HomeMy WebLinkAboutECF-02-141 3+"
, , , ... ,
,
.,
•
'., .
• " "
, ,
• "
. ' "
•
tlt panil.:ulM. RC'IlI.Of\ oDjt:d:s to propof.OJ Exbibia S.l, which is a ktter from 1...arry
)
ktku is typed "PriwiktaJ Satlc:ment D~Il$..'" This lend' w:&.1 authoroJ hefcrc (he •
S ias!lUl' ~ W3f med teP:tte thr:: IJQanL aM in an atttmpt ro!iCtUc the pmtling appeal of
~ a.. ><\cq""'y or the: EIS l'<1i>r< the Ifc:uiog Examina, lief"", this letter w.u ~ .hctc
1 wac sddClUttrt discussM"os between Mr. Nirhot..ln, Renton, a. .... Blxing. 100 fuel that 1he:
a w-.dcmtnl d$:u.ssioou were prtYilcgrd, am not l'IUbi«t to disclosure to 8/11 laIr.:r
9 adjudic3trve body. WILt explained 10 Mr, N..icbobon. lIe now('OOosr:s to ignott Ihc:
10
conhtJmti&lily oftb: ~mcnc. negolialions. 'Ibis extUbit should be rejcacd as privite§Cd.
" 12 This.cxhibil tibJuld abo be tejcaedu it is nol partofth: dcci:.Wn:d record of the City. I:
13 -_ abo .. 1wxcd ~"' .. iaJJy after aU dccisiom Md occum:d tNt 11ft: lhe <'IUbjcc:t oflhls
t' ,coteIII'.
15 PttllioMr ... )' aot add IlIdditioa.1 laaa.
On peec It ofpcticionu's re:spomive nfan= li$tcd tfvec DeW isqn lnchdcd
20 to the defJCiencic:s in a priorxt ofW:ucs. It 'WOUU scc:m ttul Dising QCW issues is a Lxit
21 ... :rniuW}Q ttm the prior issues 'WCf'e de6cimt.. t-tnalJy. new issues were 10 be ljmikd 10 EIS
22 lssIlO arowing.out of the JJearing ExMlbcr's dtti1ion on the ~ ofthe' EIS. Sc-e
p:tte 7. fOotnote 7. o(lhe BoanJ's Pn:beatiDg Order. Arry new iwlC' bruItd upon the CoWlly-
ItJ!.NTON"S ItI!.mJfTAl. TO PETITJOf"ER'S R~PONSft
.t. UlUF.F ro rns{'Osrnve MOTIONS fOR DlSMI~AL · S
•
, '
,
_,,-~,,~ ......... _.~u .. _ .............. ..,-. ... _. _ ................. _ ....... ..
, ,-
,
t ,
"
. ' .. ,
...• " ,
) ,
,p , .,.; ,
, , ..
,
" r:~. , , , ;~. , ,
"
, ,
•
•
.-, ,;
•
I 5.
, .
"
• . . .'
" • " .
o
Petllioou', aUtmpt Co move for lummi". juds:mcDt ls uatimcly .. d
lupproprblc IA • rnpoQlln bricr •• d is .ot .upponed by ~len.1
dtanOD, 10 authority.
5 motion. oM seeks an onlcron 5UlJlIn3ty jocgmcnL Sec petit-toner's response bricf;J1 p::tCC'
6 42. line 8, nod footnotes sa Wld 89. -
7 This motion far surnnwy judgment is imppropriate COr a number of reasons. TIK
8 motion is nollimcly bect.usc it is. dispos~jve rmtion. whieb h;:.d to b: filed by Marcil)~.
9 200." '!be motion is also inappropriate b:x.ausc it is contained in II: resJlonsi ... -c brid to a
10
II
rmtion to dismiss petitioner's 21 issues for n:\.'iew. I;inatly, it sbouJrl be denied bean~ the
supporting bricruig is bcrdl of nnnlysis or diso·ssion of why. summ:uy judgment 5bauW
12
13 be grunled and on .... hich ofpctitionc:r's 21 issues or four new i.....rues \he sul'TUI'Wy judgment
" should be "' .... ,
15
16
17
18
6. The 8<tard IlboakS give DO ddrrnt't 10 pt'tilioner beaa.x"c is pro K.
The Board should ... 'Oid givin~ any deference to petitioner because: be is pro 5C.
The Board has dealt with similnt situ:uions. Sec. for c:umple. FACT dol. v. Cit)' 0/
&11 ...... epSOMI/O. No. 02·3.0014 (2003). Foccd with. ,imiW pro so choIlcnge 1UId.
19
20 failure to follow escablished procedures., the Board sawed:
21
22
23
2~
25
26
27
The Bo,ud, has great respect [or the considerable effort th.1t pro ae
pctitioncn must expend in order 10 place iWaet tNt c:onecm them before the
Bo4rd. Nevmhdess., the butdc:n of prooflhat a petitioner In.lSl c:any is the
s .. unc regardless ofwhcthcr the petitioner is on Attorney or a non-attorney.
As ooled nbovc:. in order 10 ovaoomc the pmwmption of ,-alidily ••
petitioner must pasulJdc: the Boord that the Mx:Jl zovmunent h.1s Detro
c:rror.:o\l\1y,.nd to do so it must PiCSClIt clear. 'wcU-reasoncd Iq;at
al1tamcol supflOned by roppropriatc rcrc:n:occ 10 the reb1lnt fxts. statutOf)'"
and (aX I4w provisions. Writlen or oral pbditigs that bek tlae aurihutcs
will nol sulTtCC-
28 RENTON 'S REmrrTAl TO PETITIONER'S RESPONSE
A DRltfTO DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS rOR OISMISSAt· 6
,t.l1c.mt1l a , ~
_ .... It .... ..-,_ ......... _ ... --.... ,,_ ,,",' •• z;o~",._, ... -.... , ... -......... ,.~ ....
, . • • • , -, " • ,. ., , .. .
,
< " .. , -
I .. , . , -,
•
•
• , , , •
•
•
• --.-
"
.'
,
•
'.
.,
,-, . ..
. " . ,
" •
I, _1~_''' •• '''''' ~,_~, ~ .• ~, ...... J' ..... ~_~''''''l''''W "",.~' ..... ~.. I)
•
,
1
2
)
•
5
6
1
a
9
10
11
12
"
Here. the P" .. 'tk.ioocn' ('.DC is undc:rmi.oo:l by ttt;, f.3ct tMt the: organization
:ud prexnlution ot JUVl.Unc:nt wat dirrlCult for the I30aN 10 folloW; argument
:Wow specir" kgul issues was diITkuh to 1ot:atc or missing entirely, as WJI.S
~iwion ~o rrSc:~ folCls. For examplt. the Petit~nen suactcl an Exhibit
lig oM thirty -three: lIa·.lUDbuN documeutJ to lhtir rlclcu=nll Drief, but
then nt'\'"Ct rcJimd '0 My Ilfthc e:lhibilJ in die text Dfl'" brk( Rcfaellccs
'" tho: record It¥oughout lhc brief bek i&kntif.cation:u spcc.iHc exhibits or
app~odtcc;,.
