning of the subject property,authorized public improvements, permitted private development or other circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone significant and material change. There have been no significant or material changes affecting the subject property since the most recent land use analysis of the area that in itself justify a change in zoning. G. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommend approval of the King County South Wastewater Treatment Plant P-1 Rezone, Project File No. LUA-00-169, R, ECF from the Public Use(P-1)Zone to either the Industrial Medium or- the Industrial Heavy(IH)Zone (both zones permit sewage treatment and disposal plants),with a P-suffix designation,for the following reasons: (1) The proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation for the subject parcel, as Employment Area-Valley,which encourages a mix of employment-based uses including industrial,commercial and office. The subject site is currently used for industrial purposes processing and disposing sewage wastewater for a large portion of the region and is not likely to change in terms of use or location. Had it been rezoned in 1993, it is likely it would have received an industrial classification at that time. (2) The proposed rezone would be consistent with earlier citywide rezones of other properties in the area that were zoned IM in 1993 and/or 1995 from the earlier Manufacturing Park zoning designation. This rezone is also consistent with the existing use of the property since it is used for sewage treatment and disposal,a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use in either the IM or IH. Zones. (3) The subject rezone is a non-project action under SEPA and is a legislative act that is not expected to significantly alter the development potential of the site. It would reduce the scope of uses that might otherwise be allowed under the P-1 Zone which includes a broad array of governmental uses ranging from hospitals and health clinics to airports and wastewater treatment facilities and makes the current use a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use rather than a Council Unclassified Use. NOTE: The applicant was not required to comply with any mitigation measures since the Environmental Metro Treatment Plant Hexreport.doc CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING JANUARY 30, 2001 AGENDA COMMENCING AT 9:00 AM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7TH FLOOR, RENTON CITY HALL The application(s) listed are in order of application number only and not necessarily the order in which they will be heard. Items will be called for hearing at the discretion of the Hearing Examiner. PROJECT NAME: Wastewater Treatment Plant Rezone PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-00-1 69,R,ECF PROJECT DESCRIPTION: City sponsored rezone of 90.7-acre industrial site used for treating regional wastewater(sewage)from Public Use (P-1)Zone to Industrial Medium (IM)Zone with a P-suffix designation because of its public ownership. No new development is anticipated as a consequence of this rezone. As in the case of the Public Use Zone,wastewater treatment plants are a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use in the IM Zone. Location: 1200 Monster Road SW (between Monster Road on the west and Oakesdale Avenue on the east/northeast, north of Grady Way and 1-405. • hexagenda • City of Renton EDNSP Department F Mary Report to the Hearing Examiner PROJECT NAME:Metro King County Wastewater Treatment Plan P-1 Rezone LUA-00-169,R,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE:January 30,2001 Page 1 of 5 City of Renton PUBLIC Department of Planning/Building/Public Works HEARING PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST: Public Hearing Date: January 30, 2001 Project Name: Metro King County South Wastewater Treatment Plant P-1 Rezone Applicant! Susan Carlson,Administrator Address: EDNSP Department City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Owner/ Same as above Address: File Number: LUA-00-169, R, ECF Project Manager: Don Erickson Project Description: The subject proposal is the rezoning of a 90.7-acre industrial site used for treating regional wastewater (sewage) from the Public Use (P-1) Zone to the Industrial Medium (IM) Zone with a P-Suffix designation attached. This rezone is part of a series of approximately fifty (50) P-1 rezones of the City's former Public Use (P-1) Zone. This zone is being phased out pursuant to Council's 1994 direction to do so. No change of use is anticipated as a consequence of this proposed rezone: Under the IM zoning the existing wastewater treatment facility would be allowed to expand pursuant to existing approvals. This is a non-project action and no changes are proposed within the treatment plant as a result of this rezone. Project Location: King County Southeast Wastewater Treatment Plan, 1200 Monster Road SW.; Renton,WA 98055 at the intersection of Oaksdale Ave SW and Grady Way. The subject site is in the northwest quadrant of this intersection. The plant lies between Monster Road on the west and Oaksdale Avenue SW on its north and east edges. B. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner of Record: King County Wastewater Treatment Division King County,Washington 2. Zoning Designation: Public Use (P-1)Zone 3. Comprehensive Plan: Employment Area-Valley Land Use Designation 4. Existing Site Use: King County Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant site Metro Treatment Plant Hexreport.doc City of Renton EDNSP Department I iinary Report to the Hearing Examine PROJECT NAME:Metro King County Wastewater Treatment Plan P-1 Rezone LUA-00-169,R,ECI PUBLIC HEARING DATE:January 30, 2001 Page 2 of, 5. Neighborhood Characteristics: North: 96-acre Blackriver Riparian Forrest Conservation Area, Oaksdale Avenue SW East: Blackriver Corporate Park, King County DDES offices, Motel, etc.; South: Grady Way right-of-way, 1-405 right-of-way; West: Monster Road SW and miscellaneous manufacturing facilities 6. Access: Monster Road SW and Oaksdale Avenue SW 7. Site Area: 90.7 acres 8. Project Data: area comments Existing Building Area: NA Not applicable for this non-project action New Building Area: NA Not applicable for this non-project action Total Building Area: NA Not applicable for this non-project action C. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND: Action Land Use File No. Ordinance No. Date Council adopts Comp 4496 February 20, 1995 Plan with area-wide Land Use and Zoning Maps including zone name changes (excludes P-1 Zone) Council adopts Draft 4405 June 7, 1993 Comp Plan with area- wide Land Use and Zoning Maps Council adopts 4404 June 7, 1993 Interim Zoning Code D. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE: 1. Section 4-1-050F.2 Hearing Examiner Recommendations 2. Section 4-1-060C.1.a Required Elements of the Comp Plan 3. Section 4-2-020T Public Use (P-1)Zone 4. Section 4-9-170F.2 Criteria for Rezones Metro Treatment Plant Hexreport.doc City of Renton EDNSP Department l unary Report to the Hearing Examiner PROJECT NAME:Metro King County Wastewater Treatment Plan P-1 Rezone LUA-00-169,R,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE:January 30,2001 Page 3 of 5 E. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: 1. Objective LU-EE.a: Provide for a mix of employment-based uses, including commercial, office and industrial development to support the economic development of the City of Renton. 2. Policy LU-212.2 Compatible and related land uses should be encouraged to locate in proximity to one another. 3. Policy LU-212.12 Favorable consideration should be given to rezones in which similar and/or compatible uses are already located in the area. 4. Policy LU 212.16 Favorable consideration may be given to rezones to industrial uses when a mix of wider range of uses is not yet appropriate for a site. F. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND The current proposal is part of a series of approximately fifty (50) P-1 rezones most of which have already been changed to other more traditional zones that reflect the characteristics of the use and the surrounding area. This consolidation of the City's zoning is based in part upon a June 1994 directive of Council to proceed with the assimilation of the P-1 Zone into the City's other zones. The P-1 Zone allows a vast array of uses not all of which are necessarily compatible with the areas in which they are located. Also, because it was most typically applied to individual parcels it could be challenged as"spot"zoning. Another factor was that it had been inconsistently applied with nearly half of all public facilities located in more traditional zones. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended), on January 9, 2001 the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-significance for this non-project legislative action. No mitigation measures were proposed by the ERC for this non-project action. 3 COMPLIANCE WITH ERC MITIGATION MEASURES Because no mitigation measures were imposed on this non-project action, there were no ERC conditions that the applicant was asked to comply with at this time. 4. STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS Representatives from various city departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address site plan issues from the proposed development. These comments are contained in the official file. Metro Treatment Plant Hexreport.doc City of Renton EDNSP Department I 'unary Report to the Hearing Examiner PROJECT NAME:Metro King County Wastewater Treatment Plan P-1 Rezone LUA-00-169,R,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE:January 30, 2001 Page 4 of 5 5. CONSISTENCY WITH REZONE APPROVAL CRITERIA Section 4-9-170F.2 Criteria for Rezones Not Requiring Plan Amendment: "The Reviewing Official shall make the following findings:" a. The rezone is in the public interest, and The proposed rezone is in the public interest since it is consistent with the Employment Area —Valley Comprehensive Plan land use designation for this area a shown on the Land Use Map. The new zoning will provide greater land use predictability than the current P-1 Zone, and the P-Suffix will ensure future public notification if any major change of use, tenancy or ownership occurs on the site in the future. b. The rezone tends to further the preservation and enjoyment of any substantial property rights of the petitioner, and The proposed rezone maintains the property rights of the County since sewage disposal and treatment plants are a permitted use in the IM Zone subject to Hearing Examiner approval. Currently, "waste treatment and disposal facilities" are considered to be "unclassified uses" in the P-1 Zone and as such are subject to review by the City Council and any conditions they might impose to mitigate the impacts of the use. It is only when there is a major change in use, tenancy or ownership that the provisions under the P-suffix would kick in requiring public notification to surrounding property owners. This requirement is not anticipated to be onerous. c. The rezone is not materially detrimental to the public welfare or the properties of other persons located in the vicinity thereof, and The proposed rezone is not detrimental to the public welfare or properties of other persons located in the vicinity since it narrows the uses permitted on the subject site, makes the existing use a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use, and ensures that they will be notified at least 60 days in advance of any proposed substantial change in use, tenancy or ownership at the treatment plant. This is intended to give affected properties sufficient time to lobby Council or other agencies against such a change if it is deemed to be detrimental to nearby property owners or tenants. d. The rezone meets the review criteria in subsections F1b and F1c of this Section. Fib: The property is potentially classified for the proposed zone being requested pursuant to the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan; and The subject site has been determined to be potentially classified for the proposed IM Zone based upon the fact that it is designated on the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map as Employment Area-Valley,which encourages a mix of compatible industrial, office and commercial employment based uses. The recommended IM zoning would be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. F1c: At least one of the following circumstances applies: i. The subject reclassification was not specifically considered at the time of the last area land use analysis and area zoning; The subject site was not specifically considered at the time of last area- wide land use analysis and area-wide rezoning in 1995 since it was Metro Treatment Plant Hexreport.doc City of Renton EDNSP Department I iinary Report to the Hearing Examine PROJECT NAME:Metro King County Wastewater Treatment Plan P-1 Rezone LUA-00-169,R,ECI PUBLIC HEARING DATE:January 30,2001 Page 5 of understood that Staff were studying the P-1 Zone and were preparing recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council on whether this special zoning should be retained or assimilated into the City's other zoning classifications. Nearby uses abutting the subject site to the west, north, east, and south were rezoned in June 1993 to the IM and CO zones. This and a number of other P-1 zoned sites were not rezoned at that time, awaiting recommendations from planning staff for future zoning. ii. Since the most recent land use analysis or the area zoning of the subject property, authorized public improvements, permitted privat( development or other circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone significant and material change. There have been no significant or material changes affecting the subject property since the most recent land use analysis of the area. G. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommend approval of the King County South Wastewater Treatment Plant P-1Rezone, Project File No. LUA-00-169, R, ECF from the Public Use (P-1)Zone to the Industrial Medium (IM)Zone, with a P-suffix designation, for the following reasons: (1) The proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation for the subject parcel, as Employment Area-Valley,which encourages a mix of employment-based uses including industrial, commercial and office. The subject site is currently used for industrial purposes processing and disposing sewage wastewater for a large portion of the region. Had it been zoned in 1993, it is likely it would have received an industrial classification at that time. (2) The proposed rezone would be consistent with earlier citywide rezones of other properties in the area that were zoned IM in 1993 and/or 1995. This rezone is also consistent with the existing use of the property since it is used for sewage treatment and disposal, a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use in the IM Zone. (3) The subject rezone is a non-project action under SEPA and is a legislative act that is not expected to significantly alter the development potential of the site. It would reduce the scope of uses that might otherwise be allowed under the P-1 Zone which includes a broad array of governmental uses ranging from hospitals and health clinics to airports and wastewater treatment facilities and makes the current use a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use rather than a Council Unclassified Use. NOTE: The applicant was not required to comply with any mitigation measures since the Environmental Metro Treatment Plant Hexreport.doc . ( Rc(P) Rc p) . . CO---------...,.... ) T -� �►'�i.� d co r 1—' 0)(n ,4,45, _. III �o \ n �/ Q 0_ A c co N 4/ / A. ..,_,,, ,,.4 .0111i'i ‘ ri-,400:. . _ I, I, ,17 . , Da Nill 11 tO co 0 500 1,000 LANDUSE ACTION FILE # LOA-DO-/lvyt.e,6 :•: ::::.: •:::��;: :; :::: :>::: :: ::: REZONES FILE # ............. FROM P-1 TO IM(P) 1 :6,000 V////// o, ;DZEIr13319::. Site ®, dministracerZone boundaries 0. Dennison 4. ►Y • 19 December 2000 Renton corporate boundary METRO KING CO'{�_._1(RENTON WASTEWATER TREA'__._ENT PLANT LEGAL DESCRIPTION Former Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way(former NPRR Belt) and portion of southeast quarter of northwest quarter lying easterly of west line of said railroad right-of-way and northerly of north margin of state highway SR-405 junction,less any portion thereof lying westerly of or within Monster Road SW; Also portion of said former railroad belt in the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter of said section lying-70 feet from the centerline of the state highway, per stipulation of state.code #84-2-07769-7 less portion described as follows: Beginning at the northeast corner of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 24-23-4, thence along the north line of said section, N 87 26'22", W 2693.05 feet to the northwest corner of Government Lot 1 Thence along the west line of said Government Lot and of Government Lot 5, S 0 26'19"W 22999.77 feet; Thence S 98 33'44"E 1909.89 feet to the intersection with the east margin of Monster road; Thence southerly along the said margin radius 367.11 feet, an arc distance of 55.20 feet to the intersection with the westerly Metro (former Burlington Northern) boundary per Volume 40, page 180 of survey, said point of intersection being on a curve to the left with a radius of 1134 feet; Thence southerly along said curve having an arc distance of 250.14 feet to the westerly margin of the realigned portion of Monster Road and the point of beginning; Thence along said westerly margin of S 41 55'32",E 68.65 feet; Thence S 06 22'-10",E 321.59 feet; Thence S 04 18'03",E 14.69 feet to a line parallel with and 70 feet northwesterly of the centerline of State Highway 1-L; Thence along the said westerly Metro boundary and curve to the left with a radius of 1134 feet; Thence northerly along said curve, having an arc distance of 399.09 feet to the point of beginning less portion of Government Lot 6 and Government Lot 8 in the westerly half of Section 24-23-04 lying southwesterly of the realigned roadway; Beginning at the northeast corner of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter; Thence N 82 26'22"W 2,693.05 feet to the northwest corner of Government Lot 1; Thence S 00 26'19"W,2299.77 feet; Thence S 89 31'41" E 1909.89 feet to the intersection with the easterly right-of-way margin of Monster Road being a point on a curve concave to the southwest radius point bearing S 63 48'40"W 367.11 feet; Thence southerly along said easterly right-of-way margin and along said curve arc distance 182.73 feet through a central angle of 28 31'04"to an intersection with the southwesterly margin of said realignment of Monster Road; Thence southeasterly along said southwesterly margin of S 69 31'09" E 11.12 feet and S 41 55'32" E 194.64 feet to the point of beginning; Thence S 41 55'32" E 270.82 feet to the intersection with the northwesterly right-of-way margin of Highway 1-1,said point of intersection being a point on the curve concave to the southeast radius,bearing S 68 18'28' E 905.37 feet; Thence southwesterly along said northwesterly right-of-way margin and along said curve arc a distance of 88.21 feet through a central angle of 05 34'57" to the intersection with a line parallel with and 70 feet northwesterly of a central angle of said highway; Thence along said parallel line S 66 53'08"W 125.69 feet; Thence N 04 18'03"W 14.69 feet; and Thence N 06 22'10"W 321.59 feet to point of beginning. .. w,t.. CITY C_-' RENTON „ , Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator • January 10, 2001 Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia,WA 98504-7703 Subject: Environmental Determinations Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee(ERC)on January 9, 2001: DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT REZONE LUA-00-169,R,ECF City sponsored rezone of 90.7-acre industrial site used for treating regional wastewater(sewage) from Public Use (P-I)Zone to Industrial Medium (IM)Zone with a P-suffix designation because of its public ownership. No new developmentis anticipated as a consequence of this rezone. As in the case of the Public Use Zone, wastewater treatment plants are a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use in the IM Zone. Location:.1200 Monster Road SW between Monster Road on the west and Oakesdale Avenue on the'east/northeast, north of Grady Way and 1-405. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, January 29, 2001. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South..Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-430-6510. If you have questions, please call me at(425)430-6581. F e Environmental Review C mittee, • Donald Erickson,AICP Project Manager cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division • Larry Fisher, Department of Fisheries David F. Dietzman, Department of Natural Resources WSDOT, Northwest Region Duwamish Tribal Office Rod Malcom, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (Ordinance) US Army Corp. of Engineers AGENCYLTR\ 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer • 140111nrclE1 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT REZONE PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-00-169,R,ECF City sponsored rezone of 90.7-acre industrial site used for treating regional wastewater (sewage)from Public Use (P-I)Zone to Industrial Medium (IM)Zone with a P-suffix designation because of its public ownership. No new development is anticipated as a consequence of this rezone. As in the case of the Public Use Zone,wastewater treatment plants are a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use in the IM Zone. Location: 1200 Monster Road SW between Monster Road on the west and Oakesdale Avenue on the east/northeast,north of Grady Way and 1-405. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, January 29, 2001. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required$75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner,City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office,(425)-430-6510. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting in the Council Chambers on the 7th floor of City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington, on January 30, 2001, at 9:00 AM to consider the proposed Rezone. If the Environmental Determination is appealed,the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. •RC(P) `�'I1 -•ROlP)� 1 • c0 I %� Co. Af CO \ ////1/#;/*/ 1114S /` j%' 114P4 0410 41111®®�1 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT(425)430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please include the.project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification. CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE APPLICATION NUMBER: LUA-00-169,R,ECF APPLICANT: City of Renton PROJECT NAME: King County Southeast Wastewater Treatment Plant P-I Rezone DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: City sponsored rezone of 90.7-acre industrial site used for treating regional wastewater (sewage)from Public Use (P-I)Zone to Industrial Medium (IM)Zone with a P-suffix designation because of its public ownership. No new development is anticipated as a consequence of this rezone. As in the case of the Public Use Zone,wastewater treatment plants are a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use in the IM Zone. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 1200 Monster Road SW between Monster Road on the west and Oakesdale Avenue on the east/northeast, north of Grady Way and 1-405. LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section This Determination of Non-Significance is issued under WAC 197-11-340. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be involved,the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fourteen (14)days. Environmental Determination Appeal Process Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM,January 29,2001.Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: January 12, 2001 DATE OF DECISION: January 9, 2001 SIGNATURES: G egg Zimr ier an,A in ator D TE 1/° De artmeri of Pla /Buildin /Public Works P 9 9 /o�o� Ji epherd,Administrator (ATE C munity Services Department A /A - ®/ Lee e ler, Fire Chief DATE Renton Fire Department dnssig NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON,WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee has issued a Determination of Non-Significance for the following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT REZONE LUA-00-169,ECF,R City sponsored rezone of 90.7-acre industrial site used for treating regional wastewater (sewage)from Public Use (P-I)Zone to Industrial Medium (IM)Zone with a P-suffix designation because of its public ownership. Location: 1200 Monster Road SW. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM January 29, 2001. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-430-6510. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall, on January 30, 2001 at 9:00 AM to consider the proposed rezone. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing Publication Date: January 1(jt1, 2001 Account No. 51067 dnspub a - City of Renton STAFF Department of Economic Development, Neighborhoods and REPORT Strategic Planning ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE A. BACKGROUND ERC MEETING DATE January 9, 2001 Project Name King County Southeast Wastewater Treatment Plant P-1 Rezone Applicant City of Renton File Number LUA-00-169,R,ECF Project Manager Donald Erickson Project Description City sponsored rezone of 90.7-acre industrial site used for treating regional wastewater (sewage)from Public Use (P-1)Zone to Industrial Medium (IM)Zone with a P-suffix designation because of its public ownership. No new development is anticipated as a consequence of this rezone. As in the case of the Public Use Zone, wastewater treatment plants are a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use in the IM Zone. Project Location 1200 Monster Road SW (between Monster Road on the west and Oaksdale Avenue on the east/northeast, north of Grady Way and 1-405. Exist. Bldg.Area gsf N/A Proposed New Bldg.Area gsf N/A Site Area 8.42 acres Total Building Area gsf N/A RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non-Significance for this non-project legislative action. B. RECOMMENDATION Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommend that the Responsible Official make,the following Environmental Determination: DETERMINATION OF DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED. X Issue DNS with 14 day Appeal Period. Issue DNS-M with 14 day Appeal Period Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period followed by a 14 day Appeal Period. C. MITIGATION MEASURES None - Not applicable to this non-project legislative action which should not result in any changes of use or physic; development that would not otherwise occur or would not otherwise go through environmental review at the projec level. Project Location Map ercrepo , City of Renton EDNSP Department Enviroi a1 Review Committee Staff Report KING COUNTY'S SOUTHEAST(RENTON) WASTEWAJI R TREATMENT PLANT P-1 REZONE L UA-OO-169,R,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OFJANUARY9,2001 Page2 oft D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS In compliance with RCW 43.21 C. 240, the following project environmental review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. 1. Earth Impacts: None identified for this non-project legislative action Mitigation Measures: None required. Nexus: Not applicable. 2. Air Impacts: None identified for this non-project legislative action Mitigation Measures: None required. Nexus: Not applicable. 3. Water Impacts: None identified for this non-project legislative action Mitigation Measures: None required. Nexus: Not applicable. E. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS The proposal has been circulated to City Departmental / Divisional Reviewers for their review. Where applicable, these comments have been incorporated into the text of this report as Mitigation Measures and/or Notes to Applicant. X Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File. Copies of all Review Comments are attached to this report. Environmental Determination Appeal Process Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM,January 26,2001. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-430-6510. ercreport / ' ,, --,., -- , 0 - 1401 (:. . vi/y ,,,,_ , c . RC(P) RC P) . . . . , ..* .' co • I TM 73 u,k 1-d -1 CO • La, / t,. //� ______I_______ 2 4�r, � //I� ' � Q P - II\ \/////1/4 co i . . 10 -44 Oj 4 r' AAMOF/ •1 . . . • . . 10,0.: - .. : .... - .. ..:. . . . . . .. . - .- - • " 1iikv . ., .,. . • • ,,,, 1 /� 1 co . 11. 0 500 1,000 LANDUSE ACTION FILE # _ _ _ :::::. .::>::>: ■:::::>::::::::; :>: :: :::>:;:: REZONES FILE # FROM P-1 TO IM(P) 1:6,000 V/ / Site o, EDNSP sue carlsoa, eitiegtrator Zone boundaries D. Erickson. 0. Dennison „„ . 19 December 2000 Renton corporate boundary KING COUNTY SOUTH Y 0 itsWASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT P-1 REZONE LUA--00-169,R,ECF IF aril January 30,2001 N � 0 KING COUNTY SOUTH KING COUNTY SOUTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT P-1 REZONE PLANT P-1 REZONE • Applicant:City of Renton • North:Blackriver ro Riparian Forrest • Owner of Record:King County Wastewater Conservation Area Treatment Division • • • East:Springbrook • Size of site:90.7 acres Creek,Oaksdale Ave., Black• Existing Zoning Public Use(P-1)Zone • South iv Grer ady W.Park • Proposed Zoning:Industrial Medium(I M) „ South: h Wa and '° 1-405 right-of-ways Zone i ro _ • West:Monster Road • SW KING COUNTY SOUTH KING COUNTY SOUTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT P-1 REZONE PLANT P-1 REZONE • Historical/Background: • Applicable Sections of Comprehensive Plan —Council Adopts Interim Zoning Code-June —Objective LU-EE.a:Provide a mix of employ- 1993 ment based uses,including commercial,office —Council Adopts Draft Comp Plan- June 1993 and industrial development —Council Adopts Comp Plan with Area-wide —Policy LU-212.2: Compatible and related land Land Use and Zoning Maps-February 1995 uses should be encouraged to locate in —Council Adopts Comp Plan Amendments and proximity to one another Zoning Map Changes-Annually since 1995 KING COUNTY SOUTH KING COUNTY SOUTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT P-1 REZONE PLANT P-1 REZONE -Policy LU-212.12: Favorable consideration • Department Analysis should be given to rezones in which similar -Proposal is one of approximately 50 P-1 Zone reand/or compatible uses are alreadylocated in older zone.s sponsoredCouncilb the City 1994 to out this p� older decided in 1994 to the area "assimilate out"the Public Use Zone,a non- -Policy LU-212.16: Favorable consideration traditional zone. may be given to rezones to industrial uses when • Environmental Review a mix of a wider range of uses is not yet -The Environmental Review Committee issued a appropriate for a site DNS for this non-project action on Jan.9,2001 • Compliance with Mitigation Measures -Not applicable KING COUNTY SOUTH KING COUNTY SOUTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT P-1 REZONE PLANT P-1 REZONE • The rezone tends to further the preservation and Consistency with Rezone Approval Criteria enjoyment of any substantial property rights of the Section 4-9-1 70F.2 states:The Reviewing Official petitioner,and shall make the following findings: • The rezone is in thepublic interest,and -The proposed rezone maintains the property rights of the County since sewage disposal and treatment -The rezone is consistent with the Employment Area- plants are a permitted use in the WI Zone,subject to Valley Comp Plan land use designation for the site Hearing Examiner approval -The new zoning will provide greater predictability than - In the P-I Zone,"waste treatment and disposal the P-1 Zone,and facilities"are considered to be"unclassified uses"subject to review by the City Council -The P-Suffix will ensure future public notification to -The P-Suffix is not anticipated to be onerous since it surrounding property owners if there is a major change would only apply to a major change in use,tenancy, of tenancy,use,or ownership at the treatment plant or ownership of the treatment plant KING COUNTY SOUTH KING COUNTY SOUTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT P-1 REZONE PLANT P-1 REZONE • The rezone is not materially detrimental to the • The rezone meets the review criteria in public welfare or the properties of other persons subsections F 1 b and F 1 c of this Section located in the vicinity thereof,and - Proposed rezone is not detrimental to the public -Fib:The property is potentially classified for welfare or others in the vicinity since it narrows the the proposed zone being requested pursuant to uses permitted on the subject site,makes the the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan existing use a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use, and ensures that those in the vicinity will be notified -Flc:At least one of the following at least 60 days ahead of any substantial change of circumstances applies: use,tenancy or ownership at the treatment plant. KING COUNTY SOUTH KING COUNTY SOUTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT . WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT P-1 REZONE PLANT P-1 REZONE i The subject reclassification was not specifically ii Since the most recent land use analysis or the considered at the time of last area land use area zoning of the subject property,authorized analysis and area zoning.., public improvements,permitted private The subject site was not specifically considered at development or other circumstances affecting the the time of last area-wide land use analysis and subject property have undergone significant and area-wide rezoning in 1995 since it was material change understood that staff were studying and preparing recommendations on the P-1 Zone for There have been no significant or material the Planning Commission and City Council. changes affecting the subject property since the Nearby uses to the west,north,east,and south most recent land use analysis of the area were rezoned in June 1993 to IM and CO zoning. KING COUNTY SOUTH KING COUNTY SOUTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT P-1 REZONE PLANT P-1 REZONE Recommendation: (2)The proposed rezone would be consistent with Staff recommend approval of the King County South earlier citywide rezones of other properties in the area Wastewater Treatment Plant P-1 Rezone,Project File that were zoned IM in 1993 and/or 1995. This rezone is No.LUA-00-169,R,ECF from the Public Use(P-I)Zone also consistent with the existing use of the property since to the Industrial Medium(IM)Zone,with a P-Suffix it is used for sewage treatment and disposal,a Hearing designation,for the following reasons: Examiner Conditional Use in the IM Zone. (I) The rezone is consistent with the Comp Plan Land (3) The subject rezone is a non-project action under Use Map designation for the subject parcel,as SEPA and is a legislative act that is not expected to Employment Area-Valley,which encourages a mix of significantly alter the development potential of the site. employment-based uses including industrial,commercial The rezone reduces the broad scope of uses allowed in and office. The site is used for industrial purposes the P-I Zone(hospitals,schools,sewage plants,airports, (wastewater treatment)and had it been zoned in 1993 etc)to intermediate industrial uses and makes the would likely have then received the IM designation along current use a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use rather with other industrial uses in the area. than a Council Unclassified Use. Y ots 6.1 3 1 0 2 O KING COUNTY SOUTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT P-1 REZONE LUA--00-169, R,ECF January 30, 2001 3 O KING COUNTY SOUTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT P-1 REZONE • Applicant: City of Renton • Owner of Record: King County Wastewater Treatment Division • Size of site: 90.7 acres • Existing Zoning:Public Use (P-1)Zone • Proposed Zoning: Industrial Medium OM)Zone 4 O KING COUNTY SOUTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT P-1 REZONE • North:Blackriver Riparian Forrest Conservation Area • East:Springbrook Creek,Oaksdale Ave.,Blackriver Corp.Park • South:Grady Way and I-405 right-of-ways • West:Monster Road SW 5 O KING COUNTY SOUTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT P-1 REZONE • Historical/Background: — Council Adopts Interim Zoning Code-June 1993 — Council Adopts Draft Comp Plan- June 1993 — Council Adopts Comp Plan with Area-wide Land Use and Zoning Maps-February 1995 — Council Adopts Comp Plan Amendments and Zoning Map Changes-Annually since 1995 6 O KING COUNTY SOUTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT P-1 REZONE • Applicable Sections of Comprehensive Plan — Objective LU-EE.a:Provide a mix of employ-ment based uses,including commercial,office and industrial development — Policy LU-212.2: Compatible and related land uses should be encouraged to locate in proximity to one another 7 O KING COUNTY SOUTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT P-1 REZONE —Policy LU-212.12: Favorable consideration should be given to rezones in which similar and/or compatible uses are already located in the area — Policy LU-212.16: Favorable consideration may be given to rezones to industrial uses when a mix of a wider range of uses is not yet appropriate for a site 1 8 O KING COUNTY SOUTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT P-1 REZONE • Department Analysis —Proposal is one of approximately 50 P-1 Zone rezones sponsored by the City to phase out this older zone. Council decided in 1994 to"assimilate out"the Public Use Zone,a non- traditional zone. • Environmental Review — The Environmental Review Committee issued a DNS for this non-project action on Jan.9, 2001 • Compliance with Mitigation Measures —Not applicable 9 O KING COUNTY SOUTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT P-1 REZONE Consistency with Rezone Approval Criteria Section 4-9-170F.2 states: The Reviewing Official shall make the following findings: • The rezone is in the public interest, and — The rezone is consistent with the Employment Area-Valley Comp Plan land use designation for the site — The new zoning will provide greater predictability than the P-1 Zone,and — The P-Suffix will ensure future public notification to surrounding property owners if there is a major change of tenancy,use,or ownership at the treatment plant 10 O KING COUNTY SOUTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT P-1 REZONE • The rezone tends to further the preservation and enjoyment of any substantial property rights of the petitioner,and — The proposed rezone maintains the property rights of the County since sewage disposal and treatment plants are a permitted use in the IM Zone,subject to Hearing Examiner approval — In the P-1 Zone,"waste treatment and disposal facilities"are considered to be"unclassified uses"subject to review by the City Council — The P-Suffix is not anticipated to be onerous since it would only apply to a major change in use, tenancy,or ownership of the treatment plant 11 O KING COUNTY SOUTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT P-1 REZONE • The rezone is not materially detrimental to the public welfare or the properties of other persons located in the vicinity thereof,and — Proposed rezone is not detrimental to the public welfare or others in the vicinity since it narrows the uses permitted on the subject site,makes the existing use a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use,and ensures that those in the vicinity will be notified at least 60 days ahead of any substantial change of use,tenancy or ownership at the treatment plant. 12 O KING COUNTY SOUTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT P-1 REZONE • The rezone meets the review criteria in subsections Fib and Flc of this Section — Flb:The property is potentially classified for the proposed zone being requested pursuant to the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan — Flc:At least one of the following circumstances applies: 2 13 O KING COUNTY SOUTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT P-1 REZONE i The subject reclassification was not specifically considered at the time of last area land use analysis and area zoning; The subject site was not specifically considered at the time of last area-wide land use analysis and area-wide rezoning in 1995 since it was understood that staff were studying and preparing recommendations on the P-1 Zone for the Planning Commission and City Council. Nearby uses to the west,north,east,and south were rezoned in June 1993 tolM and CO zoning. 14 O KING COUNTY SOUTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT P-1 REZONE ii Since the most recent land use analysis or the area zoning of the subject property,authorized public improvements,permitted private development or other circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone significant and material change There have been no significant or material changes affecting the subject property since the most recent land use analysis of the area 15 O KING COUNTY SOUTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT P-1 REZONE Recommendation: Staff recommend approval of the King County South Wastewater Treatment Plant P-1 Rezone,Project File No.LUA-00-169,R,ECF from the Public Use(P-1)Zone to the Industrial Medium(IM)Zone,with a P-Suffix designation,for the following reasons: (1) The rezone is consistent with the Comp Plan Land Use Map designation for the subject parcel,as Employment Area-Valley,which encourages a mix of employment-based uses including industrial, commercial and office. The site is used for industrial purposes(wastewater treatment)and had it been zoned in 1993 would likely have then received the IM designation along with other industrial uses in the area. 16 O KING COUNTY SOUTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT P-1 REZONE (2) The proposed rezone would be consistent with earlier citywide rezones of other properties in the area that were zoned IM in 1993 and/or 1995. This rezone is also consistent with the existing use of the property since it is used for sewage treatment and disposal,a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use in the IM Zone. (3) The subject rezone is a non-project action under SEPA and is a legislative act that is not expected to significantly alter the development potential of the site. The rezone reduces the broad scope of uses allowed in the P-1 Zone(hospitals,schools,sewage plants,airports,etc)to intermediate industrial uses and makes the current use a Hearing Examiner ConditionalUse rather than a Council Unclassified Use. 17 0 3 #� � >x ` s g a ti, 75 .V i- + _ .$ w-a .'^ems-? o CD 0 ; nQ - 1+^YE` , 7 l� Q�i. _ -.=ate C u : otv v- - ,;,.,. _.,..,.„...„ ,. .4„0,‘,,,,,,:,5,..,:z4, i vir ;1,114:1,L,,e7--,,,,;trAtr1,54,171-,71.‘„,_ : xpo �� „__PA-,-,,,,,ni gh,..,,,,,,,„, T ... wil,,, 1 .6--- ,. , `'\ 1111 ,----'-''','': .'";.,..--,r,-;:-4-. i °,,!!!: 10111111M514* ,, .,3,--=,:t_-4K.--,--_-- 1 , 4 ..„.„11/2.44„„..„ 1*,-", yv.,_,P w yt ;l.. �,Y is .- y .. r " *ram .i...e,:-.,..,-D17,. .qz+.5,37ttkv, A.::::,7,:;;:it,'.74::;7::: .'41--;)„,,L,I,„,*,,,-:::::, -4147 4 a w :,,x,,.. i �� Rl �`tea ,�w�� � x*��. ' 4� �_ ��: � �,. ,� „� k �g f� s- at- i! 9-4 " .,E ,:.A.- � 5� 3'«'.tnF.oa. 500 1 ,0 0 0 LANDUSE ACTION FILE # >: :::: >: ::: :::::<::;::::;::::::: :::::::::::::: REZONES FILE # FROM P-1 TO IM(P) 1 :6,000 Site boundary o EDNSP �" 100 Year Floodplains ', Du EricCkson, Administrator (Generally including areas mapped by FEMA up to Zone X: areas To 19 December 2000 where 100 year flood waters can be less than 1 foot in depth.) 'ego* ' ii ' ,,- Ole i - --- iv" ti44,/iy/Ao - tot -1 Artirity4 - - ' vwe iew4' 1, ',". ! ITO ovt'x-- vt -. D4-11A de7 kcal %el • 05-c. i 9i f4diviu,.1 - 1 611 dYnYalr , I r419)-.5 Pin 4 , Qv py.2>1 - n/A _ - rxxv Irwcn \istw\ivin't'sn • i-v4% . -6 " °) 050 ' 9/1. t- • \i ' ) —k----; eirecti _ PI Ift tgi -IN At t\00 - "31 .f.' _ A 4 1-11 041/4 1444v A-A ti \'tif % YcA . 'II ' 4. A I _Id 4100 gif) 00 - 0,- cc:1 ;1A .16),........_ City t nton Department of Planning/Building/Pu l/orks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Pt I I C COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 3, 2001 APPLICATION NO: LUA-00-169,ECF,R DATE CIRCULATED: DECEMBER 20,2000 APPLICANT: City of Renton/EDNSP Administrator PROJECT MANAGER: Don Erickson PROJECT TITLE: Renton Wastewater Treatment Plant P-1 WORK ORDER NO: 78770 Rezone LOCATION: 1200 Monster Road SW SITE AREA: approx.8.42 acres BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: This proposal is for the rezoning of an irregularly shaped,8.42 acre site located between Monster Road SW on the west and Oakesdale Avenu8e SW on the east,south of the 96.5 acre Black River Conservation Area and north of SW Grady Way from the Public Use(P-1)zone to the Industrial Medium (IM)zone. It is one of a series of approximately 50 rezones of the P-1 zone that is being phased out pursuant to Council's 1994 directive to do so. No change of use is anticipated as a consequence of this proposed rezone. Under the IM zoning governmental facilities are permitted as a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals _ Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet illy B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal.0 /25 -6 Signature of Director or Author' a Representative Date Routing Rev.10/93 City of R(: I Department of Planning/Building/Public I s ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: e n S COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 3, 201)11 APPLICATION NO: LUA-00-169,ECF,R DATE CIRCULATED: DECEMBER 20,2000. Pi i J 0 tii ya APPLICANT: City of Renton/EDNSP Administrator PROJECT MANAGER: Don Erickson PROJECT TITLE: Renton Wastewater Treatment Plant P-1 WORK ORDER NO: 78770 try r1 tit Rezone -=t C-3 TV LOCATION: 1200 Monster Road SW rye SITE AREA: approx.8.42 acres I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: This proposal is for the rezoning of an irregularly shaped,8.42 acre site located between Monster Road SW on the west and Oakesdale Avenu8e SW on the east,south of the 96.5 acre Black River Conservation Area and north of SW Grady Way from the Public Use(P-1)zone to the Industrial Medium(IM)zone. It is one of a series of approximately 50 rezones of the P-1 zone that is being phased out pursuant to Council's 1994 directive to do so. No change of use is anticipated as a consequence of this proposed rezone. Under the IM zoning governmental facilities are permitted as a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code)COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth _ Housing Air Aesthetics Water _ Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services • Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet k iC ' x B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS V1P12 0 ;at 03 g to We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact areas where ditional information is nee:d to properly assess this proposal. Signet re of t e or or Aututhor'red �epresent Da 0/6 6. Routing Rev.10/ City of Rel. Department of Planning/Building/Public VC..... ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ,REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ' y1 It2VI att-K- COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 3,2001 APPLICATION NO: LUA-00-169,ECF,R DATE CIRCULATED: DECEMBER 20,206ErrVOFRENr oN APPLICANT: City of Renton/EDNSP Administrator PROJECT MANAGER: Don Erickson ��=f's��'F[1 PROJECT TITLE: Renton Wastewater Treatment Plant P-1 WORK ORDER NO: 78770 DEC 2 ®o® Rezone LOCATION: 1200 Monster Road SW �UILC?IIV�7 DIVSS,ON SITE AREA: approx.8.42 acres BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: This proposal is for the rezoning of an irregularly shaped,8.42 acre site located between Monster Road SW on the west and Oakesdale Avenu8e SW on the east,south of the 96.5 acre Black River Conservation Area and north of SW Grady Way from the Public Use(P-1)zone to the Industrial Medium(IM)zone. It is one of a series of approximately 50 rezones of the P-1 zone that is being phased out pursuant to Council's 1994 directive to do so. No change of use is anticipated as a consequence of this proposed rezone. Under the IM zoning governmental facilities are permitted as a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics _ Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities _ Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation • Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS • C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS NoG • We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Sign to of Director or Authorized Representative Date Routing Rev.10/93 City of Rer__.r Department of Planning/Building/Public W_..__ ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: -Flr6 love va fiati;\ COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 3, 2001 APPLICATION NO: LUA-00-169,ECF,R DATE CIRCULATED: DECEMBER 20,2000 APPLICANT: City of Renton/EDNSP Administrator PROJECT MANAGER: Don Erickson PROJECT TITLE: Renton Wastewater Treatment Plant P-1 WORK ORDER NO:.78770 D _ C Rezone LOCATION: 1200 Monster Road SW I SITE AREA: approx.8.42 acres I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A DEC 2 1 2000 ' J SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: This proposal is for the rezoning of an irregularly shaped,8.42 acre site locat;d between Monster , Road SW on the west and Oakesdale Avenu8e SW on the east,south of the 96.5 acre Black River Cc nservation grtieGititilltiftftf SW Grady Way from the Public Use(P-1)zone to the Industrial Medium(IM)zone. It is one of a series of approkI l t P561Y Mfes of the P-1 zone that is being phased out pursuant to Council's 1994 directive to do so. No change of consequence of this proposed rezone. Under the IM zoning governmental facilities are permitted as a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use. - A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code)COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet 'V it B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS /11/04/ _ C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS /t We have r-viewed this appli ation with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas wh 're additional info ion is needed to properly assess this proposal. /02 �� D® Sign: of Director or Authorize epresentative Date Routh• i/ Rev.10/93 City of Reny.,:. Department of Planning/Building/Public Wuinw ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: D u Rig-k Lu o1 COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 3, 2001 APPLICATION NO: LUA-00-169,ECF,R I DATE CIRCULATED: DECEMBER 20,2000 APPLICANT: City of Renton/EDNSP Administrator PROJECT MANAGER: Don Erickson PROJECT TITLE: Renton Wastewater Treatment Plant P-1 WORK ORDER NO: 78770 Rezone LOCATION: 1200 Monster Road SW SITE AREA: approx.8.42 acres BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: This proposal is for the rezoning of an irregularly shaped, 8.42 acre site located between Monster Road SW on the west and Oakesdale Avenu8e SW on the east,south of the 96.5 acre Black River Conservation Area and north of SW Grady Way from the Public Use (P-1)zone to the Industrial Medium (IM)zone. It is one of a series of approximately 50 rezones of the P-1 zone that is being phased out pursuant to Council's 1994 directive to do so. No change of use is anticipated as a consequence of this proposed rezone. Under the IM zoning governmental facilities are permitted as a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing • Air Aesthetics • Water Light/Glare _ Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities • • Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services • Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet y/0 CO--Yvt km 11 B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas w ere additional information is n eded t properly assess this proposal. / I I Sign re of Di -ctor o •uthonzed Representative Date Routing Rev.10/93 \ ,./ City of Re i,ti_, Department of Planning/Building/Public V',_...3 ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:740ASpo 101/\ COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 3, 2001 APPLICATION NO: LUA-00-169,ECF,R DATE CIRCULATED: DECEMBER 20,2000 �� APPLICANT: City of Renton/EDNSP Administrator PROJECT MANAGER: Don Ericksprl� % " +r . PROJECT TITLE: Renton Wastewater Treatment Plant P-1 WORK ORDER NO: 78770 `�Co v 'r1 Rezone 4,10, (4. ,/�I LOCATION: 1200 Monster Road SW his, _SITE AREA: approx.8.42 acres BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A 1)0,/y SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: This proposal is for the rezoning of an irregularly shaped, 8.42 acre site located between Monster Road SW on the west and Oakesdale Avenu8e SW on the east,south of the 96.5 acre Black River Conservation Area and north of SW Grady Way from the Public Use(P-1)zone to the Industrial Medium (IM)zone. It is one of a series of approximately 50 rezones of the P-1 zone that is being phased out pursuant to Council's 1994 directive to do so. No change of use is anticipated as a consequence of this proposed rezone. Under the IM zoning governmental facilities are permitted as a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities _ Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet . 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS • C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. { ? 4" b Sig of Director o.r Authorized Representative Date Routin Rev.10/93 City of Ren._.. Department of Planning%Building/Public W • ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ,�(Jv ei LOO-Cita, j- COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 3, 2001 APPLICATION NO: LUA-00-169,ECF,R DATE CIRCULATED: DECEMBER 20,2000 APPLICANT: City of Renton/EDNSP Administrator PROJECT MANAGER: Don Erickson PROJECT TITLE: Renton Wastewater Treatment Plant P-1 WORK ORDER NO: 78770 . ,per Rezone , �(,ff '�%., ,,,,N LOCATION: 1200 Monster Road SW �.� I SITE AREA: approx.8.42 acres I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A �0,114, e®p® SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: This proposal is for the rezoning of an irregularly shaped,8.42 acre site located betw� onster Road SW on the west and Oakesdale Avenu8e SW on the east,south of the 96.5 acre Black River Conservation Area (�j)..rth of SW Grady Way from the Public Use(P-1)zone to the Industrial Medium(IM)zone. It is one of a series of approximately • -zones of the P-1 zone that is being phased out pursuant to Council's 1994 directive to do so. No change of use is anticipated as a consequence of this proposed rezone. Under the IM zoning governmental facilities are permitted as a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code)COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health _ Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment . 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS /114941, We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. liin / Signs r f Director or Auth rized Representative Date Routh Rev.10/93 City of Department of Planning/Building/Public W ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: C311LS-h,Il,tCklo11 Se),\J COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 3, 2001 • APPLICATION NO: LUA-00-I69,ECF,R DATE CIRCULATED: DECEMBER 29.,rifilr ®N APPLICANT: City of Renton/EDNSP Administrator PROJECT MANAGER: Don Erickson "term PROJECT TITLE: Renton Wastewater Treatment Plant P-1 WORK ORDER NO: 78770 DEC 21 200e Rezone. LOCATION: 1200 Monster Road SW &IC/ALIl./RNA QIViSiON SITE AREA: approx.8.42 acres I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: This proposal is for the rezoning of an irregularly shaped,8.42 acre site located between Monster Road SW on the west and Oakesdale Avenu8e SW on the east,south of the 96.5 acre Black River Conservation Area and north of SW Grady Way from the Public Use(P-1)zone to the Industrial Medium (IM)zone. It is one of a series of approximately 50 rezones of the P-1 zone that is being phased out pursuant to Council's 1994 directive to do so. No change of use is anticipated as a consequence of this proposed rezone. Under the IM zoning governmental facilities are permitted as a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code)COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS ift/id Ale C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS AL fl/eg We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where ditional information is needed o properly assess this proposal. 0--/aq-1 07-) Sig e of'6irector o thorized Representativy Date Routing Rev.10/93 • ' ,Proposed Mitigation Measures: Nr-''--r?n measures are proposed for this zoning change which Is consistent t)O wi Plan Land Use Map designation,Employment Area-Valley. Comments on the above application must hi .f ed in writng to Don Erickson,AICP.Project Manager,Development • + -- Services Division,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055,by 5:00 PM on January 3,2001.This matter is also tentatively scheduled fora public hearing on January 30,20D1,at 9:00 AM,Council Chambers Seventh Floor,Renton�� ' City Hall,1055 South Grady Way,Renton.If you are interested in attending the hearing,please contact the project NT I manager to-ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled.If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date Indicated above,you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Hearing • NOTICE OF APPLICATION , Examiner.If you have questions about this proposal,or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional Information by mall,please contact the project manager.Anyone who submits written comments will automatically . AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON- , become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project SIGNIFICANCE(DNS) j �✓ ` II P) Rd(P) •. . r, I DATE: December 20,2000 ' LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-00-169,R,ECF I -----Th)• 61- . APPLICATION NAME:• RENTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT REZONE • PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This proposal is for the rezoning of an Irregularly shaped,8.42 acre site located / CO between Monster Road SW on the west and Oakesdale Avenuge SW on the east,south of the 96.5 acre Black River Conservation Area and north of SW Grady Way from the Public Use(P-1)zone to me industrial Medium(IM)zone. It is et / �''',,,��� one of a series of approximately 50 rezones of the P-1 zone that Ls being phased out pursuant to Council's 1884 directive co Ot/f// Z / t' O to do so.No change of use Is anticipated as a consequence of this proposed rezone.Under the IM zoning govemmental O 4 facilities era permitted as a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use.A P-suffix overlay zone Is proposed In conjunction with the proposed IM zoning, 1aTlAO cD 1PROJECT LOCATION: 1200 Monster Road SW •O- OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE,MITIGATED(DNS):As the Lead Agency,the City of Renton4 rn CO has determined that significant environmental Impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project Therefore,as , Y permitted under the RCW 43.21 C.110,the City of Renton Is using the Optional DNS process to give notice that a DNS is • likely to be issued.Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS are Integrated Into a single comment period. • / There will be no comment period following the Issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated r' (DNS).A 14-day appeal period will follow the Issuance of the DNS. - . • PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: December 20,2000 ' NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: December 20,2000 ��,,' /�� • `K,,t.l Permits/Review Requested: Environmental(SEPA)Review,Rezone \''''11‘11111 /���� Othe Permits may be required: N/A ;/"/'//�rI Requested Studies: NIA j�/ id 1 Location where application may be reviewed: ` 44'f1110112 1 PlanninglBulldinglpublic Works Division,Development Services Department, '. 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 • • ` PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearing scheduled for January 30th,2001 before the Renton Hearing �� Examiner in Renton Council Chambers.Hearings begin at 9:00 AM on the 71h 1, OA floor of the new Renton City Hall located at 1055 Grady Way South. • 1 • CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Analytical process '\ Co ' Project consistency refers to whether a project is consistent with adopted and applicable development regulations,or in their absence,comprehensive plan policies.RCW 36.70B.110(2)(g)provides that the Notice of Application(NOA)include 500 1,000 I.ANDUSE ACTION FILE'@ GC/A-0,-/6%,t'Ec.P• a statement of the preliminary determination of a project's consistency with the type of land use,level of development, 1=1= 1 REZONES FILE • Infrastructure,and character of development if one has been made at the lime of notice.At a minimum,every NOA shall 1:6,000 FROM P-1 TO III(P) Include a determination of the project's consistency with the zoning,comprehensive plan and development regulations. .rr.,.DNS? 7 A Site Land Use: d , m :a a.I— I'n'r Zone boundaries Regional sewage treatment and processing plant(Industrial) ,... to ow.w rmo Renton corporate boundary - Environmental Documents.that CONTACT PERSON: DONALD ERICKSON(425)430.6581;PROJECT NO:LUA-00.169,R,ECF Evaluate the Proposed Project: Environmental Checklist dated December 18a,2000 and the Final Environmental • Impact State for the Land Use Element of the Renton Comprehensive Plan,Vol. I PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION I, 1 8 2,February 1,1993. Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: Not applicable.This is a non-project legislative action that is not associated with any new development at this time. . .1 C NOTICE OFAPPUCATIONn ,d NOTICE OF APPLICATIONnAoe. _ . ' CERTIFICATION I, -h,,d✓.¢.o 1)213 , hereby certify that copies of the above document were posted by me in 6, conspicuous places on or nearby the described property on .7gc. - Zip , Signed: ?3°,,r 4 Al-1'hST: Subcribed and sworn before me, a Nortary Public,in and for theP.--i7 . Washington residing in �,1�-Y, , on the c-I sJf day of�,¢-r. jpe9 • a MARILYN KAMCHEFF NOTARY PUBLIC ► STATE OF WASHINGTON COMMISSION EXPIRES , JUNE 29, 2003 MARILYN KAMCHEFF le ® .+ As' g .:- ,. v MY APPOINTMENT EXPIRES:6-29-03 • � Y0 ♦ a. ® NT NOTICEOF APPLICATION AND. PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON- SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) DATE: December 20,2000 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-00-169,R,ECF • APPLICATION NAME:• RENTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT REZONE PROJECT.DESCRIPTION: This proposal is for the rezoning of an irregularly shaped, 8.42 acre site located between Monster Road SW on the west and Oakesdale Avenu8e SW on the east, south of the 96.5 acre Black River Conservation Area and north of SW Grady Way from the Public Use(P-1)zone to the Industrial Medium(IM)zone. It is . one of a series of approximately 50 rezones of the P-1 zone that is being phased out pursuant to Council's 1994 directive to do so. No change of use is anticipated as a consequence of this proposed rezone. Under the IM zoning governmental • facilities are permitted as a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use. A P-suffix overlay zone is proposed in conjunction with the - .. proposed IM zoning. - PROJECT LOCATION: 1200 Monster Road SW • OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE, _ .(DNS): As the Lead Agency,the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore,as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110,the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS process to give notice that a DNS is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance.Mitigated (DNS). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS. . • PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: December 20,2000 'C\ ? NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: December 20,2000 1 pi Permits/Review Requested: Environmental(SEPA)Review,Rezone Other Permits which may be required: N/A Requested Studies: N/A • r �� C1� Location where application may be reviewed: Planning/Building/Public Works Division,Development Services Department, `-/V7) • 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearing scheduled for January 30th,2001 before the Renton Hearing Examiner in Renton Council Chambers. Hearings begin at 9:00 AM on the 7th floor of the new Renton City Hall located at 1055 Grady Way South. • CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Analytical process Project consistency refers to whether a project is consistent with adopted and applicable development regulations,or in their absence,comprehensive plan policies. RCW 36.70B.110(2)(g)provides that the Notice of Application(NOA)include - a statement of the preliminary determination of a project's consistency with the type of land use,level of development, infrastructure,and character of development if one has been made at the time of notice. At a minimum,every NOA shall . . • include a determination of the project's consistency with the zoning,comprehensive plan and development regulations. • Land Use:• Regional sewage treatment and processing plant(industrial) • Environmental Documents.that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Environmental Checklist dated December 18th,2000 and the Final Environmental • ' Impact State for the Land Use Element of the Renton Comprehensive Plan,Vol. ' • 1 &2,February 1,1993. 5 Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: Not applicable. This Is a non-project legislative action that is not associated with . any new development at this time. . •. • • NOTICE OF APPLICATIONn - • , Proposed Mitigation Measures: • mitigation measures are proposed for this zoning c which is consistent y ..:•+n Comp Plan Land Use Map designation,Employmi _ ea—Valley. Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Don Erickson,AICP,Project Manager,Development • Services Division,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055,by 5:00 PM on January 3,2001. This matter is also tentatively scheduled for a public hearing on January 30,2001,at 9:00 AM,Council Chambers,Seventh Floor,Renton . . City Hall,1055 South Grady Way,Renton. If you are interested in attending the hearing,please contact the project manager to•ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled. If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date • indicated above,you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions about this proposal,or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional information by mail,please contact the project manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. . . RC P) • RC(P) . ( I C0 I _ • _____} J .4_, 2 /// 40 f,"..17 ,\ 0 .CD ,4 \ 0- %\\ Co AI ,,,ArOil Ili NA ' oil • Iilligia 171" , / )II,_ . - , • rni"----------------- V . le 11100V ® Co A.. 0 500 1,000 . LANDUSE ACTION FILE'# LOA-0/69,,ECF REZONES FILE # • FROM P-1 TO IM(P) .. 1:6,000 . V/////A site . a",=, EDNSP Zone boundaries k Sue ricksCarlson..O.Dennison 1/ D.December 0.D°oaLoa r 19 December 2000 Renton corporate boundary CONTACT.PERSON: DONALD ERICKSON (425)430-6581; PROJECT NO:LUA-00-169,R,ECF • IPLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION NOTICE OF APPLICATIONn.doc . 918800014709 9_....,J0014303 242304904400 BLACKNER JV LLC PHASE V BLACKRIVER-RIVERTECH L L C BNSF RWY CO C/O SMITH MARTIN INC 700 FIFTH AVE STE 6000 PO BOX 961089 1109 1ST AVE#500 SEATTLE WA FORT WORTH TX SEATTLE WA 98101 98104 76161 918800014808 242304909904 242304906108 ESA 0418 GRADY WAY II LLC GUY GLENN LEE 450 E LAS OLAS BLVD#1100 P 0 BOX 27069 10948 SE 284TH FORT LAUDERDALE FL SEATTLE WA KENT WA 33301 98125 98031 242304912304 242304900606 242304906603 K&M HOLDINGS IV L L C KING COUNTY KING COUNTY 16400 SOUTHCENTER PKWY#502 500 4TH AVE#500 DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES SEATTLE WA SEATTLE WA 506 2ND AVE#708 M/S 7ST 98188 98104 SEATTLE WA 98104 242304910605 242304912106 242304910803 MANUFACTURERS MINERAL CO OPUS NORTHWEST LLC PIERRE JAMES P 1215 MONSTER RD SW 915 118TJ AVE SE#300 PO BOX 27069 RENTON WA BELLEVUE WA SEATTLE WA 98055 98005 98125 242304900804 918800014501 242304903709 SMURFIT STONE CONTAINER COR UNIVERSITY STREET PROPERTIES II VECTRA L L C PO BOX 479 1301 FIFTH AVE#3500 1400 MONSTER RD SW RENTON WA SEATTLE WA RENTON WA 98057 98101-2647 98055 DWEL ; -3�:...�����; Y. F R •NTON: ,..: �� N OFF Enrr�oN�w� ION CE 'DINTS N DEVELOPIVIENT^SERVI S C2 0 2 0 0 0 MASTER APPLI:CATION ICED . "�'':H:�.�'e4 d-b9+ev.'�'„.�s$-''K%Y. `�._e.:s.x y,�e"� a'S'd� °� ��.,��,..'c.:''#�'F'-'^'•s=?.;ra.+»5�.9�.r.,rb....:+,..,t�d 3r=3.4-'k�'^9i '"`{'i'-`:J�';:'r.' - _�'"``- 'r:.�''��:=.,..'1�� "y.' .�w-S......:uS`i "." �k..,��.A<,.,A:»:,!114 .13. ,: 6. R T C'L� 0PROEC ITFORMATION-. ( c. oi{..ri�:f=t_'"".: n.•'rn:.ye. d :*•. �p>..,',A ...;44 3e+FA` . ov p e ava a addtonal no;tarizd ,'Saa5 a05 toea4c1h03c titri:,r •, 1,,,:-aSte EXISTING LAND USE(S): NAME: Metropolitan King County Site is a regional wastewater treatment plant which is considered to be a large publicly owned utility. ADDRESS: 1200 Monster Road SW PROPOSED LAND USE(S): Renton,WA 98055 Non-project legislative rezone action. No new land uses are anticipated. TELEPHONE NUMBER: (425)255-4000 EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: 1:b.,.f- y�^°+,,'Y8b'.:�;n,I:•�,y,..!.PIi4:f:=pf:1'R' ,- -._ _i � �.:IS`.'�y.,a t'Pr, ,rr. Wif fi�;.:l..., ..x:. rm >�. Employment Area-Valley. �PT�ICwANT Yi�f=..othery�than„;koner� ���- _::=it"�:.�.v'e.a'�:;`v�;..6'..a'%3h;�'i��.�1`•4i6�w%::��,�a..'-. �"�"_"..;.;3 .r `sa`�'•.`4r,'_t=: �n_, �.``'�r NAME: Susan Carlson,Administrator PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: COMPANY(if applicable):EDNSP Dept., City of Renton No changes are proposed. ADDRESS: 1055 SW Grady Way CITY: Renton ZIP: 98055 EXISTING ZONING: Public Use(P-1)Zone TELEPHONE NUMBER: (425)430-6581 ��i,4:. �.,y�_ '^,.twU�.'•ivtt {n:p 1r" Apv'ry a��+':Y�#Yd::?ti� �E'r-nS 1.iHW:9 �-.ram -"�+, ��-"`,.,. '� a2. r � 3;eF.i�^'^��J'x��` 4''•e.� 'bZ,i'�Y.ei. {tip-:'.ram 3° �3 C-'ONT dt tjra.0' / *FsE C N fk '; PROPOSED ZONING: r- o7s:'a^;r... ::'+e�4=.�� .•. ��:3��,i$�.;_.�_�?,-_. .r:a;�?.��'r"r: "�`�i.... .+�-_'.-:"ve'""^s.:�N� .:�.S�r�� �.t. a _ Industrial Medium (IM)Zone with P-Suffix designation NAME: Don Erickson,AICP EDNSP Dept.;City of Renton ADDRESS: Renton Municipal Bldg. SITE AREA(SQ.FT.OR ACREAGE): 1055 S 'Grady Way 8.42 acres CITY: Renton,WA ZIP: 98055 PROJECT VALUE: TELEPHONE NUMBER: (425)430-6581 N/A,Non-project Action IS THE SITE LOCATED IN THE AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA? PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: No. Renton Wastewater Treatment Plant P-1 Rezone PROPERTY/PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION: IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY OTHER TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA? 1200 Monster Road SW Renton,WA 98055 .Yes. It is located in a"Seismic Sensitive Area"as shown on City of Renton Sensitive Areas Maps. The"hill"is shown as being in a slide area on these same maps. H:\ECON_DEV\EconomicDevelopment\STRATPLN\PLANNING\DE\Metro Plant Rezone\MsterApp GCP.doc\d 7 ^�:M1-1-7- q- a" -� ^:.4•`=? %.' ,.�,,." ":: ;.r",":.r'•'`- 3.i;` ';�,"-":'-L'_ y'.sC'�,�;ro9c ".;s-_^:=;'-y^•.Y-,,:f;_" _ _ R;:;;,,fix' -,c; e's'y-1 - d. ;i:F� `� �.� .1..=t•,�.$ 'i, ,.1-;C.a-cu'!':c�.� 2?�$ .'E� �F. ""r:`:e`i:": s „ts.`:;%i..:sti r'_..:�`s;z: _ _ iy�''_• � . �-i2`ti„ � `sa � _c' x -' ;i .' � 3';v � .y., y ts..�.�•'�.-_.. .. •_��•�,,' ,��•,.� `EGAL'.D PTyIO,N CIF.�PROPERTW �Atta. �enaratevsheet�><f:.needed)°'= ' 5.:t .t: s+: dFY r_ r - n tis �i �:` .•t. f.=„ '' ab,• _, ,�'S,=, �.s:` "��-`'3y'ri�� -;:,'« .,.g-�,'�_,<.�,..,;� ,i'''''%=�`� a .t:,i••.a,'-.,. c.::�,:: �..,�_�zy��h.'B:c'�F�., +.mac� �•tic:.,. ltz��,._.;.;.�:....�i&w.:::e3� fe..�::�,�a-_ .s';�:r�Lg��:�a>:-,Y,..r .;k�,�� ,_-,_ .-F:.. .!:ii::.-. �- _�:*.-=,,.t.. .... .. ... . .. Please see attached description(Exhibit"A"). • ., ••;;- ;�,...:: .-§.,say:,s'..... '. .,.;.x.n: ..,i,.,mw,..Mrs+ *.R' :;'pr :'3f: :�'�ai ".Sra '::rs`is -..>f..a.T*• - z':o-s.y - - .,;>;,_vc.:�;' - - - - , „- Y ,P ..UF.APPX.IC LION.. FEE ly Sa" ,ys'.. a"�. 4 1' 4'P .:� �- �' 1i�"afii n.= 'e�.tli t°�al. C .staff�wi'll.dete�� ,� ;� �.��a=�: : , eek.all a' c o a ,. - `�- .{�,:�; %C, 1^' i'�.1<- t. '^ +1�{e {�.-n�iI;%aaan.:.,'i.�Yt=': 3iks'�:..Z�.._,. _ ;. 't. .�' ..s�--�°-� �: .ma's. :.T'v, rs._ .av - '•,,�':,.:.'. i?:''.=i .. ,. _x•'.� .g....., -.;Y�,. _�.- ��i �.,,,,�4�-,.rax,-�.o-. �� x_r.-.,�.'�:` .,�.z'""=,-i:,..=_>.. -� `�� ,....•.-.z;n:''r„�:;a�-r'v-;«.-,-,a.r..'Gs:...- ..-.......r.<.,-.... - e 1._. ,�......,.., ,=t`tet*.... ANNEXATION $ SUBDIVISION X REZONE $ No Charge —SPECIAL PERMIT $ _LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT $ _TEMPORARY PERMIT $ SHORT PLAT $ _CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT $ _TENTATIVE PLAT $ _SITE PLAN APPROVAL $ _PRELIMINARY PLAT $ _GRADE&FILL PERMIT $ _FINAL PLAT $ (No.Cu.Yds: ) _VARIANCE $ (from Section: ) $ PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT $ _WAIVER $ _PRELIMINARY _ROUTINE VEGETATION _FINAL MANAGEMENT PERMIT $ _BINDING SITE PLAN MOBILE HOME PARKS $ SHORELINE REVIEWS: _SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT $ _CONDITIONAL USE $ _VARIANCE $ _EXEMPTION $ NO CHARGE X ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW $ No Charge REVISION r .,, �#._ - ,+ -"� ��. :� ".yk.-35'�.'-zc..�3±3.5 ��=` ...#S� -- - � - <':i;"�` -"r�'`;;� ':_ •�r;..i�`tr.;�'' .::h�:-,': �•,. �q',` a•2.',rt"°:. ,n1'�. 9q .d.'."',"gyp ':Ga(,i'�S � _ j - - ::5;',:.�:�G }.�t..:t:..:.i:�' e:' `.i"J/.,,+� �'�'•'�'p'' .% .,dip_ ,a# "*; ��e,... .r> .,i-a. ��,,, *y.£c --_ {.-y^;�:+' �..}�a. o-':ti� ..s .� a,. �'-`h^"�{at :r.r`"t.'s i'ryA - - �Z _ r:�"'°• 3. vim:'""; ..�. c'' �' `4.�i. •,i_rr..� '"d --'sNi.., �''M•�3.�. ::§'.-:-' y,'.< ,3 r. .S,i:�=" .c ,_.5'v^:kr":dn�:,,`:'��.�:.�....,,.... -. ,. ._, ,i$i��....`. .. I,(Print Name) ,declare that I am(please check one) _the owner of the property involved in this application, the authorized representative to act for the property owner(please attach proof of authorization),and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. • • (Name of Owner/Representative) Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Notary(Print) (Signature of Owner/Representative) My appointment expires: -s, a'" '*n ,z S-€'u:::" e`+� 'i,...,. ?irk w- av�a'. ,, �;*�� ,-L� - -flu a ,ram' =�ks��-�.�. �T��.:.. �.•�- E�GTIO.<1'O• E'@UMP'ET jj ryjw. IQ° kill Vl Ll ]�o '"•3�A Az,.• h i ,'..r?:•'�i,�i��.��. 3A nr SAS .�R cl�y�:, t7Ntlm CT � �'i' �' _�i�+� E,r �; «,t -r�� �„�rT.wv',ss;ai � -,�.>,n>€,�. �• : d"S.'s:u,„=r;, r,,,., ";";t'•,^: �q4 ;•?�'D ;�W•�t' rUD;�����="�,5�,�='�SME`•��- ,MHP°;^BSP;,:�A�.•;..r;;'°r::GEA::;_,�;,,,�;ti�. �� 'rv3 Y',.:�.q' �%� �.,.-R.ru�, .ax •,>..��' ,�(. .+ ,.d., r3s: ,�:.• 4:. OAT FEES: $ +. #; �TOTAL'POST IGE PIROVIDED $" .' �r:.. . : z�„; '; `' ; . , :: x s •u • a .,j.ig H:\ECON DEV\EconomicDevelopment\STRATPLN\PLANNING\DEWletro Plant Rezone\Backup of MsterApp GCP.wbk\d METRO KING CO° -.'TY RENTON WASTEWATER TREA .ENT PLANT LEGAL DESCRIPTION Former Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way(former NPRR Belt) and portion of southeast,quarter of northwest quarter lying easterly of west line of said railroad right-of-way and northerly of north margin of state highway SR-405 junction,less any portion thereof lying westerly of or within Monster Road SW; Also portion of said former railroad belt in the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter of said section lying 70 feet from the centerline of the state highway, per stipulation of state code #84-2-07769-7 less portion described as follows: Beginning at the northeast corner of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 24-23-4, thence along the north line of said section, N 87 26'22", W 2693.05 feet to the northwest corner of Government Lot 1 Thence along the west line of said Government Lot and of Government Lot 5, S 0 26'19"W 22999.77 feet; Thence S 98 33'44"E 1909.89 feet to the intersection with the east margin of Monster road; Thence southerly along the said margin radius 367.11 feet, an arc distance of 55.20 feet to the intersection with the westerly Metro (former Burlington Northern) boundary per Volume 40, page 180 of survey, said point of intersection being on a curve to the left with a radius of 1134 feet; Thence southerly along said curve having an arc distance of 250.14 feet to the westerly margin of the realigned portion of Monster Road and the point of beginning; Thence along said westerly margin of S 41 55'32",E 68.65 feet; Thence S 06 22'-10",E 321.59 feet; Thence S 04 18'03",E 14.69 feet to a line parallel with and 70 feet northwesterly of the centerline of State Highway 1-L; Thence along the said westerly Metro boundary and curve to the left with a radius of 1134 feet; Thence northerly along said curve, having an arc distance of 399.09 feet to the point of beginning less portion of Government Lot 6 and Government Lot 8 in the westerly half of Section 24-23-04 lying southwesterly of the realigned roadway; Beginning at the northeast corner of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter; Thence N 82 26'22"W 2,693.05 feet to the northwest corner of Government Lot 1; Thence S 00 26'19"W,2299.77 feet; Thence S 89 31'41" E 1909.89 feet to the intersection with the easterly right-of-way margin of Monster Road being a point on a curve concave to the southwest radius point bearing S 63 48'40"W 367.11 feet; Thence southerly along said easterly right-of-way margin and along said curve arc. distance 182.73 feet. . through a central angle of 28 31'04"to an intersection with the southwesterly margin of said realignment of Monster Road; Thence southeasterly along said southwesterly margin of S 69 31'09" E 11.12 feet and S 41 55'32" E 194.64 feet to the point of beginning; Thence S 41 55'32" E 270.82 feet to the intersection with the northwesterly right-of-way margin of Highway 1-1, said point of intersection being a point on the curve concave to the southeast radius,bearing S 68 18'28' E 905.37 feet; Thence southwesterly along said northwesterly right-of-way margin and along said curve arc a distance of 88.21 feet through a central angle of 05 34'57" to the intersection with a line parallel with and 70 feet northwesterly of a central angle of said highway; Thence along said parallel line S 66 53'08"W 125.69 feet; Thence N 04 18'03"W 14.69 feet; and Thence N 06 22'10"W 321.59 feet to point of beginning. % W I RC(P) Rc(P) . co .------IM -c; L' 1-d Co. co /A,LeA III - -jF) i jfa ///y4rA4J40 _____Y___---- Q cn ØCCO Q 4, 41p / G 1/ 1 III III ' /V*00jegibl I ' / dal r° 1 Is 111 t.0 - III 1 co 0 500 1 ,000 LANDUSE ACTION FILE # REZONES FILE # .............. FROM P-1 TO IM(P) 1 :6,00 0 _ V / Site �ti o EDNSP .®, Sue carison, Administrator Zone boundaries D. Erickson, 0. Dennison 0 19 December 2000 Renton corporate boundary - • ..1 =Cif ::Of�Renton _ _ ��:� ly, u•4' - �.1 t - •�'I'.•1•''r'r ;.'.;i i,' :k'-,i",'i(' .!,° - Ili I� LIST•-�HECK�•EN'TAL C IRO M ';. ENV N t, PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21 C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal(and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know"or "does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental:regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions. if you' can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NONPROJECT PROPOSALS: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS(part For nonproject actions (actions involving decisions on policies, plans'and programs),'the references in the checklist to the. words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as proposaI,""proposer,"and "affected geographic area,"respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: City of Renton sponsored rezone of the 8.42 acre Metropolitan King County Renton Wastewater Treatment Plant from the P-1 Zone to the IM Zone. • December 14, 2000 Page 2 • 2. Name of applicant: Susan Carlson, Adminstrator, Economic.Development, Neighborhoods &Strategic Planning Department City of Renton ' 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Address: Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning Department City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Contact Person: Don Erickson,AICP (425)430-6581 4. Date checklist prepared: December 15, 2000 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton, Department of Planning/Building/Public Works - Development Services Division 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Adoption of rezone ordinance is anticipated pending SEPA compliance. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.. No. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. FEIS on the 1995 Comprehensive Plan of the City of Renton 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. No knowledge of pending governmental approvals of affected properties. 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Council approval is required for this non-project rezone. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. The subject proposal is to rezone the Metropolitan King County owned and operated Renton Wastewater Treatment Plant to the Industrial Medium (IM)Zone from its current Public Use (P-1)zoning. December 14, 2000 • Page 3 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area,provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required*to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The subject wastewater treatment plant is located between Oakesdale Avenue SW. on the east and north and Monster Road on the west. A portion of the site abuts SW Grady Way on the south. The site is approximately 8.42 acres in size and does not include a portion along SW Grady Way that is currently zoned IM. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one); flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other Not applicable for this non-project legislative action. b. What is the steepest slope on the site(approximate percent slope?) Not applicable for this non-project legislative action. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of.agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Not applicable for this non-project legislative action. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Not applicable for this non-project legislative action. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Not applicable for this non-project legislative action. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe.. No construction is proposed as a result of this non-project proposal. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction(for example, asphalt or buildings)? No construction is proposed as a result of this non-project proposal. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: No construction is proposed as a result of this non-project proposal. December 14, 2000 • Page 4 • 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. No construction is proposed as a result of this non-project proposal. b. Are there any off-site sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Not applicable for this non-project legislative action. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Not applicable for this non-project legislative action. 3. WATER a. Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. No construction is proposed as a result of this non-project legislative proposal. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. No construction is proposed as a result of this non-project legislative proposal. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. • No construction is proposed as a result of this non-project legislative. proposal. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No construction is proposed as a result of this non-project legislative proposal. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. This is a non-project legislative action. No development is proposed as a result of this proposal. A portion of the site lies within the 100- year floodplain. December 14, 2000 Page 5 • 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to " surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. This is a non-project legislative action. No development is proposed as a result of this proposal. b. Ground Water: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. This is a non-project legislative action. The proposed rezone will not result in the discharge or withdrawel of water that is not now occuring. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage;industrial, containing the following chemicals...;agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. No construction is proposed as a result of this non-project legislative proposal. c. Water Runoff(including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff(including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any(include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. No construction and therefore runoff is proposed as a result of this non-project legislative proposal. 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Not applicable. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water. impacts, if any: Not applicable since this is a non-project legislative action that will not result in any development that would not otherwise occur and is covered by SEPA. 4. PLANTS December 14, 2000 • Page 6 • a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: NA . deciduous trees, aple, aspen, other NA evergreen tree:fir, cedar ert other NA s rub NA C7:1;› NA pasture NA crop or grain NA wet soil plants:cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other NA water plants:water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other NA other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? No construction and therefore no vegetation will be removed as a result of this non-project legislative proposal. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None are known at this time. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Not applicable. 5. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds.�iawk`heron,eagle,songbirds other.— Mammals:deer, bear, elk, beaver, other Fish:bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Great Blue Heron habitat the 96.5 acre reparian conservation area to the north. There are an estimated 68 nesting pair of heron at the established rookery in the heart of this conservation area. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain Possibly. Various species of waterfoul use the wetlands to the north as well as a smaller decorative wetland on the northside of the subject site for feeding, resting and in some cases nesting. • December 14, 2000 Page 7 • d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Not applicable since this is .a non-project action. No development is proposed as a result of this rezone proposal. 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. None will be used since this is a non-project legislative action. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. This is a non-project action. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: None. This is a non-project action. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including,exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None. This is a non-project action. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None. This is a non-project action. b. Noise 1) . What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example:traffic, equipment, operation, other)?. Not applicable since this is a non-project action 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Not applicable. No new development is proposed as a direct result of this proposed non-project action. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: None. This is a non-project action. • • December 14, 2000 Page 8 • • 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site is a regional wastewater treatment plant with large digester tanks and other facilities used in processing human waste materials. A series of 11 cascading ponds and a wetland treat stormwater on the north side of the plant next to Oakesdale Avenue. c. Describe any structures on the site. Not applicable since this is a non-project action. However, there are a number of large digesters and other sewage treatment facilities on the subject site. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No. The is a legislative non-project rezone action. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Not applicable. Proposed amendment will affect the R-1 Zone. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? The 8.42 acre site is currently designated Employment Area — Valley on. Renton's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Springbrook Creek abuts the site along its eastern boundary. This portion of Springbrook Creek is designated Urban Environment. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Not applicable. Portions of the site abutting Springbrook Creek and areas of steeper slopes may be considered to be"environmentally sensitive". • L Approximately how many.people would reside or work in the completed project? Not applicable. This is a rezone only at this time. No construction or change of use is anticipated as a result of this rezone. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? Not applicable. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Not applicable. December 18, 2000 Page 9 • • 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: As noted above the proposed rezone. is compatible with the Employment Area - Valley land 'use designation under Renton's Comprehensive Plan. Also, there is no anticipated change of use or new construction proposed as a result of this rezone. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Not applicable. This proposed rezone does not have a housing component. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Not applicable. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Not applicable. 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas;what is the principal exterior building material(s)proposed. Not applicable. This is a non-project legislative action. No new development is specifically proposed as a result of this change in zoning classification. Any future use will have to be approved by the City Hearing Examiner. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Not applicable. This is a non-project rezone action. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Not applicable. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? • Not applicable. This is a non-project legislative action. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Not applicable. This is a non-project legislative action. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Not applicable. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Not applicable. December 18, 2000 Page 10 • • 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? This is a non-project rezone action that has no impacts on recreation. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Not applicable. 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. Not applicable. This is a non-project legislative action. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. Not applicable. This is a non-project legislative action. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Not applicable. 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The subject 8.42 acre site is abutted by Monster Road on the west, and Oakesdale Avenue SW on the north and east. SW Grady Way and 1-405 lie to the south.. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Not directly, however this is a non-project action. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Not applicable. Non-project action. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private? Not applicable. Non-project action. December 14, 2000 • Page 11 e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. Not applicable. Non-project action. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. This is a legislative non-project action that will not have any transportation impacts. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Not applicable 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. This is a legislative non-project action that will not have any public service impacts. No changes are expected in the operation of the Renton wastewater treatment plant as a result of this proposed rezone. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Not applicable. 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. Not applicable. Non-project action. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. • Not applicable. Non-project action: December 14, 2000 . Page 12 C. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non- significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: 1ihtA Name Printed: L Date: 1211 cb I CrO December 14, 2000 Page 13 • D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEETS FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (These sheets should only be used for actions involving decisions on policies, plans . and programs. You do not need to fill out these sheets for project actions.) . Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with te list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? This is a legislative non-project rezone action that is not anticipated by itself to change operations at the subject site or increase substance discharges into the environment. Subsequent development under the current zoning or the proposed new zoning could however result in increased discharges. These, however,will be reviewed at the project level for SEPA compliance. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Not applicable for this non-project legislative action. Subsequent development as a result of this proposed code amendment would have to go through environmental review unless SEPA exempt. It is likely that air emissions, etc. would be addressed at this time when type and quantities of discharges are known. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? As a legislative non-project action the current proposal will not directly affect plants, animals,fish or marine life. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: Not applicable. Mitigation would be prepared at the project level. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? This non-project legislative action will not directly impact energy or natural resources. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: Not applicable. December 14, 2000 • Page 14 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, ftoodplains, or prime farmlands? This non-project rezone proposal will not directly impact or use environmentally sensitive areas. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: Not applicable. 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? This proposed non-project action will not directly affect land or shoreline use. Governmental facilities, which the wastewater treatment plant is, are a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use in the IM Zone, and therefore are carefully scrutinized for compliance with all land use and shoreline use provisions as well as looked at for compatibility. The Renton Treatment Plant has progressively addressed its surface water runoff with a series of cascading ponds and a wetland as swell as landscaped along the edges of Springbrook Creek to create a visual buffer from the plant itself. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: Not applicable. As noted above any new development under the proposed IM zoning will have to be reviewed by the City's Hearing Examiner. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? This is a legislative non-project action that will not directly have any transportation or public service impacts. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: Not Applicable. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or r federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. No conflicts with local, state or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment are known to exist with the subject non-project legislative proposal. December 14, 2000 • Page 15 SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non- significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: 1 d ea-4-t6 t 1MU1 Name Printed: PV..ber.C.ct 14. Lr1 nil Date: 12-J 10/O 41110 CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-95-072-ECF APPLICANT: CITY OF RENTON PROJECT NAME: City Rezones of Public Use (P-1) Zoned Properties DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Public Use (P-1) zoned properties rezones. Proposed rezones of 37 publi owned sites located throughout the City. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Sites are scattered throughout the City of Renton. One site is located in unincorporated King County; owners include the City, King County, Renton School District, Renton Technical College, Metro, etc. LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section The 15 day comment period with concurrent 14 day appeal period for this project will end on June 13, 1995. Followi this, the City will finalize its Determination unless comments received require a reevaluation. Appeal procedur imposed by the City of Renton's Environmental Review Committee are available at the Development Services Divisic Third Floor, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington 98055. Phone: 235-2550. You should be prepared to ma specific factual objections. PUBLICATION DATE: May 29, 1995 DATE OF DECISION: May 23, 1995 SIGNATURES: • �i�G o L GL/�C � 3 5 Grfg Im ma ,Administrator DATE Departmen PIa nning/Building/Public Works Sam Chastain, Administrator DATE Community Serv' Department • /42,:‘ Lee e er, Fire Chief DATE Ren on Fire Department DNSSIG.DOC REZONES EXISTING PUBLIC ..:...:....;:..:;::.:;;;;:. .. . : ...:...:<;::<::>:::::>:: ,.:;:.::<:.;:.::.::::::::::::: C !NAMES OF OWNERS �1N0 ADUf g.SS .6: COMPRENENSIM >Y:'<fti P:RQPQSI� . .......,„ '"`:'s�:>iiiiiiii t,.tU•t, ,.,, .' ::•::2.x ',`� 3.. 'C: ::!::20 \ tis:;::: FILE # FACILITIES PLAN LAND'USf0.�. k'� '4O:NU G ``a `k' DESIGNATION CLASSIF1.u.api V;j:::>:.:::>>::.;:;;:.»::><;< < ::> ;; (GR-24) Metro Wastewater Mr. Gary Locke, King County Executive. EA-I - Employment IH (p) LUA-95-1 19 Treatment Plant. King County Administration Building Area Industrial (Hearing Examiner Conditional Use of P-173 Located at 1200 Monster 500 4th Ave S. Seattle, WA. 98104 Secondary Use with an approved Road SW. Master Site Plan) IM/p• (Same as for IH Zone above) (GR-25) West Hill Reservoir. Mr. Greg Zimmerman, Administrator. RS - Residential R-8 (p) LUA-95-1 20 Located West of 82nd City of Renton Single Family (Hearing Examiner Conditional Use or P-174 Ave S. at S.126th St. 200 Mill Ave S. Renton, WA. 98055 Secondary Use with an approved Master Site Plan) (GR-26) P-1 Channel/Spring- Mr. Sam Chastain, Administrator. RR - Residential RC (p) LUA-95-1 23 brook Creek/Black River. City of Renton Rural (Permitted Primary Use) P-176 Located N. of Monster 200 Mill Ave S. Renton, WA . 98055 Road SW. (GR-27) Cedar River Greenway Mr. Sam Chastain, Administrator. RR - Residential RC (p) LUA-95-124 Interpretive Park. City of Renton Rural (Permitted Primary Use) P-177 Located at 2901 Maple 200 Mill Ave S. Renton, WA . 98055 Valley Hwy. (GR-28) Cedar River Park. Mr. Sam Chastain, Administrator. COR - Center Office COR (p) ILUA-95-125 Located at 1911 Maple City of Renton Residential (Permitted Primary Use) P-178 Valley Hwy. 200 Mill Ave S. Renton, WA . 98055 (GR-29) Former NARCO Site. Mr. Sam Chastain, Administrator. RR - Residential RC (p) LUA-95-126 Located at 1500 Houser City of Renton Rural (Permitted Primary Use) P-179 Way S. 200 Mill Ave S. Renton, WA . 98055 (GR-30) Fire Station #13. Mr. Sam Chastain, Administrator. RO - Residential R-10 (p) LUA-95-127 Located at 17040 108th City of Renton Options (Hearing Examiner Conditional Use of P-180 Ave SE. 200 Mill Ave S. Renton, WA . 98055 Secondary Use with an Approved Master Site Plan) Page 4 40 \ 00 . , . ilon icE PENDING APPLICATION PROJECT NAME/NUMBER: CITY REZONES OF PUBLIC USE(P-1)ZONED PROPERTIES UNDER PUBLIC • OWNERSHIP/PROJECT NO.LUA-95-072,ECF,R DESCRIPTION: The City of Renton is proposing to rezone publically owned properties,from their existing Public Use(P-1)zoning classification to zoning which is consistent with the zoning adjacent to or near each site: GENERAL LOCATION: Metro Wastewater Treatment Plant: Located within West Grady Way, Oakesdale Ave SW and Monster Road PUBLIC APPROVALS: Building Permit Preliminary Plat Short Plat Conditional Use Permit XXXX Rezone Site Plan Approval XXXX Environmental Review Shoreline Conditional Use Other Permit Fill&Grade Permit Shoreline Substantial Other Development Permit The application can be reviewed in the Development Services Division located on the third floor of Renton City Hall. Comments will be accepted any time prior to Public Hearings,during Public Hearings, or prior to an administrative site plan approval. Comments for Substantial Shoreline Permits must be received within thirty(30)days from the last date of applicant's"Notice of Application"publication in the Valley Daily News. For further information on the application, or if . you wish to be made a PARTY OF RECORD and receive additional notifications of the City's environmental determinations, appeal periods and/or the public hearing date(s) for this project, please contact Don Erickson of the Planning and Technical Services at277-6181. I � '!L_Ir _ �u L � o ---- - \l O J VI Irk; -- l M o . i ) IN < 3 0 P-1 P a IGI \� , L __�oy ' E , fody' �— E �� _ IM \l . IM�'I i I sw��kri �t. 1 dolipv r� l l l l 1co I • Ill �J�16{th t. IM r** t • ..,, \ ,\\ .... _________ ___ -----__-----..._ ..__ p \---\ . ' I iIL II PLEASEANCLWDE.TH PROJECT>NUMQER>WHEN;GALLING>F:QRPROPEWPILE IDENTIFIC ` <:: >::`s ATION ........ I G R- • 110i 1110 CITY OF RENTON Land Use and Zoning Map AmendmerfWy OF REINTO" January, 1994 MAR 311994 RECEIVED 1. Applicant Name: A ti A E - f115PMAkI!J Date: MACH .7�/ ��q4.- 2. Address: G C 3. Are you the property owner? Yes No L/ . If no, what is your interest in the property? A 4. King County Tax Account# -4 2 3CJ 7 ✓' 5. Legal description of property to be rezoned: (Please attach map of property) EWIre-e gtE J art -fHE klORT14AUD tcs�C az y WAY 1 tip 5 t14/ AJ AAc 1 oti -tHs 6. Existing Use on Property:XE tO1.AL TmA -sAE 4 r dFLAtkir werci4DL'( ACf tvRev ,4 .(try re l S ) aj c4)wAY 7. What land use or zoning are you requesting for the property? (See designations on back of application.) IDJIVSTK1AC. 1-{F-AVY " Z H J W/!ru AAA-roc.. Ch7c1 Tiffs A(Le A6, A 55- vAizle ( wp k4 RAM AFP A.Ujepj . 8. What are your reasons for requesting these uses? (Please attach any additional information that may be helpful in reviewing your request:) -to Muc,ri tr.E Signed thr_li,`1 • .___Tele hone Number Z 'Z Please submit form to: Long Range Planning,City of Renton,200 Mill Avenue South, Renton,WA 98055. Telephone:235-2552 �Y' " a . .. , •• . . . . . . . . . E'P ) I ASiEwA-reZ i�EA�1 tv1EN i PLANT IM — Lu --- �� INS, ' ¢ I M-- . \ o ¢ cn . . . (IC 0 - o P-1 . \ \ • mF1 , . \ uj 0. . . 