-Furtlx/. fSlbtr th.m prl'lidc argument grouped under SflCCiflC legal issues.
!he Pew""", groupaJ """'Y kg:.! issues 1<>gdhcr under scvcnJ ~
(fu 1) The text tmdcr thcx hc:lklina,s doc.., not cite to the ACtual wording in
thr specifIC lia:ti;)n.s ofRCW 36.70A (with the exccption o(RCW
16.7DA.140 on PC-9ofPPHB). The arguments arc: nollOcusc:d on the Lcpl
laues as Wd oUil wder Kdions II 4 iV .. ,
FACT. as PI'. ~II.
(Empbu~ in origiu.sL)
1kte is a simil:ar Ixk oforpni1.:lJion IU'd failure to follow the ilo4rd',s proc.edur3J
13 rub l.'l ~ltioOL"r'.J Q:SC.
Whij.e it is realized thot the Dow'j decisioo in FACT" ai, v, OtyofJkIl~ was
QII the I1~riu,. nol'1C't.hckM. it is m."ilt'UcCi ... e. This Bonrd should not be in the position of
trying to seconcJ.euess who: ~ pcOt ioner is 3Tguing or wbot authority he is relying upon.
If pc:tit4Def eM', Slate. cohcrcu issue or supfM)rt an issuc: with applicable:: fact or !taw. the
;CQlC ~Jd be d.i.vn.Wed. Remon. Boeing and the Bow should not !r)' 10 orpnize the
d~ n:3d bet "cell the: lines to lind SUPPOr1ing f:ttt.s. or p:1r5C Il'IJItipnrt i:ssuc:s to
xooudl k>r a 1c:me1 DC a rplargument wif"",h can be m.lIun:d to an aaxpUble IepJ issu-:
only upon 2pphtallon of conjct:tu.re. By law, petjlionct' is required to stale cScar concise
Iq;aJ j.,ucs ~ OIl GMA or SEPA. This he has wkd to do.
111. CONCI,WION
dbmls[I;lIf by Renlon and Boeing. they 4rC conceded. j\dtHtion:ally, h:cau..-.e pditioncr ruil~
P;ENTf\N 'S RI~.m.rrr"L TO PET1110NEr.'S Rf:.Si'ONSP.
A BRiEf TO OtSPOSmVR ~101lONS fOR DISMIS~AL. 1
","'loll""'".' UW _ .. __ ......... , -'-"'--
,
• • , • ,
,
. •
, •
• ,
. .'
,
•
.-r. ..... _ ...... _. --..... __ ............ , ... --........... :-
• .. -
,31
"
, ,
• •
,.
.' '.
,
•
•
I to cile to or argue any onus 21 issues. ,hey An: dcaucd to be .mndoncd. Tbal beqlhc
ca.sc. this Board h.u twJ al1emative but to dismiss pctitiona's 21 IcpJ issues. and with
3
lbcm. the pditiof1 for rrncw.
6 DATEDIhis r dayor~~~i2_·6-__ ~.2OOI. -5 IU:spccIr.uy submitted.
7 WARREN DAIUlER 8: FONTES, P S.
8
9
10
II
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2)
25
26
27
28 RENTON'S RF.8UIT At.. TO pmmONml OS R~roNSE
&. DRIEf 10 DlsrosmVU MOllONS .'OR DISMISSAL-I
a"a. .. n,,'l_ -"' ...... _..-, . -------_ ..... _ .. _. --, ... -....... _....-
• .. • •
, , .' . '.' .~.
,
CI~Tlflr.ATF. OFSF.~VJCE
00 Aj>'iIl, lOO4, r cau.'IOd 10 be xmd upon n> ... <cl or -I'd." tl1e oddt=es
""lid btbw. via .meihod of ~ke indbl.').I, true and ccrrcct copies (wilh (he original1o
Ii~ no",,::) ol~bc Rdluttal by the Cil), or Renloa 10 ~c;tifioneJ"s Response and Bricfto
Oi:spo.:tii:r.'c: Motions For Dismissal
Mr. _ N'"hol.o.
DOO NE 111" SIJ<d
R_WA9I05I'
Mr. G.:.. Scholer
Pcdin$ C,oio LLP
l2'O1 Third A1o'eWC. Suit.c ~IOO
SoatJo. WA98101·J099
CcnInI Pugc< Soood Growth
M II .. Boord =-cannp,>
?OO 4" Ave. M2-f70
Seoulc:. W A 911164
-
1 certify urxkt ~y ofperjury unda the bws o(the SW:eo(Washtngloa And
the United StXes lIIat the: bqoing-is true 3nd coll'tCt..
DAlEO at RaIl"", WaIIingIon.lItis 2"' dlyoe Apri~ 2004.
~a.ct..L)
CERTIfICATE ();I SERV1Cll· I
• ••
•
•
. -
,
• •
•
I
I
J
< , S
6
1 • • I.
" " 11
" " 16
11
" . ~ . .. ,. .,
II
21
IJ
-, ,.
" ~6
17
2S
2'1
3D
" " JJ
].I
JS
16
J1
" " <II
" " ., ..
", 'S <.
n
-,
,
,
o
. ,'-
"
•
• . , -.'
,
,
lR1E <ClEIIWIEJD)
APR Q J 1001
7
N~RREN 8I.RBER & FOt/;ES, P.S
PRESIDING OFFICER BRUCE LAING
CENTRAL PUGET ~"UND
GROWTlI MANAGEMfNT HEARI1"GS BOARD
STATE OF WASIIINGTON
URAD NICHOLSON,
l'etitionCf,
CITY OF RtNTDN,
R~~nden1.
TIlE BOEING COMPANY,
Inltl\'enor.
NO 04,J-0004
nOE{lI.'GS RE1'L Y IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION 1"0 DISMISS AND IN
OPPOSITION TO PETITIO,,'ER'S
PROPO,;ALS TO ADD NEW ISSUES.
SUPPLEME"T THE RECORD, AND
REQUEST SUMMARY JUDGMENT
I. Il"tTRODUCTtON
IntCfvenor, the noOnS Company eOO\.-in~n. and respondent, the City of Renton (the
"C~:y.). have requested that the Centrall'uget Sound Growth Man.lgemenl Hearings \loard
BOEING'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO DISMISS, I
to totIl.oI"~t./HO'm Ottll
• . " .