1001 'yea [ IM �I i‘) 911 I , iiii ,. i 1, 1 Wq�h st. I ''' 4 i fr„„„„ideneri\oth , --, .,.,, _1 ..., . K\ 'riall 'i - OA% \ . 1. co _. IL 1 . \ Cal .?ctSi1NG 2/ONO/Ng' : P— I - E. • l A A 11 e, , _ , . 41 . . t1Ei2.c) WAS iE W ATE R. ►sL.E ATMEN i PLAN i. IM !►, - �u 1 0 li i M l IH 07 coo � IN ------). . ——.7-'. 1,. ' C3' .' . � i Or°1 I�I Wq[An ___, ,litiloor-,4h .t. IM I, \ A; . . _ � \4 IL • 12..E Cc)nnrriEN6E0 2_0_ C, ; 1 t.i .,Wr....C3sii1*re irt4s3Lsrt.`..: .cress* «rna:.w+Ra'..era.,rr4r,G Dos..o«,.A.,..« .;..: rnu...,,rz,.-sae.ra+'..4..,sa.a a.�.. P..... w.. ......��. r , . .-,i • 1 IT ' 1 : 1 I I ! • . , • i .1. . . . . • , ii 1 a.' • I ' i '- --. r:714',..174".10,..:-.. . ' . , •-• • . • 1 I - , , ,.,... . • - ....... — . ---...,......0 ‘„41.U....‘‘.-1' ''"' ." '''''„,;.; .....41. -7.., • ::11 ,!..... .. ...,•..13S' •:,.'..:Iti..;.,r.., ,••••,...:-...--....,......11 • o.----• I A, ,,;0- •'." ... _.,--.,..L.T.- x.,..,..-''-''1,...,--- ''--;- 0 . • *S. .., , __.. . .,.. 4 ---7,•,',.Tt-.-...,---,_,_.„. . . I If ' •... _ - . •e::-; -'',-,.' -V--,.-,,,:.-.:-.:, *.:..-'-'"A,.....--•-...;.....,;-y_s-^‘--'-`-",, ." • .. . , . . .-''.' ..,.. ..... •,.. . ....:. •1.1",;4--::::7).7-'''''.1-7.4,...,r1:-:,,.I. .::4'..--S4.-'..-''' ......4"..... .--- v , ,.. '1 t .....,_,,,...-- . - , - ......."..;:-. „..., .!••..7."..;-,:•.-54',-,..t.-..n? .••••:: ..•.„...,`;4.... •...*It)'., ..;',..,W x/%..'• '.-, : ' . ' . . . :.- ••--:-. -.'-:-::,;'':.,,.-.4.' ..1":-:-._:::-.•:,.•,€,,. 79r,Ci.:::-1.2-'..1.4 . 1 1 c . , '—• ' - • --:-'---i • '2,1.--.' •-•r,I.,-.N,,,D7,..1,4t-r.... .. •% ,i',..'.., . i . . i. . . . , . . : . , . INIAS176_6t_tqTE_w, 177-egt i ME N 7 P LAN T ,. . . • • . . . . , . i . 7--,...v.;-:.,--,-,-w--...,,, • . •,,.,..', .,.-.-7_-,-. -____-.22-_,-A-7'..'1,CIZ• •;.-... • -••--,-..-;,- , . :----- 'ir :::T:'-^:t . ,,,,EL-2,,,, ...,,,.. .9-.....ra.,.,2,,,,,.4.._• ,,,,, • rf_..•••,,•.- —,..-Zar?,,,,,,.......•',,,T?1.,,,......,,,,.f...!: ,... - ....... . 1 '„t'r---,--•:•- - ' '. - Q.,feir.,5'7.rig''':4'4 1. •,t.'a .'''•- MV.,-y!.. ,4...., . ,•'`.• . r„. r,..6,T.;.,4p:',..,' ...;-.....r,,...,po.t.,,,,) -,s,..4 i.-•_,:,..:,?.....:-:.:_....,...717;7,,,7.:-..........-.. - . . . I te IA1!:.'s-A.,41:11111?-",li.:.''''..:r IA•r:!''AI,1),,'.y,'...,,:„ ::ilt•f4i).11':::,tf';',?:,;,'!:•1?-.4,:::!,<......r''''':''':'7T-.-:--..-. . . . . i: ..*:•;?..'7=1%....'-, , .....,..."•NN 4,I ,, .. 4..`1.11..4:-..•:ii- , 2":.,..,.,"'.•,...':-e't.''.,!..:"•.:••,'z........... . ,_.-.'''' .4-A'$ 1 .1.,-.Itsi,,•;4,..4,,,,...r. ,...:-.,-^;$1.-1- 4,:,•••'• '•- z.• . . .. . 1 - •''''- '•"... .t.--,,,,-- m,. l.1...,' -.••••''''''''-.0s24,•?..!1 i.r.,014:',":ie'r,f1.,-'.{1):;:„.:"''.',.,:.'.. ,,,,•:::-...,. . :.,:i'z'' . , i _._,.,...„....:',7• 1141/1- 4••,., 7 ' „.AT'.."..,.':;.1.."..gii,:',,,,"4:-.1",..t1;7,':.,'-'.:1-1•,-,.,. ... - , . - ... . . - t„...'.....'4•...:•••••••,;',....v.:;.•:.• .'',.',• '." , -' . . ; . . . ....,. ' ••: ;,.q..,'1,........"::--:'-. •Ti< 4;•'-'Isilif1•;*;,..'7',,,is.,•$.....!:....,..,..,.....,'y., , .. •.., . „.• .:.,,,f,..tr.....:-.;,..7,,,,,r',',/,-..a.y..p.•••.:ts...%(..,.1!V••••,:',?p,';'...'.‘,"••'..••P-''.'.':.-••;.' ,'..,, - . . • . . .."-..""!-•=','"24"::fat:164 -•.:7-,..-1-k...%T4-;.'--..r.•-•.,-,,,-;..":5•,,f...I-, ,, .•••• -, • , .' . i .. . 1 -,:.."...7.-,....:.---.-.:,,,,-,..,._:-,..:A.',7,,e...w.,•,-A.I,--g--''•,-,;,-,;:o....V.sv 'I"..:,.••.t.•• :. , e . • . • . , .r",..T.I'•..!:..-f_.4..-04:4•.":V•ls,,I1-'i' ‘••:.:,•;.'S- •''-' -•-.-94:1 12 14 . r .^ ,,4-:-: .,,,.,,,,-,,,,;',...7'..-Tr',--.7.,r,--..-.:;17.7..)::;'.'.•'1•.:,.:..-'. ;•.. ,.- . ; . . . I • "• '` ;::".i.:,,,',.,%;..".....:1,,,-,... ..;,....„1,..;,•,, ,,,,,,f-1,-.<72-....,......:••;,.....•,,'-e-_,:".• ,,,.:,"...i,•,-,;.,,,,.,..,.:..‘... •-: . .• -"-••• ".4 •:..rit:-, :;,•••-.7::,•-•••:•,,f1..!.....,^..1',-.... .::4;-•••' ,:,,-.;,.."„ ,.;-,- „ . . . , . : • - ,, . . • • . . . . • . . . • I . . . . . . . • • i . 1 . . 1 i i . • . .-- ::METRO - Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle -• Environmental Planning and Real Estate Division ' 821 Second Ave.,M.S.120 Seattle,WA 98104-1598 • (206)684-1165 • Fax(206)684-1900 _ January 14 , 1994 p . C rNIiNG o r CF,gFNTn0; Mr. Don Erickson• City' of Renton ' • � . 200 . Mill Avenue South ,,-M;t4s` Renton, Washington 98055 - , • Proposed Revisions To P-1. Zoning Dear .Mr: 'Erickson: ' Thank you for taking the . time ,to .explain ,the proposed - changes the City is contemplating regarding the P-1 zoning ' throughout the City of Renton, during ou'r meeting of January - ! 7 , 1994 .. As I understood from our meeting and also from the Planning , and Development Committee meeting of January 11, 1994, the . City of Renton 'in' response to' the'-requirements of the Growth Management Act is proposing to eliminate the P-1 zoning throughout the City. The City' spreferred .plan envisions that public facilities _(hospitals, ,schools, the Metro sewage treatment plant) would be rezoned to correspond to the ' zoning categories of neighboring uses and. would.be allowed " , outright or allowed with an,approved: "Master Plan" . Certain uses might; require Conditional Use approval•. either by'' 1 administrative staff review or by the Hearing Examiner. - Further work' will' be done at the staff level to "develop: " the details Of actual. requirements' for, obtaining approvals and , the final planwill be presented .to the City Council for...Ciil^iCi • approval on or before July 1, 1994 in the form of an Ordinance.. King County Department of Metropolitan Services '.(DMS) supports these rezoning efforts provided that the East Division Wastewater Reclamation Plant located at 1200 Monster_ Road "S.W.. is rezoned Heavy Industrial (I-Hy and remains, a .permitted use in this designation. Per your ' \comments' during the, Planning -and -Development Committee' -- meeting, we were assured that the,.preliminary .plan -presented • to -,the Planning and Development - Committee - on January 11 - which showed the proposed zoning of, the treatment plant - being I-M will be revised to reflect this change. , Recycled papa , 1 Proposed" Revisions T'o P-1 ,Zoning, January 14, 1994 Page Two , As stated in the,meetings of both January 7 and January 11, . 1994 , the treatment plant was rezoned in 1985 to make it' a" _ permitted -use 'in the P-1 Zone, This" was 'done on .the , . recommendation of the. Hearing Examiner to streamline'.a very '', cumbersome process. ' At the tiie .of the rezone it was a . , ' point of discussion between 'Metro staff and city,. sta;ff , ' , whether to have the property .rezoned P=1 or I'-H.. Because - the Comprehensive Plan at ,.that time designated the property as ,Public/Quasi-Public, the' .decision was made 'to .request that- the property be rezoned to ,.P-T. _ From this- perspective, ` it -clearly would be! a, step backward to make the facility a Conditional Use in an I-M zone. ' Again, I wish to, reiterate that we look' forwardto-further ' discussions , to, work out whatever'-details remain., Please , feel free..to contact me at 684-1334 to set up _a meeting" at your'"convenience , Sin rely, Ger i.eiJackson, SR/WA" 'Real, Property Agent ; GJ:ce - - cc: Bill Burwell, Manager,.. East Division,' DMS ( ' Greg- Bush, 'Manager, Environmental Planning,and Real, • . ' Estate, IDMS Bill .Nitz, Supervisor,, W.Q: Capital . Projects, DNS ,Joe Fernandes, . Manager,- Renton Enlargement Phase III, EMS Kathy Keolker-Wheeler,, Chair, .Planning' and Development - ` , Committee, City of Renton .. G:'GJRCOMLI ' , • i " Prosecuting Attorney King County Fred J.Kaufman March 8,2001 Page 3 City's Code does not require heavy fabrication or machining for an IH zone. Furthermore, the Hearing Examiner's decision does not acknowledge the unique heavy industrial characteristics of the South Plant, including but not limited to the processing and treatment of raw materials, the production of recycled or re-use water and biosolids and the requirement for large outdoor areas for the South Plant's processes, that make the IH zoning classification more representative of the Plant's characteristic than the IM zoning. These processes and characteristics of the South Plant support the contrary finding and conclusion that IH is the proper zone designation. By contrast, the City's purpose statement for the IM zone states that it is to provide areas for activities involving "manufacturing, processing, assembly and warehousing" and which "may require "some outdoor storage...." The South Plant is not a warehouse. There is no mention in the IM zone designation for the need for large outdoor areas in which to conduct operations, which now occurs at the South Plant. The City, as proponent of the re-zone, carries the burden of proof in this matter. The City presented no testimony that the processes and handling of raw materials at the South Plant are not "as intensive as heavy industrial." In fact the City's position on this matter as set forth in the February 13, 2001 staff report is that "because of the size of the subject site and the unique heavy industrial characteristics of the treatment plant, staff now believe IH may be more representative of the plant's characteristic than IM zoning" (February 13, 2001 Preliminary Report, page 5, section F(5)(d)(1)). Conclusion 1, that the criteria for change of zone classification have been met and that the IM classification appears appropriate is an error of law and fact and an error in judgment. The criteria for change of zone classification, as set forth in the Renton Municipal Code at section 4-9-170 F(2) have not been met. The City, as the proponent of the re-zone must establish all of the following: (a) that the rezone is in the public interest, (b) that the rezone tends to further the preservation and enjoyment of any substantial rights of the County (c) that the rezone is not detrimental to the public welfare or the properties of other persons located in the vicinity thereof and(d)that the rezone meets the review criteria in subsection Flb and Flc of Section 4-9-170 F. The rezone to an IM classification does not meet these criteria. The rezone is not in the public interest as it does not accurately reflect the unique heavy industrial characteristics of the South Plant or the current uses at the plant. The rezone does not tend to further the preservation and enjoyment of any substantial rights of the County as it does not accurately reflect the South Plant's characteristics or uses. The rezone is materially detrimental to the public welfare in that certain abutting uses may in the future be deemed incompatible with the facilities and uses existing and anticipated at the South Plant. The rezone does not meet the criteria set forth in Renton Code section 4-9-170 Flb and lc, as the potential rezone does not meet the policies set forth in the Renton Comprehensive Plan. For all of these reasons, the IM classification is not appropriate. Prosecuting Attorney King County Fred J.Kaufman March 8,2001 Page 4 Conclusion 4, that the adoption of new land use provisions to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code provided the impetus to review the P-1 zone and therefore the current proposal is appropriate is an error of fact and law to the extent that the only rationale in the record of this case for the rezone of the South Plant is that "This zone (P-1 zone) is being phased out pursuant to Council's 1994 direction to do so." There is no support in the record for Conclusion 4. Conclusion 5 that "(g)iven the surroundings and the Comprehensive Plan designations for the subject site and neighboring sites, IH zoning does not appear appropriate" is an error of fact and law and an error in judgment. The only information in the record on this issue is the City's position as set forth in the February 13, 2001 staff report that "the recommended IH zoning would be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan." (February 13, 2001 Preliminary Report, page 4, section F(5)(d)). The South Plant property is in the Valley Planning Area and IH is a permitted zoning designation. The IH zone would still require the site to obtain Hearing Examiner Conditional Use approval and site plan review for substantial change in use or change of ownership. Furthermore, the IH zone more accurately reflects the South Plant's current uses and characteristics as set forth above. Conclusion 5 that "IH would appear to sanction offsite spillover of industrial impacts to surrounding areas" is an error of fact and law and an error in judgment. This Conclusion is also misleading and prejudicial, as it implies that King County would ignore or violate existing local, state and federal laws and regulations with regard to its operations, if the South Plant were to be zoned IH. This is not true. The IH zoning does not permit offsite spillover of industrial impacts to surrounding areas as stated in conclusion 5. The South Plant has properly mitigated its impacts so as not to create offsite impacts to the surrounding areas. Additionally, any substantial change in use under an IH zoning classification would require a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use approval which would likely impose appropriate mitigation measures to insure that any potential impacts from the South Plant's activities do not impact surrounding areas. Furthermore, local, state and federal laws and regulations regarding noise, air quality, water quality and surface water effects, do not allow the South Plant to create offsite impacts to the surrounding areas. The South Plant is now, has been, and is committed to be in the future, in compliance with all laws and regulations with respect to its operations and activities. Conclusion 6 that the applicant's use of the subject site is not by itself enough to control future zoning and that in addition the overall public welfare must be considered when determining appropriate classifications for zoning is an error of fact and an error of law. The proponent for this rezone is not King County but the City of Renton. The criteria for change of zone classification is set forth in the Renton Municipal Code section 4-9-170 F(2). As set forth above under the discussion of conclusion 1, the Code requires that the reviewing official consider a number of specific criteria, one of which is that the rezone not be materially detrimental to the public welfare. As set forth above the rezone to IM is materially detrimental to the public welfare. Moreover, the other criteria for change of zone classification to IM have not been met. Prosecuting Attorney King County Fred J.Kaufman March 8,2001 Page 5 Conclusion 9, that it would be appropriate for the City Council to rezone the parcel to IM is an error of fact and law and an error in judgment for all of the reasons set forth above. The Recommendation that the City Council should approve the reclassification of the subject property from P-1 to IM with a P-suffix is an error of fact and law and an error in judgment for all of the reasons set forth above. B. The Hearing Examiner should consider additional evidence on the issue of processes at the South Plant. Renton Municipal Code Title IV, Chapter 8, section 100G4 allows reconsideration on the ground of discovery of new evidence that was not reasonably available at the time of hearing. As presented by King County at the hearing in this matter, the South Plant already beneficially reuses digester gas, by scrubbing it and selling it at cost to Puget Sound Energy. With the recent volatility in the electrical energy market, King County has experienced a 1000% increase in its electrical rates at the South Plant, from $, 0.04 to $0.40 per kilowatt hour. As a result of this energy crisis, on February 15, 2001 (after the hearing in this matter), King County filed a petition to intervene in the consolidated actions against Puget Sound Energy pending before the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission to obtain some rate relief. On March 6, 2001 the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission granted King county's petition to Intervene. A true and correct copy of the Order Granting King County's Petition to Intervene is attached hereto. In addition, King County has begun to explore other alternatives to respond to the energy crisis and the dramatic increase in energy costs at the. South Plant. One of these options is for King County to generate electrical energy at the South Plant, as a hedge against escalating power costs. King County acknowledges that such an option would require certain City approvals. However, this option further demonstrates the heavy industrial nature of the South Plant property and supports a contrary finding to that of the Hearing Examiner that in fact the South Plant property is more appropriately zoned IH and not IM. The Renton Municipal Code expressly provides the Hearing Examiner with authority to accept additional evidence in connection with this request. (Renton Municipal Code Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110 G 4). King County respectfully requests permission to provide the Hearing Examiner with additional evidence on this matter. C. Conclusion For the reasons set forth herein, King County respectfully requests that the Hearing Examiner modify his recommendation to the City Council and recommend that the City Council approve a reclassification of the South Plant property from P-1 to IH with a P-suffix. In the alternative, King County requests that the Hearing Examiner accept additional information on the processes and intended processes at the South Plant and modify Conclusion 9 and his recommendation based on this additional evidence. Prosecuting Attorney King County Fred J.Kaufman March 8,2001 Page 6 In order to preserve its appeal rights, King County is filing an appeal to the City Council concurrently with this request for reconsideration. King County requests that the appeal to the City Council be stayed pending resolution of this request for reconsideration. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Very truly yours, For NORM MALENG,King County Prosecuting Attorney 67/owy \erna P. Bromley Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney cc: Don Theiler,Manager Wastewater Treatment Division Enclosure: ea k vv wvi 1 vi. vV•Vv 1 11 ri rnn nu, . 0u uou 1 1OU C. ua •• SERVICE DATE • MAR 0 6 2001 • BEFORE TIIE WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Air Liquide America Corporation, Air ) Products and Chemicals, Inc.,The ) Boeing Company, CNC Containers, ) Equilon Enterprises,LLC, Georgia-- ) Pacific West, Inc., Tesoro Northwest ) Company, The City of Anacortes, ) Washington, and Intel Corporation ) ) Complainants, ) DOCKET NO. UE-001952 ) (consolidated) v. ) Puget Sound Energy,Inc. ) • Respondent. ) In re: Petition of Puget Sound Energy, ) DOCKET NO. UE-001959 Inc. for an Order Reallocating Lost ) (consolidated) Revenues Related to any Reduction in ) the Schedule 48 or G-P Special ) NINTH SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER: Contract Rates ) GRANTING PETITION TO ) INTERVENE OUT OF TIME. ). ) ) PROCEEDINGS: Air Liquide,et al. filed their original Formal Complaint Requesting.Emergency Adjudicative Proceeding in Docket No. UE-001952 on December 12, 2000. Complainants filed an Amended Complaint on December 18, 2000, and a Second Amended Complaint on December 28,2000. PSE filed its Petition in Docket No. UE-001959 on December 13,2000. PSE filed its Answer to the first Amended Complaint on January 2,2001. 2 The Commission, after hearing, found and concluded that Schedule 48 and the Special Contract,which include retail rates that are pegged via Mid-Columbia index pricing to Western wholesale power markets that are volatile and exceedingly lugh, are not fair,just, and reasonable because,under current conditions, customers do not have effective options to achieve price stability and reasonable rates under the 1 . UJ/,UL+ DOCKET NOS. UE-001952 and UE-001959 PAGE 2 Optional Price Stability provisions of Schedule 48 and the Special Contract. Sixth Supplemental Order at ¶¶ 99 and 103 (January 22, 2001) (citing RCW 80.28.010 and RCW 80.28.020). The Commission ordered immediate proceedings in Phase Two of this docket to establish temporary terms under the Optional Price Stability provisions of Schedule 48 and the Georgia-Pacific/PSE Special Contract that will provide customers effective options to achieve price stability and reasonable rates, consistent with the Commission's discussion in the body of its Sixth Supplemental Order. Id at ¶ 106, By Notice issued and served simultaneously with its Sixth Supplemental Order, the Commission set January 29, 2001, as the date on which to commence the Phase Two hearings to finalize and implement the relief ordered. During proceedings held on January 29, 2001,the Commission heard additional testimony regarding remedies and considered Staffs oral motion for a continuance. Following argument by the parties,the Commission granted a brief continuance until February 5, 2001, 3 On February 5, 2001, the parties stated they had resumed settlement discussions and requested a recess to determine whether a further continuance would facilitate their efforts, During their discussions,the parties agreed it would be worthwhile to continue settlement negotiations with the assistance of Administrative Law Judge C. Robert Wallis in the role of mediator. The Commission granted the parties' request for a continuance until February 8,2001,to permit the parties an opportunity to pursue settlement, The continuance to February 8, 2001, was granted with the understanding that the parties could request additional time informally if the progress of their discussions warranted a further continuance, The parties did request additional time; they reported via an agreed statement on February 9,2001,that they had achieved a settlement in principle. The parties have reported informally from time to time that they continue to work to produce a final settlement agreement for the Commission's consideration. 4 PARTIES: Melinda Davison,Davison Van Cleve,P.C.,Portland, Oregon, represents Air Liquide America Corporation,Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.,The Boeing Company, CNC Containers,Equilon Enterprises,LLC, Georgia-Pacific West, Inc., and Tesoro Northwest Company. Stan Berman,Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe,LLP, Seattle,Washington, and James M.Van Nostrand, Stoel Rives, Seattle, Washington,represent Puget Sound Energy,Inc, (PSE). Jim Pemberton appeared pro se to represent the interests of the City of Anacortes and its water utility. John A. Cameron and Traci Grundon,Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Portland, Oregon, represent Bellingham Cold Storage Company(BCS). Public Utility District No. 1 of Whatcom County (Whatcom PUD),by prior arrangement, did not appear at prehearing and will designate its legal counsel or permanent representative later; Whatcom PUD did appear via its written Petition To Intervene, signed by Tom Anderson,pro se. Frank Prochaska appeared pro se to represent the AWPPW. Simon flitch and Robert Cromwell,Assistant Attorneys General, Seattle,Washington, represent the Public Counsel Section, Office of Attorney General (Public Counsel). . .... ..... vv vvv ...... 1 I V'I/ VY • DOCKET NOS.UE-001952 and UE-001959 PAGE 3 Robert D. Cedarbaum and Donald Trotter, Assistant Attorneys General, Olympia, Washington,represent the Commission's regulatory staff(Staff). 5 LATE-FILED PETITION TO INTERVENE: On February 15, 2001, King County Washington petitioned for leave to intervene out of time. King County certified service of its Petition on February 20,2001. The County is a customer of PSE under Schedule 48,which is central to the subject matter of this proceeding. King County's petition states that its interest in participating in this proceeding matured in light of ongoing settlement discussions among the parties. The County states that it will consider becoming a signatory to a settlement agreement, and states that it does not intend to broaden the issues. Staff and Public Counsel filed letters on February 23,2001, stating that they do not oppose late intervention by King County. No party filed to oppose King County's petition. 6 DISPOSITION: The Commission determines that King County has demonstrated an interest in this proceeding, has established good cause for its late filing, and that its participation would be in the public interest. In short, King County's petition is well- taken under the circumstances and should be granted. ORDER 7 THE COMMISSION ORDERS That the Petition To Intervene Out of Time of King County is granted. 8 THE COMMISSION ORDERS FURTHER That King County will take the record as it is found on this date and will not be permitted to broaden the issues in this proceeding. DATED at Olympia, Washington, and effective this 6th day of Marcia,2001. WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DE IS J. SS Adm nisi tive Law Judge CITYOFt .::,'. ;O4: tots CITY OF RENTON CITY C L_R.'s OFFICE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS,AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: March 8,2001 TO: Fred Kaufman Renton Hearing Examiner FROM: Sue Carlson,Administrator EDNSP Department STAFF CONTACT: Don Erickson (X6581) SUBJECT: Metropolitan King'County South Wastewater Treatment Plant P-1 Rezone We respectfully request that you reconsider your recent reclassification of the Metro Wastewater Treatment Plant from Public Use (P-1) to Industrial Medium (IM), with a P-suffix. We are requesting the Industrial Heavy(IH)Zone,with a P-suffix. At a recent meeting between Renton and King County officials it was revealed that King County is interested in developing a co-generation facility at their South(Renton)Wastewater Treatment Plant that would reduce their reliance on "spot" market electricity which is currently driving up their operations costs. It was the consensus of those attending this meeting, including the Mayor, that the Industrial Heavy(IH)zoning classification would better accommodate this new use as well as reflect the scale of the operations now occurring at the plant. It was understood by all parties'in attendance that the approval process was identical in both the IM and IH zones with "sewage disposal and treatment plants" being a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use in both zones. In closing, the Industrial Heavy (IH) designation would be consistent with our recent recommendation to you for reclassification "with either the Industrial Medium or the Industrial Heavy Zone,with a P-suffix designation". Thank you. • cc: Don Erickson \\TS SERVER\SYS2:\COMMON\-C:\WINNT\Profiles\derickson\Personal\Metro Reconsideration Memo.doc\d • CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS • 0 'w`= MEMORANDUM .�fo c '{ OF F DATE: 03/08/01 TO: Fred Kaufman FROM: Jennifer Toth Henning SUBJECT: Request for Reconsideration-King County(Metro)Wastewater Treatment Plant Rezone(File LUA-00-169,R,ECF) Development Services Division respectfully requests reconsideration of the Examiner's recommendation for proposed rezone of the King County Wastewater Treatment Plant. Economic Development/Neighborhoods/Strategic Planning staff recommended that the P-1 (Public)zoning designation be removed and that the property be rezoned to either IM (Industrial- Medium)or IH (Industrial-Heavy)with a P-suffix. You have recommended that the Council approve a rezone of the subject property from P-1 (Public)to IM-P.(Medium Industrial,P-suffix). Development Services believes that the IH Zone with a P-suffix would better reflect the present and future use and operation of the Metro Wastewater facility. According to RMC Section 4-2- 020:R,the purpose of the Industrial-Heavy Zone is to provide areas for high intensity industrial activities involving processing of raw materials,bulk handling and storage. Uses in the IH Zone may require large outdoor areas in which to conduct their operations and produce environmental impacts beyond their own sites that require their isolation from more sensitive land uses. The IM Zone is intended for medium-intensity industrial activities that may create some external emissions of noise, odor, glare,vibration, etc. that are largely contained on site. The Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant conducts the majority of its operations out-of-doors. And current impacts from the facility, especially noise and odor,have the potential to affect areas beyond the site boundaries. For these reasons,the IH-P designation is more appropriate than the IM-P majority of the 90.7 acre site should be zoned IH-P. cc: Neil Watts \\CENTRAL\SYS2\DEPTS\PBPW\DIVISION.S\DEVELOP.SER\DEV&PLAN.INGUTH\metro rezone reconsideration.doc\cor OF THE PROSECUTING ATTORNE I— KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON CIVIL DIVISION Natural Resources Norm Maleng 900 King County Administration Building Prosecuting Attorney 500 Fourth Avenue Seattle,Washington 98104 (206)296-8820 C17 FAX(206)296-0415 March 8, 2001 Uct , Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner CITY CL._:j:;.:.; ; F City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98056 Re: Request for Reconsideration File No. LUA00-169,R,ECF Dear Mr. Kaufman: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100G of the Renton Municipal Code, King County respectfully requests reconsideration of the findings, conclusions & recommendation set forth in the Hearing Examiner's Report and Recommendation dated February 22, 2001. King County bases this request on the grounds discussed below. A. The findings and conclusions are not supported by the facts or the law. The following findings and conclusions contain errors of fact and/or law and/or errors in judgment. Finding 9, that the City had originally proposed classifying the subject site to IM is an error of fact. King County presented uncontested testimony at the hearing in this matter that as early as 1996, the City staff proposed to re-zone the King County Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant site ("the South Plant") to Heavy Industrial (IH) zoning. It was not until January 30, 2001 that City staff reported for the first time that the City proposed an IM designation for the South Plant property. The City's position was later modified in the February 13, 2001 staff report in which the City agreed that "because of the size of the subject site and the unique heavy industrial characteristics of the treatment plant, staff now believe IH may be more representative of the plant's characteristic than IM zoning" (February 13, 2001 Preliminary Report, page 5, section F(5)(d)(1)). Finding 10, that King County claimed that "it would make sure that (the South Plant) could be expanded in response to need and that local government, under GMA, cannot block an essential public facility" is an error of fact and is prejudicial to King County. The language in Finding 10 implies that King County is indifferent to any local land use processes which may be required in the future. This is untrue. King County does contend that the South Plant is an essential public facility under GMA, as acknowledged by the City. At the hearing in this matter, King County merely stated that in November 1999 the King County Council by Ordinance 13680 adopted the Prosecuting Attorney - King County Fred J.Kaufman March 8,2001 Page 2 Regional Wastewater Services Plan ("RWSP"). The RWSP identifies the continued need for the South Plant and its role in meeting the growing wastewater needs in the region in the years ahead. In its Preliminary Report dated February 13, 2001, the City acknowledged the regional nature of the South Plant, stating that "the treatment plant is a regionally recognized public facility that is not likely to change in terms of use or location in the foreseeable future." (Preliminary Report, page 4, Section F(5)) . Finding 13, that because the processes at the South Plant do not include heavy fabrication or machining, the Plant's processes are not as intensive as heavy industrial is an error of law and fact and an error in judgment. King County presented uncontested testimony at the hearing in this matter concerning the treatment and other processes present at the South Plant property. King County presented testimony that that there are 12 primary sedimentation tanks, for primary treatment, 24 secondary clarifiers and 3.aeration basins with large aeration blowers for secondary treatment, a chlorine building, 12 miles of 96" diameter concrete cylinder pipe to the Puget Sound, including a chlorine contact channel at the South Plant, with four duty pumps and 4 peaking pumps for effluent discharge, capable of discharging up to 325 mgd of effluent to the Puget Sound, that there are six dissolved air flotation thickeners, four digesters and one blending storage tank for solids treatment, that there is a dewatering process utilizing eight belt filter presses, that there is digester gas re-use, i.e. the gas is scrubbed through two gas scrubbing towers and is sold at cost to Puget Sound Energy. In addition, King County presented uncontested testimony at the hearing in this matter, that there are numerous pumps, blowers, transformers, switchgear, and variable frequency drives located at the South Plant. Uncontested testimony presented by King County established that fifty-six percent of the property at the South Plant is taken up by facilities and related equipment, that the South Plant is operated 24 hours a day, with two shift crews at 12 hours each. That there are additional lab and process control staff during the day and 40 maintenance staff. The South Plant generates 1.3 mgd of recycled or re-use effluent, referred to as Class A effluent. This effluent is used on site for irrigation and is sold to cities, such as Tukwila for other permitted uses. Finding 13 is also inconsistent with Finding 17 of the Hearing Examiner's Report and Recommendation. As set forth at Finding 17, the Renton Zoning Code contains, in relevant part, the following purpose statement for the Industrial-Heavy Zone (IH): "The purpose of the Heavy Industrial Zone (IH) is to provide areas for high intensity industrial activities involving heavy fabrication, processing of raw materials, bulk handling and storage, construction and heavy transportation in areas designated as Employment Area-Industrial.... Uses in this District may require large outdoor areas in which to conduct their operations ..." (Emphasis added). The Hearing Examiner's Report and Recommendation erroneously states that there is no heavy fabrication or machining occurring at the South Plant and thus the "processes are generally not as intensive as heavy industrial."This is an error of fact and of law and an error in judgment. The Y _ Prosecuting Attorney King County Fred J.Kaufman March 8,2001 Page 3 City's Code does not require heavy fabrication or machining for an IH zone. Furthermore, the Hearing Examiner's decision does not acknowledge the unique heavy industrial characteristics of the South Plant, including but not limited to the processing and treatment of raw materials, the production of recycled or re-use water and biosolids and the requirement for large outdoor areas for the South Plant's processes, that make the IH zoning classification more representative of the Plant's characteristic than the IM zoning. These processes and characteristics of the South Plant support the contrary finding and conclusion that IH is the proper zone designation. By contrast, the City's purpose statement for the IM zone states that it is to provide areas for activities involving "manufacturing, processing, assembly and warehousing" and which "may require "some outdoor storage...." The South Plant is not a warehouse. There is no mention in the IM zone designation for the need for large outdoor areas in which to conduct operations, which now occurs at the South Plant. The City, as proponent of the re-zone, carries the burden of proof in this matter. The City presented no testimony that the processes and handling of raw materials at the South Plant are not"as intensive as heavy industrial." In fact the City's position on this matter as set forth in the February 13, 2001 staff report is that"because of the size of the subject site and the unique heavy industrial characteristics of the treatment plant, staff now believe IH may be more representative of the plant's characteristic than IM zoning" (February 13, 2001 Preliminary Report, page 5, section F(5)(d)(1)). Conclusion 1, that the criteria for change of zone classification have been met and that the IM classification appears appropriate is an error of law and fact and an error in judgment. The criteria for change of zone classification, as set forth in the Renton Municipal Code at section 4-9-170 F(2) have not been met. The City, as the proponent of the re-zone must establish all of the following: (a) that the rezone is in the public interest, (b) that the rezone tends to further the preservation and enjoyment of any substantial rights of the County (c) that the rezone is not detrimental to the public welfare or the properties of other persons located in the vicinity thereof and(d)that the rezone meets the review criteria in subsection F lb and Flc of Section 4-9-170 F. The rezone to an IM classification does not meet these criteria. The rezone is not in the public interest as it does not accurately reflect the unique heavy industrial characteristics of the South Plant or the current uses at the plant. The rezone does not tend to further the preservation and enjoyment of any substantial rights of the County as it does not accurately reflect the South Plant's characteristics or uses. The rezone is materially detrimental to the public welfare in that certain abutting uses may in the future be deemed incompatible with the facilities and uses existing and anticipated at the South Plant. The rezone does not meet the criteria set forth in Renton Code section 4-9-170 Flb and lc, as the potential rezone does not meet the policies set forth in the Renton Comprehensive Plan. For all of these reasons, the IM classification is not appropriate. Prosecuting Attorney King County Fred J.Kaufman March 8,2001 Page•4 Conclusion 4, that the adoption of new land use provisions to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code provided the impetus to review the P-1 zone and therefore the current proposal is appropriate is an error of fact and law to the extent that the only rationale in the record of this case for the rezone of the South Plant is that "This zone (P-1 zone) is being phased out pursuant to Council's 1994 direction to do so." There is no support in the record for Conclusion 4: Conclusion 5 that "(g)iven the surroundings and the Comprehensive Plan designations for the subject site and neighboring sites, IH zoning does not appear appropriate" is an error of fact and law and an error in judgment. The only information in the record on this issue is the City's position as set forth in the February 13, 2001 staff report that "the recommended IH zoning would be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan." (February 13, 2001 Preliminary Report, page 4, section F(5)(d)). The South Plant property is in the Valley Planning Area and IH is a permitted zoning designation. The IH zone would still require the site to obtain Hearing Examiner Conditional Use approval and site plan review for substantial change in use or change of ownership. Furthermore, the IH zone more accurately reflects the South Plant's current uses and characteristics as set forth above. Conclusion 5 that "IH would appear to sanction offsite spillover of industrial impacts to surrounding areas" is an error of fact and law and an error in judgment. This Conclusion is also misleading and prejudicial, as it implies that King County would ignore or violate existing local, state and federal laws and regulations with regard to its operations, if the South Plant were to be zoned IH. This is not true. The IH zoning does not permit offsite spillover of industrial impacts to surrounding areas as stated in conclusion 5. The South Plant has properly mitigated its impacts so as not to create offsite impacts to the surrounding areas. Additionally, any substantial change in use under an IH zoning classification would require a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use approval which would likely impose appropriate mitigation measures to insure that any potential impacts from the South Plant's activities do not impact surrounding areas. Furthermore, local, state and federal laws and regulations regarding noise, air quality, water quality and surface water effects, do not allow the South Plant to create offsite impacts to the surrounding areas. The South Plant is now, has been, and is committed to be in the future, in compliance with all laws and regulations with respect to its operations and activities. Conclusion 6 that the applicant's use of the subject site is not by itself enough to control future zoning and that in addition the overall public welfare must be considered when determining appropriate classifications for zoning is an error of fact and an error of law. The proponent for this rezone is not King County but the City of Renton. The criteria for change of zone classification is set forth in the Renton Municipal Code section 4-9-170 F(2). As set forth above under the discussion of conclusion 1, the Code requires that the reviewing official consider a number of specific criteria, one of which is that the rezone not be materially detrimental to the public welfare. As set forth above the rezone to IM is materially detrimental to the public welfare. Moreover, the other criteria for change of zone classification to IM have not been met. Prosecuting Attorney King County Fred J.Kaufman March 8,2001 Page 5 Conclusion 9, that it would be appropriate for the City Council to rezone the parcel to IM is an error of fact and law and an error in judgment for all of the reasons set forth above. The Recommendation that the City Council should approve the reclassification of the subject property from P-1 to IM with a P-suffix is an error of fact and law and an error in judgment for all of the reasons set forth above. B. The Hearing Examiner should consider additional evidence on the issue of processes at the South Plant. Renton Municipal Code Title IV, Chapter 8, section 100G4 allows reconsideration on the ground of discovery of new evidence that was not reasonably available at the time of hearing. As presented by King County at the hearing in this matter, the South Plant already beneficially reuses digester gas, by scrubbing it and selling it at cost to Puget Sound Energy. With the recent volatility in the electrical energy market, King County has experienced a 1000% increase in its electrical rates at the South Plant, from $ 0.04 to $0.40 per kilowatt hour. As a result of this energy crisis, on February 15, 2001 (after the hearing in this matter), King County filed a petition to intervene in the consolidated actions against Puget Sound Energy pending before the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission to obtain some rate relief. On March 6, 2001 the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission granted King county's petition to Intervene. A true and correct copy of the Order Granting King County's Petition to Intervene is attached hereto. In addition, King County has begun to explore other alternatives to respond to the energy crisis and the dramatic increase in energy costs at the South Plant. One of these options is for King County to generate electrical energy at the South Plant, as a hedge against escalating power costs. King County acknowledges that such an option would require certain City approvals. However, this option further demonstrates the heavy industrial nature of the South Plant property and supports a contrary finding to that of the Hearing Examiner that in fact the South Plant property is more appropriately zoned IH and not IM. The Renton Municipal Code expressly provides the Hearing Examiner with authority to accept additional evidence in connection with this request. (Renton Municipal Code Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110 G 4). King County respectfully requests permission to provide the Hearing Examiner with additional evidence on this matter. C. Conclusion For the reasons set forth herein, King County respectfully requests that the Hearing Examiner modify his recommendation to the City Council and recommend that the City Council approve a reclassification of the South Plant property from P-1 to IH with a P-suffix. In the alternative, King County requests that the Hearing Examiner accept additional information on the processes and intended processes at the South Plant and modify Conclusion 9 and his recommendation based on this additional evidence. Prosecuting Attorney - King County Fred J.Kaufman March 8,2001 Page 6 In order to preserve its appeal rights, King County is filing an appeal to the City Council concurrently with this request for reconsideration. King County requests that the appeal to the City Council be stayed pending resolution of this request for reconsideration. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Very truly yours, For NORM MALENG,King County Prosecuting Attorney 44Maif erna P. Bromley Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney cc: Don Theiler, Manager Wastewater Treatment Division Enclosure: 4 _ CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: March 1, 2001 TO: Joan Thompson FROM: Sonja J. Fesserg SUBJECT: Wastewater Treatment Plant Rezone Format and Legal Description Review Bob Mac Onie and I have just revised the legal description for the above referenced property. See the attachment. Please do not use the legal description that was attached to your request for our review. cc:Don Erickson • \U:\SFESSER\MTROPLNT.DOC EXHIBIT A Legal Description Rezone Metro Wastewater Treatment Plant Site That portion of Section 24, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., City of Renton, King County, Washington, lying southerly, southwesterly and westerly of 80 feet-wide Oakesdale Avenue SW as constructed, easterly and northeasterly of Monster Road SW and the realignment of a portion of Monster Road SW as recorded under King County Rec. No. 9709090061, and northerly and northwesterly of the following described line: Beginning at the intersection of the westerly right-of-way margin of Oakesdale Avenue SW and the south line of property deeded to the City of Renton under King County Recording No. 8212090480; Thence southwesterly along the south line of said property, to the southwest corner thereof, said southwest corner also being the southeast corner of a tract of land established by King County Superior Court Cause No. 84-2-07769-7, said Superior Court tract recorded under King County Recording No. 8406149003 and amended under King County Recording No. 8504110606; Thence southwesterly along the south line of said Superior Court tract, to the southwest corner thereof, said south line also being the southerly right-of-way margin of a former Burlington Railroad Company (former Northern Pacific Railroad) railroad line; Thence continuing southwesterly along said southerly right-of-way margin,to an intersection with the northeasterly right-of-way line of realigned Monster • Road SW, as recorded under King County Recording No. 9709090061 and the termination of the herein described line; EXCEPT that portion of said above described property conveyed to the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle by First City Equities per Deed recorded under King County Recording No. 8707080246. CITY OF RENTON NELL HEARING EXAMINER MEMORANDUM Date: February22, 2001 To: Sonja Fesser From: Joan Thompson Re: Wastewater Treatment Plant Rezone LUA00-169,R,ECF Would you please verify that the attached legal is correct before we send it on to City Council for • approval. Thanks ) - i METRO KING LINTY RENTON WASTEWATER TI 'MENT PLANT ` • LEGAL DESCRIPTION Former Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way(former NPRR Belt)and portion of southeast quarter of northwest quarter lying easterly of west line of said railroad right-of-way and northerly of north margin of state highway SR-405 junction,less any portion thereof lying westerly of or within Monster Road SW; Also portion of said former railroad belt in the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter of said section lying 70 feet from the centerline of the state highway, per stipulation of state code #84-2-07769-7 less portion described as follows: Beginning at the northeast corner of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 24-23-4, thence along the north line of said section, N 87 26'22", W 2693.05 feet to the northwest corner of Government Lot 1 Thence along the west line of said Government Lot and of Government Lot 5, S 0 26'19"W 22999.77 feet; Thence S 98 33'44"E 1909.89 feet to the intersection with the east margin of Monster road; Thence southerly along the said margin radius 367.11 feet, an arc distance of 55.20 feet to the intersection with the westerly Metro (former Burlington Northern) boundary per Volume 40,page 180 of survey, said point of intersection being on a curve to the left with a radius of 1134 feet; Thence southerly along said curve having an arc distance of 250.14 feet to the westerly margin of the realigned portion of Monster Road and the point of beginning; Thence along said westerly margin of S 41 55'32",E 68.65 feet; Thence S 06 22'-10",E 321.59 feet; Thence S 04 18'03",E 14.69 feet to a line parallel with and 70 feet northwesterly of the centerline of State Highway 1-L; • Thence along the said westerly Metro boundary and curve to the left with a radius of 1134 feet; Thence northerly along said curve, having an arc distance of 399.09 feet to the point of beginning less portion of Government Lot 6 and Government Lot 8 in the westerly half of Section 24-23-04 lying southwesterly of the realigned roadway; Beginning at the northeast corner of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter; Thence N 82 26'22"W 2,693.05 feet to the northwest corner of Government Lot 1; Thence S 00 26'19"W,2299.77 feet; Thence S 89 31'41" E 1909.89 feet to the intersection with the easterly right-of-way margin of Monster. Road being a point on a curve concave to the southwest radius point bearing S 63 48'40"W 367.11 feet; Thence southerly along.said easterly right-of-way margin and along said curve arc distance 182.73 feet through a central angle of 28 31'04"to an intersection with the southwesterly margin of said realignment of • Monster Road; Thence southeasterly along said southwesterly margin of S 69 31'09" E 11.12 feet and S 41 55'32" E 194.64 feet to the point of beginning; Thence S 41 55'32" E 270.82 feet to the intersection with the northwesterly right-of-way margin of Highway 1-1,said point of intersection being a point on the curve concave to the southeast radius,bearing S 68 18'28' E 905.37 feet; Thence southwesterly along said northwesterly right-of-way margin and along said curve arc a distance of 88.21 feet through a central angle of 05 34'57" to the intersection with a line parallel with and 70 feet northwesterly of a central angle of said highway; Thence along said parallel line S 66 53'08"W 125.69 feet; Thence N 04 18'03"W 14.69 feet;and Thence N 06 22'10"W 321.59 feet to point of beginning. .� 'DI'RENTON . : Hearing Examiner, Jesse Tanner,Mayor: . FredJ.Kaufman March 20,2001 - _ • Verna:P:Bromley, • Office of the Prosecuting Attorney,King County 900'King County Administration Building 500 Fourth Avenue Seattle,WA 98104 Sue.Carlson;Administrator EDNSP Department. - City of Renton 1055 S:Grady Way. • Renton,WA 98055 Jennifer Henning,Principal Planner . .. `' PBPW/Dev: Services City of Renton • 1055 S. Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Re: Request for Reconsideration,King CountyWastewater Treatment Plant Rezone File No:LUA00=169,R,ECF'``'.:- ;; ;,; ;.; • Dear Ms.Bromley,Ms. Carlson, and Ms::;Heiniing::`.x`:_n • This office has received three requests to reconsider the recommendation to the City Council on' the rezoning:of the Metropolitan King County South:Wastewater Treatment'Plant, This office • recommended that the City Council reclassify:the subject site.from P-1-to IM with a P-suffix. The requests were received from Sue:CCarison,EDNSP Jennifer.Henning, Principal Planner,PBPW/Dev. Services;,and.fromn,the Office.of the King County Prosecutor, representing the property owner,King County: The King County.reaction can be characterized as overblown,overly dramatic and frankly, - intemperate. In the fifty(50)or so P-1 Zoning decisions over the past 6 or7years;sites have been rezoned to meld with surrounding zoning and did not necessarily represent exact for the underlying use. School properties were reclassified to residential: Park-properties were reclassified to residential. Reservoir sites were reclassified residential. Church properties were reclassified residential: 'Some other school and park sits were zoned commercial or even tight' industrial: The zoning enacted in each,of these cases attempted to match the_reclassified site to surrounding zoning and not necessarily-mirror:the uses of the site: - The treatment plant is permitted in°the IM zone:: The:treatment plant is permitted in'the IH zone. • The,plant requires a:Conditional Use Permit in the IM zone. The plant a Conditional Use • ®tc__2® I. 1055.South Grad Wa , Renton,.Washin on 98055- 425 430;6515<` :; , . , �(This paper contains 50%recvcfed rriaterial: %co st ost consumer .. dn� .. • • Request for Reconsideration File No.: LUA00-169,R,ECF Page 2 Permit in the IH zone: As can be seen,either zoning would not significantly, if at all,restrict the use of the subject site. The zoning surrounding the subject site is IM. Actually, in some cases, providing IH zoning could be considered a spot zone,distinct as it is from adjoining properties and zoning. The references in the Examiner's decision to the"original staff recommendation"to IM zoning was the staff recommendation made two weeks earlier,prior to the originally scheduled public hearing, and not to some vague discussion made years ago regarding potential zoning. The original staff report delivered to the Examiner before the continuance was requested suggested that IM zoning was appropriate. As a matter of fact,staff still suggested either IM or IH zoning when the hearing finally did occur. There was no dramatic demarcation according to staff, although they ultimately suggested,but not strongly,thatIH would be appropriate. Be that as it may, it would appear that the City now-believes IH zoning is more appropriate. Therefore,the recommendation to the City Council will be"modified to suggest they consider rezoning the subject site to IH. ::The City..Council ultimately must make the decision. Since an appeal of this matter has,already been filed with'the City"Council,there is not need to further delay the time periods and the appeal,period will not be'extended. If this office can be of further assistance;'-please feel free',to write. Sincerely, :.. • Fred J. Kauf Hearing Examiner FJK:jt cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner Jay Covington,.Chief Administrative Officer Larry Warren,City Attorney Neil-Watts,PBPW/Development Services Director Don Erickson,Economic Development Parties of Record . OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON CIVIL DIVISION Natural Resources Norm Maleng 900 King County Administration Bu Prosecuting Attorney 500 Fourth Avenue Seattle,Washington 98104 (206)296-8820 FAX(206)296-0415 March 8, 2001 Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner • - City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98056 Re: Request for Reconsideration File No. LUA00-169, R, ECF Dear Mr. Kaufman: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100G of the Renton Municipal Code, King County respectfully requests reconsideration of the findings, conclusions & recommendation set forth in the Hearing Examiner's Report and Recommendation dated February 22, 2001. King County bases this request on the grounds discussed below. A. The findings and conclusions are not supported by the facts or the law. The following findings and conclusions contain errors of fact and/or law and/or errors in judgment. Finding 9, that the City had originally proposed classifying the subject site to IM is an error of fact. King County presented uncontested testimony at the hearing in this matter that as early as 1996, the City staff proposed to re-zone the King County Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant site ("the South Plant") to Heavy Industrial (IH) zoning. It was not until January 30, 2001 that City staff reported for the first time that the City proposed an IM designation for the South Plant property. The City's position was later modified in the February 13, 2001 staff report in which the City agreed that "because of the size of the subject site and the unique heavy industrial characteristics of the treatment plant, staff now believe IH may be more representative of the plant's characteristic than IM zoning" (February 13, 2001 Preliminary Report, page 5, section F(5)(d)(1)). Finding 10, that King County claimed that "it would make sure that (the South Plant) could be expanded in response to need and that local government, under GMA, cannot block an essential public facility" is an error of fact and is prejudicial to King County. The language in Finding 10 implies that King County is indifferent to any local land use processes which may be required in the future. This is untrue. King County does contend that the South Plant is an essential public facility under GMA, as acknowledged by the City. At the hearing in this matter, King County merely stated that in November 1999 the King County Council by Ordinance 13680 adopted the • Prosecuting Attorney - ' King County Fred J.Kaufman March 8,2001 Page 2 Regional Wastewater Services Plan ("RWSP"). The RWSP identifies the continued need for the South Plant and its role in meeting the growing wastewater needs in the region in the years ahead. In its Preliminary Report dated February 13, 2001, the City acknowledged the regional nature of the South Plant, stating that "the treatment plant is a regionally recognized public facility that is not likely to change in terms of use or location in the foreseeable future." (Preliminary Report,page 4, Section F(5)) . Finding 13, that because the processes at the South Plant do not include heavy fabrication or machining, the Plant's processes are not as intensive as heavy industrial is an error of law and fact and an error in judgment. King County presented uncontested testimony at the hearing in this matter concerning the treatment and other processes present at the South Plant property. King County presented testimony that that there are 12 primary sedimentation tanks, for primary treatment, 24 secondary clarifiers and 3.aeration basins with large aeration blowers for secondary treatment, a chlorine building, 12 miles of 96" diameter concrete cylinder pipe to the Puget Sound, including a chlorine contact channel at the South Plant, with four duty pumps and 4 peaking pumps for effluent discharge, capable of discharging up to 325 mgd of effluent to the Puget Sound, that there are six dissolved air flotation thickeners, four digesters and one blending storage tank for solids treatment, that there is a dewatering process utilizing eight belt filter presses, that there is digester gas re-use, i.e. the gas is scrubbed through two gas scrubbing towers and is sold at cost to Puget. Sound Energy. In addition, King County presented uncontested testimony at the hearing in this matter, that there are numerous pumps, blowers, transformers, switchgear, and variable frequency drives located at the South Plant. Uncontested testimony presented by King County established that fifty-six percent of the property at the South Plant is taken up by facilities and related equipment, that the South Plant is operated 24 hours a day, with two shift crews at 12 hours each. That there are additional lab and process control staff during the day and 40 maintenance staff. The South Plant generates 1.3 mgd of recycled or re-use effluent, referred to as Class A effluent. This effluent is used on site for irrigation and is sold to cities, such as Tukwila for other permitted uses. Finding 13 is also inconsistent with Finding 17 of the Hearing Examiner's Report and Recommendation. As set forth at Finding 17, the Renton Zoning Code contains, in relevant part, the following purpose statement for the Industrial-Heavy Zone (IH): "The purpose of the Heavy Industrial Zone (IH) is to provide areas for high intensity industrial activities involving heavy fabrication, processing of raw materials, bulk handling and storage, construction and heavy transportation in areas designated as Employment Area-Industrial.... Uses in this District may require large outdoor areas in which to conduct their operations ..." (Emphasis added). The Hearing Examiner's Report and Recommendation erroneously states that there is no heavy fabrication or machining occurring at the South Plant and thus the "processes are generally not as intensive as heavy industrial."This is an error of fact and of law and an error in judgment. The • Prosecuting Attorney King County Fred J.Kaufman March 8,2001 Page 3 City's Code does not require heavy fabrication or machining for an IH zone. Furthermore, the Hearing Examiner's decision does not acknowledge the unique heavy industrial characteristics of the South Plant, including but not limited to the processing and treatment of raw materials, the production of recycled or re-use water and biosolids and the requirement for large outdoor areas for the South Plant's processes, that make the IH zoning classification more representative of the Plant's characteristic than the IM zoning. These processes and characteristics of the South Plant support the contrary finding and conclusion that IH is the proper zone designation. By contrast, the City's purpose statement for the IM zone states that it is to provide areas for activities involving "manufacturing, processing, assembly and warehousing" and which "may require "some outdoor storage...." The South Plant is not a warehouse. There is no mention in the IM zone designation for the need for large outdoor areas in which to conduct operations, which now occurs at the South Plant. The City, as proponent of the re-zone, carries the burden of proof in this matter. The City presented no testimony that the processes and handling of raw materials at the South Plant are not"as intensive as heavy industrial." In fact the City's position on this matter as set forth in the February 13, 2001 staff report is that"because of the size of the subject site and the unique heavy industrial characteristics of the treatment plant, staff now believe IH may be more representative of the plant's characteristic than IM zoning" (February 13, 2001 Preliminary Report, page 5, section F(5)(d)(1)). Conclusion 1, that the criteria for change of zone classification have been met and that the IM classification appears appropriate is an error of law and fact and an error in judgment. The criteria for change of zone classification, as set forth in the Renton Municipal Code at section 4-9-170 F(2) have not been met. The City, as the proponent of the re-zone must establish all of the following: (a) that the rezone is in the public interest, (b) that the rezone tends to further the preservation and enjoyment of any substantial rights of the County (c) that the rezone is not detrimental to the public welfare or the properties of other persons located in the vicinity thereof and(d)that the rezone meets the review criteria in subsection F lb and F1c of Section 4-9-170 F. The rezone to an IM classification does not meet these criteria. The rezone is not in the public interest as it does not accurately reflect the unique heavy industrial characteristics of the South Plant or the current uses at the plant. The rezone does not tend to further the preservation and enjoyment of any substantial rights of the County as it does not accurately reflect the South Plant's characteristics or uses. The rezone is materially detrimental to the public welfare in that certain abutting uses may in the future be deemed incompatible with the facilities and uses existing and anticipated at the South Plant. The rezone does not meet the criteria set forth in Renton Code section 4-9-170 Flb and lc, as the potential rezone does not meet the policies set forth in the Renton Comprehensive Plan. For all of these reasons, the IM classification is not appropriate. • Prosecuting Attorney ' King County Fred J.Kaufman March 8,2001 Page 4 Conclusion 4, that the adoption of new land use provisions to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code provided the impetus to review the P-1 zone and therefore the current proposal is appropriate is an error of fact and law to the extent that the only rationale in the record of this case for the rezone of the South Plant is that "This zone (P-1 zone) is being phased out pursuant to Council's 1994 direction to do so." There is no support in the record for Conclusion 4. Conclusion 5 that "(g)iven the surroundings,and the Comprehensive Plan designations for the subject site and neighboring sites, IH zoning does not appear appropriate" is an error of fact and law and an error in judgment. The only information in the record on this issue is the City's position as set forth in the February 13, 2001 staff report that "the recommended IH zoning would be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan." (February 13, 2001 Preliminary Report, page 4, section F(5)(d)). The South Plant property is in the Valley Planning Area and IH is a permitted zoning designation. The IH zone would still require the site to obtain Hearing Examiner Conditional Use approval and site plan review for substantial change in use or change of ownership. Furthermore, the IH zone more accurately reflects the South Plant's current uses and characteristics as set forth above. Conclusion 5 that "IH would appear to sanction offsite spillover of industrial impacts to surrounding areas" is an error of fact and law and an error in judgment. This Conclusion is also misleading and prejudicial, as it implies that King County would ignore or violate existing local, state and federal laws and regulations with regard to its operations, if the South Plant were to be zoned IH. This is not true. The IH zoning does not permit offsite spillover of industrial impacts to surrounding areas as stated in conclusion 5. The South Plant has properly mitigated its impacts so as not to create offsite impacts to the surrounding areas. Additionally, any substantial change in use under an IH zoning classification would require a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use approval which would likely impose appropriate mitigation measures to insure that any potential impacts from the South Plant's activities do not impact surrounding areas. Furthermore, local, state and federal laws and regulations regarding noise, air quality, water quality and surface water effects, do not allow the South Plant to create offsite impacts to the surrounding areas. The South Plant is now, has been, and is committed to be in the future, in compliance with all laws and regulations with respect to its operations and activities. Conclusion 6 that the applicant's use of the subject site is not by itself enough to control future zoning and that in addition the overall public welfare must be considered when determining appropriate classifications for zoning is an error of fact and an error of law. The proponent for this rezone. is not King County but the City of Renton. The criteria for change of zone classification is set forth in the Renton Municipal Code section 4-9-170 F(2). As set forth above under the discussion of conclusion 1, the Code requires that the reviewing official consider a number of specific criteria, one of which is that the rezone not be materially detrimental to the public welfare. As set forth above the rezone to IM is materially detrimental to the public welfare. Moreover, the other criteria for change of zone classification to IM have not been met. Prosecuting Attorney King County Fred J.Kaufman March 8,2001 Page 5 Conclusion 9, that it would be appropriate for the City Council to rezone the parcel to IM is an error of fact and law and an error in judgment for all of the reasons set forth above. The Recommendation that the City Council should approve the reclassification of the subject property from P-1 to IM with a P-suffix is an error of fact and law and an error in judgment for all of the reasons set forth above. B. The Hearing Examiner should consider additional evidence on the issue of processes at the South Plant. Renton Municipal Code Title IV, Chapter 8, section 100G4 allows reconsideration on the ground of discovery of new evidence that was not reasonably available at the time of hearing. As presented by King County at the hearing in this matter, the South Plant already beneficially reuses digester gas, by scrubbing it and selling it at cost to Puget Sound Energy. With the recent volatility in the electrical energy market, King County has experienced a 1000% increase in its electrical rates at the South Plant, from $ 0.04 to $0.40 per kilowatt hour. As a result of this energy crisis, on February 15, 2001 (after the hearing in this matter), King County filed a petition to intervene in the consolidated actions against Puget Sound Energy pending before the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission to obtain some rate relief. On March 6, 2001 the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission granted King county's petition to Intervene. A true and correct copy of the Order Granting King County's Petition to Intervene is attached hereto. In addition, King County has begun to explore other alternatives to respond to the energy crisis and the dramatic increase in energy costs at the South Plant. One of these options is for King County to generate electrical energy at the South Plant, as a hedge against escalating power costs. King County acknowledges that such an option would require certain City approvals. However, this option further demonstrates the heavy industrial nature of the South Plant property and supports a contrary finding to that of the Hearing Examiner that in fact the South Plant property is more appropriately zoned IH and not IM. The Renton Municipal Code expressly provides the Hearing Examiner with authority to accept additional evidence in connection with this request. (Renton Municipal Code Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110 G 4). King County respectfully requests permission to provide the Hearing Examiner with additional evidence on this matter. C. Conclusion For the reasons set forth herein, King County respectfully requests that the Hearing Examiner modify his recommendation to the City Council and recommend that the City Council approve a reclassification of the South Plant property from P-1 to IH with a P-suffix. In the alternative, King County requests that the Hearing Examiner accept additional information on the processes and intended processes at the South Plant and modify Conclusion 9 and his recommendation based on this additional evidence. • Prosecuting Attorney King County Fred J.Kaufman March 8,2001 Page 6 In order to preserve its appeal rights, King County is filing an appeal to the City Council concurrently with this request for reconsideration. King County requests that the appeal to the City Council be stayed pending resolution of this request for reconsideration. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Very truly yours, For NORM MALENG, King County Prosecuting Attorney 14Ankal 61'1914d'e'y' Verna P.Bromley Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney cc: Don Theiler, Manager Wastewater Treatment Division Enclosure: all P1 vv Lvva LUl. vv'vv 111 r U 1 ll rnn 1`lU. JUU JUU 11.w U. UL/U`t • SERVICE DATE MAR 0 6 2001 • BEFORE THE WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION' Air Liquide America Corporation, Air ) Products and Chemicals, Inc., The ) Boeing Company, CNC Containers, ) Equilon Enterprises, LLC, Georgia- ) Pacific West, Inc., Tesoro Northwest ) Company, The City of Anacortes, ) Washington, and Intel Corporation ) ) Complainants, ) DOCKET NO. UE-001952 ) (consolidated) v. ) Puget Sound Energy,Inc. ) • Respondent. ) ) In re: Petition of Puget Sound Energy, ) DOCKET NO. UE-001959 Inc. for an Order Reallocating Lost ) (consolidated) Revenues Related to any Reduction in ) the Schedule 48 or C-P Special ) NINTH SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER: Contract Rates ) GRANTING PETITION TO ) INTERVENE OUT OF TIME. ) ) ) PROCEEDINGS: Air Liquide, et al. filed their original Formal Complaint Requesting Emergency Adjudicative Proceeding in Docket No. UE-001952 on December 12, 2000. Complainants filed an Amended Complaint on December 18, 2000, and a Second Amended Complaint on December 28,2000. PSE filed its Petition in Docket No, UE-001959 on December 13,2000. PSE filed its Answer to the first Amended Complaint on January 2,2001. 2 The Commission, after hearing, found and concluded that Schedule 48 and the Special Contract, which include retail rates that are pegged via Mid-Columbia index pricing to Western wholesale power markets that are volatile and exceedingly high, are not fair,just, and reasonable because,under current conditions, customers do not have effective options to achieve price stability and reasonable rates under the DOCKET NOS. UE-001952 and UE-001959 PAGE 2 Optional Price Stability provisions of Schedule 48 and the Special Contract. Sixth Supplemental Order at ¶¶ 99 and 103 (January 22, 2001) (citing RCW 80.28.010 and RCW 80.28.020). The Commission ordered immediate proceedings in Phase Two of this docket to establish temporary terms under the Optional Price Stability provisions of Schedule 48 and the Georgia-Pacific/PSE Special Contract that will provide customers effective options to achieve price stability and reasonable rates, consistent with the Commission's discussion in the body of its Sixth Supplemental Order. Id. at ¶ 106. By Notice issued and served simultaneously with its Sixth Supplemental Order, the Commission set January 29, 2001, as the date on which to commence the Phase Two hearings to finalize and implement the relief ordered. During proceedings held on January 29, 2001,the Commission heard additional testimony regarding remedies and considered Staffs oral motion for a continuance. Following argument by the parties, the Commission granted a brief continuance until February 5, 2001. 3 On February 5,2001,the parties stated they had resumed settlement discussions and requested a recess to determine whether a further continuance would facilitate their efforts. During their discussions,the parties agreed it would be worthwhile to continue settlement negotiations with the assistance of Administrative Law Judge C. Robert Wallis in the role of mediator. The Commission granted the parties' request for a continuance until February 8,2001,to permit the parties an opportunity to pursue settlement. The continuance to February 8, 2001, was granted with the understanding that the parties could request additional time informally if the progress of their discussions warranted a further continuance. The parties did request additional time; they reported via an agreed statement on February 9,2001, that they had achieved a settlement in principle. The parties have reported informally from time to time that they continue to work to produce a final settlement agreement for the Commission's consideration. 4 PARTIES: Melinda Davison,Davison Van Cleve, P.C.,Portland, Oregon, represents Air Liquide America Corporation,Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.,The Boeing Company, CNC Containers,Equilon Enterprises, LLC, Georgia-Pacific West, Inc., and Tesoro Northwest Company. Stan Berman,Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe,LLP, Seattle,Washington, and James M.Van Nostrand, Stoel Rives, Seattle, Washington,represent Puget Sound Energy,Inc. (PSB). Jim Pemberton appeared pro se to represent the interests of the City of Anacortes and its water utility. John A. Cameron and Traci Grundon,Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Portland, Oregon, represent Bellingham Cold Storage Company(BCS). Public Utility District No. 1 of Whatcom County(Whatcom PUD),by prior arrangement, did not appear at prehearing and will designate its legal counsel or permanent representative later; Whatcom PUD did appear via its written Petition To Intervene, signed by Tom Anderson,pro se. Frank Prochaska appeared pro se to represent the AWPPW. Simon flitch and Robert Cromwell,Assistant Attorneys General, Seattle, Washington, represent the Public Counsel Section, Office of Attorney General (Public Counsel). DOCKET NOS.UE-001952 and UE-001959 PAGE 3 Robert D. Cedarbaum and Donald Trotter, Assistant Attorneys General, Olympia, Washington,represent the Commission's regulatory staff(Staff). 5 LATE-FILED PETITION TO INTERVENE: On February 15, 2001, King County Washington petitioned for leave to intervene out of time. King County certified service of its Petition on February 20,2001. The County is,a customer of PSE under Schedule 48,which is central to the subject matter of this proceeding. King County's petition states that its interest in participating in this proceeding matured in light of ongoing settlement discussions among the parties. The County states that it will consider becoming a signatory to a settlement agreement, and states that it does not intend to broaden the issues. Staff and Public Counsel filed letters on February 23,2001, stating that they do not oppose late intervention by King County. No party filed to oppose King County's petition. 6 DISPOSITION: The Commission determines that King County has demonstrated an interest in this proceeding, has established good cause for its late filing, and that its participation would be in the public interest. In short, King County's petition is well- taken under the circumstances and should be granted. ORDER 7 THE COMMISSION ORDERS That the Petition To Intervene Out of Time of King County is granted. 8 THE COMMISSION ORDERS FURTHER That King County will take the record as it is found on this date and will not be permitted to broaden the issues in this proceeding. DATED at Olympia,Washington, and effective this 6th day of March,2001., WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION D IS J. SS Adm nisi tive Law Judge MR 0 8 21,3V1 a p CITY OF RENTON `r ..M._. .t,•..OFF;CE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS,AND STRATEGIC PLANNING • MEMORANDUM DATE: March 8,2001 TO: Fred Kaufman Renton Hearing Examiner FROM: Sue Carlson,Administrator EDNSP Department STAFF CONTACT: Don Erickson (X6581) SUBJECT: Metropolitan King County South Wastewater Treatment Plant P-1 Rezone We respectfully request that you reconsider your recent reclassification of the Metro Wastewater Treatment Plant from Public Use (P-1) to Industrial Medium (IM), with a P-suffix. We are requesting the Industrial Heavy(IH)Zone,with a P-suffix. At a recent meeting between Renton and King County officials it was revealed that King County is interested in'developing a co-generation facility at their South (Renton) Wastewater Treatment Plant that would reduce their reliance on "spot" market electricity which is currently driving up their operations costs. It was the consensus of those attending this meeting, including the Mayor, that the Industrial Heavy(III)zoning classification would better accommodate this new use as well as reflect the scale of the operations now occurring at the plant. It was understood by all parties in attendance that the approval process was identical in both the IM and IH zones with "sewage disposal and treatment plants" being a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use in both zones. In closing, the Industrial Heavy (IH) designation would be consistent with our recent recommendation to you for reclassification "with either the Industrial Medium or the Industrial Heavy Zone,with a P-suffix designation". Thank you. • cc: Don Erickson \\TS SERVER\SYS2:\COMMON\-C:\WINNT\Profiles\derickson\Personal\Metro Reconsideration Memo.doc\d • Ci S Y L.:f" i';t_7 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MAR u :9 MEMORANDUM DATE: 03/08/01 TO: Fred Kaufman FROM: Jennifer Toth Henning SK SUBJECT: Request for Reconsideration-King County(Metro)Wastewater. Treatment Plant Rezone(File LUA-00-169,R,ECF) Development Services Division respectfully requests reconsideration of the Examiner's recommendation for proposed rezone of the King County Wastewater Treatment Plant. Economic Development/Neighborhoods/Strategic Planning staff recommended that the P-1 (Public)zoning designation be removed and that the property be rezoned to either IM(Industrial- Medium)Or IH(Industrial-Heavy)with a.P-suffix. You have recommended that the Council approve a rezone of the subject property from P-1 (Public)to IM-P(Medium Industrial,P-suffix). Development Services believes that the IH Zone with a P-suffix would better reflect the present and future use and operation of the Metro Wastewater facility. According to RMC Section 4-2- 020:R,the purpose of the Industrial-Heavy Zone is to provide areas for high intensity industrial activities involving processing of raw materials,bulk handling and storage. Uses in the IH Zone may require large outdoor areas in which to conduct their operations and produce environmental. impacts beyond their own sites that require their isolation from more sensitive land•uses. The IM Zone is intended for medium-intensity industrial activities that may create some external emissions of noise, odor, glare,vibration,etc.that are largely contained on site. The Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant conducts the majority of its operations out-of-doors. And current impacts from the facility,especially noise and odor,have the potential to affect areas beyond the site boundaries. For these reasons,the IH-P designation is more appropriate than the IM-P majority of the 90.7 acre site should be zoned IH-P. cc: Neil Watts \\CENTRAL\SYS2\DEPTS\PBPW\DIVISION.S\DEVELOP.SER\DEV&PLAN.INGUTH\metro rezone reconsideration.doc\cor I III 1 V V L V V 1 l V L V v V V l l! Vi V l V l u l l l 1 V. V V V V V V •• SERVICE DATE MAR 0 6 2001 BEFORE THE WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Air Liquide America Corporation, Air ) Products and Chemicals,Inc,,The ) Boeing Company, CNC Containers, ) Equilon Enterprises,LLC, Georgia ) Pacific West, Inc., Tesoro Northwest ) Company, The City of Anacortes, ) Washington, and Intel Corporation ) ) Complainants, ) DOCKET NO. UE-001952 ) (consolidated) v. ) Puget Sound Energy,Inc. ) • Respondent. ) ) In re: Petition of Puget Sound Energy, ) DOCKET NO. UE-001959 Inc. for an Order Reallocating Lost ) (consolidated) Revenues Related to any Reduction in ) the Schedule 48 or G-1' Special ) NINTH SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER: Contract Rates ) GRANTING PETITION TO ) INTERVENE OUT OF TIME ) ) ) PROCEEDINGS: Air Liquide, et al. filed their original Formal Complaint Requesting Emergency Adjudicative Proceeding in Docket No. UE-001952 on December 12, 2000. Complainants filed an Amended Complaint on December 18, 2000, and a Second Amended Complaint on December 28,2000. PSE filed its Petition in Docket No. UE-001959 on December 13, 2000. PSE filed its Answer to the first Amended Complaint on January 2,2001. 2 The Commission, after hearing, found and concluded that Schedule 48 and the Special Contract, which include retail rates that are pegged via Mid-Columbia index pricing to Western wholesale power markets that are volatile and exceedingly high, are not fair,just, and reasonable because,under current conditions, customers do not have effective options to achieve price stability and reasonable rates under the •. VV �Vv♦ • +.� vV vV l ll ry l,J V 11Ill 11V. VVV VVV A Si'..) I . VJ/ VZ ma DOCKET NOS. UE-001952 and UE-001959 PAGE 2 Optional Price Stability provisions of Schedule 48 and the Special Contract. Sixth ►Supplemental Order at ¶¶99 and 103 (January 22, 2001) (citing RCW 80.28.010 and RCW 80,28.020). The Commission ordered immediate proceedings in Phase Two of this docket to establish temporary terms under the Optional Price Stability provisions of Schedule 48 and the Georgia-Pacitle/PSE Special Contract that will provide customers effective options to achieve price stability and reasonable rates, consistent with the Commission's discussion in the body of its Sixth Supplemental Order. Id at ¶ 106, By Notice issued and served simultaneously with its Sixth Supplemental Order, the Commission set January 29, 2001, as the date on which to commence the Phase Two hearings to finalize and implement the relief ordered. During proceedings held on January 29, 2001,the Commission heard additional testimony regarding remedies and considered Staffs oral motion for a continuance. Following argument by the parties, the Commission granted a brief continuance until February 5, 2001, 3 On February.5,2001,the parties stated they had resumed settlement discussions and requested a recess to determine whether a further continuance would facilitate their efforts. During their discussions,the parties agreed it would be worthwhile to continue settlement negotiations with the assistance of Administrative Law Judge C. Robert Wallis in the role of mediator. The Commission granted the parties' request for a continuance until February 8,2001,to permit the parties an opportunity to pursue settlement. The continuance to February 8, 2001, was granted with the understanding that the parties could request additional time informally if the progress of their discussions warranted a further continuance. The parties did request additional time; they reported via an agreed statement on February 9,2001, that they had achieved a settlement in principle. The parties have reported informally from time to time that they continue to work to produce a final settlement agreement for the Commission's consideration. 4 PARTIES: Melinda Davison,Davison Van Cleve, P.C.,Portland, Oregon, represents Air Liquide America Corporation,Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., The Boeing Company, CNC Containers,Equilon Enterprises, LLC, Georgia-Pacific West, Inc., and Tesoro Northwest Company. Stan Berman,Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe, LLP, Seattle,Washington, and James M.Van Nostrand, Stoel Rives, Seattle, Washington,represent Puget Sound Energy,Inc. (PSB). Jim Pemberton appeared pro se to represent the interests of the City of Anacortes and its water utility, John A. Cameron and Traci Grundon,Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Portland, Oregon, represent Bellingham Cold Storage Company(BCS). Public Utility District No. 1 of Whatcom County (Whatcom PUD),by prior arrangement, did not appear at prehearing and will designate its legal counsel or permanent representative later; Whatcom PUD did appear via its written Petition To Intervene, signed by Tom Anderson,pro se. Frank Prochaska appeared pro se to represent the AWPPW. Simon Hitch and Robert Cromwell,Assistant Attorneys General, Seattle, Washington, represent the Public Counsel Section, Office of Attorney General (Public Counsel). DOCKET NOS.UE-001952 and UE-001959 PAGE 3 Robert D. Cedarbaum and Donald Trotter, Assistant Attorneys General, Olympia, Washington,represent the Commission's regulatory staff(Staff). 5 LATE-FILED PETITION TO INTERVENE: On February 15, 2001, King County Washington petitioned for leave to intervene out of time. King County certified service of its Petition on February 20, 2001. The County is a customer of PSE under Schedule 48, which is central to the subject matter of this proceeding. King County's petition states that its interest in participating in this proceeding matured in light of ongoing settlement discussions among the parties. The County states that it will consider becoming a signatory to a settlement agreement, and states that it does not intend to broaden the issues. Staff and Public Counsel filed letters on February 23,2001, stating that they do not oppose late intervention by King County. No party filed to oppose King County's petition. 6 DISPOSITION: The Commission determines that King County has demonstrated an interest in this proceeding, has established good cause for its late filing, and that its participation would be in the public interest. In short, King County's petition is well- taken under the circumstances and should be granted. ORDER 7 THE COMMISSION ORDERS That the Petition To Intervene Out of Time of King County is granted. 8 THE COMMISSION ORDERS FURTHER That King County will take the record as it is found on this date and will not be permitted to broaden the issues in this proceeding. DATED at Olympia,Washington, and effective this 6th day of March,2001. WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DE IS J. SS Adm nis tive Law Judge CITY OF RENTON MAR 08200a44:06 RECEIVED 1- . �.. CITY OF RENTON CITY CLERK'S OFFICE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS,AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: March 8, 2001 TO: Fred Kaufman Renton Hearing Examiner FROM: Sue Carlson,Administrator EDNSP Department STAFF CONTACT: Don Erickson (X6581) SUBJECT: Metropolitan King County South Wastewater Treatment Plant P-1 Rezone We respectfully request that you reconsider your recent reclassification of the Metro Wastewater Treatment Plant from Public Use (P-1) to Industrial Medium (IM), with a P-suffix. We are requesting the Industrial Heavy(III)Zone,with a P-suffix. At a recent meeting between Renton and King County officials it was revealed that King County is interested in developing a co-generation facility at their South(Renton) Wastewater Treatment Plant that would reduce their reliance on "spot" market electricity which is currently driving up their operations costs. It was the consensus of those attending this meeting, including the Mayor, that the Industrial Heavy(IH)zoning classification would better accommodate this new use as well as reflect the scale of the operations now occurring at the plant. It was understood by all parties in attendance that the approval process was identical in both the IM and IH zones with "sewage disposal and treatment plants" being a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use in both zones. In closing, the Industrial Heavy (IH) designation would be consistent with our recent recommendation to you for reclassification "with either the Industrial Medium or the Industrial Heavy Zone,with a P-suffix designation". Thank you. cc: Don Erickson \\TS_SERVER\SYS2:\COMMON\-C:\WINNT\Profiles\derickson\Personal\Metro Reconsideration Memo.doc\d CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MAR 0 8 20C1 REC WED MEMORANDUM 3:, CITY CLERK'S OFF �_,,;, IC! . DATE: 03/08/01 TO: Fred Kaufman FROM: Jennifer Toth Henning SUBJECT: Request for Reconsideration-King County(Metro)Wastewater. Treatment Plant Rezone(File LUA-00-169,R,ECF) Development Services Division respectfully requests reconsideration of the Examiner's recommendation for proposed rezone of the King County Wastewater Treatment Plant. Economic Development/Neighborhoods/Strategic Planning staff recommended that the P-1 (Public)zoning designation be removed and that the property be rezoned to either IM(Industrial- Medium) or IH(Industrial-Heavy)with a P-suffix. You have recommended that the Council . • approve a rezone of the subject property from P-1 (Public)to IM-P (Medium Industrial,P-suffix). Development Services believes that the IH Zone with a P-suffix would better reflect the present and future use and operation of the Metro Wastewater facility. According to RMC Section 4-2- 020:R,the purpose of the Industrial-Heavy Zone is to provide areas for high intensity industrial activities involving processing of raw materials,bulk handling and storage. Uses in the IH Zone may require large outdoor areas in which to conduct their operations and produce environmental impacts beyond their own sites that require their isolation from more sensitive land uses. The IM Zone is intended for medium-intensity industrial activities that may create some external emissions of noise, odor, glare,vibration, etc.that are largely contained on site. The Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant conducts the majority of its operations out-of-doors. And current impacts from the facility, especially noise and odor,have the potential to affect areas beyond the site boundaries. For these reasons,the IH-P designation is more appropriate than the IM-P majority of the 90.7 acre site should be zoned IH-P. cc: Neil Watts \\CENTRAL\SYS2\DEPTS\PBPW\DIVISION.S\DEVELOP.SER\DEV&PLAN.INGUTH\metro rezone reconsideration.doc\cor CITY'OE RENTON -CURRENTPLANNING DIVISION • AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE SY MAILING 1 On the Z9t-" day of d4vwuavt.' , 2004, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Report*rat to the. Heavt►t Ex.a.mittictiltuments. This information was sent to: Name Representing Vene-1"ro (Signature of Sender) Savavo I&. Se. ....ler- STATE OF WASHINGTON ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that ->ig INCt Ut'1 k -e-e _0_91, signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the -u es and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: ) ) i(t �t. (��n� �� -'ttC ??7)4-4j4a. Notary Public 1 and for the State of Washi , f ivvv oii ►1 STATE OF!�` ` Notary (Print)MARILYN KAMCHEFF COMM1IS` My appointmen expires: • . a Project Name: 14et -retjiart.,er. —iv..eat-w'ev t r'tavc- p_I Re-urv‘e.... Project Number: LUtq • OU • I6)9, R,EC..t NOTARY2.DOC • INOlICE . ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION . PROJECT NAME: WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT REZONE PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-00.169,R,ECF City sponsored rezone of 90.7-acre industrial site used for treating regional wastewater(sewage)from Public Use(P-I)Zone to Industrial Medium(IM)Zone with a P-suffix designation because of its public ownership. No new development Is anticipated as a consequence of this rezone, As in the case of the Public Use Zone,wastewater treatment plants are a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use in the IM Zone. Location:1200 Monster Road SW between Monster Road on the west and Oakesdale Avenue on the east/northeast,north of Grady Way and 1-405. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be flied In writing on or before 5:00 PM,January 29,2001. Appeals must be flied in writing together with the required 575.00 application fee with:Hearing Examiner,City of Renton,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Additional Information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office,(425)-430.8510. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting In the Council Chambers on the 7th floor of City Hall,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,Washington,on January 30,2001,at 9:00 AM to consider the proposed Rezone. If the Environmental Determination Is appealed,the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. RCM RC R)� l ) �� �/ CO co . . Ill111 III ` % //���1� ice s1 ow %Zi(f W///////Iii:+ S 4 OP . 0 Le„.... /9 A „,Iii __-- N str „,,60,0 , , ,. :01, 1,11„, OAttir ' ..011111111E " ,e----- 1 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION,PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON,DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT(425)430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please Include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file Identification. CERTIFICATION I, ;A�-( v .e- a ,,)hereby certify that G copies of the above document were posted by me in (o conspicuous places on or nearby the described property on 3 a \ \ ) 7.0o Signed: 2LriA ATTEST: Subcribed and sworn before me,a Nortary Pubç c, in and for the State of Washington residing in 7- Jtt,? , on the n/ day of t,� aa/ mILfNMCHEFF NOTARY PUBLIC -2 9 7 rt).-/- 7 ly",--,--ri-e-he STATE OF WASHINGTON `: 1 p� ^�, Y;. ; COMMiSSiON EXPIRES yyppy�, dlt I �. , 2003 y�.•c u •fir tlFY..e k•. N� na'�Ap'u'A'w*aN CI, 'y .. .. .Yse AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION IP Barbara Alther, first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 600 S. Washington Avenue, Kent, Washington 98032 RENT CO MITTEE WASHINGTON The Environmental Reviu a a daily newspaper published seven (7) times a week. Said newspaper is a legal Committee has issued a Determination newspaper ofgeneralpublication and is now and has been for more than six of Non-Significance for the following project under the authority of the months prior to the date of publication, referred to, printed and published in the Renton Municipal Code. English language continually as a daily newspaper in Kent, King County, WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT REZONE Washington. The South County Journal has been approved as a legal LUA-00-169,ECF,R newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King City sponsored rezone of 90.7 acre industrial site used for County. treating regional wastewater The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the South (sewage) from Public Use (P-I) County Journal (and not in supplemental form) which was regularly distributed to Zone to Industrial Medium (IM) the subscribers duringthe below statedperiod. The annexed notice, a Zone with a P-suffix designation wnhp. because of its public ownership. Location: 1200 Monster Road SW. Wastewater Treatment Plant Rezone Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM January 29. as published on: 1/13/01 2001. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of application fee with:Hearing Examiner. $68.75, charged to Acct. No. 8051067. City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Legal Number 8622 Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8- 110. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, /, (425)430 6510. 4Idi //J/� ,_ A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Legal Clerk, outh County Journal Council Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall, on January 30, 2001 at 9'00 AM to consider the proposed Subscribed and sworn before me on this,i day4-t- of 1 2001 re terms If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. \\\\`` �l't.— rrr�/''/ Published in the South Cou `�• E i, Journal January 13,2001.8622 �: V' .,i;. N� �Y� -O! - 's A = Notary Public of the State of Washington • uB��c a? residing in Renton 'ram `�.� _` King County, Washington -'i91 ? 6 20 •\O`er'' ���'�F6i*WAS:.`*-`..• vrFICE OF THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON CIVIL DIVISION Natural Resources Norm Maleng 900 King County Administration Building Prosecuting Attorney 500 Fourth Avenue ti Seattle,Washington 98104 (206)296-8820 FAX(206)296-0415 Memorandum To: City of Renton Hearing Examinervvc From: King County Department of Natural Resources VovF Date: February 12, 2001 Subject: File No. LUA-00-167, R, ECF -Proposed Rezone From Public Use (P- 1) Zone to Industrial Medium (IM) Zone or Industrial Heavy Zone With a P-Suffix Designation Attached- King County Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant Site: Comments of King County Department of Natural Resources ("King County DNR") King County Department of Natural Resources is in charge of the management of the King County Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant site located in Renton which is the principal use on the subject property of this rezone ("the Renton Plant"). King County Department of Natural Resources ("King County DNR") has had an opportunity to review the Preliminary Report submitted by City staff and makes the following comments for the record. King County has no objection to a proposed rezone for the Renton Plant so long as the rezone is from a P-1 to an IH Zone. As stated in the Preliminary Report, "because of the size of the subject site and the unique heavy industrial characteristics of the treatment plant, staff now believe IH may be more representative of the plant's characteristic than IM zoning." King County is prepared to present evidence, in the form of both testimony and documentary evidence, on this issue, to support the IH Zone designation, if necessary. The recommendation of an IM designation creates possible concerns with regard to the continuing ability of the Renton Plant to expand in response to regional needs. First, the City IM zone designation allows a wide range of industrial uses. King County DNR is concerned that certain abutting uses may in the future be deemed incompatible with the expansion of facilities at the Renton Plant. A second concern relates to the conditional P-Suffix designation attached to the IM zone (and the IH zone). The Renton Plant serves as an Essential Public Facility ("EPF") as defined under the Washington State Growth Management Act at Chapter 36.70A.200. This regional facility addresses the wastewater needs of a significant portion of King County communities and jurisdictions. It is identified in the County Comprehensive Plan and those of many of the cities within King County as the facility for treatment of wastewater generated by these communities. Prosecuting Attorney King County City of Renton Hearing Examiner February 12,2001 Page 2 The Renton Plant will also serve as part of the regional solution in addressing the growing wastewater needs over the next 20 years. The King County Council adopted the Regional Wastewater Services Plan in November 1999 ("RWSP"). The RWSP identifies the continuing need for the Renton Plant and its role in meeting the growing wastewater needs in the region in the years ahead. As acknowledged by the City in the Preliminary Report, "the treatment plant is a regionally recognized public facility that is not likely to change in terms of use or location in the foreseeable future." (Preliminary Report, Section F (5), page 4). The relevance of this GMA designation and adopted RWSP goes to the importance of facilitating any future expansion required at the Renton Plant to meet regional needs. King County has no objection to a proposed rezone for the Renton Plant from a P-1 Zone to an IH Zone, provided that any future review of any expansion of the Renton Plant take into account the fact that it is an essential public facility under GMA. Under the GMA, a local jurisdiction may not preclude the expansion of an existing Essential Public Facility. It is not entirely clear from the Preliminary Report in this matter what particular conditions or criteria might be associated with any proposed future expansion of the Renton Plant. Section 4-9-030 of Title Four of the Renton Municipal Code, dealing with conditional use permits, sets forth the decisional criteria relating to conditional use permits. While many of these relate to appropriate mitigation for a project proposal, it is not clear to what extent these broad criteria might be used to limit or preclude issuance of a conditional use permit for the expansion of the Renton Plant, an Essential Public Facility. The mitigation imposed as part of any future conditional use permit process on an expansion of the Renton Plant must not be so extensive as to preclude this expansion. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. 3.disposal of treated effluent;4.production and recycling of biosolids;5.regulation of Ill;6.control of combinedseweroverflows;and7.productionofreclaimedwater. Y. "Waterreuse" meansusingreclaimedwater.(Ord.13680§1,1999) 28.86.020 Comprehensive water pollution abatement plan—readoption and ratification Resolution No.23 and all subsequent resolutions that amended and implemented the comprehensive waterpollution abatement plan,duly enacted bythe council of the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro)and not expressly repealed bythat bodyeffective not laterthan midnight,December31,1993, and that are not inconsistentwith the King County Charterorcounty ordinances,are hereby readopted and ratified as the comprehensive water pollution abatement plan for King County. (Ord.13680§2, 1999). 28.86.030 Regional wastewater services plan as supplement to comprehensive water pollution abatement plan. Underthe provisionsofthe King County Charterand RCW 35.58.200,the RWSP, set forth in K.C.C. 28.86.010 and 28.86.040 through 28.86.150, is-hereby adopted as a supplementtothecomprehensivewaterpollutionabatementplanforKingCounty.TheRW SPprovides policyguidanceforthewastewatersystemthroughtheyear2030.(Ord.13680§3,1999). 28.86.040 Regional wastewater services plan policies and explana tory material,financial policiesforcomprehensivewaterpollutionabatementplan-application.A.TheRWSP policies, as set forth in this chapter,shall provide direction for the operation and further development of the wastewatersystem,itscapital im provementprogram and,asnecessary,thedevelopmentofsubsequent policies. B. TheRWSPexplanatorymaterial,assetforthinthischapter,providesbackgroundinformation andgenerallydescribestheobjectivesoftheRWSPpolicies. C. Financial pol iciesforthecomprehensivewaterpollution abatement plan and its supplement, teRWSP,areseparatelyadoptedinK.C.C.28.86.160.(Ord.13680§4,1999). 28.86.050 Treatment plant policies (TPP). A. Explanatory material. The treatment plant policies are intended to guidethe county in providing treatment at its existing plants and in expanding treatmentcapacitythroughtheyear2030.The policiesdirectthatsecondarytreatmentwill be provided toallbasesanitaryflows.ThecountywilIinvestigatepossibletertiarytreatmentwithafreshwateroutfall to facilitate water reuse.The policies also direct howthe county will provide the expanded treatment capacity necessaryto handlethe projected increases in wastewaterflows resultingfrom population and employment growth. The policies provide for the construction of a new treatment plant(the north treatment plant)tohandleflowsinanewnorthservicearea,expansion ofthe south treatment plant to handleadditionalsouthandeastKingCountyflows,andthereservationofcapacityatthewesttreatment plantto handle Seattle flows and CSOs.The potential for expansion atthe west and south treatment plants will be retained for unanticipated circumstances such as changes in regulations. The policies address goals for odor control at treatment plants and direct that water reuse is to continue and potentially expand attreatment plants.The policies also describe a cooperative siting process forthe newnorthtreatm entpl ants nd itsoutfal l. B. Policies. TPP-1: King County shall provide secondary treatment to all base sanitary flow delivered to its treatment plants. Treatment beyond the secondary level may be provided to meet water quality standards and achieve other goals such as furthering the water reuse program or benefiting species listedundertheESA. (KingCounty12-99) 28.86.050 METROPOLITANFUNCTIONS 28-82 TPP-2: King County shall provide additional wastewater treatment capacity to serve growing wastewaterneedsbyconstructing anewnorthtreatmentplantin north King countyorsouth Snohomish countyandthenexpandi ngthetreatmentcapacityatthesouthtreatmentplant.Thewesttreatm entplant shall be maintained at its rated capacity of one hundred thirty-three mgd. The south treatment plant capacity shall be limited to that needed to serve the eastside and south King County,exceptforflows fromtheNorthCreekDiversionprojectandtheplannedsix-million-gallonstoragetank.Thepotentiaifor expansion at the west treatment plant and south treatment plant should be retained for unexpected circumstanceswhichshall include,butnotbelimitedto,higherthan anticipated population growth,new facilitiestoimplementtheCSOreductionprogramornewregulatoryrequirements. TPP-3: Any changes in facilities of the west treatment plant shall comply with the terms of the WestPointsettlementagreement. TPP-4: King County shall establish goals for odor control at all treatment plants. In order to establish these goals,the executive shall investigate potential technologies and costs for odor control andrecommendapolicytothecouncilforinclusionintheRW SP.Thisinvestigationshall becompleted and apolicyadoptedinatimelymannersothatodors are controlled atexisting plants and atanynew plant.Odorcontrolfacilitiesandequipmentshallbedesignedandoperatedtomeetthesegoals.Inthe caseofthesouthtreatmentplant,KingCounty'sgoalshall betosignificantlyreduceodorbelowbaseline levelsestablishedinthedevelopmentofthe1993southtreatmentplantairmodel. TPP-5: King County shall undertake studies to determine whether it is economically and environmentally feasible to discharge reclaimed water to systems such as the Lake Washington and LakeSammamishwatershedsincludingtheBallardLocks. TPP-6: WhenthereareopportunitiestotransferflowsbetweenKingCounty'streatmentfacilities andtreatmentfacilitiesowned and operated by otherwastewaterutilities in the region,the countyshall evaluatethem.Suchevaluationshall include,butnotbelimitedtocost,environmental and community impacts,liability,engineeringfeasibility,flexibility,impactstocontractual and regulatoryobligationsand consistencywiththelevelofserviceprovidedatthecountyownedandoperatedfacilities. TPP-7: King County may explore the possibility of constructing one or more satellite treatment plantsinordertoproducereclaimedwater.Thecountymaybuildtheseplantsincooperationwithalocal communityandprovidethecommunitywithreclaimedwaterthrougharegionalwatersupplyagency.In orderto ensure integrated water resource planning,in the interim period priortothe development of a regional water supply plan,King County shall consult and coordinate with regional water suppliers to ensurethatwaterreusedecisionsareconsistentwith regional watersupplyplans.To ensurecosts and benefits are shared equally throughout the region,all reclaimed water used in the community shall be distributedthrougharegionalwatersupplyagencyconsistentwitharegionalwatersupplyplan. TPP-8: King County shall continue water reuse and explore opportunities for expanded use at existingplants,andshallexplorewaterreuseopportunitiesatall newtreatmentfacilities. TPP-9: A comprehensive public involvement program shall be developed and implemented to providethepublic,ataminimum,theopportunitytogiveinputonthecriteriaandthescreeningprocess usedforselectingthelistofpossiblesitesforthenewnorthtreatmentplant,itsconveyancesystem and outfallandtocommentonthefinalselectionofasite.TheKingCountyexecutiveshallestablishoneor more committeesto aid in the siting of a north treatment plant.The committees shall,at a minimum, evaluatesitingcriteriatobeusedandproposeanarrowedlistofsitesforconsiderationbytheexecutive afterconsulti ngwiththecouncil asfol lows: 1. The King County executive shall transmit a m otion to the council that establishes the criteriabywhichsiteswill beselected;and 2. The executive shall providethecouncil with timely reportsthatdetail the sitesthat meet thecriteriaandareunderconsiderationand,atalaterdate,thosesitesthatarefinal candidatesforthe sitingofthenorthtreatmentplant. TPP-10: Basedoncriteriaapprovedbythecouncil,theKingCountyexecutiveshallhavethefinal decisiononthesiteforanorthtreatmentplant.(Ord.13680§5,1999). (KingCounty12-99) WASTEWATERTREATMENT 28.86.060-28.86.070 28-83 customers when the additional monthly sewer rate revenues from these added customers are considered. FP-15: The cost of community treatment systems developed and operated in accordance with WWSP-15would not be subsidized by the remaining ratepayers of the county 's wastewater treatment system.(Ord.13680§16,1999). 28.86.170 Capital improvement program. The capital improvement program required to implement the comprehensive water pollution abatement plan,as amended,including the RWSP,a supplement to the comprehensive water pollution abatement plan, as amended, shall be prepared pursuanttoK.C.C.4.04.200through4.04.270.(Ord.13680§17,1999). • (KingCounty12-99) WASTEWATERTREATMENT 28.86.180 28.86.180 Implementation.A.The executive is hereby directed to prepare and recommend to the council an operational master plan that meets the requirements of K.C.C.chapter 4.04. If any portion ofthe proposed operational masterplanisinconsistentwiththe RWSP policiescontainedinthis chapter,the executive shall submit at the same time a proposed ordinance amending the affected policies. B. The operational master plan shall contain the following major elements and shall further define as necessary the major projects,projected capacity,projected completion dates and estimated costsreferencedinthischapter.Theoperationalmasterplanshallincludeascheduleandmilestonesfor completion of the north treatment plant by2010 and a schedule and milestones for completion of the NorthLakelnterceptorasatunnelby2006orsoonerifpossible. 1. Treatment capacity. Population and employment growth is projected to require the wastewatersystem capacitytoexpandfrom two hundred forty-eight mgd tothree hundred four mgd by 2030. The estimated costs of treatment facilities to achieve this expanded capacity by 2030 is two hundredseventy-sevenmilliondollars1998netpresentvalue.Theexpandedcapacityshallbeprovided by: a. constructing a new north treatment plant on a site large enough to accommodate ultimateplantbuildoutinnorthKingCountyorsouthSnohomishcountywithacapacityofthirty-six mgd by 2010 or as soon thereafter as possible to handle wastewater flows from a new north service area • defined intheplan.Thispiantwould providesecondarytreatmentandwoulddischargetreated effluent to Puget Sound.Tofacilitatethe production of reclaimed water,the possibility of upgrading to tertiary treatment with a freshwater outfall should be investigated during the initial phase of construction and subsequentexpansions; b. expanding the treatment capacity at the south treatment plant from one hundred fifteen mgdtoonehundredthirty-five mgdby2029.Thisexpansionwouldhandleincreasedwastewater flows from the southern and eastern portions of the service area. Some or all of the plant's capacity couldalsobeupgradedtotertiarytreatment,tomeetwaterqualitystandardsorfacilitatewaterreuse,as partoffutureexpansionsorinadditiontothesecondarylevel oftreatmentusingavailableland reserves attheplantsite;and c. maintaining the west treatment plant a t its capacity of one hundred thirty-three mgd. primari lytoservethecityofSeattleand handleflowsfrom thecombinedsewersi nthearea.Additional facilities should be planned in the year2018 to accommodate the extended peak CSO flows that will occurafterstormsonceCSOcontrol projectsareconstructed. 2. Conveyancefacilities. a. The conveyance facilities are to be configured,sized and scheduled to support the treatmentplantsbyconveyingwastewatertoandtreatedeffluentfromtheplants.Theestimatedcostsof conveyance facilities isfive hundred eighty-two million dollars 1998 net present value.Major projects, withtheestimateddatethefacilitywillbeonline,shouldinclude: Parallel EastSidelnterceptorSection-1(2000) 28-96 IncreaseYorkPumpStationcapacitytosixty-eight mgd(2000) ParallelAuburnlnterceptorSectionsl,2,&3(2004) Constructsixmilliongallonsofoff-IinestorageatNorthCreek(2002) ConstructNorthLakelnterceptorandpumpstationtoextendfromthe McAleer/LyonTrunkto theKenmorePumpStationsizedtocreatetenmilliongallonsofstorage(2006orsoonerifpossible) ConstructforcemainfromnewKenmorePumpStationtoNorthtreatmentplant(2010) Construct one hundred twenty mgd pump station at Kenmore to pump to North treatment plant(2010) Constructtunnel from Northtreatmentplantto PugetSourid,sized to accommodateultimate plantbuildout(2010) ConstructNorthtreatmentplantoutfall,sizedtoaccommodateultimatep lantbuildout(2010) Constructthree to five million gallons of storage at south treatment plant to achieve a five- yeardesignstormstandardofprotectionfortheEffluentTransferSystem(2030) ConstructAuburnl nterceptorStorage(2020) I ncreaseNorthCreekPum pStationtofifty mgd(2016) ModifyYorkPumpStationtopumpthirty-five mgdnorth(2016) ConstructforcemaintoconveyflowsfromNorthCreektoKenmorePumpStation(2016) • (KingCounty12-99) 28.86.180 METROPOLITANFUNCTIONS b. King County will construct additional conveyance improvements (e.g., increasing conveyanceand pumpstationcapacityand extending conveyance)toaccommodate increasedflows in otherpartsoftheserviceareatoservepopulationgrowthinthesmallerwastewaterservicebasinsandto preventimproperdischargesfromthesanitarysystem. Extending the county 's ownership of conveyance policy into Snohomish county will increase the amount of conveyanceowned and operated by King County.Theassessmentofthis extension will be doneand presentedtotheKi ngCountycouncil and mayincl ude,butnotbelimitedto,theSwam pCreek andNorthCreeklnterceptorscurrentlyownedandoperatedbytheAlderwoodW aterandSewerDistrict. 3. Ill. The estimated cost for assessing the levels of I/1 in local sewer systems is sixteen milliondollarsandtheestimatedcostsof pilotprojectsisfifteenmilliondollars,both in 1998netpresent value. 4. CSOs. a. CSO projects shall be prioritized based on first controlling discharges that impact bathingbeachesandspecieslistedunderESA.ThesecondpriorityisotherCSOlocationsthathavethe potential to affect public health and safety.Third priority are all other CSO locations.The estimated cost for CSO control projects is two hundred twenty million dollars, 1998 net present value. These projectareasshouldbecom pletedonthefollowingschedule: Priority Projectareasandprojects Completionperiod 1 PuqetSoundbeaches 2009-2011 Norfolk0.8milliongallon(MG)storagetank SouthMagnolial.3MGstoragetank - SWAlaska0.7MGstoragetank Murray0.8MGstoragetank BartonPumpStation(PS)U pgrade NorthBeachstoragetank&PSupgrade 2 LakeWashinatonshipcanal,eastside 2015 University/Montlake7.5MGstoragetank 3 DuwamishRiverandElliottBayshoreline 2017- 2027 Hanford#23.3M Gstorage/treatm enttank Landerl.5M Gstorage/treatmenttank Michigan2.2MGstorage/treatmenttank Brandon0.8'MGstorage/treatmenttank 28-97 Chelan4.0MGstoragetank Connecticut2.1 MGstorage/treatmenttank Ki ng StreetconveyancetoConnecticut HanfordatRainier0.6MGstoragetank 8thAve.S 1.0MGstoragetank W Michiganconveyanceexpansion Termi nal 1150.5MGstoragetank 4 LakeWashingtonshipcanal,westside 2029-2030 Ballard 1.0MGstoragetank 3rdAveW 5.0MGstoragetank 11 thAveNW 2.0MGstoragetank Other W esttreatmentplant-primaryandsecondary treatm entenhancementstohand lei ncreased flowsfromCSOprojects 2018 b. TheCSOprojectsmayinclude: (1) constructing large underground tanks and tunnels to store combined flows during storms.Theseflowswouldthenbepumpedtothewesttreatmentplantoncetherainsubsides;and (2) treating the combined sewage at existing CSO outfall locations usingtechnologyto removesolidsanddisinfectthecom bi nedsewagebeforedischarge. Refinements to the CSO program may be required in response to changing conditions and new information.Thel isting ofspeciesundertheESAmayaffectprojectpriorities,scheduleand associated mitigationoptions. • (KingCounty12-99) WASTEWATERTREATMENT 28.86.180 5. Biosolids. a. KingCountywillcontinuetoproduceClassBbiosolidsusinganaerobicdigestionatthe south andwesttreatmentplantsandtoimplementthesameprocessatthenorthtreatmentplantuntil a new technology can be used reliably. The plan also proposes that the county continue to evaluate alternativetechnologiestoreducethewatercontentofbiosolidswhilepreservingtheirmarketability.The primaryobjectiveofthisevaluationwillbetoidentifyalternativestodigestersatthewesttreatmentplant, aconditionoftheWestPointSettlementAgreement. As part of planning for the north treatment plant, King County should evaluate conventional, alternativeand newsolidsprocessingtechnologiesusingcriteriasuchasproductquality(classAorB), marketability,odor and other potential community impacts, impact on sewer rates, reliability of the treatmentprocess,amountoflandneededforthetreatmentfacilityandthenumberoftrucktripsneeded to transport the biosolids produced. Based on the results of this evaluation and public comment,the executive should recommend one of three biosolids handling scenarios at any or all of the treatment plants: (1) continueusinganaerobicdigestion; (2) supplementanaerobicdigestionwithanothertreatmenttechnology;or (3) replaceanaerobicdigestionwithanothertreatmenttechnology. b. Theestimatedcostsfortheexpandedsolidshandlingfacilitiesneededatboththenew northtreatmentplantandthesouthtreatmentplantareeighty-fivemilliondollarsnetpresentval ue. c. The county should continue using a public-private partnership approach to recycling biosolids such as using biosolids on working forests in King County to enhance wildlife habitat and generatelong-term incomefromselectivetimberharvests. 6. Water reuse program.The south and westtreatment plants should continue to produce reclaimedwaterfornonpotableusesandexploretheproductionofreclaimedwateratnewfacilities.The workplanforthewaterreuseprogramistobepreparednolaterthantwelvemonthsfromtheadoptionof theRW SP.KingCountywillworkwithwatersuppl ierstoplanandi mplementanacceleratedwaterreuse programthatcouldaugmentexistingwatersupplies. If a public education and involvement program on water reuse is to be developed and implemented,itshall becoordinatedwithwaterconservationeducationprograms.Theestimatedcostto evaluatepotentialfutureusesofreclaimedwaterandconductpilotstudiesanddemonstrationprojectsis twentymilliondollarsnetpresentvalue. 7. Communitytreatmentsystems. 28-98 • AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON) ss. County of King ) 4,p being first duly sworn,upon oath, deposes and states: That on the d ay of 1 Juc ,9a / , affiant deposited in the mail of the United States a sealed envelope(s) taining a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition. Signature: .. Gam. SUBSCR r SWORN to before me this Z - day ofv. , 2001. ,%%%%%% A_ I • a 4-NA e ,,c) �A/14> j0� o_ t� ; Not y Publi,csin and f r he State of Washington, % „4 Residing at therein. 7 -© N,,_ Application, Petition, or Case No.: Wastewater Treatment Plant Rezone LUA00-1 69,R,ECF The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record �r.,dy,C .•,- fir 1 l '( T!,S 'IrY . .rf F•_'A1 �'. L:J`�.`,f.'.v'T�: CAR` Jyf • • f .a?•2 • .1urr '`, h'4 Al,i ,E t� ,,, : 41.,.._ ,. r.. te„ r .,,,., , �• h i'<,r•"' e� r j° v ^ «✓i s' ^i .' \ sir ,t` ., ..;1,-+•t,in- {rKY f t � 4dt ro-a a h * T► -> ✓f e ` J '^L c S e --;n-'.`.v 5 , .Vs.,� w dy' # Ct ar ,. {*�1. ;14 , 'y[ p -r,`'..1 ;r K • f,. r fit Ss- -.." fifififi f erg .+ ' .t w=?S v v'.'L� ' ./ yr hy-'' -rr„ t :. v-g2; r r,'1-r 4 ,,L i' t '. 1,. ,,••t -, ,z 1 :j - A+ ^ •. .�• ,�A, a 1f.fite'� ' t 4{ r" r-f- i? , 'e•- °€'`tl • y;` - ,,*. l e�t ,,l 1 f�.;SC 4( y�.:s J I •F _ iS; + 4 1� 1 `%� `'ice. : x',r G SF_ i ,7 l , a ,+. •-";T-�;T • y .I�'1r sr, ,�, ,,,,, J �` .11 E kr a� s' ' ��e4s. ^,.l M.k r .a,..'><. S' L a ��• l •},t s ay._1T- iiJ�, rt�! ';L +� ri'ictet �, tyl $�S }''> s''-. `�x4 �`" �`'�`'}• _ ` ," l 'S4' - ri 5 ,.sa. Vz� v Q v*r tit s � 4 'F-� �•Pr��Lk f 4� ., 'i r w :F r �. 4ty,a � �. e r�a W _ •*-�',. ,r'n4:r r a � v'�, e 4, �1!t� ,+y' ia, � W.;� �. S{. 1�6!y 4"t, t `i r ,, .' -.� ,, `Z, '?„ 3 s� + t r,Y `w 't •� ' 'I?•i L� ,`` t n 1. z YS-�'e G ',+.4 t,. ,-„ d? R ' d 4. .: 1 43'a r t..A .�' ,1: FFF,,.ri t +;t 4 4 a e .r `tl4. ae#.a y ..s, l; •C'"j wy�" d._t 4 ; ••• .;1 Dv +t. R:-r•.s�"i t.a. S'x 1 �yw � �A`.s*{r'tF� -k> � ':,� ',� .��u.„ id^ .. vR }`i.r{.j +` .- r a . `;� ..• ( �i ItJ e `T'� st fir a +- 7 fr .,t tili ti t r;' � r r �•+.,, 3 x '� � >+" +` .'� � �ti �A f� ;+c, • �` � r r#r 5� ,u �,� q ' • t'• Sa'�; „ •.• �' ^�.r,-.4 4 ,t { 'ta°.f e',, .� s 11 ' '`s 4, ' f "'a+F - z,.- a „�w,4�'1=�z� . x r- � �,.' �: r. } a 7i� �\ a �..{� g•t..7{� + ,� o.y,i � ty,.W�'• �� 1.,f,��: 3 t�' .R ,a. 4t,',.;',,;,,..-0,;-- .! r 1 C' +4 t ,,- `ds .J'f t. • ;j'''4^. + f r r-t .r - ,*\ ie:nx Ads 1 f r Y ,C . h f,F r. J� +%. i �� a '-ij�ia. � ., , '�f i k VJ' +,'"`r-�. ,tti.k?;' �2,� .,f f�, �g � M' . '`� ' r ,{ 1'" `' b-i - ' .yet '.,: ? -"a ,` •- ' f +bt:'+w,'a.o a•. , F£r1,� '�c#$ .4 :�`. 4-' �a+,,' L + pI rn ty $.,,,: d _v-� C K«z. ;},F', F + a , y . t i+1 `a -,, , . �.4€ ,a, 'y„ ,k•pr„e'.• ti7. 3 .,r t N 4 a`S, .r 3 �!r�/-. -.4: t w' -_ �95'i�x� yk r , �"�,;•. d-,-%s =: a h' F`6 r S''a„,.t g• �` + .„ _ T r tp t,,4 f,a �.'. t f .,cjY` ., -.;•-', ,...jy� ,-,4' + -:,- �' „4+.:t 1. k,y`F' 1, 4 :b;*; e, �s �5 fs'at . • 1 t Y�r ' - , .,-, r f. 4 a 7� .� • . \ `7 r t* 57�-- ,,• ,,% •fit? r i 1,r,i t T- ! - �C :F 'TtF Sk,, ":•.. ';,. •' r •} ;•- t".. . .,_ • �? a. ;.: 7� gzi. • 4 f�r G;.•• _. ��a ,: sr r �! s.V41i �r • fit. 3, `'y,rt< r ., / ' 4 ;� :7",,,.•�'r^ s 7. xr r r' W �'v'44 ` 8. r"x.. x nL •" rr ! ,, .* - s ai' ,,Vil'i ,-•', ,e. !••,' 'l R• ``r„ 'S Y -r' r rk,I'''•''' t. '`�k n4"i,? +:. a.4i .- '''.. 1T: cf �.b,. .7.'R S. , a ! � 4 �+ ',�s,i �•\• .S� % '��� '"t: t' sty 1-..+ 4m 'S1! !„'ys� }.• '�. ,� .sy. �!,{. ',� f,' Uf••--yy��«, t�ic�.•' 1•, r �r S .�(.r�R�vt"w t�sfi ,'s.' -' l ac, t i4� r; : r r'S• r', -44{y ,' - 7•11 o' ',_: s� • ,.i..+.. 5 �` ' r,�* '''�i ?�. -'4 r; '�' t? � y�y • ,.t �'�: w� 1"`�'-a ! 'e�i trj_x A.�• �,r.< 'ad� Y�t`5 : ��,�« 'j. lit..-,, ,•�r, ,p,' 4 r�1 •l 4, • �� ty1' : s`ry•'� < ` L4 �, i, o F•fi''`�� •±�� p't .�� �'5 ^ °' - *'"���r r� P• � a•+ . 5 „i.'jl v ,4 • iy N- .' �, .:'` f 2 fig" cf 1r - al a x • r ,M i 1. ' .,4 .,`e,,l rr. ; S 4 k; { rr- 4 r `�. s F''7�?'r "•,a rF ' + ��: �� '�� ',a` � :4«�rar� i h- x• �i -` $ a 4,44,. :,' '�y s' :2'., r ter? ;`', :14. �r ,rr r v:-., . 1 •:.#k''" -#" ° ,° . y' s'�,i ' trfr,e _ ��j `;1 4.-4 '�� .r�.'�„ t ., y• 6.-a . ', }>' ,,,'-{fR�4'g...,.. ";tyj_ •r.s...-.•�''' `i+,' �'+-9���{i 1•i .� W....F, t 1/2„;. -k•-'" t•-i ar "-44-";r. .4•' }.N"w. j ,.:-.1'!r{,L:•• '� k y.d f eti-,.7-:,. ?I 1. +-c;a Ark''{ " '704.� I i4;,..^is:'rk i,` '� .!, t $F i �. y ,tie ,ar„ .:.kr n ] -".'4 -. ?x_s:-_a '"j'�.•. "•Sy'. -ti.p..,h;$" ' F ,'a: :,ii, Y, sj ..y, ' t 1 t.. ;', t n.t:• 'ar°"' N a .. *•St,r,E =v h.;�.. ( n „ � � .. ,i* 4.. w4 M z4 ^,-, . _, i,`.. ti . '+ <' it"r3� 4. '-y a `,fir y.;Y\' t■,,,. ".•qua t *! • '<., .•'iG . a - a 4'-i. < t - ,i r `"•. �� 1 e -.,.�fi _ r}r `^ t 1 -AL to ., Y{'rie �tg , -.t ' 4 ,. , . !'� py -a,,« eft ,_�, '•. P $ {�' Tom." s �4 {a F Y'Y,I ' W « r, p , fi," y„": 1 F 'S Y• _- t {!t ' Sy`4 " �, e� �• i 7�`V 3`�t' ii S R' �.•f <we. >iC fr - •F'P•lTjy F•r 1 i�` r..s- ) f r.,m f 'xt1 s.L',i.: .3 '?.I, ', -J4 ` *'--7 h :tom.'- !'y .,,k +S 3f4; 3� �i,' '''p y-�'"„ ik,r «, "`' - ''1t-",7 }, 1."„. f� ?•'�� �°��. :&3';°d+ ,�• .•t -,'ten, [k 5 '�'y ''F.r [r �• �"` �+fk' yA >;'i 3:..r «' � rl •ti>• � {•.r� ' c'i r. 4, -,j,'i t .s. W _ C _ ^. �1'd `all"7 '�, A. ? 1" y,r ri'Sr P�`-.. :r' :l$Mil : ,- ..'r;• ,, +�•d«�.`=',.il*.' <f.' ••i; r '!e+ _4: S" :; '.' ""'i v j %vt ';irk .•.' ay. s �� fy,t " �F;,1,7 " t.+ �•4 ,t �� t,_-: ..�..,y` r..��k _ y.,•,� •.'�^f' �t r. �,y i � �"` ��9':� s^ `,i.?.�. � ,r ...`ter,,. r�: i' .~••eh ;C_ x�tr•f«. ,{Jt.` r T..e�^_'. w r�� -�•y, r : `*,'•.r§ ^ - f C.dn a a I •'.; ° k G',n r 1. .4 „'Y'•- -' t 4,11 ;,. ' ' i4y..'' e r :+i•, t x}4 y +.; * t . • ( 3.n xx ; g, Y,� (,. jR sz ► Z fit• {� h',.7 ,-t4-ti +h ; r 6_ ,.i-'•;5-.,y.i t;}*> • i rm, a bye. '6Jn it a','7q"�,,y .,ri:. `` ` r �•-T'4 ", '. •n �ti y ;} _, .3i .-". +' r i -1 �`. +t "R {�..! 'ry '' J +4 �, a •'.r '• ;ref_-'ry, s-, 'F.. .{. v. s ,(� , r,4 V'' P,';;• 4.,. a'Yam" .41. rr � 4._ 1 � f,fE t.rrit'fir , ,.. 'E`er ry'.' j�,a .r'4�.�. }t b+j+ �c- ., , • - Y !• - �3. f ,-y f 4 ,---i•. 5�$ •3 l ' •j mFY` ',,-r- '� T,r-f f 1, Y i• ••y •.. Y",•yfr,,L•e�b1 '.!:;•Y;;J•"'0.0.0.a •f ",, � ., y. ',rr'1;,,?i'.'� r•.� ,� n l•, "'1-'" a ii.� ,, 7�,.,'.C . "•,6 i r } .-tv"i _ {,. t+{f!F -N •,'.• r,.,z t .':_,1.k . ,:y. ,a.v;t,0,4, A' ., 1.1; 1 'k' , + -1 .,' ETA j• d� •r,.'4t 0.- .%k r y 46' t.+ t ' r 4j�i fit ':>ti`.':�,y��..y, drzl' y' ` yY'? c '���,, 7 y t?t ? '4 A!S'.,.,'..'- }y '>�' ,4., _ .4' a 4., •��. e-1,i t`t' a „! e ` t , yr" -, Y" ,,,,-- F 3`I..t,% ? . -,'a r ?"' .•'r :a V e t� , f r r ,..[F +4',k l «„. fir. i - --i' 1 S t + , Fff-'y. 7.4 ,'fir _ j , ♦ / 4 �,� z•`;,�ce� � `^ }},, ,-,�''q `, �~�$ri�°' _. t ,r � �?'" * �.' ,,r,1� + } i'�{(] �`, , `S`' J'i �- ty�A� tr r Y, _y..7t�h,..} @.,'- ,•, `+ 1 '.+9 1 , �'• • •: 4y mf "y f�' G- µ-,MdaA ,rr., p 'ery i• ��. 9 •�. .9., +' _i,,,�`t Stj'' _ �. }f }' $.' '. w. .D ';i-:*".:e,:f ,W y ' :,' •:kF,/ .-r,' , [� a'` - . '�'.:�-„!: f ., �.., Iy�yl�iv • ;: f WT ` i _ K 1;;�,1 R F d y 49-- xr •' '44 �,:J R.u "a Y•��Stoi ve!iyF-'�^:A-,,:� �.' -� '.`'``..�'yfl•g, .�}�. .rtt 1 Y ,.f 1�. 1r? t . ; T"•`'�• ��-i � j, «.��•y�`'44"'x � _f' -�4 .'d.l,�T•� t 4 a '4M,% J �5,, :krr hs 14 ',_••: 'C . ,✓ (. .`. }',y•r F Y•ft t.. , 1.1r r"' S! ' . , - r ,,fa . ,,. ; r t , rr ( j ; ' � 4e,-:.a',,ys` i�;�,g,.���.$+i,{ {`4 t,:e.k77,. i ,+a. :• 4. • .dt.- r r'c". � ' 4it ' a,T ' ' . a k.:•« rr'..:-:- ,• --, :.,.„` •a fa e- yrrt ��{,,,'�Tp�y'w;l ss',',d....4,.,�`4'i:l.t"Zy'i •"' �', i r ti,,''f{r ion L• •. � ki ''a;k,44,r.#*`6'. ', j''�: •lq -i s* �"µ.r4 ;.�-Wi, f fe f+� �4 �.i.4' r S 4 a'l r` 4 - Y•P � �f'� •�Q,s,,•t t r ,.: '+ '{ ✓F•K, .1 a; gYsr �S' .r. w,x r^•n`' t5 ;.. �'.'�-r4 tia r -. �i:i#-+Dt� a• '?'�i. ,h of71 ' 's?g` •alrt^ S ^i :. ,C6,, '�Zt 4 fw }"" _ `- (•1�,7,�^4•. �{�r � r) �p+ S iy��,S�, 1� ��.- y r'! C ..�, {re. • :T,�+ •'i4r'Y. a�` fir 'l _,( s M� i'v i # �c fp '` ' �iy�v ,�'c A�s +'F?I:,�i,.°L fc '4f., N. y.,„ , 4"F jT�y`�, ,� ,,G_ , ,5'+' y 4h ` • „-!.,r t :;,;,;'.i':' r r..' y: -.s .•�I+% ,.- w''t }•' 4,ra is T''':' •_ y fiyi 3r ifC�P Y y}t� J r Fw Y 1 .! `44/ r ^1 �(�S ;ty`•F F . + , .Ne!9,, 4$',+{w. '`} yxol', m,41c"F�. " _i4•f4 � •Y�h ` �t p ' ' •S��L,' 7'r", "yR 1R Si•• `�:tli: ry��--_• ''•,-.-t.' t4--::'.� f8,,, "'s:,,• ,,,, yyt' ,,,i, ar a '1`3,v-. +� y,..`,,.`.. r�x,t.,., _ • rc i b'''' , •-r.f.3: P rV Y5,14 of. i -/.: s§�-'Y, r•--It .)' e. e, .s'-• "li; 'ti•.t"' 0'1.- .g p' y-:.�.t.w ,TC .� "4.' !, _ f_}•1._� i L ?"xt:. •. s r ^ -.. _,,Yt:. ;e`, k w� ` " •r' yf�y•;';'-'. ltt; t r4 �yS Y°,..r;�yu wYS ;1 2tom "? fix: �} 'r, ': t.4,:`•s';.. r.S:v_. a ,-��'<r,.._ �' f�a5={r, ,'Zf s 4'i tt • ,�}i4` tr4' q .r ."rta It.a+moray}r' L`'S. ,,;'i r C? 1:;9''. f y ',., _^ I':r i.yLt t: •° 6a' r4.e ,S,b+ aes "J'..Wq,+t: a �� s .rl� '�° ,a' nCt• J. "% -' DFti 'A 1 .''7.;< , -:b7,..-.4�,;`+sr,' iC° ,` ' '4 y�.,y ,'k4 „kilo :G� !s t,,'+ rt ,�t. . F ' t s z'�� l „{s ar ��+ • ''4•k.i.- M •,:.Y'j�e, ,s h•re p•' <�u v .'.�'}...',1,4", y', 93 P}.f41` '+f 1 . `$f''"�a r.7'. -0'S`r- ":'i . �S ',�"} -r ,,,"� t lea �t,�. :c',.• e rr ."r'>rr. y�",. ., > `m like.- - '�5 3'.r ti.. i- 1 ,F f I �'y, f. -,l , '#" .. ir `' yr''AS' ' F• ea�q - i� > . 3 ; 4; rr�:. er f +7"A I} t}o'�,_: +7 e_gii. of :'•. ' , ,.', ,n a r W .' ''3q i_. .r'4 ,'.jr.. .�...a,'-4, t..' t q+ ° i`t 1 t t A. r ,, t a .� - r+. ,( f . ,w , a a-,', �'! s..0,,„, ♦r4." -it‹..,:A,.... •f, �wq�,lam'.• - ``} yiyy .,4 ,ti fi " a '''-U-;..{r,'Av., % _ tt,"-0���.?� , l ry y11 - Yt�+,''• .:i-e14 s.;,1,t'K j b "i`y. {�y t;;.' ay. ✓ m4 ',4-::?, y t :-h �„Al ,i ,r..I .f• ,S '•T ,, .LS-• + �, 'L., b. S1' R � ' ,� �, '"tk 1.1t•' i:�[��js �- f.1:..4a r l• •l''' �t�t•u � W �I'�'�r••; 'k• � �^ _ +«`" r � k �/"' "4N `g " ,, t�< a:�l' 1,`',v, ' yt, + t r °'b�'':..t ., x i' .,,. t '� r ,s-4 •i'',•� .,�. $ ' 'tr�;�s �'~ .,-a- •: d .'.Fa-Ir:b Y ; t Y."+iF�.?.4' ��, ,,,,,- {"�-+° + � '° � \+ p it y 'k C,-a sF '^'F }_- Y _% P,r. ,,,V).(s, '+.Y �'ft�{ ii•- Y -;tr 3�';• Pe'f �� r,l' 'n' 4 �'✓g"#ifi A ':f'er �.+Y�T ��,21�•jx F. ` ice I• 'x• *44-14..,' ! › .,�,� s y� c fi ' Y d i t BSA t � '' s ^f �:k f4 .rRiir" +J1 Li r3'i�'a .'{ ^ir•.• -. '.r n e 4t' ' .cF t• a:'_ a..ip 3 �4. 3 y y� +' x,�y it -d`i ���e y�� ,, a •' - 1• ...ra 4:y �A `a ,Si S 1,.i. ,..,. 7u.•.. `fi �� y�a��" }=Iii+' :" HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT • 1 A ,.. • , i ,Vittµ -, a 5e,; ; yr• tw a •. .' :151-,4 ,''tr 4.' 'F' v .kt •r'" •t;p r .. ''•__`i-i "„ �`� f•` i[ �'•.. } y� � a,. • <�r a �'' `Air 7 r . >-fit , Y +z' �_F�� .s a '' •V r' c.,.v:'. _rr vi7%,1�'- 4,4' r ; : �-y � February 22,2001 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION APPLICANT: Susan Carlson,Administrator EDNSP Department File No.: LUA00-169,R,ECF LOCATION: 1200 Monster Road SW SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Rezone of a 90.7 acre industrial site used for treating wastewater from Public Use(P-1)One to the Industrial Medium(IM)Zone or Industrial Heavy(IH)Zone SUMMARY OF ACTION: Development Services Recommendation: Approve DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on January 23,2001 PUBLIC HEARING: In accordance with Section 4-8-14(C)(2),the Hearing Examiner shall determine if a change of zone classification is advisable, in the public interest,tends to further the preservation and enjoyment of any substantial property rights of the petitioner, is not materially detrimental to the public welfare of the properties of other persons located in the vicinity thereof, and is in harmony with the purposes and effect of the Comprehensive Plan. In such event,the Hearing Examiner may recommend that the City Council approve the change of the zone classification. MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the Tuesday, January 30, 2001 hearing. The legal record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Tuesday,January 31, 2001, at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Verna Bromley, Civil Division,King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office,900 King County Administration Bldg, 500 4t1'Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104 requested a brief continuance of the hearing to allow her office and the client at the Department of Natural Resources some additional time to consider what, if any, impacts may result to the Treatment Plant as a result of this rezone petition.. The hearing adjourned at 9:09 a.m., continued to 9:00 a.m.,Tuesday,February 13, 2001. ************************************************* Wastewater Treatment Plant Re File No.: LUA00-169,R,ECF February 22, 2001 Page 2 The hearing opened on Tuesday, February 13,2001 at 10:04 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow land use file,LUA00- Exhibit No.2: Zoning Map 169,R,ECF, containing the original application,proof of posting, proof of publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No.3: Vicinity Map Exhibit No.4: Power Point Presentation Exhibit No. 5: Written Comments by Ms.Bromley Exhibit No. 6: Visual of Treatment Plant Site Don Erickson, Senior Planner,Economic Development Division, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 presented the staff report. The applicant for this rezone is the City of Renton. The owner of record is King County Wastewater Treatment Division. The subject proposal is the rezoning of a 90.7 acre industrial site used for treating regional wastewater from the Public Use(P-1)Zone to the Industrial Medium(IM)Zone or the Industrial Heavy(IH)Zone. The site is located at 1200 Monster Road SW, at the intersection of Oaksdale Ave SW and Grady Way. The subject site is in the northwest quadrant of this intersection. The plant lies between Monster Road on the west and Oaksdale Avenue SW on its north and east edges. Mr.Erickson reviewed the applicable sections of the comprehensive Plan and went on to discuss the background of the rezone. The current proposal is part of a series of approximately fifty P-1 rezones,most of which have already been changed to other more traditional zones that reflect the characteristics of the use and surrounding area. This consolidation is based in part upon a June 1994 directive of Council to proceed with the assimilation of the P-1 Zone into the City's other zones. The P-1 Zone allows a vast array of uses not all of which are necessarily compatible with the areas in which they are located.'Also,because it was most typically applied to individual parcels, it could be challenged as"spot"zoning. Another factor was that it had been inconsistently applied with nearly half of all public facilities located in more traditional zones. The Environmental Review Committee(ERC) issued a Determination of Non-Significance for this non-project legislative action on January 9,2001. There were no mitigation measures imposed, since this is a non-project legislative action Mr. Erickson continued by reviewing consistency with rezone criteria. The rezone is in the public interest since it is consistent with the Employment Area—Valley Comprehensive Plan land use designation for this area. The new zoning will provide greater land use predictability than the current P-1 Zone, and the P-Suffix will ensure future public notification if any major change of use,tenancy or ownership occurs on the site in the future. The rezone maintains the property rights of the County since sewage disposal and treatment plants are a permitted use in both the IM and IH Zones subject to Hearing Examiner approval. The rezone is not detrimental to the public welfare of properties of other persons located in the vicinity since it narrows the uses permitted on the subject site,makes the existing use a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use,and ensures that persons located in the vicinity will be notified at least 60 days in advance of any proposed substantial change in use,tenancy or ownership at the treatment plant. The rezone meets the criteria in subsections Flb and Flc of Section 4-9- 170F.2. The subject site was not specifically considered at the time of the last area land use analysis and area zoning, because at that time it was understood that staff were studying the P-1 Zone and were preparing recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council on whether this special zoning should be Wastewater Treatment Plant Re• - File No.: LUA00-169,R,ECF February 22,2001 Page 3 retained or assimilated into the City's other zoning classifications. Nearby uses to the west, north, east, and south were rezoned in June 1993 to the IM and CO zones. This and a number of other P-1 zoned sites were not rezoned at that time, awaiting recommendations from planning staff for future zoning. There have been no significant or material changes affecting the subject property since the most recent land use analysis of the area that in itself justify a change in zoning. Staff recommends approval of the King County South Wastewater Treatment Plant P-1 Rezone from the Public Use(P-1)Zone to either the Industrial Medium (IM)or the Industrial Heavy(IH)Zone,with a P-suffix designation, for the following reasons: (1)The rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation for the parcel, as Employment Area—Valley,which encourages a mix of employment-based uses. The site is used for industrial purposes, and had it been rezoned in 1993, it likely would have received an industrial designation at that time. (2) The proposed rezone would be consistent with earlier citywide rezones of other properties in the area that were zoned IM in 1993 and/or 1995. This rezone is also consistent with the existing use of the property since it is used for sewage treatment and disposal, a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use in either the IM or IH Zones. (3)The subject rezone is a non-project action under SEPA and is a legislative act that is not expected to significantly alter the development potential of the site. The rezone reduces the scope of the uses allowed in the P-1 Zone to Intermediate Industrial or Heavy Industrial use and makes the current use a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use rather than a Council Unclassified Use. Verna Bromley, Civil Division,King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office, 900 King County Administration Bldg, 500 4''Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104 stated that King County has no objection to the proposed rezone for the Renton Plant, as long as the rezone is from a P-1 to an IH Zone. Because of the size of the subject site and the unique heavy industrial characteristics of the treatment plant, City staff now believes IH may be more representative of the plant's characteristic than IM zoning. King County believes that the recommendation of an alternative IM designation creates possible concerns with regard to the continuing ability of the Renton Plant to expand in response to regional needs. The IM designation allows a wide range of industrial uses. King County is concerned that certain abutting uses may in the future be deemed incompatible with the expansion of the facilities at the Renton Plant. A second concern relates to the conditional P-suffix designation attached to the IM Zone and the IH Zone. The Renton Plant serves as an essential public facility as defined under the Washington State Growth Management Act. This regional facility addresses the wastewater needs of a significant portion of King County communities and jurisdictions, including Renton. The Renton Plant will also serve as part of the regional solution in addressing the growing wastewater needs over the next 20 years. Ms.Bromley read into the record portions of King County Code Section 28.86.050 and Section 28.86.180 dealing with treatment plant capacities and potential expansion. This is significant because this plant is an essential public facility and the relevance of this GMA designation and adopted RWSP goes to the importance of facilitating any future expansion required at the Renton Plant to meet regional needs. King County has no objection to a proposed rezone to the IH Zone provided any future review of any expansion of the Renton Plant take into account the fact that it is an essential public facility under GMA Ms.Bromley stated that the IH Zone is more characteristic of the types of processes and the scale of the facility that is actually in place. King County is concerned with incompatible uses surrounding the plant with an IM designation. Joe Fernandes,King County,201 South Jackson St., Seattle, WA 98104 reviewed his work experience with King County and his educational background. He described the geographical area and the population served by the Renton Plant. He described the size of the plant and how much of the site is taken up by equipment. The Examiner asked for clarification of why the IH zoning would be preferable to IM zoning for this plant. Wastewater Treatment Plant File No.: LUA00-169,R,ECF February 22,2001 Page 4 Ms.Bromley stated that King County believes the IH designation is more representative of the plant's characteristics than the IM zoning. This is also set forth in the City's staff report. The City was considering an IH designation in 1996 and 1997 when this plant was originally considered for a rezone. Mr.Fernandes continued by describing the how the treatment processes at the plant works. He then described the equipment used at the plant site. He stated that approximately 110 employees work at the plant. The plant is run on a 24-hour basis,with two 12-hour shifts. Ms.Bromley stated that the types of activities,the types of processes, and the scale of the plant is fundamentally different than the IM designated businesses that are located around the plant. Mr.Erickson read into the record the Zoning Code descriptions of the IM Zone and the IH Zone. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 10:55 a.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS &RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, City of Renton, filed a request to reclassify the subject site from P-1 (Public/Quasi- public)to either IM(Medium Industrial)or IH(Heavy Industrial). 2. The City of Renton has filed requests for approval of a series of approximately forty(40)to fifty(50) separate rezones involving a series of separate properties generally,but not always, owned by public agencies including the City,King County and the Renton School District. The City proposes phasing out its P-1 Zone, a zone that in the past was designed to accommodate public and quasi-public uses. Each of the proposals requests that the new zoning be changed to closely, if not exactly match, surrounding zoning districts and the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The yellow file containing the staff report,the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit#1. 4. The Environmental Review Committee(ERC),the City's responsible official, issued a Declaration of Non-Significance(DNS)for the subject proposal. 5. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 6. While the background information on the study and proposed abolition of the P-1 zone will be the same for each report, each site will receive separate attention and a separate decision. 7. The P-1 (Public/Quasi-Public)Zone was established in the early 1950's to accommodate governmental facilities as well as certain private uses such as private medical clinics and private hospitals, as well as private schools,museums and the like that accommodated the public. The permitted uses were expanded over the years to accommodate an even wider range of uses while other zoning districts also broadened their range of respective uses, in effect, duplicating the permitted uses in the P-1 zone. The current zoning categorization generally appears to accommodate most, although not all,of the uses the current P-1 zone permits. The City Council directed staff to make a recommendation as to the Wastewater Treatment Plant File No.: LUA00-169,R,ECF February 22,2001 Page 5 continued need for a distinct P-1 zone. A result of that study was presented to the Planning Commission (May 4, 1994 Report). The Planning Commission recommended the assimilation of the P-1 zone. The City Council then directed that individual parcels be assimilated into nearby, compatible zones after appropriate public hearings. The current action is the result of those decisions. 8. The subject site is the location of the Metro King County South Wastewater Treatment Plant located at 1200 Monster Road South. The site is located north of Grady Way and west of Oakesdale Avenue. The site is approximately 90.7 acres in size. The parcel is a large, irregular shaped parcel. 9. The City had originally proposed reclassifying the subject site to IM. At the originally scheduled public hearing King County,the owner and operator of the plant, asked for more time and was concerned about the IM designation. Between the time of the original hearing and the reconvened hearing, staff altered their recommendation and suggested that either IM or IH might be an appropriate designation. 10. The applicant strongly supported the IH zoning and was opposed to the IM. The County claimed the plant is an essential facility under enacted laws and they would make sure that it could be expanded in response to need and that local government, under GMA, cannot block an essential facility. 11. There are CO (Commercial Office)districts immediately north and east of the subject site. These districts are developed with office and commercial uses. South,adjacent to Grady Way,are a number of IM(Medium Industrial)parcels. There are additional IM parcels located west of the subject site. 12. There are no IH Districts close to the subject site. 13. Staff noted that both the IM and IH zone would accommodate the activities that occur at the treatment plant. Staff and the applicant indicated that the size of some of the facilities seem more related to heavy industrial activities,while the processes are generally not as intensive as heavy industrial since there is no heavy fabrication or machining occurring. 14. Both the IM and IH zones would require further review of any plant expansions. 15. The City has proposed attaching a special P-suffix designation to any public property which will be reclassified from P-1. This suffix is used to trigger a public comment period if substantial changes in ownership or sale are intended. 16. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development Employment Area-Valley, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 17. The Zoning Code contains the following purpose language for the two respective zones: R INDUSTRIAL-MEDIUM ZONE(IM): The purpose of the Medium Industrial Zone(IM) is to provide areas for medium-intensity industrial activities involving manufacturing,processing, assembly and warehousing in areas designated as Employment Area-Industrial in the Comprehensive Plan.Uses in this District may require some outdoor storage and may create some external emissions of noise, odor, glare,vibration, etc.,that are largely contained on site. Compatible uses which directly serve the needs of other uses permitted within the district are also allowed. Wastewater Treatment Plant Rc - File No.: LUA00-169,R,ECF February 22, 2001 Page 6 S INDUSTRIAL-HEAVY ZONE(IH): The purpose of the Heavy Industrial Zone(IH) is to provide areas for high intensity industrial activities involving heavy fabrication,processing of raw materials, bulk handling and storage, construction and heavy transportation in areas designated as Employment Area-Industrial in the Comprehensive Plan. Uses in this District may require large outdoor areas in which to conduct their operations and produce environmental impacts beyond their own sites that require their isolation from more sensitive land uses. Compatible uses which directly serve the needs of other uses permitted within the district are also allowed. (Ord. 4404, 6-7-1993)uses and surrounding zoning. CONCLUSIONS: • 1. The proponent of a rezone must demonstrate that the request is in the public interest, that it will not impair the public health, safety and welfare, and in addition complies with at least one of the criteria found in Section 4-8-14,which provides in part that: a. The subject site has not been considered in a previous area-wide rezone or land use analysis; or b. The subject site is potentially designated for the new classification per the Comprehensive Plan; or c. There has been a material and substantial change in the area in which the subject site is located since the last rezoning of the property or area. The IM classification appears appropriate. 2. The P-1 district and its associated properties were removed from the city-wide reclassification effort to study the basis for the zone itself. This site as well as the other P-1 properties were segregated for special review. The public hearing that preceded this recommendation is the first analysis since that study demonstrated that there is no reason to maintain the P-1 zones. 3. The Comprehensive Plan designates the area as suitable employment generating. It also has designated areas to the immediate north and east for commercial office uses. In addition,to those uses,the other zoning in the area is generally IM, one of the categories that staff recommended be considered for the subject site. IM zoning matches the zoning immediately to its south and west. 4. There have been a number of changes to the Grady Way corridor,particularly east of the subject site. In addition,the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code have themselves undergone a profound change. The need for a separate holding zoning for public and quasi-public uses has been questioned for a long time and the adoption of these new land use provisions just provided the impetus to review the P-1 zone. In that light,the current proposal is appropriate. 5. Given the surroundings and the Comprehensive Plan designations for the subject site and neighboring sites, IH zoning does not appear appropriate. IH would appear to sanction offsite spillover of industrial impacts to surrounding areas. This does not appear to be what is'envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan for the subject site, or particularly for the surrounding areas,which are zoned and developed with commercial office uses and office parks. Wastewater Treatment Plant Re____ File No.: LUA00-169,R,ECF February 22, 2001 Page 7 6. The applicant's use of the subject site is not by itself enough to control future zoning. The aim of the elimination of the P-1 zone was to absorb properties that were zoned P-1 into zoning categories compatible with surrounding zoning categories. In addition,the overall public welfare must be considered when determining appropriate classification for zoning. As staff noted,their treatment plant would be permitted in the IM Zone and would be subject to similar review whether in the IM or IH zone. 7. There is no need to discuss the merits or legal issues regarding expansion of the treatment plant at this time. As noted,the plant would be a legal, conforming use in the IM zone. Changes to the plant would be handled under the various codes and regulations when such changes are proposed. 8. The P-suffix appears an appropriate "sub label" for this publicly owned site although sale or change of use seems a most remote possibility. 9. It would be appropriate for the City Council to rezone the parcel to IM. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should approve the reclassification of the subject site from P-1 to IM with a P-suffix. ORDERED THIS 22nd day of February, 2001. FRED J. MA HEARIN ,XAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 22nd day of February, 2001 to the parties of record: Don Erickson Verna Bromley Joe Fernandes 1055 S Grady Way King County Prosecuting King County Renton, WA 98055 Attorney's Office 201 South Jackson Street 900 King County Admin. Bldg. Seattle, WA 98104 500 4th Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 TRANSMITTED THIS 22"d day of February,2001 to the following: Mayor Jesse Tanner Gregg Zimmerman, Plan/Bldg/PW Admin. Members,Renton Planning Commission Neil Watts,Development Services Director Larry Rude,Fire Marshal Sue Carlson,Econ.Dev. Administrator Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Larry Meckling,Building Official Transportation Systems Division Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Utilities System Division Councilperson Kathy Keolker-Wheeler South County Journal Betty Nokes,Economic Development Director Wastewater Treatment Plant Re_._ File No.: LUA00-169,R,ECF February 22,2001 Page 8 Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100Gof the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., March 8,2001. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact,error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen(14).days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record,take further action, as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV,Chapter 8, Section 110,which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department,first floor of City Hall. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants,the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte(private one-on-one)communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. ( RC P) Rc(P) CO . ( l - r'��.� d(-� co c r III --- / 'p lv = Adtiof Zee#4,I _____Y J cn I ,/ L r4/,'//1/ / 44 AA 00...,i 114 ,,topp , /11111q141111111111111111111111.11:4.1111 diggisek v . . 1 i WA* 0 _Ai , co 0 500 1,000 LANDUSE ACTION FILE # LUA_OD-/lv ft 4 REZONES FILE # FROM P-1 TO IM(P) 1:6,000 V //�� Site • o EDNSP .Q. sue cariaoa. eaministretor Zone boundaries D. Erickson, 0. Dennison u, . 