I'FJI.:.L'" Con; ur
1101 Tbl~ ~\'ffiU(':. Su~.(~
~attk. Wasluas:1on 98101 ·)t1n
(2f») !I3J~
•
I ,
j • > • ,
• • 10
" " 1J
I.
U
I.
17
to ..
20
" " 1)
2".
l>
16
'7 -11 ,.
'" )I
J2
n
j4
l>
I ,.
" J.
)" ...
" .,
.) ...
" •• . ,
• • " • •
• , -<' ....
,
• ' .. '-,:
•
••
g;j' j ;lIIi 11O( , • .>._"",
•
'"" ~
(the -iJO;tnn d1sn..ig ~lIl)f pc!'licnltt. UrAd NlChulson't. (·Mr Nicholson-), claims for relief
:st't rnnh.lS ~11~11:')'ue. ... in Mr Nicholroon'i R.eSl :lIemenl ofluuC!S. dilled Frllmuy 11.
'ZOO4 eik$laltme111 ofluue3-) The mc:wns to dismiss nlcd by Doc:ing ~nd the City hl\'e
idenhtic:d ~Jfic na'I'Y!I It! coach of the tr."..lmCnl00 i"ues stOlto::d by Mr Nkholson JII
rc'ipo.Ac.t. Mr Nidlobon tu.s f~led 10 rebut or ~'("n ;ddr('s~ Ihe issue·spec.jfic naws and
O2orgumenu ,000scd by 1~ u,)' a."Wi noc-inS Instead., Mr Nicholson argues an entirdy new
issue nol ir.tluded In his PetstlOn ror Review or Rest.atcf1'h!nl of Issues -consislcn: . .-y with
Ki!1g County planalRg poilc;o In I1IddillOn, Mr Nichol$4.'>n st:C:ks to supplement the lecord
ror re\lC'w wilbclll • proper and tllnd,. motion in accordance with the Board's Pn:hearing
Ol'\kr FiJU:ilr. M, Nichol«m mlllu~s. request ror summary jl-dgn.ent in hi~ (avor, ",hich
ihou!d be denied with prc:judicf:
II. Till: MOTIONS TO DIS~IISS SIIOULD DE GRANTED.
On Of be:orC~lilf.:b 'So 2004. the City and Boeing filed Motior'ls to Dismiu thaI
idcJllitied sp...ocif-e O!l\U il~ SfO'.·nds ror dismissal ror each of the enu'tlef3.too is~es for
rmew propose! i."1 Mr Nicholson', Restatement orhsul:s In fe-oponse, Mr, Nicholson
claim~ II,) .ddros ~bcr", eWt issue is relaled to fIOll-complia.nce wilh the: GM.-\ and SEPA •
P('titicnc:r Respon~ Brief.lt S l·io","e\·CT. in ~ff Nicholson's Response Brief, the Coord "'ill
find ablOlutely no specifie rcfercnc.e 10 any or,he 2: J iSSUeS Ihat Mr Nicholson Ius proposed
for re"\.icw _Likewise, UlC! llo.ut 'Nil! find 1'14.' issue-specific. ItsponSt toJ or rebuttal of the
lelid ;equened by the Cit)' and noei;tg Of thc:i:: arguments in suppon urtbe requested fchef.
At m.~. t~ Oo.vd will fmd that Mr Nicholson continues 10 l1\sist that the Uoard reviC"oll
Iepi j!:SUtj thai are Ol..Jside the Hoard', juri~u;tiM .5« reeit joner Response Brief at 24
(Clean W~er Act); J I (RC:W Ill .02\. )5-36 (Wutu,..gton Conflitulion); 42 (other
un),pt.'Cifitd Wi!l!>hin~IOilI.wJ) .
no,,'NG'S ~EPlV!N SU?PORT OF
r
MOTION TO DISMISS. 1
l:O'lIIt l""'"1I ~ tIIlJl
•
•
•
' ... 4
" , , ,
,
..
r.-RkI1"5 COIl! UI
1201 Third A\lC'n~. Sullc: 41(10
So..-JI1Ict, WnhitlZlon 91101 ·j009
(lUt.) .sSl PUll
,.
.. 7, ,
, ' ,
-.
' ..
, ,
, t
•
,
,
>
Jl
I ' -' ., . •
•
•
•
I , ,
• • ,
• . . 7 ..,
• • 9
I.
II
12
I)
" , " .', I. .. " II
" " lO
21
" 21 ,.
" ,.
" " 29
)0
1I
lZ
Jl
)4
.' J> ,.
• 17
" ,.
•• " " ., .. . , ...
"
•
"
•
"
' . ........,--" .. __ ~.!T.
o
While the st.:mt!ud ofrcv;cw f('f mortuas to dismiss uses a pfeRImptHln in (",",or of
die petitioner,' the Dove; is not required to (jilin the mis.'Iing dements oeMr, N"Khobotfl
claims 01 to search Mr NiChol"",', Pctition for Reo.l1.w and Rc:stUemc:n' oflssut"'. for
rcspol'l:SC.1 and argument, thaI Mr Nicholson tiu flilcd to • .u!:'l1 in opposition to the motions
10 dismiss In addition, IDthe extent fhlt Mr N"ICholson', ke.spoc\C" Drief offers any
arsuments. they Arc mllde v. llhout rcreJC~ to any specific IS;SUC that Mr. N"lChoJson seckJ to
jllslify,nplain. preserve. or defend. S£: WAC 242..02·570(1) (~Dricfs ,.!'~I1 enumerate and
sct forth the legal issuc(s) as specified in the prd1etring order , .. ) Thus. Mr "SichOOon
hu failed 10 salis(y C'VCn the most minimal burdc~ of stlting j5sucS thai are rl:\'ieoNablc by
the Boud Uoeing's Molion to Dismiss and 1~ Dispo$iti ... e Motion or-the-City of Rc:aion
~hould be granted
III. TIlE ROARD SIIOUI.D Rf:JECl'1\JR. NICJIOl..SOl"S
A TfEMPT TO ADD" NEW ISSUr. ~\RISINC UNDER TIl!: G!\oIA.
Rather th3n rnpond 10 the issue-spteitic jutisdirtional ~ws MId a.JSUmcr.u nlscd by
Uoeing and the City. Mr. f'Ioicholson uses mol'" of his brief to usuc an cntirdy~' imJe lh3t
was never raisal in the PC1ition for RC'\.;('\\.· nor in the Restalement ofluues Mr N"teholsc..:
alleg,:s;lnd lllguCS Ih:il the City's compn:hI..-rui\·C' plan a!Xl zoning amendments arc
inconsistent \.\oith King Count)· pl3.!ming policies. which he refers 10 as ~CJ'P~ throughout hn.
opposition brief Stt Pttjt jo~ Rcsporl$e 8rit"fAt 3·". n.18, 22·24, 29. 36, 41-43, and 47
This i.!i a new iooe ,"!oing cnder the Gn:o\\1h ~'R;1gem~ '11 Act CGMN), ~tb is
not included in the Board's Prehe.uing Order bocau~ it Wli not tlIised in Mr. Nicholson',
Petition rut Review nor Ns Res:.atc:mcnt orlssues This is!lue ahltKY. r.ow be 2ddcd \\;lhotn
1m Petlt iona Ropome Unc( '1t4} ~ 92
nOEtNGS t:.£PL'f IN SUP,l()RT or
MOTION TO DISMISS" 1
IO)ooMJI7S1l.0.D\lOC ~~1
, •
\
. ' .. •
rn .. ,...s Om;; UJ'
1101 Thud A,'a!IJt'. ~itc-.a~
Saltlr. Washlr.pJCl 9S1{H )()99
(M~ !oU·1SS!
, ,
.-, .
• '.
,
, , , ,
;~
'.
-.! 1 .~, ,,(>"; _''-.~''
,
r
) • 5 • 7 • • !it
" " Il ..
I.~ ,.
11 ,. ,-,
~
!I n
2)
" ,~
26 ,., ,. ,.,
lO
" J2
}J ,..
l~ ,.
n
'" J? .. ., ., ., ....
'$ ..
<7
le:we OrlM B02J'd WAC ':41 "()~·~l) 11us aSll(l CAnnot nc~" he added ""ilooUI II proper
~x;,. $I.attng the j/(ouMb fC'f' ka ... e II) add a ~'is$U( W i\C .!42"()2.S,30( I}
t'i)nbL'rmore, tOe lJ.o.ltd shoWd n'I'oi &' aN lea\,,: to ad 'i tNllJ,SUt: bec'L:SC it is r:uscd fur l'le
firsl time In orf'o~ion to motions to dism is, inti It is :.mtirucll under tI,e ncard's P,dlC:!.1 ing
Onkr. <:rotu;;.h. onI~ ~In"-N' ,iJr the ~d"Jon of new ISsueS arisin8 under the Stale
EU¥I((l(l;"w'~1 Policy Ad ("SEPA·)' WJ\C 2~'l·02.'j}2(1) (,,-motion can be tiled it .~y
umc unl.;. .. } ~ist wc:ofi."J by lhc: floard) In lCCOfW.ce wit~l the Prdtr..-ing (bder
Kbed4lt"-. DoenS .ml the Cit'} bJ\'I; already tiled dispoul\-,c motio::t-S cor..cc:rr .. nK all issues
l,Ii~r.g under lile GMA The CIIY and lloei.nr-would i).: r,re;udlcN II M, NIcholson were
.a1JO'tIo-"td to add G~t' issuet 16" lhe dr-... dlme ror Ji:;posill,'c: millions. The Doard ~hould
IV, 'fIIE 80,\RO SUnllLO RI:JECr MR. NICIiOl.SON'S
L\lPROP£It ,\'rn::\tPT TO SUPPl.EMENT TilE JtF.CORD.
J Mr. Nicholson's Response Rf~el)AIs.u IIU!mpt1l(' supplcmcllllhc record for review i ",ithL'lUt .. proDCt and tinldy maficn to )iuflvlvnent the record ~ Petitioner RCl>pt nse Rrier
,
: .\fr: NiclJC's<tn ;tolso 11J(:kui.:s In lns unci lD opcA}I!'hon 1(1 mtAions 1.0 ClS!nlSS;to prt.pouJ to
;t,d;I mm: fMI(;I (or In..:'" ba.<ocd on the-~~ o,'w UI)', QVlrjmmcnt."\I uupa.c:L SQIcrn-:fl1
~--as.) u,wn Sf.rA .. SI;: PmtDlCl Pt'...,ome 01 -:(:11 II Undtr me-Roard's Ptch::3r.ng Otdet, Mr
~K"hoI!IOft IS ;aiJo.~ to~« the Oo.1ntll lau~ w.wd EIS WU(S ;tofter a final JcCl!IDft ~.lht: City of
. R~ f~lng wmtnCf ~ before Apnl 7,:lO.14 ~ C,ty's I~ Ex;amlflr.r jnucd:a (ifill
derulUi on)f~ 11~ lOO-l 'TltcR-!o.rc. :» .. tC'ln, doe' IIOC obJcO tu the p~ IUlIn on groun'.!s I
Eb;u: lhcy:ar:: ;-t1-1I!td,' I~C\-(T, 00a111 ~n 1M: nghl to ~spMJ to:u:\d oppose Mr, I
. N~'s ~-..I eo: lU...:::""'llm Pcll'!Y.lfI fa' R\"\'tcW IInJ adj thrco EIS ~SlK.'2.. R3th...'f th;m do 50
Oft repl)' '" ~ptJr,l1 or d31'nC(1% lO &:m'IJU llocfng 1IIo~.i1 fCl<"~aoJ IQ the p~--d EIS ('sues In ~
scpu:ric p!.Qdin.J I~ Yn.'!fl;f:-filed by Ap"( 14, 10(14. lI'uc(:ud.un.e With tt£lJo:ud'. rrd~C3f1"S
Older NOC~'thbndlnlllhc da'lS'oo lUued t., Ih: Cit)' rf "'em"",', 11",1mll [umlr..=r 01\ M~ch. 22,
10M. ttN: S£PA It$\A'-'\ It,,tl vrcre fr.mt<:J before 11K: lic.um" Wmlncr'li dcc:$I.)n wet"! ptefNL .... -: 1Uld
shruM bedarnl)~d
U<JElNGS IlEPI.Y 11'/ SUI'I'ORT Of
MOTIO~ TO 01 S,"ISS ".
IOnlj~U-'$tJ.tCWM ""f
Vt:JIl.;'''-S emr.I.!,!'
1:'01 TIuld A\~. s.t:St ."J}
~lIClk, 'Jf IShilli1cn '}« 1(1I ·)(ffl
(2~) '"l AII!t8
• '. ......... r _J j ,
"'" ,
" • , -
• ,.
" .,
.' ."" . , , " . . , • ',.
" \
, . . , , "
, , "
, ,.
•
I
• .'
•
.. .. , . ' . ..
• , •
. . •
,
-. . -
•
,
.. ' • •
.... __ .::'..J.".:.._._ ... ..;. __ ... J: ... rO!)o •••• '.,.._ .... .;;_..:;~_:.._ ... __ -........ , -----"'.1>-.
I ,
) • ,
• ,
• ,
I •
" 12
Il
" " " " " " 2.
II
" 2) ,.\
lS
" 27
Z. ,.
JO
" " Jl
34
" ,.
J7
" " " 41
" ., ...
" ..