19 December 2000 Renton corporate boundary CITY OF. RENTON HEARING EXAMINER . . PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 13 2001 AGENDA COMMENCING AT 9:00 AM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7TH FLOOR, RENTON CITY HALL The application(s) listed are in order of application number only and not:necessarily the order in:which they will be heard. Items will be called for hearing at the discretion of the Hearing Examiner.; ' PROJECT NAME: City Center Building PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-00-155,SA PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposal includes a six-story 137,370 sq.ft. office building containing a 12,494 sq.ft. grade level garage and 124,876 sq.ft. of leasable space. To serve the needs of the office building the project will also include a six-story parking garage, containing approximately 391 parking stalls,to be located across the street(on the east side of Main Street), on land leased from the City of Renton. Vehicles would enter the City Center office building from Main Avenue South and exit via the alley to the west. Vehicles will enter and exit the parking garage via Main Avenue S. All existing structures will be removed from the site. Location: The proposed location for the office building is 207- 219 Main Avenue South. The proposed location for the parking garage is 212-222 Main Avenue South. PROJECT NAME: Wastewater Treatment Plant P-1 Rezone PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-00-169,R PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The subject proposal is the rezoning of a 90.7-acre industrial site used for treating regional wastewater (sewage)from the Public Use (P-1)Zone to the Industrial Medium (IM)Zone with a P-Suffix designation attached. This rezone is part of a series of approximately fifty(50) P-1 rezones • of the City's former Public Use (P-1) Zone. This zone is being phased out pursuant to Council's 1994 direction to do so. No change of use is anticipated as a consequence of this proposed rezone. Under the IM zoning the existing wastewater treatment facility would be allowed to expand pursuant to existing approvals. This is a non-project action and no changes are proposed within the treatment plant as a result of this rezone. Location: King County Southeast Wastewater Treatment Plan, 1200 Monster Road SW.; at the intersection of Oakesdale Ave SW and Grady Way. The subject site is in the northwest quadrant of this intersection. The plant lies between Monster Road on the west and Oakesdale Avenue SW on its north and east edges. Agnda City of Renton EDNSP Department 4reliminary Report to the Hearing Examine PROJECT NAME:Metro King County Wastewater Treatment Plan P-1 Rezone LUA-00-169,R,ECI PUBLIC HEARING DATE:January 30,2001 Page 1 of City of Renton PUBLIC Department of Planning/Building/Public Works HEARING PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST: Public Hearing Date: February 13, 2001 Project Name: King County South Wastewater Treatment Plant P-1 Rezone Applicant/ Susan Carlson, Administrator Address: EDNSP Department City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Owner/ Same as above Address: File Number: LUA-00-169, R, ECF Project Manager: Don Erickson Project Description: The subject proposal is the rezoning of a 90.7-acre industrial site used for treating regional wastewater (sewage) from the Public Use (P-1) Zone to the Industrial Medium (IM) Zone with a P-Suffix designation attached. This rezone is part of a series of approximately fifty (50) P-1 rezones of the City's former Public Use (P-1) Zone. This zone is being phased out pursuant to Council's 1994 direction to do so. No change of use is anticipated as a consequence of this proposed rezone. Under the IH zoning the existing wastewater treatment facility would be allowed to expand pursuant to existing approvals. This is a non-project action and no changes are proposed within the treatment plant as a result of this rezone. Project Location: King County Southeast Wastewater Treatment Plan, 1200 Monster Road SW.; Renton,WA 98055 at the intersection of Oaksdale Ave SW and Grady Way. The subject site is in the northwest quadrant of this intersection. The plant lies between Monster Road on the west and Oaksdale Avenue SW on its north and east edges. B. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner of Record: King County Wastewater Treatment Division King County, Washington 2. Zoning Designation: Public Use (P-1)Zone 3. Comprehensive Plan: Employment Area-Valley Land Use Designation 4. Existing Site Use: King County Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant site Metro Treatment Plant Hexreport.doc City of Renton EDNSP Department reliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner PROJECT NAME:Metro King County Wastewater Treatment Plan P-1 Rezone LUA-00-169,R,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE:January 30,2001 Page 2 of 5 5. Neighborhood Characteristics: North: 96-acre Blackriver Riparian Forrest Conservation Area, Oaksdale Avenue SW East: Blackriver Corporate Park, King County DDES offices, Motel, etc.; South: Grady Way right-of-way, 1-405 right-of-way; West: Monster Road SW and miscellaneous manufacturing facilities 6. Access: Monster Road SW and Oaksdale Avenue SW 7. Site Area: 90.7 acres 8. Project Data: area comments Existing Building Area: NA Not applicable for this non-project action New Building Area: NA Not applicable for this non-project action Total Building Area: NA Not applicable for this non-project action C. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND: Action Land Use File No. Ordinance No. Date Council adopts Comp 4496 February 20, 1995 Plan with area-wide Land Use and Zoning Maps including zone name changes (excludes P-1 Zone) Council adopts Draft 4405 June 7, 1993 Comp Plan with area- wide Land Use and Zoning Maps Council adopts 4404 June 7, 1993 Interim Zoning Code D. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE: 1. Section 4-1-050F.2 Hearing Examiner Recommendations 2. Section 4-1-060C.1.a Required Elements of the Comp Plan 3. Section 4-2-020T Public Use (P-1)Zone 4. Section 4-9-170F.2 Criteria for Rezones Metro Treatment Plant Hexreport.doc City of Renton EDNSP Department eliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner PROJECT NAME:Metro King County Wastewater Treatment Plan P-1 Rezone LUA-00-169,R, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE:January 30,2001 Page 3 of 5 E. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: 1. Objective U-E: Provide and maintain a sanitary sewer collection system that is consistent with public health and water quality objectives of the State of Washington and the City of Renton. 2. Policy U-61. Coordinate with the regional wastewater agency and adjacent jurisdictions in the planning and maintenance of regional wastewater systems in and near the City. 3. Objective LU-EE.a: Provide for a mix of employment-based uses, including commercial, office • and industrial development to support the economic development of the City of Renton. 2. Policy LU-212.2 Compatible and related land uses should be encouraged to locate in proximity to one another. 3. Policy LU-212.12 Favorable consideration should be given to rezones in which similar and/or compatible uses are already located in the area. 4. Policy LU 212.16 Favorable consideration may be given to rezones to industrial uses when a mix of wider range of uses is not yet appropriate for a site. F. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND The current proposal is part of a series of approximately fifty (50) P-1 rezones most of which have already been changed to other more traditional zones that reflect the characteristics of the use and the surrounding area. This consolidation of the City's zoning is based in part upon a June 1994 directive of Council to proceed with the assimilation of the P-1 Zone into the City's other zones. The P-1 Zone allows a vast array of uses not all of which are necessarily compatible with the areas in which they are located. Also, because it was most typically applied to individual parcels it could be challenged as"spot"zoning. Another factor was that it had been inconsistently applied with nearly half of all public facilities located in more traditional zones. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended), on January 9, 2001 the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-significance for this non-project legislative action. No mitigation measures were proposed by the ERC for this non-project action. 3 COMPLIANCE WITH ERC MITIGATION MEASURES Because no mitigation measures were imposed on this non-project action, there were no ERC conditions that the applicant was asked to comply with at this time. Metro Treatment Plant Hexreport.doc City of Renton EDNSP Department ?Iiminary Report to the Hearing Examiner PROJECT NAME:Metro King County Wastewater Treatment Plan P-1 Rezone LUA-00-169,R,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE:January 30,2001 Page 4 of 5 4. STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS Representatives from various city departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address site plan issues from the proposed development. These comments are contained in the official file. 5. CONSISTENCY WITH REZONE APPROVAL CRITERIA Section 4-9-170F.2 Criteria for Rezones Not Requiring Plan Amendment: "The Reviewing Official shall make the following findings:" a. The rezone is in the public interest, The proposed rezone is in the public interest since it is consistent with the Employment Area —Valley Comprehensive Plan land use designation for this area a shown on the Land Use Map. The new zoning will provide greater land use predictability than the current P-1 Zone, and the P-Suffix will ensure future public notification if any major change of use, tenancy or ownership occurs on the site in the future. Also, the treatment plant is a regionally recognized public facility that is not likely to change in terms of use or location in the foreseeable future. b. The rezone tends to further the preservation and enjoyment of any substantial property rights of the petitioner,and The proposed rezone maintains the property rights of the County since sewage disposal and treatment plants are a permitted use in both the IM and IH Zones subject to Hearing Examiner approval. Currently, "waste treatment and disposal facilities" are considered to be "unclassified uses"in the P-1 Zone and as such are subject to review by the City Council and any conditions they might impose to mitigate the impacts of the use. It is only when there is a major change in use, tenancy or ownership that the provisions under the P-suffix would kick in requiring public notification to surrounding property owners. This requirement is not anticipated to be onerous. c. The rezone is not materially detrimental to the public welfare or the properties of other persons located in the vicinity thereof, The proposed rezone is not detrimental to the public welfare or properties of other persons located in the vicinity since it narrows the uses permitted on the subject site, makes the existing use a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use, and ensures that persons located in the vicinity will be notified at least 60 days in advance of any proposed substantial change in use,tenancy or ownership at the treatment plant. This is intended to give affected properties • sufficient time to lobby Council or other agencies against such a change if it is deemed to be detrimental to nearby property owners or tenants. d. The rezone meets the review criteria in subsections F1b and F1c of this Section. F1b: The property is potentially classified for the proposed zone being requested pursuant to the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan; and The subject site has been determined to be potentially classified for the proposed IM or IH Zones based upon the fact that it is designated on the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map as Employment Area-Valley,which encourages a mix of compatible industrial, office and commercial employment based uses. The recommended IH zoning would be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Metro Treatment Plant Hexreport.doc City of Renton EDNSP Department eliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner PROJECT NAME:Metro King County t.oytewater Treatment Plan P-1 Rezone LUA-00-169,R,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE:January 30,2001 Page 5 of 5 F1c:At least one of the following circumstances applies: i. The subject reclassification was not specifically considered at the time of the last area land use analysis and area zoning; The subject site was not specifically considered at the time of last area-wide land use analysis and area-wide rezoning in 1995 since it was understood that Staff were studying the P-1 Zone and were preparing recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council on whether this special zoning should be retained or assimilated into the City's other zoning classifications. Nearby uses abutting the subject site to the west, north, east, and south were rezoned in June 1993 to the IM and CO zones. This and a number of other P-1 zoned sites were not rezoned at that time, awaiting recommendations from planning staff for future zoning. Initially staff had suggested IM zoning but given the scale of the uses at the treatment plant it was felt that IH zoning should also be considered. Although the site does not abut other IH zoned properties in the area and could be considered by some to be a"spot'zone, because of the size of the subject site and the unique heavy industrial characteristics of the treatment plant, staff now believe IH may be more representative of the plant's characteristic than IM zoning. ii. Since the most recent land use analysis or the area zoning of the subject property, authorized public improvements, permitted private development or other circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone significant and material change. There have been no significant or material changes affecting the subject property since the most recent land use analysis of the area that in itself justify a change in zoning. G. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommend approval of the King County South Wastewater Treatment Plant P-1 Rezone, Project File No. LUA-00-169, R, ECF from the Public Use (P-1)Zone to either the Industrial Medium or the Industrial Heavy(IH)Zone (both zones permit sewage treatment and disposal plants),with a P-suffix designation,for the following reasons: (1) The proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation for the subject parcel, as Employment Area-Valley,which encourages a mix of employment-based uses including industrial, commercial and office. The subject site is currently used for industrial purposes processing and disposing sewage wastewater for a large portion of the region and is not likely to change in terms of use or location. Had it been rezoned in 1993, it is likely it would have received an industrial classification at that time. (2) The proposed rezone would be consistent with earlier citywide rezones of other properties in the area that were zoned IM in 1993 and/or 1995 from the earlier Manufacturing Park zoning • designation. This rezone is also consistent with the existing use of the property since it is used for sewage treatment and disposal,a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use in either the IM or IH Zones. (3) The subject rezone is a non-project action under SEPA and is a legislative act that is not expected to significantly alter the development potential of the site. It would reduce the scope of uses that might otherwise be allowed under the P-1 Zone which includes a broad array of governmental uses ranging from hospitals and health clinics to airports and wastewater treatment facilities and makes the current use a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use rather than a Council Unclassified Use. NOTE: The applicant was not required to comply with any mitigation measures since the Environmental Metro Treatment Plant Hexreport.doc CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING JANUARY 30, 2001 AGENDA COMMENCING AT 9:00 AM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7TH FLOOR, RENTON CITY HALL The application(s) listed are in order of application number only and not necessarily the order in which they will be heard. Items will be called for hearing at the discretion of the Hearing Examiner. PROJECT NAME: Wastewater Treatment Plant Rezone PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-00-169,R,ECF PROJECT DESCRIPTION: City sponsored rezone of 90.7-acre industrial site used for treating regional wastewater(sewage)from Public Use (P-1)Zone to Industrial Medium (IM)Zone with a P-suffix designation because of its public ownership. No new development is anticipated as a consequence of this rezone. As in the case of the Public Use Zone,wastewater treatment plants are a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use in the IM Zone. Location: 1200 Monster Road SW (between Monster Road on the west and Oakesdale Avenue on the east/northeast, north of Grady Way and 1-405. hexagenda City of Renton EDNSP Department f inary Report to the Hearing Examiner PROJECT NAME:Metro King County Wastewater Treatment Plan P-1 Rezone LUA-00-169,R,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE:January 30, 2001 Page 1 of 5 City of Renton PUBLIC Department of Planning/Building/Public Works HEARING PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST: Public Hearing Date: January 30, 2001 Project Name: Metro King County South Wastewater Treatment Plant P-1 Rezone Applicant/ Susan Carlson,Administrator Address: EDNSP Department City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Owner/ Same as above Address: File Number: LUA-00-169, R, ECF Project Manager: Don Erickson Project Description: The subject proposal is the rezoning of a 90.7-acre industrial site used for treating regional wastewater (sewage) from the Public Use (P-1) Zone to the Industrial Medium (IM) Zone with a P-Suffix designation attached. This rezone is part of a series of approximately fifty (50) P-1 rezones of the City's former Public Use (P-1) Zone. This zone is being phased out pursuant to Council's 1994 direction to do so. No change of use is anticipated as a consequence of this proposed rezone. Under the IM zoning the existing wastewater treatment facility would be allowed to expand pursuant to existing approvals. This is a non-project action and no changes are proposed within the treatment plant as a result of this rezone. Project Location: King County Southeast Wastewater Treatment Plan, 1200 Monster Road.SW.; Renton, WA 98055 at the intersection of Oaksdale Ave SW and Grady Way. The subject site is in the northwest quadrant of this intersection. The plant lies between Monster Road on the west and Oaksdale Avenue SW on its north and east edges. B. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner of Record: King County Wastewater Treatment Division King County,Washington 2. Zoning Designation: Public Use (P-1)Zone 3. Comprehensive Plan: Employment Area-Valley Land Use Designation 4. Existing Site Use: King County Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant site Metro Treatment Plant Hexreport.doc City of Renton EDNSP Department 1 Jinary Report to the Hearing Examiner PROJECT NAME:Metro King County Wastewater Treatment Plan P-1 Rezone LUA-OO-169,R,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE:January 30, 2001 Page 2 of 5 5. Neighborhood Characteristics: North: 96-acre Blackriver Riparian Forrest Conservation Area, Oaksdale Avenue SW East: Blackriver Corporate Park, King County DDES offices, Motel, etc.; South: Grady Way right-of-way, 1-405 right-of-way; West: Monster Road SW and miscellaneous manufacturing facilities 6. Access: Monster Road SW and Oaksdale Avenue SW 7. Site Area: 90.7 acres 8. Project Data: area comments Existing Building Area: NA Not applicable for this non-project action New Building Area: NA Not applicable for this non-project action Total Building Area: NA Not applicable for this non-project action C. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND: Action Land Use File No. Ordinance No. Date Council adopts Comp 4496 February 20, 1995 Plan with area-wide Land Use and Zoning Maps including zone name changes (excludes P-1 Zone) Council adopts Draft 4405 June 7, 1993 Comp Plan with area- wide Land Use and Zoning Maps Council adopts 4404 June 7, 1993 Interim Zoning Code D, APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE: 1. Section 4-1-050F.2 Hearing Examiner Recommendations 2. Section 4-1-060C.1.a Required Elements of the Comp Plan 3. Section 4-2-020T Public Use (P-1)Zone 4. Section 4-9-170F.2 Criteria for Rezones Metro Treatment Plant Hexreport.doc City of Renton EDNSP Department I unary Report to the Hearing Examiner PROJECT NAME:Metro King County Wastewater Treatment Plan P-1 Rezone LUA-00-169,R,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE:January 30, 2001 Page 3 of 5 E. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: 1. Objective LU-EE.a: Provide for a mix of employment-based uses, including commercial, office and industrial development to support the economic development of the City of Renton. 2. Policy LU-212.2 Compatible and related land uses should be encouraged to locate in proximity to one another. 3. Policy LU-212.12 Favorable consideration should be given to rezones in which similar and/or compatible uses are already located in the area. 4. Policy LU 212.16 Favorable consideration may be given to rezones to industrial uses when a mix of wider range of uses is not yet appropriate for a site. F. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND The current proposal is part of a series of approximately fifty (50) P-1 rezones most of which have already been changed to other more traditional zones that reflect the characteristics of the use and the surrounding area. This consolidation of the City's zoning is based in part upon a June 1994 directive of Council to proceed with the assimilation of the P-1 Zone into the City's other zones. The P-1 Zone allows a vast array of uses not all of which are necessarily compatible with the areas in which they are located. Also, because it was most typically applied to individual parcels it could be challenged as"spot"zoning. Another factor was that it had been inconsistently applied with nearly half of all public facilities located in more traditional zones. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended), on January 9, 2001 the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-significance for this non-project legislative action. No mitigation measures were proposed by the ERC for this non-project action. 3 COMPLIANCE WITH ERC MITIGATION MEASURES Because no mitigation measures were imposed on this non-project action, there were no ERC conditions that the applicant was asked to comply with at this time. 4. STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS Representatives from various city departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address site plan issues from the proposed development. These comments are contained in the official file. Metro Treatment Plant Hexreport.doc City of Renton EDNSP Department ;Mary Report to the Hearing Examine, PROJECT NAME:Metro King County Wastewater Treatment Plan P-1 Rezone - LUA-00-169,R,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE:January 30,2001 Page 4 of 5. CONSISTENCY WITH REZONE APPROVAL CRITERIA Section 4-9-170F.2 Criteria for Rezones Not Requiring Plan Amendment: "The Reviewing Official shall make the following findings:" a. The rezone is in the public interest, and The proposed rezone is in the public interest since it is consistent with the Employment Area —Valley Comprehensive Plan land use designation for this area a shown on the Land Use Map. The new zoning will provide greater land use predictability than the current P-1 Zone, and the P-Suffix will ensure future public notification if any major change of use, tenancy or ownership occurs on the site in the future. b. The rezone tends to further the preservation and enjoyment of any substantial property rights of the petitioner, and The proposed rezone maintains the property rights of the County since sewage disposal and treatment plants are a permitted use in the IM Zone subject to Hearing Examiner approval. Currently, "waste treatment and disposal facilities" are considered to be "unclassified uses" in the P-1 Zone and as such are subject to review by the City Council and any conditions they might impose to mitigate the impacts of the use. It is only when there is a major change in use, tenancy or ownership that the provisions under the P-suffix would kick in requiring public notification to surrounding property owners. This requirement is not anticipated to be onerous. c. The rezone is not materially detrimental to the public welfare or the properties of other persons located in the vicinity thereof, and The proposed rezone is not detrimental to the public welfare or properties of other persons located in the vicinity since it narrows the uses permitted on the subject site, makes the existing use a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use, and ensures that they will be notified al least 60 days in advance of any proposed substantial change in use, tenancy or ownership at the treatment plant. This is intended to give affected properties sufficient time to lobby Council or other agencies against such a change if it is deemed to be detrimental to nearby property owners or tenants. d. The rezone meets the review criteria in subsections F1b and F1c of this Section. F1b: The property is potentially classified for the proposed zone being requested pursuant to the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan; and The subject site has been determined to be potentially classified for the proposed IM Zone based upon the fact that it is designated on the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map as Employment Area-Valley,which encourages a mix of compatible industrial, office and commercial employment based uses. The recommended IM zoning would be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. F1c: At least one of the following circumstances applies: i. The subject reclassification was not specifically considered at the time of the last area land use analysis and area zoning; The subject site was not specifically considered at the time of last area- wide land use analysis and area-wide rezoning in 1995 since it was Metro Treatment Plant Hexreport.doc City of Renton EDNSP Department I unary Report to the Hearing Examine PROJECT NAME:Metro King County Wastewater Treatment Plan P-1 Rezone LUA-00-169,R,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE:January 30,2001 Page 5 of understood that Staff were studying the P-1 Zone and were preparing recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council on whether this special zoning should be retained or assimilated into the City's other zoning classifications. Nearby uses abutting the subject site to the west, north, east, and south were rezoned in June 1993 to the IM and CO zones. This and a number of other P-1 zoned sites were not rezoned at that time, awaiting recommendations from planning staff for future zoning. ii. Since the most recent land use analysis or the area zoning of the subject property,authorized public improvements, permitted private development or other circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone significant and material change. There have been no significant or material changes affecting the subject property since the most recent land use analysis of the area. G. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommend approval of the King County South Wastewater Treatment Plant P-1 Rezone, Project File No. LUA-00-169, R, ECF from the Public Use (P-1)Zone to the Industrial Medium (IM)Zone, with a P-suffix designation, for the following reasons: (I) The proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation for the subject parcel, as Employment Area-Valley,which encourages a mix of employment-based uses including industrial, commercial and office. The subject site is currently used for industrial purposes processing and disposing sewage wastewater for a large portion of the region. Had it been zoned in 1993, it is likely it would have received an industrial classification at that time. (2) The proposed rezone would be consistent with earlier citywide rezones of other properties in the area that were zoned IM in 1993 and/or 1995. This rezone is also consistent with the existing use of the property since it is used for sewage treatment and disposal, a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use in the IM Zone. (3) The subject rezone is a non-project action under SEPA and is a legislative act that is not expected to significantly alter the development potential of the site. It would reduce the scope of uses that might otherwise be allowed under the P-1 Zone which includes a broad array of governmental uses ranging from hospitals and health clinics to airports and wastewater treatment facilities and makes the current use a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use rather than a Council Unclassified Use. NOTE: The applicant was not required to comply with any mitigation measures since the Environmental Metro Treatment Plant Hexreport.doc ( RC P) RC (P) l''''* .° ‹ ....coI I„o� -d Co v wy ______Y J III Ai-:I-7; M Q co 1 cn 4 0- / / c o #, 1111 '''-tA#til 0 F : I tip . Ilk Ali MO co _ .11. 401k . imat Co 0 500 1,000 LANDUSE ACTION FILE # LOA-OD-/I4 4 gar ::•:::: :: : : ;:::::::: : ::>: :>:: :::::: REZONES FILE # FROM P-1 TO IM(P) 1 :6,000 V/ /�// o EDNSP - Site ®, sue Car lson, Administrator Zone boundaries D. Erickson, O. Dennison ,,, . 19 December 2000 ————_ Renton corporate boundary METRO KING CO _._Y RENTON WASTEWATER TREAL_._ ,NT PLANT LEGAL DESCRIPTION Former Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way(former NPRR Belt) and portion of southeast quarter of northwest quarter lying easterly of west line of said railroad right-of-way and northerly of north margin of state highway SR-405 junction,less any portion thereof lying westerly of or within Monster Road SW; Also portion of said former railroad belt in the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter of said section lying 70 feet from the centerline of the state highway, per stipulation of state.code #84-2-07769-7 less portion described as follows: Beginning at the northeast corner of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 24-23-4, thence along the north line of said section, N 87 26'22", W 2693.05 feet to the northwest corner of Government Lot 1 Thence along the west line of said Government Lot and of Government Lot 5, S 0 26'19"W 22999.77 feet; Thence S 98 33'44"E 1909.89 feet to the intersection with the east margin of Monster road; Thence southerly along the said margin radius 367.11 feet, an arc distance of 55.20 feet to the intersection with the westerly Metro (former Burlington Northern) boundary per Volume 40, page 180 of survey, said point of intersection being on a curve to the left with a radius of 1134 feet; Thence southerly along said curve having an arc distance of 250.14 feet to the westerly margin of the realigned portion of Monster Road and the point of beginning; Thence along said westerly margin of S 41 55'32",E 68.65 feet; Thence S 06 22'-10",E 321.59 feet; Thence S 04 18'03",E 14.69 feet to a line parallel with and 70 feet northwesterly of the centerline of State Highway 1-L; Thence along the said westerly Metro boundary and curve to the left with a radius of 1134 feet; Thence northerly along said curve, having an arc distance of 399.09 feet to the point of beginning less portion of Government Lot 6 and Government Lot 8 in the westerly half of Section 24-23-04 lying southwesterly of the realigned roadway; Beginning at the northeast corner of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter; Thence N 82 26'22"W 2,693.05 feet to the northwest corner of Government Lot 1; Thence S 00 26'19"W,2299.77 feet; Thence S 89 31'41" E 1909.89 feet to the intersection with the easterly right-of-way margin of Monster Road being a point on a curve concave to the southwest radius point bearing S 63 48'40"W 367.11 feet; Thence southerly along said, easterly right-of-way margin and along said curve arc distance 182.73 feet through a central angle of 28 31'04"to an intersection with the southwesterly margin of said realignment of Monster Road; Thence southeasterly along said southwesterly margin of S 69 31'09" E 11.12 feet and S 41 55'32" E 194.64 feet to the point of beginning; Thence S 41 55'32" E 270.82 feet to the intersection with the northwesterly right-of-way margin of Highway 1-1,said point of intersection being a point on the curve concave to the southeast radius,bearing S 68 18'28' E 905.37 feet; Thence southwesterly along said northwesterly right-of-way margin and along said curve arc a distance of 88.21 feet through a central angle of 05 34'57" to the intersection with a line parallel with and 70 feet northwesterly of a central angle of said highway; Thence along said parallel line S 66 53'08"W 125.69 feet; Thence N 04 18'03"W 14.69 feet; and Thence N 06 22'10"W 321.59 feet to point of beginning. d. PZNN CITY C.-' RENTON ma. Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator • January 10, 2001 Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia,WA 98504-7703 Subject: Environmental Determinations Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC)on January 9, 2001: DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT REZONE LUA-00-169,R,ECF City sponsored rezone of 90.7-acre industrial site used for treating regional wastewater(sewage) from Public Use (P-I)Zone to Industrial Medium (IM)Zone with a P-suffix designation because of its public ownership. No new developments anticipated as a consequence of this rezone. As in the case of the Public Use Zone,wastewater'treatment plants are a'Hearing Examiner Conditional Use in the IM Zone. Location::1200 Monster Road SW between Monster Road on the west and Oakesdale Avenue on the east/northeast, north of Grady Way and 1-405. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, January 29, 2001. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the "required $75.00:-application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-430-6510. If you have questions, please call me at(425)430-6581. F e Environmental Review C mittee, • Donald Erickson,AICP Project Manager • • cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division • Larry Fisher, Department of Fisheries • David F. Dietzman, Department of Natural Resources WSDOT, Northwest Region Duwamish Tribal Office Rod Malcom, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (Ordinance) US Army Corp. of Engineers AGENCYLTR\ 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 :: This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT REZONE PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-00-169,R,ECF City sponsored rezone of 90.7-acre Industrial site used for treating regional wastewater (sewage)from Public Use (P-I)Zone to Industrial Medium (IM)Zone with a P-suffix designation because of its public ownership. No new development is anticipated as a consequence of this rezone. As in the case of the Public Use Zone,wastewater treatment plants are a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use in the IM Zone. Location: 1200 Monster Road SW between Monster Road on the west and Oakesdale Avenue on the east/northeast,north of Grady Way and 1-405. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, January 29, 2001. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required$75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner,City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office,(425)-430-6510. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting in the Council Chambers on the 7th floor of City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington, on January 30, 2001, at 9:00 AM to consider the proposed Rezone. If the Environmental Determination is appealed,the appeal will be heard as part of this public r hearing. �R��P) .. � RC P1 = I / -- 1 a( CO, /7y Co 0/ .(1.. ‘001,7/ •-• • •-•• "VT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT(425)430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please include the.project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification. CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE APPLICATION NUMBER: LUA-00-169,R,ECF APPLICANT: City of Renton PROJECT NAME: King County Southeast Wastewater Treatment Plant P-I Rezone DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: City sponsored rezone of 90.7-acre industrial site used for treating regional wastewater(sewage)from Public Use (P-I)Zone to Industrial Medium (IM)Zone with a P-suffix designation because of its public ownership. No new development is anticipated as a consequence of this rezone. As in the case of the Public Use Zone,wastewater treatment plants are a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use in the IM Zone. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 1200 Monster Road SW between Monster Road on the west and Oakesdale Avenue on the east/northeast, north of Grady Way and 1-405. LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section This Determination of Non-Significance is issued under WAC 197-11-340. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be involved, the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fourteen (14)days. Environmental Determination Appeal Process Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM,January 29,2001.Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: January 12, 2001 DATE OF DECISION: January 9, 2001 SIGNATURES: G egg Zimmer an,A ini ator dE / 1/0 / Departme of la /Buildin /Public Works P 9 9 �11/ Jj.hepherd,Administrator //0P7 E Crmunity Services Department / / /- — LD7 Lee e ler, Fire Chief DATE Renton Fire Department dnssig NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON,WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee has issued a Determination of Non-Significance for the following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT REZONE LUA-00-169,ECF,R City sponsored rezone of 90.7-acre industrial site used for treating regional wastewater (sewage)from Public Use (P-I)Zone to Industrial Medium (IM)Zone with a P-suffix designation because of its public ownership. Location: 1200 Monster Road SW. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM January 29, 2001. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-430-6510. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall, on January 30, 2001 at 9:00 AM to consider the proposed rezone. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing Publication Date: January 1,41, 2001 Account No. 51067 dnspub City of Renton STAFF Department of Economic Development, Neighborhoods and REPORT Strategic Planning ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE A. BACKGROUND ERC MEETING DATE January 9, 2001 Project Name King County Southeast Wastewater Treatment Plant P-1 Rezone Applicant City of Renton File Number LUA-00-169,R,ECF Project Manager Donald Erickson Project Description City sponsored rezone of 90.7-acre industrial site used for treating regional wastewater (sewage)from Public Use (P-1)Zone to Industrial Medium (IM)Zone with a P-suffix designation because of its public ownership. No new development is anticipated as a consequence of this rezone. As in the case of the Public Use Zone, wastewater treatment plants are a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use in the IM Zone. Project Location 1200 Monster Road SW (between Monster Road on the west and Oaksdale Avenue on the east/northeast, north of Grady Way and 1-405. Exist. Bldg.Area gsf N/A Proposed New Bldg. Area gsf N/A Site Area 8.42 acres Total Building Area gsf N/A RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non-Significance for this non-project legislative action. B. RECOMMENDATION Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommend that the Responsible Officials make the following Environmental Determination: DETERMINATION OF DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED. X Issue DNS with 14 day Appeal Period. Issue DNS-M with 14 day Appeal Period Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period followed by a 14 day Appeal Period. C. MITIGATION MEASURES None - Not applicable to this non-project legislative action which should not result in any changes of use or physical development that would not otherwise occur or would not otherwise go through environmental review at the project level. Project Location Map ercreport , City of Renton EDNSP Department Environ a1 Review Committee Staff Report KING COUNTY'S SOUTHEAST(RENTON) WASTE WA IBA TREATMENT PLANT P-1 REZONE L UA-00-169,R,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF JANUARY 9,2001 Page2 of 2 D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS In compliance with RCW 43.21 C. 240, the following project environmental review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. 1. Earth Impacts: None identified for this non-project legislative action Mitigation Measures: None required. Nexus: Not applicable. 2. Air Impacts: None identified for this non-project legislative action Mitigation Measures: None required. Nexus: Not applicable. 3. Water Impacts: None identified for this non-project legislative action Mitigation Measures: None required. Nexus: Not applicable. E. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS The proposal has been circulated to City Departmental / Divisional Reviewers for their review. Where applicable, these comments have been incorporated into the text of this report as Mitigation Measures and/or Notes to Applicant. X Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File. Copies of all Review Comments are attached to this report. Environmental Determination Appeal Process Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM,January 26, 2001. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-430-6510. ercreport / . tiv. Up/ ,( , ,fy . Rc (P) RC P) . l '--.% ,I, co • I IM _c; 1„.0 d(-1 CO •1*ci) "1.. ___e_i_.___--- ♦ Q /1,\\,,,, II` 4 0- co '---\ \,////4 /0 (D.(.j. ) . --- - „A 4 11114Pa Alt*O0fgewA •1 ,., I. .. . . gialkg Ni. * .--. .. _ . --1/ 1 li 1111 co 0 500 1 ,000 LANDUSE ACTION FILE # ___ ____ REZONES FILE # �FROM P-11 TO IM(P) 1 :6,000 � u EDNSP V//// Site Sue Carlson, Administrator Zone boundaries D. Erickson, 0. Dennison y ,� . 19 December 2000 Renton corporate boundary KING COUNTY SOUTH 1901F� WASTEWATER TREATMENT ! PLANT P-1 REZONE .`. .: LUA--00-169,R,ECF • January 30,2001 KING COUNTY SOUTH KING COUNTY SOUTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT P-1 REZONE PLANT P-1 REZONE • Applicant:City of Renton • North:Blackriver • Owner of Record:King County Wastewater• Riparian Forrest Treatment Division Conservation Area • East:Springbrook • Size of site:90.7 acres Creek,Oaksdale Ave., Black• Existing Zoning:Public Use(P-1)Zone South:yr Corp.Park • South:Grady Way and • Proposed Zoning:Industrial Medium(IM) 1-405 right-of-ways Zone F `. d _s- • West:Monster Road 't " .s�' SW KING COUNTY SOUTH KING COUNTY SOUTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT P-1 REZONE PLANT P-1 REZONE • Historical/Background: • Applicable Sections of Comprehensive Plan —Council Adopts Interim Zoning Code-June —Objective LU-EE.a:Provide a mix of employ- 1993 ment based uses,including commercial,office —Council Adopts Draft Comp Plan- June 1993 and industrial development —Council Adopts Comp Plan with Area-wide —Policy LU-212.2: Compatible and related land Land Use and Zoning Maps-February 1995 uses should be encouraged to locate in —Council Adopts Comp Plan Amendments and proximity to one another Zoning Map Changes-Annually since 1995 1 KING COUNTY SOUTH KING COUNTY SOUTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT P-1 REZONE PLANT P-1 REZONE —Policy LU-212.12: Favorable consideration • Department Analysis should be given to rezones in which similar —Proposal is one of approximately 50 P-1 Zone rezones sponsored by the City to phase out this and/or compatible uses are already located in older zone. Council decided in 1994 to the area "assimilate out"the Public Use Zone,a non- -Policy LU-212.16: Favorable consideration traditional zone. may be given to rezones to industrial uses when • Environmental Review a mix of a wider range of uses is not yet —The Environmental Review Committee issued a appropriate for a site DNS for this non-project action on Jan.9,2001 • Compliance with Mitigation Measures —Not applicable KING COUNTY SOUTH KING COUNTY SOUTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT P-1 REZONE PLANT P-1 REZONE • The rezone tends to further the preservation and Consistency with Rezone Approval Criteria enjoyment of any substantial property rights of the Section 4-9-170F.2 states:The Reviewing Official petitioner,and shall make the following findings: —The proposed rezone maintains the property rights • The rezone is in the public interest,and of the County since sewage disposal and treatment —The rezone is consistent with the Employment Area- plants are a permitted use in the IM Zone,subject to Valley Comp Plan land use designation for the site Hearing Examiner approval —The new zoning will provide greater predictability than — In the P-I Zone,"waste treatment and disposal the P-I Zone,and facilities"are considered to be"unclassified uses"subject to review by the City Council —The P-Suffix will ensure future public notification to —The P-Suffix is not anticipated to be onerous since it surrounding property owners if there is a major change would only apply to a major change in use,tenancy, of tenancy,use,or ownership at the treatment plant or ownership of the treatment plant KING COUNTY SOUTH KING COUNTY SOUTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT P-1 REZONE PLANT P-1 REZONE • The rezone is not materially detrimental to the • The rezone meets the review criteria in public welfare or the properties of other persons subsections F I b and Flc of this Section located in the vicinity thereof,and —Proposed rezone Is not detrimental to the public —Flb:The property is potentially classified for welfare or others in the vicinity since it narrows the the proposed zone being requested pursuant to uses permitted on the subject site,makes the the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan existing use a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use, and ensures that those in the vicinity will be notified —Flc:At least one of the following at least 60 days ahead of any substantial change of circumstances applies: use,tenancy or ownership at the treatment plant. M Ca y et L d ese C wc dCL r- t L .. 5 O ay- ° 11a1.—„-y e d CO CO z eisa r � xW r_ 7L2gL 1C ` xW Cczem e `—�c Wawe 4 E-4 (L yur aia ua .= �gXe F�Z 4 c E �� e: — p •Ei " ;= E° OO ,51 ao .. O<O C0 Vs Is akCC _ - 60 u - 9- yyvWN O �= E ; g AWN _a`Ye oyCJ ag 6 .7, ara ` ••ra, a0 z .-. 3. ""Ea, a`'oi.`.E•Q W k ..cr a oL +j,L W . ue^ a'a,a� _y>t`a�k� 41 ()Qz Eeo- a, g d � �¢z .. iiruo Le,a:u� y _ LC Z 1V�.4tO i. t eL uht0tC L y LL C.� O Qi y T.'t'O dI�p O;0 01.7 z,"4 �'oEE`L L ' � C7Wa 9Ed�c° '��'HT,9,��We ^c-F+-1 7 yL >d`a u q 7, �4 e, 6yY �y rOn:a osi -¢ = A °7vE FuE '�''Q i-il3u"E F�t.e.yQcac 3 e ..:ads is 3 �+`a06e W e - �a°�ii is. W Mvl'mF.L.u ur a dt °'a "0 e v .a c . 'u a F-� u W d F.. t g a Z 4 u y e- y N Z o�T�^E" E E e`e �i �+ e W ` e a m el o 3 x W L' O uy ° °ae e { W •`e u e ae y C7." e e 2.; �2 �j Ow0a ', =`2'� a F-'Z u `=w_ E�;�—e.4 P a s � uea•pegt7 0•<0 ceai GJace='1'tx C1 e- v�+i'�yhe�3 v�WN dya it a+. eea'a—i CZt g_ ear ease ,./ 1 oC a e e r�a+.-o d,u, E—�f� aid 3u� apee� 'J,qWW u.-rm aauce =aa Ei+ ` 9— a a ,fx Ld .0 e e a, C a/.-r � Ee e3� � nd v� EXon 3dto`ar�� e.- a. _r N m � Doy ` E � c �1PCa or>,u=.o�yo; .. ei' Z `'- �iq.. c (U,7 3 Q o°a y �e a,�on� o �Vr�� .3 ,�a��a _a d u ,,,.- �./ a a..y a a+7 e kit it V Q'C e i._9 I. a+c U OA aai a' `�W ar:0 : h E 3 `� =a i W►.J C 4.F t.0 c�Q?t.t.i'O .0_, 2 d ae `ae. � .u. �` p„ 0 B u A e 9`a ee.F•�°1 ►�.Q ._ eua F2ainrZ3 ' � ;tea ya�Eau+ OYr 3 Q C !i It it ti,$u.O o aci aa,0. F ae,vme.. 3 a v�3z8.o �sEdrs:s 1 0 2 0 KING COUNTY SOUTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT P-1 REZONE LUA--00-169, R,ECF January 30, 2001 3 0 KING COUNTY SOUTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT P-1 REZONE • Applicant: City of Renton • Owner of Record: King County Wastewater Treatment Division • Size of site: 90.7 acres • Existing Zoning:Public Use(P-1)Zone • Proposed Zoning: Industrial Medium(IM)Zone 4 O KING COUNTY SOUTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT P-1 REZONE • North:Blackriver Riparian Forrest Conservation Area • East: Springbrook Creek,Oaksdale Ave.,Blackriver Corp.Park • South:Grady Way and I-405 right-of-ways • West:Monster Road SW 5 0 KING COUNTY SOUTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT P-1 REZONE • Historical/Background: — Council Adopts Interim Zoning Code-June 1993 — Council Adopts Draft Comp Plan- June 1993 — Council Adopts Comp Plan with Area-wide Land Use and Zoning Maps-February 1995 — Council Adopts Comp Plan Amendments and Zoning Map Changes-Annually since 1995 6 0 KING COUNTY SOUTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT P-1 REZONE • Applicable Sections of Comprehensive Plan — Objective LU-EE.a:Provide a mix of employ-ment based uses,including commercial,office and industrial development —Policy LU-212.2: Compatible and related land uses should be encouraged to locate in proximity to one another 7 0 KING COUNTY SOUTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT P-1 REZONE — Policy LU-212.12: Favorable consideration should be given to rezones in which similar and/or compatible uses are already located in the area — Policy LU-212.16: Favorable consideration may be given to rezones to industrial uses when a mix of a wider range of uses is not yet appropriate for a site 1 8 O KING COUNTY SOUTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT P-1 REZONE • Department Analysis —Proposal is one of approximately 50 P-1 Zone rezones sponsored by the City to phase out this older zone. Council decided in 1994 to"assimilate out"the Public Use Zone,a non- traditional zone. • Environmental Review —The Environmental Review Committee issued a DNS for this non-project action on Jan.9, 2001 • Compliance with Mitigation Measures —Not applicable 9 O KING COUNTY SOUTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT P-1 REZONE Consistency with Rezone Approval Criteria Section 4-9-170F.2 states:The Reviewing Official shall make the following findings: • The rezone is in the public interest, and — The rezone is consistent with the Employment Area-Valley Comp Plan land use designation for the site — The new zoning will provide greater predictability than the P-1 Zone,and — The P-Suffix will ensure future public notification to surrounding property owners if there is a major change of tenancy,use,or ownership at the treatment plant 10 O KING COUNTY SOUTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT P-1 REZONE • The rezone tends to further the preservation and enjoyment of any substantial property rights of the petitioner,and — The proposed rezone maintains the property rights of the County since sewage disposal and treatment plants are a permitted use in the IM Zone,subject to Hearing Examiner approval — In the P-1 Zone,"waste treatment and disposal facilities"are considered to be"unclassified uses"subject to review by the City Council — The P-Suffix is not anticipated to be onerous since it would only apply to a major change in use, tenancy,or ownership of the treatment plant 11 O KING COUNTY SOUTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT P-1 REZONE • The rezone is not materially detrimental to the public welfare or the properties of other persons located in the vicinity thereof,and — Proposed rezone is not detrimental to the public welfare or others in the vicinity since it narrows the uses permitted on the subject site,makes the existing use a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use,and ensures that those in the vicinity will be notified at least 60 days ahead of any substantial change of use,tenancy or ownership at the treatment plant. 