47
Cl 12.~'.s 2. S 3A. 5 S, S 6, S 7. S 8 • .5 9, S 10. S 11 } Under (he Doaflfs ;-rencaring Or'-.1',
Ilny motion to supplement the record fOl lCVIt-W wu due 0:1 Match I~. 2004 Mr. Sichohon
did not £trvC Boeing wilh a Motion 10 S.JP111emcnt the Rcc,ord:wl 1l0CHtg is entitled 10
prc5Ume that Mr Nic;oolsan did n'JI. liIe IUch a motiO!l by tlhtch IS, 21'lO4. Morco'o'f':I', Iny
motton to rupp\cmtnl the rcc~rd must "SlAte \\i:.b pvticuluilY 1M groundS-for such
supp~e",(nlation.. .... llicb Mr Nicholson hlU r.iled 10 do ~ WAC 242-02·530( I) Mr.
Nicholson'~ .. ucmpt lu supplcrT'ellt the rc«,d using his March 29, 20(}1 brieCi>! QWOlition
10 l.::>tions to dismiu i~ untimely. unju"ifiai, a.l1d lhould be denied.
Y. THE nO,\Rll·S IlOUL!' Of:NY MR. NIOI0l.50N'S MOnOl<
FOlt SUM-~I .\nV JUDGMENT AND lUS:\lISS AU.11 ISSUES..
Mr. N:choIJoOn's brief in opposi.tion If' motions to dl5mi\l' includes., rlob~1 mot"'"
for summlSl y judgment 5..t~ petitioner Resronse Drkf al 42 notr.s 88·90 and acccmpanyir.g
tt'Xt rp':titiar.et ! ,,,-, pro\'t:d ctlou Ch And can now be: granted rdief . ,. Then" arc
subsliantitli irrcgutarhics and violations of Washinglon La .... '5.· w:th notes ('QUesting
Sllmmuy judgn:tnt under CR S6{c) rut Mr, Nicholson;u die non ·moving patty and
aucrtir.g tholt there are nu gmuine issues of m.iltCfiaJ fact). ittJlU9 isl &11 ("I have auady
proven the act.=ons to be in error and O'.Jtside the legitimale objectivcs oftht: act, &l!d 1 dU
a;:1in and herein Sllisf) the: requ ircl burden of proofin dem<mstrating \lntz .... fu~ or their
actions , . ."'). In his opposition to motions to disntlss, Mr. Nic.nclson aucru that he is
entitled to sutnntU}' judgment btcausc the Cit~ Jnd Boeing ha,'c failro to rose any gcrw:nc
, Pclltionct'.s Response bn<:f indle:lla lhaltho.: rr fcrOlGCd nutcrWs;ue filed \\"~ lhc bner.
but Docing \\-.u !JOt served "lIb the suppk'nle1;lu.11~len:l!s DocIng h:!s no cbJ«1 io n to ckr.:um:nu
ltut an: 3lrQdy ux:luoo' dlC rt.:ocd f(1f t""ICW pro\,IOcd by the C1t)' Of 10 the $uppkrnt'ltUl1CW1 orthe:
rcconi ",th the fin;tl dccls ,on orahe City (If Renl an I lQrmg c'(:unmer. ",t,,,h "0\5 iul..oo:d (.00 March
22,200.1,
DOEING'S RElIl.Y IN SlJllPORT OF
"lOTION TO DISMISS -5
11)'I.lm4I,,"'1 ~ "'"
,
,
"
..
nltKI~ Col!: lU'
1201 Thd A,'CIlI.It. SUile "800
!Io.'3I'Ik. W.&,hUl,toC: 93101 ·3(9')
(:Qt" SS).ISU
,
,
, •
I
1.
I
, , ,
• 7 • • '" II
" ., u
" " ,.
" I~
:t.
OJ
11
1},
~.
,~
'-' l6
" " '" 10
Jl
Jl
" " " .;6
31
)S
'" '" " .,
'! ...
-6 ...
"
-
., , . .... -.. • •
' .. • .'
•• , -, •
• -~---"'"'
•
1"1>ueJ ()1' m<'.U'JW (wa in t:lis C3./oC' l~ lit 27 {. All or 6c I:'ctuul alfc:ogation5 c..onlaioct\ in the
f':l lrion (or-RcviC"l\l <tn: true and umil)PUtCd. ""'111 ee5pOndcnl-Y;d IntCf'oc-ncr [ .. ie) WCf':'
unablot to ronyl!.ll .II"' "If those P.K:II·) A'I. ~iCh.. he iUks the Do;ud fDr II. final order findinl!,
the City's iK1tOM in ... ;tIld ,\'1d lemandlng 1~11t to tnc City (Of cOllection I.sL at S (·Il temand
ur dl:.;:loll'lltoh Orinv1hdny S.lk)'IJld. now tnsue "). 25 n 49 ('"tn Ofdcr should t'!IlSUC
accordingl,.· .. with rc:ferenu to WAC.l~ 70A )00 anc! "(jr,..1 oNet'·)' 41 (. A Remand or
d«bntioll of I"v.ltdd), ,houl«! ensue, 15 ~pCstd 10 a dismissal ()f thcse legitimate GMi\
l ~~!i !I i, JlOW II~ Ilf'd n(.:ce:.tSlry ") l1w:rt c..\n be no droht that Y.r Sicholsor. hl$ noW'
due by M.ur:.h Ii. :004 undcl the Ooard'1 Prt=henrin8 Order flo'Ji-e .. '('r, ir the Goard
~,:ol1:1idC1. th;a' n~lon.. If :U;ould be denied on ttu: rhc. flli ,",I ~tr, Nicholsont /21 C1Iumerllled
issuC:t ,hQuid now be disnn:ued '>''tlh pr:judic.c,
ToOOf.1in ~mrnary jlJdgmalt., Mr Nlchol)On fnl,lSJ s.atjsfy.1 .. tty hc;!.\'Y burden The
l:'.d1'S (,ortlpfe~ci"e plU! amenduscnts and dtvtlopmcnt rqJUlalions MC' prcsum'!d voalid
\V AC 2-12-02-610 As pdrtioncr, Mt J'IOkho,!.$On bun lhe bunkn c(proving th:lt the Citys
K'licnJ do DOl wmply with i1u: OMA and are ~clearfy (7(oneotJs in view of the -:mire
record berorc 1he: boud" WAC 242-02..6]2(1). WAC 242-02-634 Mr. Nicholson dod not
meet thas bu16c"
t:D01er WAC 24~.02-S7O(1), ~llJ petitlOnct , Fl411 submit a brief Qflt;;.,-'lJwJ
i1w£"jU!M1uJrnrd.blJf(trnlJi~~ ind "Jb]ncfs !>han enumerate ::U1d set forth tnc iegal
iuut(,s);ls 5p«-ifietJ in the ptCncuing order-." (emphasi' added) Mr Nk.x,lson', motion
for ~mmuy judgment rrakd no refc;Itf)::.l "halSO<\t:J' to the 21 issuell enumen1~d in the
Plcheanng Ot\icr, It is Ihe1cfure impo\:J,bl-= IU re1a.te any of ~fr Nlchnls(ln's OIl guments 10 3
OO!;INGS ""'PLY I .~ SUrmR r Of
r
;...t(rt'ION ro f)JSMII\S -ft
,.'"'1-f), .... '11 ~'~·I
''f.lllm.s Con; tiP
1101 TlIlfIJ "ytt'Je., Suitt!"SIX)
~lIIllC', W.uhlnllon 93101 ,JC;)9
(::uti) SIlJ-~1i8.IJ
•
-C-_ .... i.; •••• ~:".-._-::; ... · ",,'!Co -... .,.,..
L -,., "',
••
. ,
•
i
•
•
,
•
,
,
• •
J , ,
6 ,
• 9 ,.
" 12
IJ
" " " " 18 ,. ,.
11
" " " " " 21 ,. ,.
'" JI
32
]]
" 3S
:If
" JI
).
4C , " ., ., ..
" •• "
• L •
'. • • . '
..
,
•
•
,
.
' .
, ,
specifiC issue to be dC1Ct'..nined by the Board In this mSla."lCC, Mr Nic.r.olson', motion (or
summary judgment 11)1,uld be denied and !til omission orany argument with Tt'SpO."t \0 Vir
of the 21 preheaTing .ssucs sbould be deemed an abandonmcm of those iUUCi Under WAC
242;)2.570( I). '" 1)3;)Ul<: by such a p;u1y (petitioner) to brief an issue sh.aJl constitute
ab.tndonmcnr or the unbru:fcd issue·
Un:kf t~ citcumstUlces. dl.smissal of all21 j~ for abandonl1\l:nt by o::ni,sion
is In appropna1c result First. Mr Nithol$On did nOi flIe a ranial motion for summ&!'")'
juogment -~ sought a s10bal and dispositive sumlT'..uy judgment Pditioocr Rcs.ponsc
Bridal 7.~. 25. 42, 47 Second. bcc.aulC the complCle ellY record \\las bd'~c the Uoud an:!
Mr Nicholson ""tlcn he fila:I"hls motion. he h3d ~.tty opponunity 10 ~tisry lUs blIsdm with
,«pea to each orlhe 21 issues listed far the: Ooa.td"$ dderminalion in the Prehearinb Orda" 4
lie chose 10 mo .... e for summary judgmen' without reference to the 21 isSlJ(."$ or the crt}'s
record. 1t would now be pointless ar;d a waste of the Board's rcsoureeJ to proteed ""ill!. full
he:uing and briefing when Mr Nicholson has abead)' failed 10 support his motion for
summary judgment on the same 21 ls.\Ucs and the lame rrtOrd for miN thai would ~
re'visited in ~n)' further brio:finS and a hearing on the menls. It \li'OUld also be prcjudici.t1 to
lhe Cit)' and Boeing 10 alto"", Mr Nicholson a second attempt to prove his case on the mcrlts
when he has alrc:ady failed to do so in a global mallon for sumna.y judgment tNt he-COOK
to file now,
4 The onl) rccOfd (Of the: Uo:ud'.I re'lcw IS the r«ord di:'\dop:d hy!.he City. WAC 242~1·
S40.
BOl!.lNG'S REI'LY rN SuprOTtT Of
MOTION TO DISMISS - 7
tclk'tI)..Ol'" Sl~ 0...'1
.. .'
•
,
•
n:.a.; • .:o.-s COIl: UI'
IZOI Thi.tl! A\'C'llI.IIt, Sui&!:.5OO
&.lIlIk. W&,';htl\£t= 98101 ·}(J-.l9
fl\l6) SS}.t;SSS
•
, ,
• ,
.,
..
" , -
,
•
f.
I
•
. , ..
j
• ,
• ,
• 9
I.
" 11
IJ
" " ..
P
II ..
'" 1I
z1
!]
" " ,.
21
:J ..
JO
" 12
n ..
" .'.:6.
J7
JI
" ..
·1
" ') ... .,
'fi
"
The Au.u-d ~ deov Mr NiGhooor(s IcqUI!SI for summary judgment \/oilh
pteJU4~ W ds,-cmJ$ ~Ill isS&1C'S th.,,1 Mr Ni-c.holSCIn h:u ablflWntu ,~ijh or.'\iuton
(rum ku: g.~"'.IlI\)IKH'I for !:.ltt'.m;,ry JUlJgtm:nl
VI. CONCI.~SION
Ple.~elltllg Ordu (or lhe r~n5 set forth in Ilocing" Motirm 10 Oi~lTl:'ss and tJu~ Dispositive
MattOn Qflh<c City ofllen.on The rloa)d should also disrnin all 21 issue, lx'ClWse Mr
.~ic.ho!SGn hu m.1th; a g}oboll moll(U1 for SUG'UJlat)' judsmcnllMt omils and :abandons aU 21
If'*K) .. nd {iib 10 )Ilufyltl,g pc:1;nur..~r·. burden of proof The Board Wloutd d~ny Mr
NicNI~n·,. p:ropru::.ll~ to .dd new tUlle.J undtt th.e (jMA and 10 supplement the rc:('-ord ror
tt:\-i('\v l!m~lIy.lhe ~r;j ~Id rntf'VC: lilt)' disJY.)SOlh·edctuminalion on three: ne-wly
P,IUPUo;e~ l;IS ISSUC' wuil Boeing and lhe Cit)' ru.,'e had the../tpportunity to respond to Mr.
NichoISfNl'i, prepoS4! to <.tdd Ihc3c i5.SI,lCs 10 the l't1 i1iou for RC"o'iew.
Rf. PECTFt!l..t Y St:D~fm'ED lbl$ 5th dAy of J\pril 2004
I !lC)i".N(I·S REPI.Y IN SIWrOlnOF '''1"1 tOs TO OISM1~S ••
~~""~jT"l))jp~1 f "
. :'7
• ..
•
,
PERKINS con: lJ.J' Oy~ rJ{)i
Ga G Schulc~ .. •• WSDA HlStS8
ria OrOlhert<m !Jam, WSB,\ #) 1802 .
:\uomcys for The Boeing Company
, .
,
rEaa'''''' ('otB UJI
111'11 Thull Avml.le, Su!lC CSOO
1cIlll!e, W:-..-.1111'1>JI I]IJlOI ·3099
(2Of.I51') lUll ._-•.. : '.'.,", --, . ..",.
•
"
!C'\ .' , ., •
•
,
•
, ,
) • S • 7
8
9 ,.