12 O KING COUNTY SOUTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT P-1 REZONE • The rezone meets the review criteria in subsections Flb and Flc of this Section — Flb:The property is potentially classified for the proposed zone being requested pursuant to the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan — Flc:At least one of the following circumstances applies: 2 13 O KING COUNTY SOUTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT P-1 REZONE i The subject reclassification was not specifically considered at the time of last area land use analysis and area zoning; The subject site was not specifically considered at the time of last area-wide land use analysis and area-wide rezoning in 1995 since it was understood that staff were studying and preparing recommendations on the P-1 Zone for the Planning Commission and City Council. Nearby uses to the west,north,east,and south were rezoned in June 1993 tolM and CO zoning. 14 O KING COUNTY SOUTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT P-1 REZONE ii Since the most recent land use analysis or the area zoning of the subject property,authorized public improvements,permitted private development or other circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone significant and material change There have been no significant or material changes affecting the subject property since the most recent land use analysis of the area 15 O KING COUNTY SOUTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT P-1 REZONE Recommendation: Staff recommend approval of the King County South Wastewater Treatment Plant P-1 Rezone,Project File No.LUA-00-169,R,ECF from the Public Use(P-1)Zone to the Industrial Medium(IM)Zone,with a P-Suffix designation,for the following reasons: (1) The rezone is consistent with the Comp Plan Land Use Map designation for the subject parcel,as Employment Area-Valley,which encourages a mix of employment-based uses including industrial, commercial and office. The site is used for industrial purposes(wastewater treatment)and had it been zoned in 1993 would likely have then received the IM designation along with other industrial uses in the area. 16 O KING COUNTY SOUTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT P-1 REZONE (2) The proposed rezone would be consistent with earlier citywide rezones of other properties in the area that were zoned IM in 1993 and/or 1995. This rezone is also consistent with the existing use of the property since it is used for sewage treatment and disposal,a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use in the IM Zone. (3) The subject rezone is a non-project action under SEPA and is a legislative act that is not expected to significantly alter the development potential of the site. The rezone reduces the broad scope of uses allowed in the P-1 Zone(hospitals,schools,sewage plants,airports,etc)to intermediate industrial uses and makes the current use a Hearing Examiner ConditionalUse rather than a Council Unclassified Use. 17 Q 3 ` a . x ') i s a�z i. ;; 4 Y$4j" • g L_ ill .fs, 40* g *4144-1,3!,44•-•*. v#' y, 1 r � Al s �- 2 rt a/ ad- iiii.4. to A. *;,.:,,,:t \ Witi",\;5•,•!..'k4- 4 I or4\e;\" kid .1.-1\‘4,Z5.':-1:'.14*& . er, v.' ll:'zll'i'''''';,---tj'AIL-:''I':''' '''''Ir1:._,j—:,„,.. /IS .,,,. ..,,,,;=....1-.....4.,-s.„- ,,,,•••:„...,- I�� 4 .� - ' 4111111111. X' ll ..,• Ill ,,.., 7:4,,,*.t.v.,.4:r4 4::,,:t.,,,,,,,,,,z1, �i.c, #r F,y" 11: '.. `". 1RFy'+S ME'‘FYfP.:.'"'" '3�4.g • w a r s': 'x tt a ss 43 ,�x t f‘•:4.;0.4,,-4,-„*:Vil,-.0- 14;---4'fl'ii-;*"-A-' 't'' li iiittt,!::t. t 1 ^��f,_'eF { �s..� $" � art } �. k `tea ' `" � u �' 500 4 1 000 LANDUSE ACTION FILE # ::...::.:..... ::......;: :: ::s::::::::: REZONES FILE # .alFROM P-1 TO IM(P) 1 :6, Site boundary Oi, EDNSP 100 Year Floodplains D.S E=fekse on,' 0A2. Administrator (Generally including areas mapped by FEMA up to Zone X: area To 19 December 000 where 100 year flood waters can be less than 1 foot in depth.) VI,- 11 ,til _ _ a ilivii Offii) ed -. 54040, 1,1 : yk-6:4 lAitKU. iTt -t' ' 1" \m .11 ."-uivtl( '‘ it ,,rJ 'rul . _ _ _ ,,..,_,.,, , _));,(ikk %Thi ' 0011 , \ . . riw'° M ---- - 21 .P(a . oso G . 9_ . 16;102 . GAULeAy149 � KC tii4k,i644 ALVCA . .0 . viM8rRi iir W2a Ciabed/ P 11 pozzp i . is/tyd k I uII, ave; a00-9 Opto-i-ct "� iitt46,6441JA Oaq ii 1Oij�ycrn Li,, City c nton Department of Planning/Building/Pu Yorks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ��1:II(-� COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 3, 2001 APPLICATION NO: LUA-00-169,ECF,R DATE CIRCULATED: DECEMBER 20,2000 APPLICANT: City of Renton/EDNSP Administrator PROJECT MANAGER: Don Erickson PROJECT TITLE: Renton Wastewater Treatment Plant P-1 WORK ORDER NO: 78770 Rezone LOCATION: 1200 Monster Road SW SITE AREA: approx.8.42 acres I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: This proposal is for the rezoning of an irregularly shaped,8.42 acre site located between Monster Road SW on the west and Oakesdale Avenu8e SW on the east,south of the 96.5 acre Black River Conservation Area and north of SW Grady Way from the Public Use(P-1)zone to the Industrial Medium(IM)zone. It is one of a series of approximately 50 rezones of the P-1 zone that is being phased out pursuant to Council's 1994 directive to do so. No change of use is anticipated as a consequence of this proposed rezone. Under the IM zoning governmental facilities are permitted as a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet flJ ` B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional•information is needed to properly assess this proposal. /2N5 if Signature of Director or Author' e Representative Date Routing Rev.10/93 • City of RE: .i Department of Planning/Building/Public I` s ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ed.,/il�s COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 3, 20011 APPLICATION NO: LUA-00-169,ECF,R DATE CIRCULATED: DECEMBER 20,2000- 6c1 C L ,, c, APPLICANT: City of Renton/EDNSP Administrator PROJECT MANAGER: Don Erickson -; r ;'i;jl PROJECT TITLE: Renton Wastewater Treatment Plant P-1 WORK ORDER NO: 78770 rl' tit Rezone . • vi Ca ;%:",1 LOCATION: 1200 Monster Road SW c< = ` r ') SITE AREA: approx.8.42 acres I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: This proposal is for the rezoning of an irregularly shaped,8.42 acre site located between Monster Road SW on the west and Oakesdale Avenu8e SW on the east,south of the 96.5 acre Black River Conservation Area and north of SW Grady Way from the Public Use(P-1)zone to the Industrial Medium(IM)zone. It is one of a series of approximately 50 rezones of the P-1 zone that is being phased out pursuant to Council's 1994 directive to do so. No change of use is anticipated as a consequence of this proposed rezone. Under the IM zoning governmental facilities are permitted as a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air. Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment • 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS 40A-E CIAA_ rIAO C/V2 C. . CODE-RELATED COMMENTS ck21 , 2Uf G& We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where ditional information is nee:d to properly assess this proposal. 4'/ o/ Signal re of t e or or Aututhori ed epresenta've Da/ Routing Rev.10/93 I ' City of Reh.._:: Department of Planning/Building/Public 14 .._ ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET /REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: PL60,'1 Peol -tk)a COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 3, 2001 • APPLICATION NO: LUA-00-169,ECF,R DATE CIRCULATED: DECEMBER 20,20 APPLICANT: City of Renton/EDNSP Administrator PROJECT MANAGER: Don Erickson PPP/P[1 PROJECT TITLE: Renton Wastewater Treatment Plant P-1 WORK ORDER NO: 78770 DEC 2 ''2000 Rezone LOCATION: 1200 Monster Road SW dutLDII4G DIVISION SITE AREA: approx.8.42 acres I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: This proposal is for the rezoning of an irregularly shaped,8.42 acre site located between Monster Road SW on the west and Oakesdale Avenu8e SW on the east,south of the 96.5 acre Black River Conservation Area and north of SW Grady Way from the Public Use(P-1)zone to the Industrial Medium (IM)zone. It is one of a series of approximately 50 rezones of the P-1 zone that is being phased out pursuant to Council's 1994 directive to do so. No change of use is anticipated as a consequence of this proposed rezone. Under the IM zoning governmental facilities are permitted as a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code)COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation • Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS • • C. CODE-RELATEDnn COMMENTS IV OltY • We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. .kt Is a' ( 6tIV Sign to of Director or Authorized Representative Date Routing Rev.10/93 City of Rei.-_.. Department of Planning/Building/Public.IN ___ ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: FF►��{°KeV 1-h0tiA COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 3, 2001 • APPLICATION NO: LUA-00-169,ECF,R DATE CIRCULATED: DECEMBER 20,2000 APPLICANT: City of Renton/EDNSP Administrator PROJECT MANAGER: Don Erickson PROJECT TITLE: Renton Wastewater Treatment Plant P-1 WORK ORDER NO: 78770 Rezone ii _E_CEllWE —: LOCATION: 1200 Monster Road SW _ SITE AREA: approx.8.42 acres I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A DEC 2 1 2000 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: This proposal is for the rezoning of an irregularly shaped,8.42 acre site locat d hetween Monster Road SW on the west and Oakesdale Avenu8e SW on the east,south of the 96.5 acre Black River Cc nservation ( frittfi:ib1'tDt`bf SW Grady Way from the Public Use(P-1)zone to the Industrial Medium(IM)zone. It is one of a series of appro t t!$♦:jPf 6IVOtfes of the P-1 zone that is being phased out pursuant to Council's 1994 directive to do so. No change of consequence of this proposed rezone. Under the IM zoning governmental facilities are permitted as a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use.A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code)COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation , Environmental Health Public Services , Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet vit .... ._ B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS 41/it _ C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS kit We have r-viewed this appli ation with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas wh.re additional info ion is needed to properly assess this proposal. Sign: - of Director or Authorize epresentative Date /02/42-/;D Routine // Rev.10/93 City of Reir,n Department of Planning/Building/Public W j,,v ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: D o Ro-kuu COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 3, 2001 APPLICATION NO: LUA-00-169,ECF,R DATE CIRCULATED: DECEMBER 20,2000 APPLICANT: City of Renton/EDNSP Administrator PROJECT MANAGER: Don Erickson PROJECT TITLE: Renton Wastewater Treatment Plant P-1 WORK ORDER NO: 78770 Rezone LOCATION: 1200 Monster Road SW SITE AREA: approx.8.42 acres I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: This proposal is for the rezoning of an irregularly shaped, 8.42 acre site located between Monster Road SW on the west and Oakesdale Avenu8e SW on the east,south of the 96.5 acre Black River Conservation Area and north of SW Grady Way from the Public Use(P-1)zone to the Industrial Medium (IM)zone. It is one of a series of approximately 50 rezones of the P-1 zone that is being phased out pursuant to Council's 1994 directive to do so. No change of use is anticipated as a consequence of this proposed rezone. Under the IM zoning governmental facilities are permitted as a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code)COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air _ Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants _ Recreation _ Land/Shoreline Use _ Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet hu co-k-vt 114 "e/7/113 POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas w ere additional information is n eded t properly assess this proposal. I r Sign re of Di Dior o uthonzed Representative Date Routing Rev.10/93 City of Re', -,s/ Department of Planning/Building/Public.11 __..3 ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ,SbO AOVA COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 3, 2001 .• ,s, APPLICATION NO: LUA-00-I69,ECF,R DATE CIRCULATED: DECEMBER 20,2000 ' 90, APPLICANT: City of Renton/EDNSP Administrator PROJECT MANAGER: Don Erickson �40 AN 04, PROJECT TITLE: Renton Wastewater Treatment Plant P-1 WORK ORDER NO: 78770 No ' / Rezone. l`b4; 4P/ LOCATION: 1200 Monster Road SW 4)47� SITE AREA: approx.8.42 acres BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A �0eV SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: This proposal is for the rezoning of an irregularly shaped,8.42 acre site located between Monster Road SW on the west and Oakesdale Avenu8e SW on the east,south of the 96.5 acre Black River Conservation Area and north of SW Grady Way from the Public Use(P-1)zone to the Industrial Medium(IM)zone. It is one of a series of approximately 50 rezones of the P-1 zone that is being phased out pursuant to Council's 1994 directive to do so. No change of use is anticipated as a consequence of this proposed rezone. Under the IM zoning governmental facilities are permitted as a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code)COMMENTS • Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing • Air Aesthetics Water LightGlare , • Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health .. Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet - 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS /r/1) - We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Sig of Director or Authorized Representative Date /d-A?A(j ° Routh, Rev.10/93 City of Rem_... Department of Planning/Building/Public Wu... ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: .SC e(U3OJ fr l/- COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 3, 2001 APPLICATION NO: LUA-00-169,ECF,R DATE CIRCULATED: DECEMBER 20,2000 APPLICANT: City of Renton/EDNSP Administrator PROJECT MANAGER: Don Erickson PROJECT TITLE: Renton Wastewater Treatment Plant P-1 WORK ORDER NO:,78770 Qe• Rezone • - .. (,.e,f_ s..4 • LOCATION: 1200 Monster Road SW ....to., ,'4. `�'��7199ii SITE AREA: approx.8.42 acres I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A °"t e ,,, SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: This proposal is for the rezoning of an irregularly shaped,8.42 acre site located betw� onster Road SW on the west and Oakesdale Avenu8e SW on the east,south of the 96.5 acre Black River Conservation Area rth of SW Grady Way from the Public Use(P-1)zone to the Industrial Medium(IM)zone. It is one of a series of approximately I .-zones of the P-1 zone that is being phased out pursuant to Council's 1994 directive to do so. No change of use is anticipated as a consequence of this proposed rezone. Under the IM zoning governmental facilities are permitted as a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the • Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major i Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water - Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ - Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment • 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS - C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS �6741Q We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. , /-31Arar77 Signs r f Director or Auth rized Representative Date Routin Rev.10/93 I i City of Rev,_ Department of Planning/Building/Public ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: C(jIAS+VUU tO1'\ Se)A.) CO COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 3,2001 • APPLICATION NO: LUA-00-169,ECF,R DATE CIRCULATED: DECEMBER 28r REWTON APPLICANT: City of Renton/EDNSP Administrator PROJECT MANAGER: Don Erickson —"-°""'°"art PROJECT TITLE: Renton Wastewater Treatment Plant P-1 WORK ORDER NO: 78770 DES 2 11 200e Rezone. LOCATION: 1200 Monster Road SW OMVISION SITE AREA: approx.8.42 acres BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: This proposal is for the rezoning of an irregularly shaped,8.42 acre site located between Monster Road SW on the west and Oakesdale Avenu8e SW on the east,south of the 96.5 acre Black River Conservation Area and north of SW Grady Way from the Public Use(P-1)zone to the Industrial Medium(IM)zone. It is one of a series of approximately 50 rezones of the P-1 zone that is being phased out pursuant to Council's 1994 directive to do so. No change of use is anticipated as a consequence of this proposed rezone. Under the IM zoning governmental facilities are permitted as a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code)COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor I Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation • Environmental Health _ Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS • • o/ve C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS / Y AI/eg" We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where ditional information is needed o properly assess this proposal. /0-6 Sig e o ire C thorized epresentativ Date Route g Rev.10/93 • Proposed MItigatlon Measures: Nr,-"'--..`-m measures are proposed(or this zoning change which Is consistent wig• ''Plan Land Use Map designation,Employment Area-Valley. ,Sri`Y O I. V Comments on the'above application must h-, _„.1 ed in writing to Don Erickson,AICP,Project Manager,Development + Services Division,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055,by 5:00 PM on January 3,2001.This matter is also tentatively scheduled fora public hearing on January 30,2001,at 9:00 AM,Council Chambers,Seventh Floor,Renton City Hail,1055 South Grady Way,Renton.If you are interested In attending the hearing,please contact the project • �'1VT0� manager to-ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled.If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date Indicated above,you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Hearing NOTICE OF APPLICATION Examiner.If you have questions about this proposal,or wish to be made a party of record and receive addiUonal information by mail,please contact the project manager.Anyone who submits written comments will automatically . AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON- II become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. SIGNIFICANCE(DNS) i/ C P) • R(P) . • DATE: • December20,2000 , • T ° . dO ' \ /// ' LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-00.169,R,ECF ' I T APPLICATION NAME:' RENTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT REZONE • .0 • PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This proposal Is for the rezoning of an irregularly shaped,8.42 acre site located / O' between Monster Road SW on the west and Oakestlale AvenuBe SW on the east,south of the 96,5 acre Black River '%' '��''''1j`I� one of Conservation Area andr north of 5W Grady Way from the Public Use in g1p zone to the rs Industrial Medium(I odir It O %%%/� �'- O one of a series of approximately 50 rezones of the P-1 en that Is being phased out pursuant to Council's 1994ve directive ' rn ,, (— to do so.Na change of use is anticipated as a consequence of this proposed rezone.Under the IM zoning governmental facilities are permitted as a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use.A P-suffix overlay zone Is proposed in conjunction with the o proposed IM zoning. .' i// • II. PROJECT LOCATION: 1200 Monster Road SWo , co LP 1 OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE,AnITIGATED(DNS):As the Lead Agency,the City of Renton Y 0 has determined that significant environmental Impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project.Therefore,as permitted under the RCW 43.21 C.110,the City of Renton Is using the Optional DNS process to give notice that a DNS Is \likely to be Issued.Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS are Integrated Into a single comment period.There will co (DNS). 111) A 14-day appeal pe no comment eriod will eriod following follow the Issuance of the issuanceof the DNS.stiold Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated ,,',' �. . • PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: December 20,2000 �1 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: December 20,2000 ���,,' A � . Permits/Review Requested: Environmental(SEPA)Review,Rezone / ��i Other Persteel itsSt which may be required: N/A '��//;�1 • Requested Studies: N/A III Location where application may r be reviewed: Planning/Building/Public Works Division,Development Services Department, ` 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 .. . / �''1 411 { • PUBLIC HEARING: Examiner In Ren on Council Chambers.Hearriings before begin at 9:00 Renton AM on Hearingth 7th �, �� . f scheduled �r� floor of the new Renton City Hall located at 1055 Grady Way South. • /. 1 CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: . Analytical process Co Project consistency refers to whether a project Is consistent with adopted and applicable development regulations,or in their absence,comprehensive plan policies.RCW 36.700.110(2)(g)provides that the Notice of Application(NOA)Include •0 500 1, 007050B AC170N FBE'[? GUA-�-/69,�ECF a statement of the preliminary determination of a project's consistency with the type of land use,level of development, . REZONES FILE/ Infrastructure,and character of development if one has been made at the time of notice.Ala minimum,every NOA shall 1.6 00 Q FROM P-1 TO 101(P) include a determination of the prajecl's consistency with the zoning,comprehensive plan and development regulations. w...'map %�/////, Site Land Use: CVO o e a o,0. ew�o- Zone boundaries Regional sewage treatment and processing plant(industrial) ''+, ru a,.ma,aura Renton corporate boundary - Environmental Documents.that CONTACT PERSON: DONALD ERICKSON(425)430-6581;PROJECT NO:LUA-00-169,R,ECF Evaluate the Proposed Project: Environmental Checklist dated December 18'i,2000 and the Final Environmental Impact State for the Lend Use Element of the Renton Comprehensive Plan,Vol. I PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION 1&2,February 1,1993. Development Regulations • Usod For Project Mitigation: Not applicable.This Is a non-project legislative action that is not associated with any new development at this time. • NOTICE OF APPUGITIONn -2 NOTICE OF APPUCATONn4oc • CERTIFICATION • I, 41.,A fze. TII'I i3 , hereby certify that C copies of the above document were posted by me in 6. conspicuous places on or nearby the described property on . ._ . ae9 2er)z& . I Signed: ATTEST: Subcribed and sworn before me,a Nortary Public,in and for the tate of Washington residing g,,N,1/41-61-1., , on the c.(c - day of)1.- .¢.0, cej06 • t --= .ter a MARILYN KAMCHEFF NOTARY PUBLIC • a STATE OF WASHINGTON I COMMISSION EXPIRES 10 ii JUNE 29, 2003 P MARILYN KAMCHEFF o v -e,- _ 0 MY APPOINTMENT EXPIRES:6-29-03 • • NOTICEOF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON- SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) • • DATE: December 20,2000 ' LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-00-169,R,ECF • APPLICATION NAME:' RENTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT REZONE PROJECT.DESCRIPTION: This proposal is for the rezoning of an irregularly shaped, 8.42 acre site located between Monster Road SW on the west and Oakesdale Avenu8e SW on the east, south of the 96.5 acre Black River Conservation Area and north of SW Grady Way from the Public Use(P-1)zone to the Industrial Medium(IM)zone. It is ... one of a series of approximately 50 rezones of the P-1 zone that is being phased out pursuant to Council's 1994 directive to do so. No change of use is anticipated as a consequence of this proposed rezone. Under the IM zoning governmental • facilities are permitted as a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use. A P-suffix overlay zone is proposed in conjunction with the • proposed IM zoning. . PROJECT LOCATION: 1200 Monster Road SW • OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE, , (DNS): As the Lead Agency,the City of Renton - has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore,as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110,the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS process to give notice that a DNS is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance.Mitigated (DNS). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS. dj PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: December 20,2000 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: December 20,2000 , Permits/Review Requested: Environmental(SEPA)Review,Rezone 0 Other Permits which may be required: N/A Requested Studies: N/A • 1,( Location where application may �� �� be reviewed: Planning/Building/Public Works Division,Development Services Department, ', 1 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 " '�� PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearing scheduled for January 30th,2001 before the Renton Hearing Examiner in Renton Council Chambers. Hearings begin at 9:00 AM on the 7th • floor of the new Renton City Hall located at 1055 Grady Way South. • ti• ' CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW; Analytical process Project consistency refers to whether a project is consistent with adopted and applicable development regulations,or in their absence,comprehensive plan policies. RCW 36.70B.110(2)(g)provides that the Notice of Application(NOA)include • a statement of the preliminary determination of a project's consistency with the type of land use,level of development, infrastructure,and character of development if one has been made at the time of notice. At a minimum,every NOA shall • • include.a determination of the project's consistency with the zoning,comprehensive plan and development regulations. • • Land Use:• Regional sewage treatment and processing plant(industrial) • Environmental Documents.that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Environmental Checklist dated December 18th,2000 and the Final Environmental • Impact State for the Land Use Element of the Renton Comprehensive Plan,Vol. 1 &2,February 1,1993. . Development Regulations . Used For Project Mitigation: Not applicable. This Is a non-project legislative action that is not associated with any new development'at this time. . •, • • • NOTICE OF APPLICATIONn , Proposed Mitigation Measures: mitigation measures are proposed for this zoning c - :which is consistent ._:n Comp Plan Land Use Map designation,Employm. ea—Valley. Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Don Erickson,AICP,Project Manager,Development • . Services Division,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055,by 5:00 PM on January 3,2001. This matter is also tentatively scheduled for a public hearing on January 30,2001,at 9:00 AM,Council Chambers,Seventh Floor,Renton • • City Hall,1055 South Grady Way,Renton. If you are interested in attending the hearing,please contact the project manager to:ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled. If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date • indicated above,you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions about this proposal,or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional Information by mail,please contact the project manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. `/ R d P• RC(P) . 7 . Co. ._____-I --I 1 //41 0, CY co Ili . j\ Co -...-\\ \*1 i4 ./71 4 A / G �I d CD a. .. .1161 • . ..'. Ikl W . .. �11I®®��i : it AW A 1 i 40.0 . . . • co 0 500 1,000 . LANDUSE ACTION FILE'# L UA-04/69,,ECF • ��;>::>:.>::;:::>::::•>:<•:;>:.:<.;::;:•::: REZONES FILE # • FROM P-1 TO IM(P) .. 1:6,000 . 1//////4 site . Olt) EDNSP • � SSue Carlson,Adminlitrator Zone boundaries D.Edekeon,D.Dem�lson Renton corporate boundary '�•' 30 December 2000 CONTACT:PERSON: DONALD ERICKSON (425)430-6581; PROJECT NO:LUA-00-169,R,ECF I PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION ( . • NOTICE OF APPLICATIONn.doc . 918800014709 9'_. J0014303 242304904400 BLACKNER JV LLC PHASE V BLACKRIVER-RIVERTECH L L C BNSF RWY CO C/O SMITH MARTIN INC 700 FIFTH AVE STE 6000 PO BOX 961089 1109 1ST AVE#500 SEATTLE WA FORT WORTH TX SEATTLE WA 98101 98104 76161 918800014808 242304909904 242304906108 ESA 0418 GRADY WAY II LLC GUY GLENN LEE 450 E LAS OLAS BLVD#1100 P 0 BOX 27069 10948 SE 284TH FORT LAUDERDALE FL SEATTLE WA KENT WA 33301 98125 98031 242304912304 242304900606 242304906603 K&M HOLDINGS IV L L C KING COUNTY KING COUNTY 16400 SOUTHCENTER PKWY#502 500 4TH AVE#500 DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES SEATTLE WA SEATTLE WA 506 2ND AVE#708 M/S 7ST 98188 98104 SEATTLE WA 98104 242304910605 242304912106 242304910803 MANUFACTURERS MINERAL CO OPUS NORTHWEST LLC PIERRE JAMES P 1215 MONSTER RD SW 915 118TJ AVE SE#300 PO BOX 27069 RENTON WA BELLEVUE WA SEATTLE WA 98055 98005 98125 242304900804 918800014501 242304903709 SMURFIT STONE CONTAINER COR UNIVERSITY STREET PROPERTIES II VECTRA L L C PO BOX 479 1301 FIFTH AVE#3500 1400 MONSTER RD SW RENTON WA SEATTLE WA RENTON WA 98057 98101-2647 98055 i �ciio-Yroe REnRON NG CITY OF-RENTON CES-DIVISION.' DEVELOPMENT, RVI DEC' 2 0 2000 MASTER -APPLICAT ION�- D vY' i#:^ ...✓ ".n:.P" `atL'^ ".n +iv�P:i".r - •A:.;gnAS.•r/ ,".•srv"s? ri.:lk" _tr "f'" ':-f.`: 9",wi.• i1,' ::x:. ,?'.7'��Y.'' .:a.X:.Y_ .h:d>�:'.W(^�, ."_`a;'x�":rS,'�•.':M: 2r..t"L_-_+ �":4. .x- -- „r '�w., ...kiw"" ,:.ra"a,. ;rix,,,�,.i;+'=:'.�t�.Yt;1'.:rk,•u ,.f�. :... ..•�:+ :�. ,r;a'�a.;pinn..,',.',._...�,sl:,'�>.e'.'.�_,..m:3�•°�c.� „e.'_;�.'��.,. �f����.`':;�K:.r^;;'' =�d;- s,;�,< of -- "n;�.,_. q ,( +• uG: d x`45=�"t`-..i-. .;rf.�GV n4, 1RHOPERT °C 1E_ R S :rs 1 - �. �._ };= , '.:,. _,vs ,PROJEsC. `= NRMTIONcontiued: 4f1,'z i1.,3r. =4?,'.. ":; �' .,�%i= - `` - _•. e. ._ ..�:•4:�_.� ., •".''T^'�_..-�_�.•..,.�._�'.b;rL_:.w:..:•:CA...:t:v1 :.;'t�i:`ls.^;.-:-__'-�":< `' ::•s^.�•a 4 NoteA:�ff'theereis more than on egal o; ,please•attach'ari•additglial Wotan i O ivi aster a`ppltcah'onrto each owner V V 'q'r, ` ,�` —t,4 -t. EXISTING LAND USE(S): A'.^x,., �' -:�.; . � . ,s..`e";,_4, ..w�.:N'.t:t,fY -�,:.:^ z�,+,i_a.__.','i:,L.i:',.....•.��.x,','.`r NAME: Metropolitan King County Site is a regional wastewater treatment plant which is considered to be a large publicly owned utility. ADDRESS: 1200 Monster Road SW PROPOSED LAND USE(S): Renton,WA 98055 Non-project legislative rezone action. No new land uses are anticipated. TELEPHONE NUMBER: (425)255-4000 EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: t;�Gl'r- _'a` r� rcaFr.'st_!} ��;"n�:;.�ra't��.xaY�',.�:�,a2' - d°'�'•�w,"&�µ; .�.....r3A`a'9,va:i.4v^.. — #-a' Y E a fY -te V Employment Area Valley , 5-{=' AP� ICANTi(><f, ) er;than,owner1, NAME: Susan Carlson,Administrator PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: COMPANY(if applicable):EDNSP Dept., City of Renton No changes are proposed. ADDRESS: 1055 SW Grady Way CITY: Renton ZIP: 98055 EXISTING ZONING: Public Use(P-1)Zone TELEPHONE NUMBER: (425)430-6581 ; ^# -eoc .Str ez7A.rrtC�:+s P.i#E,..qr.RsT§N%APP.+b.;w L PROPOSED ZONING: ,�&,-" `�E y-<s-- __�-{ ;: ��'_^8'.�'.,��.'`�.ra1�:.,,f:.��tT P.-.'=• �• ;.U?s�:x°�^".. �-i�. `_'r",'n' "5,'L"a.'�:�� c_vt_ i':, Industrial Medium(IM)Zone with P-Suffix designation NAME: Don Erickson,AICP EDNSP Dept.;City of Renton ADDRESS: Renton Municipal Bldg. SITE AREA(SQ.FT.OR ACREAGE): 1055 S `Grady Way 8.42 acres CITY: Renton,WA ZIP: 98055 PROJECT VALUE: • TELEPHONE NUMBER:. (425)430.6581 N/A,Non-project Action aF'td�is^aw s�:�.:F,-_.....r;e',nwQ+:e� a�•;=.::�9;awsz� MaT*rod �ROJAECT�INI+�.O -� � +• "° " "' �`"'"` =_` " ^`"' IS THE SITE LOCATED IN THE AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA? PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: No. Renton Wastewater Treatment Plant P-1 Rezone PROPERTY/PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION: IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY OTHER TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA? 1200 Monster Road SW Renton,WA 98055 .Yes. It is located in a"Seismic Sensitive Area"as shown on City of Renton Sensitive Areas Maps. The"hill" is shown as being in a slide area on these same maps. H:\ECON_DEV\EconomicDevelopment\STRATPLN\PLANNING\DE\Metro Plant Rezone\MsterApp GCP.doc\d ' : ,.an,#'a :,_`,,,„.riYye'�z;:' .:s"�7 �'=i•'i.."a. >.w�"4 `"3.:' x'j'tM e�,..�n':ems':"'#t''•:• - _�;•:9'••'!,^.:.. ,"�;,�.,»..`4�,`>,��`r.'"'�:''". �„ �_. �.,{ .a'+ `vSk ;_� 1 x`-�''1 _ ,<. _fxa.. '� ;f �.5•`-:.t`,... .. ... -e %� E,:.'ti,,:d'�er Z • =-*{:'1»��+ i } . LEG -ALDE P'I'&IQiO PROPERTY Atta. ieQarate sheet;{if neeclecl ,=`: ::tiv: • �pb".;sY;, '{p�4�. .�s,,��"�3"+,—,�;a � +- ..�q'i }n'^•'.ti' .v�T:�+t: +diia5.n,�, .. '�}. J�'s+1i�'{<rd<'Et=•"'�'d��-�Fa}-�,�',:az�i•�y n. 5�/..SJ=;r.f .<.... :'^.'c' ���k'��G'.�€.�: Please see attached description(Exhibit"A"). • • • • y.$ aT'�-.�Mc,J°,`�"�°{.`4':'a-•;C(lt'L•.hr''VV i�F y.�.I.l}}:+a_'.§�t,V g",,:';t:J>c. ation_;t. ,a :that aJ 'X•4'- xC sta {.J'"and� .M. T OF AP PLIC�ZI® "_f'fw-zE'll Sd e.;'y-.v 1=.i,4::'.r`.•L:J n.._+.r s.•,:.:it<•'..:.�';::.:ti,.,eck ll a1? yP_. ' :l?p Y`•. ;. ty-..r.. . ' .A. su .Ta- &p"�'.'+ .��y,5',g��y,r ka"_= ,.x•i:.4.0•yy�� ,'";..�;e r' ,e� ._^.� :,_..?;ez,:::�'+ii;:.}-an,�ei_(y„J'� rcr`if .. � „-)'t" _a-.r.K d+'i y" .. •"".++6/»�. �' '+':.,-:��,Y»k':.rk',rs�;� 'i .. ,b&-d^.3:'iri...�•Y��.Yie v�s»'.�.a...i.'auc<F:t"s'u4 sz...a.-r.�4'w.c n_ .�:�-. ...3v A:-Y-:�.:i�.,.- -.s,-t t.,:�`..,.n .....ter...... .... '.�:, a x ....£+. f� ANNEXATION $ SUBDIVISION X REZONE $ No Charge _+SPECIAL PERMIT $ _LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT $ _TEMPORARY PERMIT $ _SHORT PLAT $ _CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT $ _TENTATIVE PLAT $ _SITE PLAN APPROVAL $ _PRELIMINARY PLAT $ GRADE&FILL PERMIT $ _FINAL PLAT $ (No.Cu.Yds: ) _VARIANCE $ (from Section: ) $ PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT $ _WAIVER $ _PRELIMINARY ROUTINE VEGETATION _FINAL MANAGEMENT PERMIT $ _BINDING SITE PLAN MOBILE HOME PARKS $ SHORELINE REVIEWS: _SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT $ - • . • _CONDITIONAL USE $ _VARIANCE $ _EXEMPTION $ NO CHARGE X ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW $ No Charge _REVISION mui `-.�•^ - - -ss;i�^.--� _:,'n:-„xr��-":�:- -��.z _-z�_lmf�i_ _ '��'• -___ -^;-:'ct=;F•'s= <'i: " .,ra it a+� - - a��<* •'h --- - - ~i.Jai :<". -..} k•,_ i'�„t� -'ir` -a*� :4i�- z, - J::�.k:'T:.'.^'::..i.:. - ,f.. 1:i` .('•�:�d.-a, -.> .: �?. L`'#3;r.€�.'� H _ _ ii r',�':'-:�:°s:•it='r:�-�w- ffi.•.._t�..J•_'.�s'x+. .., :.w�..4�.�....F»-...••�r. '....#..fc:h.............:ru.c n� ;>_t-r'..�.-""�Y:C,:',.-�d .-r � R�'.I,(Print Name) ,declare that I am(please check one) the owner of the property involved in this application, the authorized representative to act for the property owner(please attach proof of authorization),and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and • purposes mentioned in the instrument. • • (Name of Owner/Representative) Notary Public in and for the State of Washington • Notary(Print) (Signature of Owner/Representative) My appointment expires: .. - .. - r <; TOE CrOMPLETEDi YG1T -=STAFF: ,:,:. a3 t:='> :' (THISISE.CT;IOIN E - ) w = .p ?_ `;`: r. •n a -• § :` r f n F SA R' HP.L egi ` n(J'-1 ile Nuin er:�+�' `*�1��/r��ri'�l' fE _y -.- .�a g •�°�Iny� �-�.' z,x�s, ,a ',J iK'" :f- 4-,i<AAD UD ` SM»�`SME �. 4 _.�#-'F�y,m�,.. C'R k{'-�s3eas.�•t�<' `�'#Q+�.'P g�•y»•=• •- A� 'S' j�Bsar'S.. .r.y r ram,.�..`-r''i O' FEES: $ ° " `'#4 ' OTALY'POSTARGE ,_$OVIDEDs1 V LP,¢ a a3 t%r ke' ii:,i,.' °_ _.. �' �� �'2..L'-,� " „$' "t a °.iF°',.�'"�a.._ze e'Fa., a,iA''rY�.. 'i•... H:\ECON DEV\EconomicDevelopment\STRATPLN\PLANNING\DE\Metro Plant Rezone\Backup of MsterApp GCP.wbk\d METRO KING COL—:rY RENTON WASTEWATER TREA.. .ENT PLANT LEGAL DESCRIPTION • Former Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way(former NPRR Belt) and portion of southeast,quarter of northwest quarter lying easterly of west line of said railroad right-of-way and northerly of north margin of state highway SR-405 junction,less any portion thereof lying westerly of or within Monster Road SW; Also portion of said former railroad belt in the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter of said section lying 70 feet from the centerline of the state highway, per stipulation of state code #84-2-07769-7 less portion described as follows: Beginning at the northeast corner of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 24-23-4, thence along the north line of said section, N 87 26'22", W 2693.05 feet to the northwest corner of Government Lot 1 Thence along the west line of said Government Lot and of Government Lot 5, S 0 26'19"W 22999.77 feet; Thence S 98 33'44"E 1909.89 feet to the intersection with the east margin of Monster road; Thence southerly along the said margin radius 367.11 feet, an arc distance of 55.20 feet to the intersection with the westerly Metro (former Burlington Northern) boundary per Volume 40, page 180 of survey, said point of intersection being on a curve to the left with a radius of 1134 feet; Thence southerly along said curve having an arc distance of 250.14 feet to the westerly margin of the realigned portion of Monster Road and the point of beginning; Thence along said westerly margin of S 41 55'32",E 68.65 feet; Thence S 06 22'-10",E 321.59 feet; Thence S 04 18'03",E 14.69 feet to a line parallel with and 70 feet northwesterly of the centerline of State Highway 1-L; Thence along the said westerly Metro boundary and curve to the left with a radius of 1134 feet; Thence northerly along said curve, having an arc distance of 399.09 feet to the point of beginning less portion of Government Lot 6 and Government Lot 8 in the westerly half of Section 24-23-04 lying southwesterly of the realigned roadway; Beginning at the northeast corner of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter; Thence N 82 26'22"W 2,693.05 feet to the northwest corner of Government Lot 1; Thence S 00 26'19"W,2299.77 feet; Thence S 89 31'41" E 1909.89 feet to the intersection with the easterly right-of-way margin of Monster Road being a point on a curve concave to the southwest radius point bearing S 63 48'40"W 367.11 feet; Thence southerly along said easterly right-of-way margin and along said curve arc. distance 182.73. feet ... through a central angle of 28 31'04"to an intersection with the southwesterly margin of said realignment of Monster Road; Thence southeasterly along said southwesterly margin of S 69 31'09" E 11.12 feet and S 41 55'32" E 194.64 feet to the point of beginning; Thence S 41 55'32" E 270.82 feet to the intersection with the northwesterly right-of-way margin of Highway 1-1, said point of intersection being a point on the curve concave to the southeast radius,bearing S 68 18'28' E 905.37 feet; Thence southwesterly along said northwesterly right-of-way margin and along said curve arc a distance of 88.21 feet through a central angle of 05 34'57" to the intersection with a line parallel with and 70 feet northwesterly of a central angle of said highway; Thence along said parallel line S 66 53'08"W 125.69 feet; Thence N 04 18'03"W 14.69 feet; and Thence N 06 22'10"W 321.59 feet to point of beginning. M • • Rc(P) • RC (P) rid co „,„_______TM -c:, L„I, i-d c o. III 45 /PA, ______Y J A_ ./ - --41 0 _i i _17 11CD- 1/ Q , 4 0. / 1 co \\\ 1/ 1 G 1/ * *ir / III A, / / CD iOr r*Otasi U 1 . 4 0 1 ..v) ,,,,A \ co 0 500 1 ,000 LANDUSE ACTION FILE # REZONES FILE # FROM P-1 TO IM(P) 1 :6,000 ��� �� Site o ®, EDNSP �/ + Sue Carlson, Administrator Zone boundaries D. Erickson, 0. Dennison ,,,0 19 December 2000 Renton corporate boundary - _•:j•^tt•2 --_ _ __ - - - -t'-h fir- rf� - -__ --_ - ___ ____ - ___ :J __ f' a fon;:`_,J O�R n - - , - V NMENTAL''�'C C • - EN IRO - PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), ".Chapter 43.21 C RCW, requires all governmental . . agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know"or "does not apply': Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions. if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NONPROJECT PROPOSALS: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). .. • For nonproject actions (actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs), the references in the checklist to the. words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal,"'proposer,"and "affected geographic area,"respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: City of Renton sponsored rezone of the 8.42 acre Metropolitan King County Renton Wastewater Treatment Plant from the P-1 Zone to the IM Zone. • December 14, 2000 Page 2 2. Name of applicant: Susan Carlson,Adminstrator, Economic Development, Neighborhoods &Strategic Planning Department City of Renton 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Address: Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning Department City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Contact Person: Don Erickson,AICP (425)430-6581 4. Date checklist prepared: December 15, 2000 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton, Department of Planning/Building/Public Works - Development Services Division 6. Proposed timing or schedule(including phasing, if applicable): Adoption of rezone ordinance is anticipated pending SEPA compliance. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. FEIS on the 1995 Comprehensive Plan of the City of Renton 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. No knowledge of pending governmental approvals of affected properties. 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Council approval is required for this non-project rezone. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. The subject proposal is to rezone the Metropolitan King County owned and operated Renton Wastewater Treatment Plant to the Industrial Medium (IM)Zone from its current Public Use (P-1)zoning. December 14, 2000 Page 3 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The subject wastewater treatment plant is located between Oakesdale Avenue SW on the east and north and Monster Road on the west. A portion of the site abuts SW Grady Way on the south. The site is approximately 8.42 acres in size and does not include a portion along SW Grady Way that is currently zoned IM. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one); flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other Not applicable for this non-project legislative action. b. What is the steepest slope on the site(approximate percent slope?) Not applicable for this non-project legislative action. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of.agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Not applicable for this non-project legislative action. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Not applicable for this non-project legislative action. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Not applicable for this non-project legislative action. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. No construction is proposed as a result of this non-project proposal. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? No construction is proposed as a result of this non-project proposal. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: No construction is proposed as a result of this non-project proposal. • December 14, 2000 • Page 4 • 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal(i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. No construction is proposed as a result of this non-project proposal. b. Are there any off-site sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Not applicable for this non-project legislative action. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Not applicable for this non-project legislative action. 3. WATER a. Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If • appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. No construction is proposed as a result of this non-project legislative proposal. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. No construction is proposed as a result of this non-project legislative proposal. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. No construction is proposed as a result of this non-project legislative proposal. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No construction is proposed as a result of this non-project legislative proposal. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. This is a non-project legislative action. No development is proposed as a result of this proposal. A portion of the site lies within the 100- year floodplain. December 14, 2000 • Page 5 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to ` surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. This is a non-project legislative action. No development is proposed as a result of this proposal. b. Ground Water: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. This is a non-project legislative action. The proposed rezone will not result in the discharge or withdrawel of water that is not now occuring. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage;industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. No construction is proposed as a result of this non-project legislative proposal. c. Water Runoff(including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff(including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any(include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. No construction and therefore runoff is proposed as a result of this non-project legislative proposal. 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Not applicable. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground,.and runoff water, • impacts, if any: Not applicable since this is a non-project legislative action that will not result in any development that would not otherwise occur and is covered by SEPA. 4. PLANTS • December 14, 2000 Page 6 • a. Check pr circle types of vegetation found on the site: NA . deciduous treellaldb7aple, aspen, other NA evergreen tree:fir, cedar ine other NA s rub NA ma, NA pasture NA crop or grain NA wet soil plants:cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other NA water plants:water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other NA other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? No construction and therefore no vegetation will be removed as a result of this non-project legislative proposal. . c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None are known at this time. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Not applicable. 5. ANIMALS • a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to.be on or near the site: Birds.�iawk, heron,eagle, songbirds other. Mammals:deer, bear, elk, beaver, other Fish:bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Great Blue Heron habitat the 96.5 acre reparian conservation area to the north. There are an estimated 68 nesting pair of heron at the established rookery in the heart of this conservation area. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain Possibly. Various species of waterfoul use the wetlands to the north as well as a smaller decorative wetland on the northside of the subject site for feeding, resting and in some cases nesting. December 14, 2000 • Page 7 . • d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Not applicable since this is a non-project action. No development is proposed as a result of this rezone proposal. 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. None will be used since this is a non-project legislative action. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. This is a non-project action. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: None. This is a non-project action. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None. This is a non-project action. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None. This is a non-project action. b. Noise 1) . What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example:traffic, equipment, operation, other)? . • Not applicable since this is a non-project action 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Not applicable. No new development is proposed as a direct result of this proposed non-project action. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: None. This is a non-project action. December 14, 2000 Page 8 • 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site is a regional wastewater treatment plant with large digester tanks and other facilities used in processing human waste materials. A series of 11 cascading ponds and a wetland treat stormwater on the north side of the plant next to Oakesdale Avenue. c. Describe any structures on the site. Not applicable since this is a non-project action. However, there are a number of large digesters and other sewage treatment facilities on the subject site. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No. The is a legislative non-project rezone action. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Not applicable. Proposed amendment will affect the R-1 Zone. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? The 8.42 acre site is currently designated Employment Area — Valley on Renton's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Springbrook Creek abuts the site along its eastern boundary. This portion of Springbrook Creek is designated Urban Environment. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Not applicable. Portions of the site abutting Springbrook Creek and areas of steeper slopes may be considered to be"environmentally sensitive". L Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Not applicable. This is a rezone only at this time. No construction or change of use is anticipated as a result of this rezone. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? Not applicable. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Not applicable. December 18, 2000 Page 9 • • I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: As noted above the proposed rezone. is compatible with the Employment Area — Valley land use designation under Renton's Comprehensive Plan. Also, there is no anticipated change of use or new construction proposed as a result of this rezone. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Not applicable. This proposed rezone does not have a housing component. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Not applicable. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Not applicable. 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas;what is the principal exterior building material(s)proposed. Not applicable. This is a non-project legislative action. No new development is specifically proposed as a result of this change in zoning classification. Any future use will have to be approved by the City Hearing Examiner. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Not applicable. This is a non-project rezone action. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Not applicable. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Not applicable. This is a non-project legislative action. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Not applicable. This is a non-project legislative action. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Not applicable. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Not applicable. December 18, 2000 Page 10 • • 12. RECREATION 1. a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? This is a non-project rezone action that has no impacts on recreation. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Not applicable. 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. Not applicable. This is a non-project legislative action. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. Not applicable. This is a non-project legislative action. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Not applicable. 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The subject 8.42 acre site is abutted by Monster Road on the west, and Oakesdale Avenue SW on the north and east. SW Grady Way and 1-405 lie • to the south. • b. . Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Not directly, however this is a non-project action. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Not.applicable. Non-project action. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private? Not applicable. Non-project action. December 14, 2000 Page 11 e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity ot) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. Not applicable. Non-project action. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. This is a legislative non-project action that will not have any transportation impacts. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Not applicable 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. This is a legislative non-project action that will not have any public service impacts. No changes are expected in the operation of the Renton wastewater treatment plant as a result of this proposed rezone. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Not applicable. 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. Not applicable. Non-project action. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Not applicable. Non-project action: December 14, 2000 • Page 12 C. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood.that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non- significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be.any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: tat OM-tMJ Name Printed: IStteUla14 CI AIL Date: )2I1 0 I 4-0 December 14, 2000 Page 13 • D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEETS FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (These sheets should only be used for actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs. You do not need to fill out these sheets for project actions.) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? This is a legislative non-project rezone action that is not anticipated by itself to change operations at the subject site or increase substance discharges into the environment. Subsequent development under the current zoning or the proposed new zoning could however result in increased discharges. These, however,will be reviewed at the project level for SEPA compliance. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Not applicable for this non-project legislative action. Subsequent development as a result of this proposed code amendment would have to go through environmental review unless SEPA exempt. It is likely that air emissions, etc. would be addressed at this time when type and quantities of discharges are known. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? As a legislative non-project action the current proposal will not directly affect plants, animals,fish or marine life. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: Not applicable. Mitigation would be prepared at the project level. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? • This non-project legislative action will not directly impact energy or. natural resources. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: Not applicable. • December 14, 2000 Page 14 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, ftoodplains, or prime farmlands? This non-project rezone proposal will not directly impact or use environmentally sensitive areas. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: Not applicable. 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? This proposed non-project action will not directly affect land or shoreline use. Governmental facilities, which the wastewater treatment plant is, are a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use in the IM Zone, and therefore are carefully scrutinized for compliance with all land use and shoreline use provisions as well as looked at for compatibility. The Renton Treatment Plant has progressively addressed its surface water runoff with a series of cascading ponds and a wetland as swell as landscaped along the edges of Springbrook Creek to create a visual buffer from the plant itself. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: Not applicable. As noted above any new development under the proposed IM zoning will have to be reviewed by the City's Hearing Examiner. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? This is a legislative non-project action that will not directly have any transportation or public service impacts. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: Not Applicable. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection.of the environment. No conflicts with local, state or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment are known to exist with the subject non-project legislative proposal. December 14, 2000 • Page 15 • SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non- significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful, misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: I2aeCCk, (/ MUi Name Printed: t', 2('.C.ct . Li)r''( Date: t 2,1 /(16 fite flibik , CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-95-072-ECF APPLICANT: CITY OF RENTON PROJECT NAME: City Rezones of Public Use (P-1) Zoned Properties DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Public Use (P-1) zoned properties rezones. Proposed rezones of 37 publicly owned sites located throughout the City. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Sites are scattered throughout the City of Renton. One site is located in unincorporated King County; owners include the City, King County, Renton School District, Renton Technical College, Metro, etc. LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section The 15 day comment period with concurrent 14 day appeal period for this project will end on June 13, 1995. Followinc this, the City will finalize its Determination unless comments received require a reevaluation. Appeal procedure: imposed by the City of Renton's Environmental Review Committee are available at the Development Services Division Third Floor, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington 98055. Phone: 235-2550. You should be prepared to mak( specific factual objections. PUBLICATION DATE: May 29, 1995 DATE OF DECISION: May 23, 1995 SIGNATURES: • Grg im ma , Administrator DATE Departmen PI nning/Building/Public Works ___5--7—Z-3 ".---- - Sam Chastain, Administrator DATE Community Serv' Department L e- e .ems � .. �� ,.r er, Fire Chief DATE Ren on Fire Department DNSSIG.DOC ... ............ ... ... .... REZONES EXISTING PUBLIC NAMES:::OF OWNERS AND ADDRESSES COMPREHENSIVE RRQP4.SED.NEW <:<::><::;>:::: »:<>:::<:: ::::::::; FILE #' FACILITIES :>:<::>::::»::::>:; ..... ......:::.;>;::.>::<:.;:. i ::......::: .... ....... PLAN:;LAND,IJSE �O.NIN AND t1SE ::: ;.< ::: :. :.::: : .:;.;:: : ;:::.;:.;:.>:.::.:;::.:i:.>:;:>:>.:.;:. DESIGNATION CLASSIFCATI O N ... ..:: (GR-24) Metro Wastewater Mr. Gary Locke, King County Executive. EA-I - Employment IH (p) LUA-95-1 19 Treatment Plant. King County Administration Building Area Industrial (Hearing Examiner Conditional Use of P-173 Located at 1200 Monster 500 4th Ave S. Seattle, WA. 98104 Secondary Use with an approved Road SW. Master Site Plan) IM/p• (Same as for IH Zone above) (GR-25) West Hill Reservoir. Mr. Greg Zimmerman, Administrator. RS - Residential R-8 (p) LUA-95-1 20 Located West of 82nd City of Renton Single Family (Hearing Examiner Conditional Use or P-174 Ave S. at S.126th St. 200 Mill Ave S. Renton, WA. 98055 Secondary Use with an approved Master Site Plan) (GR-26) P-1 Channel/Spring- Mr. Sam Chastain, Administrator. RR - Residential RC (p) LUA-95-1 23 brook Creek/Black River. City of Renton Rural (Permitted Primary Use) P-176 Located N. of Monster 200 Mill Ave S. Renton, WA . 98055 Road SW. (GR-27) Cedar River Greenway Mr. Sam Chastain, Administrator. RR - Residential RC (p) LUA-95-124 Interpretive Park. City of Renton Rural (Permitted Primary Use) P-177 Located at 2901 Maple 200 Mill Ave S. Renton, WA . 98055 Valley Hwy. (GR-28) Cedar River Park. Mr. Sam Chastain, Administrator. COR - Center Office COR (p) LUA-95-125 Located at 1911 Maple City of Renton Residential (Permitted Primary Use) P-178 Valley Hwy. 200 Mill Ave S. Renton, WA . 98055 (GR-29) Former NARCO Site. Mr. Sam Chastain, Administrator. RR - Residential RC (p) LUA-95-126 Located at 1500 Houser City of Renton Rural (Permitted Primary Use) P-179 Way S. 200 Mill Ave S. Renton, WA . 98055 (GR-30) Fire Station #13. Mr. Sam Chastain, Administrator. RO - Residential R-10 (p) LUA-95-127 Located at 17040 108th City of Renton Options (Hearing Examiner Conditional Use of P-180 Ave SE. 200 Mill Ave S. Renton, WA . 98055 Secondary Use with an Approved Master Site Plan) Page 4 di• iito • NO1110E PENDING APPLICATION PROJECT NAME/NUMBER: CITY REZONES OF PUBLIC USE(P-1)ZONED PROPERTIES UNDER PUBLIC OWNERSHIP/PROJECT NO.LUA-95-072,ECF,R DESCRIPTION: The City of Renton is proposing to rezone publically owned properties,from their existing Public Use(P-1)zoning classification to zoning which is consistent with the zoning adjacent to or near each site: GENERAL LOCATION: Metro Wastewater Treatment Plant: Located within West Grady Way, Oakesdale Ave SW and Monster Road PUBLIC APPROVALS: Building Permit Preliminary Plat Short Plat Conditional Use Permit XXXX Rezone Site Plan Approval XXXX Environmental Review Shoreline Conditional Use Other Permit Fill&Grade Permit Shoreline Substantial Other Development Permit The application can be reviewed in the Development Services Division located on the third floor of Renton City Hall. Comments will be accepted any time prior to Public Hearings,during Public Hearings, or prior to an administrative site plan approval. Comments for Substantial Shoreline Permits must be received within thirty(30)days from the last date of applicant's"Notice of Application" publication in the Valley Daily News. For further information on the application, or if you wish to be made a PARTY OF RECORD and receive additional notifications of the City's environmental determinations, appeal periods and/or the public hearing date(s) for this project, please contact Don Erickson of the Planning and Technical Services at277-8181. ---IM -I - uu I IA- ,'N r n- > ¢ I \. p-1 0 • \N t E l 17 i Ir , [� SW �t.IM, I �. 1 i WI IMI , S T6th St. IM CO441141001.e. t - ritic00004,1, 1•1 j - i / I---\ I fi IL <PE INCLUpE<THE':P.OJ°ECT NUNI3 R::.:WHE <G . INGFORPROP. E -.:F L E:IDETIECA ION >. . s . G g--2`I Op ) CITY OF RENTON Land Use and Zoning Map Amendme�Y o GRENTO" January, 1994 MAR 311994 RECEIVED 1. Applicant Name:/I(/A EL- C4T't3AM&I1J Date: zCH /' 'iyq - 2. Address: C 1 , T Gm 3. Are you the property owner? Yes No V . If no, what is your interest in the property? 4. King County Tax Account# � '* � 0,, : - ✓' 5. Legal description of property to be rezoned: (Please attach map of property) EGuir-e 4i7?0 tricuJC7D S• . 414 ?H E kit>t7f 4 AilD C(— Oatitg, A117 IUTAU � Td"a4� olll -1H6 ' r. 6. Existing Use on Property:_re{p/014A ,. (.,Vj T Ai€.e RA/Jr 1 DLY Accvger, Aiketee...(T Ve Ita1Stlet?) P 7. What land use or zoning are you requesting for the property? (See designations on back of application.) IMINSTKI AL- f f e Y Zfrt, 6vm l AAVE. O-iiLl Veg. AcLa. A6, A. 56:,urea ( MAIIMe FLAK' APP VN_(jej) . • 8. What are your reasons for requesting these uses? (Please attach any additional information that may be helpful in reviewingyour request.) `- yr /v , I/ �► �i t=_ 'fit G1' Mum Signed aialdi • Zt telephone Number 43S'Z Z Please submit form to: Long Range Planning,City of Renton,200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055. Telephone:235-2552 \• Ca 2 de : , . . . . . . • . . . 00 .. . . . . . . . . . . , t4 E?P ) WASTE-A1E4e.' Te.'c�4ir EN i PLANT IM -ci _ - L;1_1 iiiiiiik (2 . cn I i MNM¢ i„ ` \ } D O,P-1 , - - \ . ...- ......*-...-' IM I )k,. !I -SWq- h St. '. digia I ; Ii/r r _th t. IM. AaiLlik .... , r iii .. . ,. • El --, . .. ‘ . . 001. • . . \ . , , N ___ _...„ , . . . \ • . . ._, . . \ _.. . . . 1 1 3 . ........... . , ,,._: .. 1 . • c❑ . , . , .. . . . . IL . \\,....... . . 0. . . E?C(S TIN CI 2ANWG : P- -� . 0, . . . ,. , „ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 1Ei2.c) WASiEhl ATE R. ►iLcAiMENi t'lANi IM Ith, U.0 1 � 7c)a) I�; IQi M1ca _ cp I . \ -H ..--J./N N ,:: ielli°11111.111' dad.. \ SW�1h• St. .....„,[ IM III ' ��Q�r 6th tt. IM 44.iiiiiiiiiiii, - , I . r . . • . . % .40, . . . ._ . _ rtios„, . , . . . ---- — , . co _, . • IL • QE C oMMENb Erb 2UNIN C, : i /4 ° x:y,E,a-- §3..„.:i .,...„,.........._ua;a:w.a. rwcwc..... :____,K>....,aa..w.,,.,._ .....aae6roxc__,..am.:,ceau.,n.,:u, .... ,....._,...._r�vw.....,.._ e ,..,m.a N' ¢ Li a 7.. I ^ ,Jw r `� • 94J2 •t'i J rS. I -. ; , F Irl t i 2U _ l►45._i t I cA ��-1z i rrT n�? a if-n�i t i -- I s .,cam ) \ Ji t, s�.��r, s'r ... 5 1,: t • i ,93,i t�.dr r Jri.C� Y i �!4 A 1): vi r �`"1�x; y 3 s • Y 1 R!ry1 F r � ..b.Ptf N .1)r`JS , . 1. a/ Jt 1 i` r I I I 1 :'METRO Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle -• -Environmental Planning and Real Estate Division 821 Second Ave.,M.S.120 :It, Seattle,WA 98104-1598 • (206)684-1165 • Fax"(206)684-1900 i January' 14 , 1994 ; - p Mr. Don Erickson; - C • City of Renton _r" • 200 Mill Avenue South ^�.�:` Renton, .Washington 98055 - Proposed Revisions To P-1 Zoning - Dear :Mr: 'Erickson ' Thank you 'for taking the --time ,to explain the proposed changes the " City ,is contemplating regarding• the P-1 . zoning • throughout the City of Renton during our meeting of January : 7, 1994 . ' - As I understood' from ,our meeting : and also from the Planning and Development Committee meeting of January 11, 1994, the " City: of Renton- in response -to the requirements of the Growth' ' Management Act is proposing to eliminate the P-1- zoning throughout the City. The City' spreferred plan envisions that' public facilities (hospitals,",schools, the Metro sewage treatment plant) would be rezoned to correspond to . the ' zoning categories' of neighboring uses and. would;be allowed outright or allowed with an,approved !'Master Plan" . Certain uses might require Conditional Use approal. either by' administrative staff review or by the Hearing Examiner. , - Further work' will' be done at the staff level to 'develop the -details of actual requirements for, obtaining approvals and the final plan will be presented, to the City Council for approval on or before July 1, 1994 , in the form of an Ordinance. King County Department of Metropolitan Services '•(DMS) " supports these rezoning efforts provided that the East Division Wastewater Reclamation Plant located at 1200 ' Monster_ Road S.W. is rezoned Heavy Industrial (I-H)' and 1 remains- a permitted.-use in this designation. Per your comments during the. Planning -and 'Development' Committee meeting, we were assured that the,-preliminary plan ,presented • to •,the Planning and Development', Committee " on January 11 , which showed the proposed zoning of the treatment-plant being I-M will be revised " to .reflect this change. • -. Recycled paper / , Proposed Revisions T'o P-1 ,Zoning January 14 , 1994 . - • Page Two As stated in the,meetings of both January. 7 and January. 11, 1994, the treatment plant• was, rezoned.; in 1985 to make it a , permitted use 'in the P-1 Zone.- This was done on the recommendation of the. Hearing Examiner to streamline' a very _ ' '• cumbersome process. ' At the tie of the rezone it was a . , point of discussion between 'Metro staff and city staff , whether to have the property .re,zoned P,-1 or I-H. Because the Comprehensive Plan at ,that time designated the property ' • as Public%Quasi-Public, ' the' .decision was made to request that- the -property be rezoned to ,.P-1. From this perspective, " , 'it .clearly would bel a step backward to make the facility a Conditional Use in an I-M zone. , Again, I .wish' to reiterate that we look forward to -further discussions , to, workout whatever''-details remain., Please feel free, to conta_ ct me at 684-1334 to set up ,a meeting at ' your convenience Sinc rely,' _ - Ger i-e_ Jackson, SR/WA , ' ' ' , 'Real Property Agent , GJ:ce ccs' Bill ' Burwell', Manager, East Division,)'DMS 1 , ' • . \ ; Greg Bush, Manager, Environmental Planni'n gk'and Real, - . ' ' , • Estate, 'DMS ', Bill .Nitz, Supervisor„ W.Q: Capital . Projects, DMS • ,Joe Fernandes, . Manager,. Renton Enlargement Phase', III, DMS • Kathy Keolker-Wheeler,_ •Chair, Planning and Development ` Committee, City of Renton „ ' • G:GJRCOML1 - , • , .---. ORDINANCE NO. 4902 RC(P) — ( I . . , .i. : '. 00 • .• • ' • •.. IM I \If rd -1 CO Abp_ o 0 '' ...#///1 \ #1# .. ..- /-• \ / - Ai 16110°,0, , ' II 0 V 110. 10 /41°1111,:#e gagik . ,-/------ . . itilip ' - f• • - - • • • - -4 A. • . •• . IM : - i . • . 40.....1111 i AL 0 500 1,000 LANDUSE ACTION FILE # LOA-DD-OliAgne „ FROM P-1 TO III ZONE • --:-n-1 r\n '74. fe 000 j EDNSP Site . 11ji ':;::.;: -. ''.1.: '1 u•-•1, L.1 ,' n',j LI) Sue Carlson. Administrator Zone boundaries ,,_ .•-• D. Erickson. O. Dennison • - 19 December 2000 ill • '"''''" ""• ""' '' Renton ,corporate boundary .411A KING COUNTY SOUTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT P- 1 REZONE LUA--00-169, R, ECF February 13, 2001 1 KING COUNTY SOUTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT P-1 REZONE • Applicant: City of Renton • Owner of Record: King County Wastewater Treatment Division • Size of site: 90.7 acres • Existing Zoning: Public Use (P-1) Zone • Proposed Zoning: Industrial Medium (IM) Zone KING COUNTY SOUTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT P- 1 REZONE ��� • North: Blackriver gliv ° c° Aiiii Riparian Forrest Ilkj i Conservation Area � �� VII • East: Springbrook \ j j � Creek, Oaksdale Ave., --,; ':1l li Blackriver Corp. Park pi �, v • South: Grady Way and 4�,� ���rd: 1-405 right-of-ways \\ I�� �►� • West: Monster Road �o � �,.r �_ • SW 2 KING COUNTY SOUTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT P-1 REZONE • Historical/Background: — Council Adopts Interim Zoning Code - June 1993 — Council Adopts Draft Comp Plan - June 1993 — Council Adopts Comp Plan with Area-wide Land Use and Zoning Maps - February 1995 — Council Adopts Comp Plan Amendments and Zoning Map Changes - Annually since 1995 KING COUNTY SOUTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT P-1 REZONE • Applicable Sections of Comprehensive Plan — Objective U-E: Provide and maintain a sanitary sewer collection system that is consistent with public health and water quality objectives of the State of Washington and the City of Renton. — Objective LU-EE.a: Provide a mix of employ- ment based uses, including commercial, office and industrial development — Policy U-61. Coordinate with the regional wastewater agency and adjacent jurisdictions in the planning and maintenance of regional wastewater systems in and near the City. 3 KING COUNTY SOUTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT P-1 REZONE — Policy LU-212.12: Favorable consideration should be given to rezones in which similar and/or compatible uses are already located in the area — Policy LU-212.16: Favorable consideration may be given to rezones to industrial uses when a mix of a wider range of uses is not yet appropriate for a site — Policy LU-212.2: Compatible and related land uses should be encouraged to locate in proximity to one another KING COUNTY SOUTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT P-1 REZONE • Department Analysis — Proposal is one of approximately 50 P-1 Zone rezones sponsored by the City to phase out this older zone. Council decided in 1994 to "assimilate out" the Public Use Zone, a non- traditional zone. • Environmental Review — The Environmental Review Committee issued a DNS for this non-project action on Jan. 9, 2001 • Compliance with Mitigation Measures — Not applicable 4 KING COUNTY SOUTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT P-1 REZONE Consistency with Rezone Approval Criteria Section 4-9-170F.2 states: The Reviewing Official shall make the following findings: • The rezone is in the public interest, and — The rezone is consistent with the Employment Area - Valley Comp Plan land use designation for the site — The new zoning will provide greater predictability than the P-1 Zone, and — The P-Suffix will ensure future public notification to surrounding property owners if there is a major change of tenancy, use, or ownership at the treatment plant KING COUNTY SOUTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT P-1 REZONE • The rezone tends to further the preservation and enjoyment of any substantial property rights of the petitioner, and — The proposed rezone maintains the property rights of the County since sewage disposal and treatment plants are a permitted use in the IM Zone, subject to Hearing Examiner approval — In the P-1 Zone, "waste treatment and disposal facilities" are considered to be "unclassified uses"subject to review by the City Council — The P-Suffix is not anticipated to be onerous since it would only apply to a major change in use, tenancy, or ownership of the treatment plant 5 KING COUNTY SOUTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT P- 1 REZONE • The rezone is not materially detrimental to the public welfare or the properties of other persons located in the vicinity thereof, and — Proposed rezone is not detrimental to the public welfare or others in the vicinity since it narrows the uses permitted on the subject site, makes the existing use a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use, and ensures that those in the vicinity will be notified at least 60 days ahead of any substantial change of use, tenancy or ownership at the treatment plant. KING COUNTY SOUTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT P-1 REZONE • The rezone meets the review criteria in subsections F 1 b and F 1 c of this Section — F 1 b: The property is potentially classified for the proposed zone being requested pursuant to the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan — F I c: At least one of the following circumstances applies: 6 KING COUNTY SOUTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT P-1 REZONE i The subject reclassification was not specifically considered at the time of last area land use analysis and area zoning; The subject site was not specifically considered at the time of last area-wide land use analysis and area-wide rezoning in 1995 since it was understood that staff were studying and preparing recommendations on the P-1 Zone for the Planning Commission and City Council. Nearby uses to the west, north, east, and south were rezoned in June 1993 to IM and CO zoning. KING COUNTY SOUTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT P- 1 REZONE ii Since the most recent land use analysis or the area zoning of the subject property, authorized public improvements, permitted private development or other circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone significant and material change There have been no significant or material changes affecting the subject property since the most recent land use analysis of the area 7 KING COUNTY SOUTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT P- 1 REZONE Recommendation: Staff recommend approval of the King County South Wastewater Treatment Plant P-1 Rezone, Project File No. LUA-00-169, R, ECF from the Public Use (P-1) Zone to the Industrial Medium (IM) Zone, with a P-Suffix designation, for the following reasons: (1) The rezone is consistent with the Comp Plan Land Use Map designation for the subject parcel, as Employment Area - Valley, which encourages a mix of employment-based uses including industrial, commercial and office. The site is used for industrial purposes (wastewater treatment) and had it been zoned in 1993 would likely have then received the IM designation along with other industrial uses in the area. KING COUNTY SOUTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT P- 1 REZONE (2) The proposed rezone would be consistent with earlier citywide rezones of other properties in the area that were zoned IM in 1993 and/or 1995. This rezone is also consistent with the existing use of the property since it is used for sewage treatment and disposal, a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use in the IM Zone. (3) The subject rezone is a non-project action under SEPA and is a legislative act that is not expected to significantly alter the development potential of the site. The rezone reduces the broad scope of uses allowed in the P-1 Zone (hospitals, schools, sewage plants, airports, etc) to intermediate industrial uses and makes the current use a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use rather than a Council Unclassified Use. 8 ( 41C: t-A i I .4ts • - OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON CIVIL DIVISION Natural Resources Norm Maleng 900 King County Administration Building Prosecuting Attorney 500 Fourth Avenue Seattle,Washington 98104 (206)296-8820 FAX(206)296-0415 Memorandum To: City of Renton Hearing Examiner From: King County Department of Natural Resources t Date: February 12, 2001 Subject: File No. LUA-00-167, R, ECF - Proposed Rezone From Public Use (P- 1) Zone to Industrial Medium (IM) Zone or Industrial Heavy Zone With a P-Suffix Designation Attached-King County Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant Site: Comments of King County Department of Natural Resources ("King County DNR") King County Department of Natural Resources is in charge of the management of the King County Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant site located in Renton which is the principal use on the subject property of this rezone ("the Renton Plant"). King County Department of Natural Resources ("King County DNR") has had an opportunity to review the Preliminary Report submitted by City staff and makes the following comments for the record. King County has no objection to a proposed rezone for the Renton Plant so long as the rezone is from a P-1 to an IH Zone. As stated in the Preliminary Report, "because of the size of the subject site and the unique heavy industrial characteristics of the treatment plant, staff now believe IH may be more representative of the plant's characteristic than IM zoning." King County is prepared to present evidence, in the form of both testimony and documentary evidence, on this issue, to support the IH Zone designation, if necessary. The recommendation of an IM designation creates possible concerns with regard to the continuing ability of the Renton Plant to expand in response to regional needs. First, the City IM zone designation allows a wide range of industrial uses. King County DNR is concerned that certain abutting uses may in the future be deemed incompatible with the expansion of facilities at the Renton Plant. A second concern relates to the conditional P-Suffix designation attached to the IM zone (and the IH zone). The Renton Plant serves as an Essential Public Facility ("EPF") as defined under the Washington State Growth Management Act at Chapter 36.70A.200. This regional facility addresses the wastewater needs of a significant portion of King County communities and jurisdictions. It is identified in the County Comprehensive Plan and those of many of the cities within King County as the facility:for treatment of wastewater generated by these communities. r • Prosecuting Attorney King County City of Renton Hearing Examiner February 12,2001 Page 2 The Renton Plant will also serve as part of the regional solution in addressing the growing wastewater needs over the next 20 years. The King County Council adopted the Regional Wastewater Services Plan in November 1999 ("RWSP"). The RWSP identifies the continuing need for the Renton Plant and its role in meeting the growing wastewater needs in the region in the years ahead. As acknowledged by the City in the Preliminary Report, "the treatment plant is a regionally recognized public facility that is not likely to change in terms of use or location in the foreseeable future." (Preliminary Report, Section F (5), page 4). The relevance of this GMA designation and adopted RWSP goes to the importance of facilitating any future expansion required at the Renton Plant to meet regional needs. King County has no objedtion to a proposed rezone for the Renton Plant from a P-1 Zone to an II-1 Zone, provided that any future review of any expansion of the Renton Plant take into account the fact that it is an essential public facility under GMA. Under the GMA, a local jurisdiction may not preclude the expansion of an existing Essential Public Facility. It is not entirely clear from the Preliminary Report in this matter what particular conditions or criteria might be associated with any proposed future expansion of the Renton Plant. Section 4-9-030 of Title Four of the Renton Municipal Code, dealing with conditional use permits, sets forth the decisional criteria relating to conditional use permits. While many of these relate to appropriate mitigation for a project proposal, it is not clear to what extent these broad criteria might be used to limit or preclude issuance of a conditional use permit for the expansion of the Renton Plant, an Essential Public Facility. The mitigation imposed as part of any future conditional use permit process on an expansion of the Renton Plant must not be so extensive as to preclude this expansion. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. 3.disposal of treated effluent;4.production and recycling of biosolids;5.regulation of Ill;6.control of combinedseweroverflows;and7.productionofreclaimedwater. Y. "Waterreuse" meansusingreclaimedwater.(Ord.13680§1,1999) 28.86.020 Comprehensive water pollution abatement plan—readoption and ratification Resolution No.23 and all subsequent resolutions that amended and implemented the comprehensive water pollution abatement plan,duly enacted by the council of the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro)and not expressly repealed bythat body effective not laterthan midnight,December 31,1993, and thatare not inconsistent with the King County Charterorcounty ordinances,are hereby readopted and ratified as the comprehensive water pollution abatement plan for King County. (Ord.13680§2, 1999). 28.86.030 Regional wastewater services plan as supplement to comprehensive water pollution abatementplan. Underthe provisionsofthe King County Charterand RCW 35.58.200,the RWSP, set forth in K.C.C. 28.86.010 and 28.86.040 through 28.86.150, is hereby adopted as a supplementtothecomprehensivewaterpollutionabatementplanforKingCounty.TheRWSPprovides policyguidanceforthewastewatersystemthroughtheyear2030.(Ord.13680§3,1999). 28.86.040 Regional wastewater services plan policies and explana tory material,financial policiesforcomprehensivewaterpollutionabatementplan-application.A.The RWSP policies, as set forth in this chapter,shall provide direction for the operation and further development of the wastewatersystem,itscapital improvementprogram and,asnecessary,thedevelopmentofsubsequent policies. B. TheRWSPexplanatorymaterial,assetforthinthischapter,providesbackgroundinformation andgenerallydescribestheobjectivesoftheRWSPpolicies. C. Financial pol iciesforthecomprehensivewaterpollution abatement plan and itssupplement, theRW SP,areseparatelyadoptedi nK.C.C.28.86.160.(Ord.13680§4,1999). 28.86.050 Treatment plant policies(TPP). A. Explanatory material. The treatment plant policies are intended to guide the county in providing treatment at its existing plants and in expanding treatmentcapacitythroughtheyear2030.The policiesdirectthatsecondarytreatmentwill beprovided toall basesanitaryflows.Thecountywil I investigatepossibletertiarytreatmentwithafreshwateroutfall to facilitate water reuse. The policies also direct howthe county will provide the expanded treatment capacity necessaryto handlethe projected increases in wastewaterflows resulting from population and employment growth. The policies provide for the construction of a new treatment plant(the north treatment plant)to handleflows in a new north service area,expansion of the south treatment plant to handleadditionalsouthandeastKingCountyflows,andthereservationofcapacityatthewesttreatment plant to handle Seattle flows and CSOs.The potential for expansion at the west and south treatment plants will be retained for unanticipated circumstances such as changes in regulations. The policies address goals for odor control at treatment plants and direct that water reuse is to continue and potentially expand at treatment plants. The policies also describe a cooperative siting process for the newnorthtreatmentplantanditsoutfall. B. Policies. TPP-1: King County shall provide secondary treatment to all base sanitary flow delivered to its treatment plants. Treatment beyond the secondary level may be provided to meet water quality standards and achieve other goals such as furthering the water reuse program or benefiting species listedundertheESA. (KingCounty12-99) 28.86.050 METROPOLITANFUNCTIONS 28-82 • • - 'LEGEND. �-i "'_-^ EXISTING LANDSCAPING Q — f ..IEXISTING OR PROPOSED LAWN i ,,,yr,.Y /� r_ -:d,�z_.. �-,@ '$ �4 EXISTING WETLANDS&CREEK `S?., v Y�,• r 1 , ,,,,,.Z.- 'r.e : _•; •�\�.\'t\ Y'�.6 PROPOSED EVERGREEN TREES 8 SHRUBS • • I� I' _- O j/ . ?ter /ry '.'< 'ti �; O : �` +, .,' - 'i_ :-D PROPOSED::::::: SHRUBS t ',I', vr__________________. _.., ..- •••-•-co-/4- -.-..- :_-_,„..-.,*,,,;,, . , --•:\:,,,,..... ,,,,,, \, ..,..........: . • 1• t 1 i /y. ij, Ni pe• 9 « a'. 1 :+ 0 11 1 , \ ,�' i�• Q Wiz: .v..,Jy %/ ''� !) - 11F• „1,.. �''', ?P:4-; ''.'."' • ' b`a:" A,{ ✓::'• 1 t 1 \ �.�.s-� O �.:.�a�. . .v;�/ •II/ I •r�u_Iy 1 /�.�.. • `� iE• �r3 •'. 1-:•. ���,<..�y• r(�'---� •/� :•._ • +1 /�+\-\- .pT(r - >- ':1,''''''': / I I . + i la ® si'".nfk "-CA' +i- • .; .tr ,:''• •.V': -` •-.�4/. '� \\ T-. - .. /�', • u?,■Ovoa � i _ A. /_ I!• .-0-<oa ;k mil•'"f '�•... ,�, 1 't \ t 1. = .'�` a' ... a;?•--•,='.ryJ• ' r• t•, ( 74; : 4.tf :-? 7 ., �- _ •:;%y ::. _...j:.:� . L. ut• ,�I� Maya,.. �e . �!:_L _ 1 :t ��� Err-- , at;., I; .stiff" P , . �n fi, a it„,r ) ',III• 0' ral4. , )9 ... sTi ,•,-,,...7. ,• J,_ . _1!; III .r �y�—���, .�I ------1I *'•. '�.izC'� V.;'���' y�/ u i - '=CIE ;;,t It�' ti/� / ,PROPOSED PLANT LIST i .-it I 1"� '� -'-:- . '". "'�..= 'I �-rnr.- . -.: _' BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME NATIVE ' : PII RI W - ,II f j.. 3 e�•'- R t;I ", (' ,_,,,,� � R �,fgk-. � �� : `it +F / PROPOSED PLANT LIST -- nDOM..T�s. ,• '+. - y f 'S:'x/� III • .L�`�' • ' i �i' 1`•• . I I RM,.777 / lt`: � '�,, BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME" NATNE smurniw svrTcrc7.e. s •C 1` \ ./'r �7 I. ' �1 _ - I /9,:• :-'�• acrmuas m�s ew tz=wcu.we 'I` /4I 9I,f "4 i `, '"'�_ `q' 7 e A.�1V..:.?.:• / uz:Rwamnmaw MOGULS SR z :�.{.; .. r a±:�m: ^I�I � i '� ` -- " f ! + . /OMWAWA..sTrwmtna wew�rwne OErAa.ars scares t ilt i-`Sr �11 R _ ,:+- "'fit ) ..t.naumax.Tamar a®uwe b -' y■1�'j Oil ! 4, a.� `. ' ALN.OREcwn Rra.+nm x ' � ■N UJ • 'v ! {�i/ r ' A.HS WC.®©W, VAUD LDER z •weEs sucemmx. . "LOVA..0XWAL r 1,,� ,.y; ` ( kf . .- c rI`••=': Ae�Aru®eAavau sw...e,.crmr x t1t` ..�I. ,Liti • 3� - • e�411411PPlir, ,' \ / eEnzArARTRsme .esteata z �, I� op #•. " r / - wxwamar�TrasVC...w� zxi),.'i;. T -•`•�'^ T a _ P I®--7. • �_ 1, Y,.14 �,,,, y:/ 7 fir: �±v?,i.L3 7�.. 7FI ;< ( , , wcrwTriurw'cu'� .wmumrcarw+ Y AacrosTARRnoswAws eT +wr �, �r d'�i E` - _ .« .•' y ',, -o '•.. asws MORA ..... . • '1 1, Y t j /,IA ,e� :-__'1 ; Ji' •DS .','• 5 X ;: 'sue .Fi_• m, T — MEM • 1 i:` .I 1. 1" s1 y. C-/ - t AK ARES OW.. SR z • '. I s • -pV -_ . F�:i/ }1 1 i + CHAWS.PARauwsaau.n OR ®Art • x r ;g I �;.y'. �5. •C�i[' /•}} ! 3;y�eT c- �'`' •• ' asREaacmARISA.......1aw CRILESS '`. r ," 7 -- Y.}.S'' -'Ja '..},% • �, .�::ir�wr.,T' wEstae.�T�.a ' � � _ I I a - I / \ 1$, J`D /j. -2 ==A(l - ,.:. _ oErnuoussRms z • e. -• I ; ',Al! >µ, - 7.. 1i °o- , �. 4�� ^S F ��i1 r t xy '�i�: ^t ' 'F=1'�III.. t •• CORMS w WE 1AAPLE DOGWOOD i 1 ` �' i '° \. t • t. y „ - + :•.. ::;' • OOfWR.01.01.0.COMA (♦IDOSB.000NO00 Y • I !�t � ► .r rt r i !• t .i1 £ z y • a�aaaoaA oa o ' L - ` J I' � d� 111 Y�"�,A-V"V. =." 1: f, '/ 1OESA.tmv�lurrAtus .mEeAnn�+voamm.T z • _ , t't ar. ,.<� �(i�z, /r� 4—c—�—•— w `�.� �i1 �` •`"' f J SAMws RACE.. amme+mwr x_ • -k. ._ s�_rs. I o •y:,�-ram:. • .� ..:s."= .`-.a'irg _ __��s.' - .� ll, ����a '., � act • /..a.Ri�. }- s. �� '-• :�,� Eu .waes c M •,i,- •��� .�:. •.f:.:;. """"►, . .`= - +, — __ ____ ''' aunewswia. s.u� z 5' _ = CEAN01RUStW.1.1..A/E' QAROM6 x .,y _ - _ .: �`� � • :// wenu wuFatuw aREov.ewFE x -( ...- __- ...- _ _ - _ 7 ! ,' RwOooaoma.mcaEs an0a0Lzna0N • ` EV00Gf00001111CIOE860RY Y - WW 1.. MVOv�.zaAn. _ oItdid1111 ::"4"4? '-L� '�.`A.'y.a'._ _ — .. . •v •4 eRalrtomlaes . • _ _.'/. 104.05TAP.MOaWA.. eEALVOIR/ Y IA • t- • x .a.NP6a WORE IA01.ARTA• S AxaRE/. -A' ..... _ 1' --- ---- •�_�_ _ - - _ RaTSRnnr.Yxm.x SWORD REw. z SCALE:UM'=1'-0• ' _ ___ ___ _____ ____ ________ _ \� � S' V-3A'�xr0-____ ____-_ / tea'• • N. • • • • • DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES- WATER POLLUTION CONTROL DIVISION SCALE:1"=100-Ii^ • EAST SECTION RECLAMATION PLANT i IMINM . - o'' so'too' 200' '300' ENLARGEMENT IIIC•INTERNAL LANDSCAPING: 2/32 • s�oiP�nandCaidwe DESIGN DEVELOPMENT � PLANTING PLAN king-County Consultants - • Danadjieva&Koenig Assooiat S4''`- MY 1 111 TPP-2: King County shall provide additional wastewater treatment capacity to serve growing wastewaterneedsbyconstructinganewnorthtreatmentplantin north King countyorsouthSnohomish countyandthenexpandingthetreatmentcapacityatthesouthtreatmentplant.Thewesttreatmentplant shall be maintained at its rated capacity of one hundred thirty-three mgd. The south treatment plant capacity shall be limited to that needed to servetheeastsideand south King County,exceptforflows fromtheNorthCreekDiversionprojectandtheplannedsix-million-gallonstoragetank.Thepotentialfor expansion at the west treatment plant and south treatment plant should be retained for unexpected circumstanceswhichshall include,but not be limitedto,higherthan anticipated populationgrowth,new facilitiestoimplementtheCSOreductionprogramornewregulatoryrequirements. TPP-3: Any changes in facilities of the west treatment plant shall comply with the terms of the WestPoi ntsettlementagreement. TPP-4: King County shall establish goals for odor control at all treatment plants. In order to establish these goals,the executive shall investigate potential technologies and costs for odor control andrecommendapolicytothecouncilfori nclusionintheRW SP.Thisinvestigationshal I becompleted and a policyadopted in atimely mannersothatodorsarecontrolled atexisting plants and at any new plant.Odorcontrol faci litiesandequi pmentshal I bedesigned andoperatedtomeetthesegoals.lnthe caseofthesouthtreatmentplant,KingCounty'sgoalshall betosignificantlyreduceodorbelowbaseline levelsestablishedinthedevelopmentofthe1993southtreatmentplantairmodel. TPP-5: King County shall undertake studies to determine whether it is economically and environmentally feasible to discharge reclaimed water to systems such as the Lake Washington and LakeSammamishwatershedsincludingtheBallardLocks. TPP-6: WhenthereareopportunitiestotransferflowsbetweenKingCounty'streatmentfacilities and treatmentfaci lities owned and operated byotherwastewaterutilities in the region,thecounty shall evaluatethem.Such evaluation shall include,butnotbelimitedtocost,environmental andcommunity impacts,liability,engineeringfeasibility,flexibility,impactstocontractual and regulatoryobligationsand consistencywiththelevelofserviceprovidedatthecountyownedandoperatedfaci I ities. TPP-7: King County may explore the possibility of constructing one or more satellite treatment plantsinordertoproducereclaimedwater.Thecountymaybui ldthesepl antsincooperationwithalocal communityandprovidethecommunitywithreclaimedwaterthrougharegionalwatersupplyagency.In ordertoensure integrated water resource planning,in the interim period priorto the development of a regional water supply plan,King County shall consult and coordinate with regional water suppliers to ensurethatwaterreusedecisionsareconsistentwith regional watersupplyplans.To ensure costs and benefits are shared equally throughout the region,all reclaimed water used in the community shall be distributedthrougharegionalwatersupplyagencyconsistentwitharegionalwatersupplyplan. TPP-8: King County shall continue water reuse and explore opportunities for expanded use at existingplants,andshallexplorewaterreuseopportunitiesatall newtreatmentfacilities. TPP-9: A comprehensive public involvement program shall be developed and implemented to providethepublic,ataminimum,theopportunitytogiveinputonthecriteriaandthescreeningprocess usedforselectingthelistofpossiblesitesforthenewnorthtreatmentplant,itsconveyance system and outfallandtocommentonthefinalselectionofasite.TheKingCountyexecutiveshall establishoneor more committees to aid in the siting of a north treatment plant.The committees shall,at a minimum, evaluatesitingcriteriatobe used and proposea narrowed listofsitesforconsideration bytheexecutive afterconsultingwiththecouncilasfollows: 1. The King County executive shall transmit a m otion to the council that establishes the criteriabywhichsiteswi I l beselected;and 2. The executive shall providethe council with timely reportsthat detail the sitesthat meet thecriteriaandareunderconsiderationand,atalaterdate,thosesitesthatarefinal candidatesforthe sitingofthenorthtreatmentplant. TPP-10: Basedoncriteriaapprovedbythecouncil,theKingCountyexecutiveshallhavethefinal decisiononthesiteforanorthtreatmentplant.(Ord.13680§5,1999). (Ki ngCounty 12-99) WASTEWATERTREATMENT 28.86.060-28.86.070 28-83 customers when the additional monthly sewer rate revenues from these added customers are considered. FP-15: The cost of community treatment systems developed and operated in accordance with WWSP-15 would not be subsidized by the remaining ratepayers of the county 's wastewater treatment system.(Ord.13680§16,1999). 28.86.170 Capital improvement program. The capital improvement program required to implement the comprehensive water pollution abatement plan,as amended,including the RWSP,a supplement to the comprehensive water pollution abatement plan, as amended, shall be prepared pursuanttoK.C.C.4.04.200through4.04.270.(Ord.13680§17,1999). (KingCounty12-99) WASTEWATERTREATMENT 28.86.180 28.86.180 Implementation.A.The executive is hereby directed to prepare and recommend to the council an operational master plan that meets the requirements of K.C.C.chapter 4.04. If any portionoftheproposedoperational masterplan isinconsistentwiththe RW SPpoliciescontained inthis chapter,the executive shall submit at the same time a proposed ordinance amending the affected policies. B. The operational master plan shall contain the following major elements and shall further define as necessary the major projects,projected capacity,projected completion dates and estimated costsreferencedinthischapter.Theoperational masterplanshall i ncludeascheduleand mi lestonesfor completion of the north treatment plant by 2010 and a schedule and milestones for completion of the NorthLakelnterceptorasatunnelby2006orsoonerifpossible. 1. Treatment capacity. Population and employment growth is projected to require the wastewatersystem capacitytoexpand from two hundred forty-eight mgdtothreehundredfour mgd by 2030. The estimated costs of treatment facilities to achieve this expanded capacity by 2030 is two hundredseventy-sevenmilliondollars 1998netpresentvalue.Theexpandedcapacityshallbeprovided by: a. constructing a new north treatment plant on a site large enough to accommodate ultimateplantbuildoutinnorthKingCountyorsouthSnohomishcountywithacapacityofthirty-six mgd by 2010 or as soon thereafter as possible to handle wastewater flows from a new north service area defined in the plan.Thisplantwould providesecondarytreatmentandwould dischargetreated effluent to Puget Sound.To facilitate the production of reclaimed water,the possibility of upgrading to tertiary treatment with a freshwater outfall should be investigated during the initial phase of construction and subsequentexpansions; b. expanding the treatment capacity at the south treatment plant from one hundred fifteen mgdtoonehundredthirty-five mgdby2029.Thisexpansionwouldhandleincreasedwastewater flows from the southern and eastern portions of the service area. Some or all of the plant's capacity couldalsobeupgradedtotertiarytreatment,tomeetwaterqual itystandardsorfaci litatewaterreuse,as partoffutureexpansionsorinadditiontothesecondaryleveloftreatmentusingavailablelandreserves attheplantsite;and c. maintaining the west treatment plant a t its capacity of one hundred thirty-three mgd primarilytoservethecityofSeattleand handleflowsfromthecombinedsewersinthearea.Additional facilities should be planned in the year 2018 to accommodate the extended peak CSO flows that will occurafterstormsonceCSOcontrol projectsareconstructed. 2. Conveyancefacilities. a. The conveyance facilities are to be configured,sized and scheduled to support the treatmentplantsbyconveyingwastewatertoandtreatedeffluentfromtheplants.Theestimatedcostsof conveyancefacilities isfive hundred eighty-two million dollars 1998 net present value.Major projects, withtheesti mateddatethefacilitywill beonl ine,shouldincl ude: ParallelEastSidelnterceptorSection-1(2000) 28-96 I ncreaseYorkPumpStationcapacitytosixty-eight mgd(2000) ParallelAuburnlnterceptorSectionsl,2,&3(2004) Constructsixmilliongal lonsofoff-li nestorageatNorthCreek(2002) ConstructNorth Lake I nterceptorand pum pstationtoextendfrom the McAleer/LyonTrunkto theKenmorePumpStationsizedtocreatetenmi lliongal lonsofstorage(2006orsoonerifpossible) Constructforcemai nfromnewKenmorePum pStationtoNorthtreatmentplant(2010) Construct one hundred twenty mgd pump station at Kenmore to pump to North treatment plant(2010) Constructtunnelfrom North treatment planttoPugetSound,sizedtoaccommodateultimate plantbuildout(2010) ConstructNorthtreatmentplantoutfall,sizedtoaccommodateultimatep lantbuildout(2010) Constructthreetofive million gallons of storage at south treatment plant to achieveafive- yeardesignstormstandardofprotectionfortheEffluentTransferSystem(2030) ConstructAuburn I nterceptorStorage(2020) I ncreaseNorthCreekPum pStationtofifty mgd(2016) ModifyYorkPumpStationtopumpthirty-five mgdnorth(2016) ConstructforcemaintoconveyflowsfromNorthCreektoKenmorePumpStation(2016) (KingCounty12-99) 28.86.180 METROPOLITANFUNCTIONS b. King County will construct additional conveyance improvements (e.g., increasing conveyance and pump station capacityand extending conveyance)toaccommodate increasedflowsin otherpartsoftheserviceareatoservepopulationgrowthinthesmal lerwastewaterservicebasi nsandto preventimproperdischargesfromthesanitarysystem. Extending the county 's ownership of conveyance policy into Snohomish county will increase the amount of conveyance owned and operated by King County.The assessmentofthis extension will be doneandpresentedtotheKingCountycouncilandmayinclude,butnotbelimitedto,theSwampCreek andNorthCreeklnterceptorscurrentlyownedandoperatedbytheAlderwoodW aterandSewerDistrict. 3. I/I. The estimated cost for assessing the levels of Ill in local sewer systems is sixteen milliondollarsandtheestimatedcostsofpilotprojectsisfifteen milliondollars,bothin 1998netpresent value. 4. CSOs. a. CSO projects shall be prioritized based on first controlling discharges that impact bathingbeachesandspecieslistedunderESA.ThesecondpriorityisotherCSOlocationsthathavethe potential to affect public health and safety.Third priority are all other CSO locations.The estimated cost for CSO control projects is two hundred twenty million dollars, 1998 net present value. These projectareasshouldbecompletedonthefollowingschedule: Priority Projectareasandprojects Completionperiod 1 PugetSoundbeaches 2009-2011 Norfolk0.8milliongallon(MG)storagetank SouthMagnolial.3MGstoragetank SWAlaska0.7MGstoragetank M u rray0.8 M G sto rag eta n k BartonPumpStation(PS)U pgrade NorthBeachstoragetank&PSupgrade 2 LakeWashingtonshipcanal,eastside 2015 University/Montlake7.5M Gstoragetank 3 DuwamishRiverandElliottBayshoreline 2017- 2027 Hanford#23.3MGstorage/treatmenttank Landerl.5MGstorage/treatmenttank Michigan2.2MGstorage/treatmenttank Brandon0.8MGstorage/treatmenttank 28-97 Chelan4.0MGstoragetank Connecticut2.1 MGstorage/treatmenttank Ki ngStreetconveyancetoConnecti cut HanfordatRainier0.6MGstoragetank 8thAve.S1.0MGstoragetank W Michiganconveyanceexpansion Terminal1150.5MGstoragetank 4 LakeWashinotonshipcanal,westside 2029-2030 Ballard 1.0MGstoragetank 3rdAveW 5.0MGstoragetank 11 thAveNW2.0MGstoragetank Other Westtreatmentplant-orimaryandsecondary treatmentenhancementstohandleincreased flowsfromCSOprojects 2018 b. TheCSOprojectsmayinclude: (1) constructing large underground tanks and tunnels to store combined flows during storms.Theseflowswouldthenbepumpedtothewesttreatmentplantoncetherainsubsides;and (2) treating the combined sewage at existing CSO outfall locations using technologyto removesolidsanddisinfectthecombinedsewagebeforedischarge. Refinements to the CSO program may be required in response to changing conditions and new information.ThelistingofspeciesundertheESAmayaffectprojectpriorities,scheduleandassociated mitigationoptions. (KingCounty12-99) WASTEWATERTREATMENT 28.86.180 5. Biosolids. a. KingCountywillcontinuetoproduceClassBbiosolidsusinganaerobicdigestionatthe southandwesttreatmentplantsandtoimplementthesameprocessatthenorthtreatmentplantuntil a new technology can be used reliably. The plan also proposes that the county continue to evaluate alternativetechnologiestoreducethewatercontentofbiosolidswhilepreservingtheirmarketability.The primaryobjectiveofthisevaluationwillbetoidentifyalternativestodigestersatthewesttreatmentplant, aconditionoftheWestPointSettlementAgreement. As part of planning for the north treatment plant, King County should evaluate conventional, alternative and newsol ids processingtechnologies using criteria such as productquality(classAor B), marketability, odor and other potential community impacts, impact on sewer rates, reliability of the treatmentprocess,amountoflandneededforthetreatmentfacilityandthenumberoftrucktripsneeded to transport the biosolids produced. Based on the results of this evaluation and public comment,the executive should recommend one of three biosolids handling scenarios at any or all of the treatment plants: (1) continueusinganaerobicdigestion; (2) supplementanaerobicdigestionwithanothertreatmenttechnology;or (3) replaceanaerobicdigestionwithanothertreatmenttechnology. b. Theestimatedcostsfortheexpandedsolidshandlingfacilitiesneededatboththenew northtreatmentplantandthesouthtreatmentplantareeighty-fivem it liondollarsnetpresentvalue. c. The county should continue using a public-private partnership approach to recycling biosolids such as using biosolids on working forests in King County to enhance wildlife habitat and generatelong-term i ncomefromselectivetimberharvests. 6. Water reuse program.The south and west treatment plants should continueto produce reclaimedwaterfornonpotableusesandexploretheproductionofreclai medwateratnewfaci lities.The workplanforthewaterreuseprogramistobepreparednolaterthantwelvemonthsfromtheadoptionof theRW SP.KingCountywillworkwithwatersupplierstoplanandimplementanacceleratedwaterreuse programthatcouldaugmentexistingwatersupplies. If a public education and involvement program on water reuse is to be developed and implemented,itshal I becoordi natedwithwaterconservati oned ucati on program s.Theesti mated costto. evaluatepotentialfutureusesofreclaimedwaterandconductpilotstudiesanddemonstrationprojectsis twentymilliondollarsnetpresentvalue. 7. Communitytreatmentsystems. 28-98