" " Il
" " 16
17
" ,.
2Q
2' 21
2J
" 2J
" " ,.
29
30
II
);
II
14
" 16
J7
" ). 4.
" 42 .,
44
" 46
"
r
CERTifiCATE OF SJ:RVIC£
On April S, 200.a, I caused 10 be served upo .. counsel of record. at die addraJ su.:cl
btlow, via tht method or .sen.1cc: indic#led, a true and correct ropy or the follo""'ng
documcnl>. UOEING·S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MonON TO DISMISS AND IN
OrpOSITIDloI TO I'ETITIONER·S I'RDPOSALS TO AVD NEW ISSUES. SUPPU'ME!".T
TIlE REC'~IUl. Al'O REQUI;5T SUMMARY JUOGME~T
Mr (lrlld Kichol5Oll
2300 NI~ 4:11" SIIe'd
RC'nl01l. WA 98056
Mr. Lany Warren
City Ancmq'
1'.0 Hex 626
Renton. \VA 98057
---
Via kad deli· ... ery
Via U 5 M.lli. I R Class, Postage Prql.id
Via Overnitf!t Delivery
Via facsimile ..x. Vi;! Email
x
--x
Via hand delivery
VII U S Mail. 1st Clan. Postage Prepaid
Vit (h,."mighl Detivtf"'1
ViJI Faoimile
Via Email
I ccnify under pC'n.31ty of petjury under the la ...... orlbe Slate' cfWuhinglon a.nd the
United States IMt the foregoing is true and corrCCl.
DATED:-'1 SC3ulc. Washington, tnis ~'" d3y of "prit, 2004
OOtISG'S kEPI. YIN SUI'PORT OF
MOTION TO DISMISS -9
fllOM"I"~I)UI
, ,
()L
031 G. Schuler. WSOr\# 251S'
AU{lfne)''; foc the Doeing Company
Ptrkins eoit LLP
1201 Third A\'CfUolle. Suite 4800
Sante. WA 98101-3099
Telephone 2Q6..359-8.t42
Fax: 206-359-9442
E-mail ' sschul~pttkinscotec:om
1't,JIKISS C'otti,lr-
1201 ThItIJ "'nIIX, Suite 4~
Scltlk. W~tII'~ WlItU ,)tJ99
(206) 5S)-5SU
• ~ ,
•
•
,
, I .. ," ,.L,:
," ','
)
2
1
•
5
&
1
a
9
)0
•
"
•
,
.
CENTlIAl. rUGET SOUND
GROW'll! MAN"OEMENT Hr,.-uuNOS BOARD
STATE OF WA.~IIlNOTON
11 nov.o NICHOLSON. I NO. ~.)-0004
12
13 ,..
15
16
11
IS
Petitionct'.
Y.
em Of R~'NTON.
R_ndc ....
TIlE BOElN<i COMPANY,
RENTON'S JOINDER IN BOEING'S
O~POSITION TO REVIEW OYSEr ...
IS.~IJ I'.S nMED ON PETITlONER'S
LACK Of ST ... NDlNG, ... ND
RENTON'S OBJECTION TO
ADDITION OF SEF"'IS.~UE.~ FOR
fAILURE TO FOLLOW 90 ... 110
. PROCEDURE
19 20----------------------~
I. INTRODUCTION
~. the Boeing Company ("1)oc::ingj h:u rdcd an opposition to rev;.:w or 21
22
2] SE'PA mUM "sed on pdiliontf's bck ofst.;v.dina. The: City or Renton ("R.monjjoil'l5 in
2' Boeing' S oWtlSition. Rt:ntop further Oppo$d pctitiuner's attempt 10 add three new
2S SEllA ;""K't in his iC$pOf\'5Ie tlCiefto motioM by Renlon and OoeinQ to dismlss pc1itioDCf'S
26 ....... 001 211ep1 Wu<o.
21
UNTON'SJOIND1,R IN IlOElt-IG'S orPOSITION TO REVIEW
Of Sfl'A I:lSUF.5. AI'o1> OBJECTION TO AOllrrtON Of SEPA
ISSUES fOR fAILURE TO 'OLI.O'" 110ARIl PROCEDURE· I
.TTI .... .". '" u... --.-,.-_-. . "-.... ~ .. -... .....,_.---' _ .................... ~ ... ..
•
'.
,
••
•
• L, ••
•
'. =l'
•
.'
. ' '
, .. •
. ,
"
.
, ~', • •
•
•
• . '
" 'j
~I "H ~,-" __ t!._~~' __ ''-____ ~. __ '~'~' __ W~~G~~'~' __ ~'~,_"~ _______ , __ __
• .... ... "","---",,<~l "
j
.' •
1
2
3
o o
II. FA(,'TS
Petitioner filed a PfR 011 IWlWU')' 23. 2004. The Iktanl. Iry it .. nolioeofhatring
dated Fcbru3ry2. 2004. on P'lge 4, lines &·14, required lhe pddiofw:rto "3Ubntit to tbe -5 Doard. with D copy '0 the Crty,. rr--,I.lemral or Le:.lluIICI ...• (whieb) shall sp«ify
6 wbich mciflc WOyjsiQns oftb:: challenged action atC nol in compliance with ~im
1 _ir" i!«Iiolll>.l ofthe (iro",h Manog"""''' Act, Chopkf l6.70A RCW." (Empbosis in
8 OliginoJ.) In response. pc.lition« filed. pleading entitled .. Petitioner's 803.rd Requested
9 Restate" ... "t OrJSSIlCS" d41cd FebruAry 17.2004 . comdting of some 21 issues. Intc:nnixed
10
1 1
12
in these issues are various SErA bsu...-s.
Owing the prc:henring oonfc:rc:ncc hekJ J-'ebnwy 23, 2004.lherc W;d an cxlCnSive
13 discussionoflhc: interpby between petitioner's SErA appeal pending before the Renton
111 hearing examiner und the: SEPA issues he: wished to roUe before the Do&rd. Thi5
15 discussion resulted in the inclusion within the Pn::hearing Order of a rro«durc for adding
16 additional ElS issues. Spttifally. at page 4. line 20. the date of April 7. 2004 was set as
11 lhc: deadline for petitioner's rmtion to add £IS issue .... The: proccdurc adopted ""'as also
18
19
discussed on page 3 ofthc: Board's Prehearing Order. lines 2-7. In both inslaoces.
20 pctilioncT w:u required to submit a motion 10 add SEPA issues by April 7. 2004. with the
21 right to the Ci:y (and Boeing. after its pennitted inten"tntion) 10 iCSJlOnd to the motion to
22 ac!d ElS issucLI
23
2_
25
26
2T
28
III. ARGlJMF.NT
In order to add new issues. according 10 the Prehearing Ordc:r. and according 10
I (), Jllre 3.lm 4. tM Iuues art rd"m'ed 10 IS SErA IISUl'I "hUe on pIBe". line 20 thc)'.rc R(dlu! to u
EIS inIOn R.cnc.on will trarc them as !he tame ~ IIW1Cf.
RElITON'S JOINDER IN DOEING'S OPPOSITION TO REVIEW
OF S(PA ISSUES, AND ODJEC110N TO ADDITION OF SEPA
ISSUES FOR FAILURE TO FOLLOW IIOARD PROCEDURE· 2
/" . ...
•
•
_ ... , .. -._ ........ -.---....... ~ ... -"'--, __ .... , ......... H.O ............
. ,
•
•
• •
, '"
•
•
I
1
1
4
5
8
1
8
10
11
12
n
15
16
11
18
19
20
2'
22
7)
24
25
26
21
28
", . .
'I :; ,
IV. CONCLtISION
Ua"ing &iltd to iOOowboth'~ Roard'sonktand iuestiblishcd~
R<ocx<tN/ly .. bmictod.
DATED l1Us l3Ibdoy of April 2004.
IARJBER.t FONTES. P S .
J.
AttnI'D:Y fOr City orR~on
RENTON'S JOINDER IN BOEINO'S OPPOSITION TO REVIEW
OF SF.PA IS'VEl!, AND OOIECTION TO ADDITION OF SEPA
ISSUl!S FOR FAILUIU! TO fOLLOW BOARD PROCEDUIUl. J
____ n ...... ,~ __ -_ . .......,.. .... _. -_ ........ _ .... _ ... -
-, r;
1
, , ,
'--
. ,
•
o
CP.Rl1YICATF. OF SF-RYler.
•
2 On April 13, 2004.1 caullCd 10 be!lCf\'Cd upon counsel ofrc:rord, at the addres5c's
3 stated below, va. method of tcn'kc: indk:a1cd. true And COl irxt copies (with the original to
the: Board plus fouroopics) of Renton', Joinder in lk>cing's Opposition to Raic:w of
.. SErA IssueS basc:don Petitioner's Lack of Standing. and Rtnton's Objcctiran to Addition
5 ofSEPA Issues for Failure to Follow Bo~d PJooedure.
6 Mr. D:ad Nichobon
1 2300 HE 21· Stn:c1
Renlon, WA 98056
8
9 Mr. Gokn Scbulcf
10 Patdnsft4ie LLP
120r-Third Avenue, Suite 4800
11 ScJIJtle, WA 98101-3099
12 C""",, Pugd Sound 0",,,,,,
13 MaJl3icmcot Uca:ings Board
900 4 A~. #2470
n Seanle, WA 98164
X Via Leg.1 M=ng<t
X Via Lq;aJ Messenger
15 I certify un:ler pen:thy ofpc:rjury under the laws ofthc Stale ofWMhin&1on and the
16 United StaLes thAt the foregoing is true: and c:orn:d.
11
18
19
20
21
2~
23
2_
25
26
21
DATED III ReMon. WllShingtOn, this 13th day or April. 2004 .
28 RENTON'S JOINDER IN IJOElNG'S OPPOSITION TO REVIEW
OF SEPA ISSm:..'t, AND 08JECTION TO ADDITION OF SErA
ISSUES FOR fAILURE TO FOU..oW DOARD PROCEDURH·"
•
-_ . .,.,. ----', ...... --------" ..... ~--_. -_ ....................... ~-
,
• , . -. . . ' . , .
• , .
, , 1
•
•
, ,
1 ,
• ) • 7
~ • 10
II
" Il
" " I.
" I.
" .,
11
12
2l
l-I
U ,.
n
" 19
)0
JI
l2
II
" " J6
" " n .. ..
<2
" .. .. .. .,
, .
"
"", , ! c
PRESIDING OFFICER URUCE LAING
CENTRAL PUGET SOuND
GROWn! MANAGEMENT HEARINGS DDARD
ST t\ TE OF WAS. IINGTON
BRAD NICHOLSON,
Petitioner,
v,
CITY OF REN'TON,
RCSporllkflt.
And
TIle DOEll'G COMPANY,
lntdvenor-Respondent
NO 04·).()()().I
1l0EING'S oPPOSrnON TO REVlEW
OF SEPA ISSUES DASED ON
PETITIONER'S LACK OF STANDING
•
L INTROOVCTION
rnttTVtnor-Respondent. the Boeing Company (~noeing). rC5pctifuliy rcqucrn that
the Cen' ..... 1 Pug!:! Sound Growth Managcmen. llearings Bo~rd (the "aollrd") deny the
DOEING'S OPPOSITION TO REVI£iW OF
SEPA L~SUES BASED ON PETITIONER'S
LACK OF STANDING • I
, <
,
pu'KISS Con. UI
1201 Tblrd Aveniif'. Sulte,{8OO
x •• lr, W:lStlincum 98101·)099
(206) 51O·88M
"
,
•
I • -3 • 5 • 7 • • 10
II
11
Il
14
" " 17
" , " '" 21
12
II
14
" 2'
27
" 2'
30
31
3l
" )4
" 36
17 ,.
3' CO
" " .,
" " " C7
., . ",
.
•
>
•
.
,>,'., .,
•
'.
.,
•
F' : .. : .
•
•
proroS<lll;y pctitiOfl!f. "lad Nic.hoIson ("!-.ir Nicholson"), to add :swes for review arising
under the State Environmental Polic)' Ad. (-SEPN) bcc~~ Mr. NkhoJsnn', Petition for
I~iew ("PfR-) dOtJ not cstabl ish sunding to asSCf1 c:tainu unda SEPA. Aa::ordingly. the
Board should dismiss.U cla ims and issues vising undtf SEPA. ~il:ethC'r proposoed for
addition or previously SC1 forth within 21 legat issues enumenued in the Boucfs Preheating
Order.
II. DACKGROUND
On January 23, 2004. Mr l'oIichotson filed a PFR mrsialing this aaioa. For purposes
of standing. the PFR expl.ins that Mr _ Nichobon participated in public comment on tbe
City's prcposed comp.-ehensive plan.nd r.oning amendments ilo ..... a-c:, in the seclion tilled
• JUTis:!iction and Standing.-the PFR docs. not delCrihe an)' cogniuble imerest in an element
of the ef1\'ironqlCnt that is clau1lC.d by Mr . Nicholson rH)r any injury or threat of injury to
such an interest that is causo1 by the Citys action, S« I'FR Vi 2.1~2.ll . At best, ~ PfR
describes Mr. Nicholson's intc:rtSt in :he scc:tion tilled ·l'1rtic:s~ V c:nue," wlJ:fe Mr.
Nickolson pletds as fol1o\\'1 '
The pctilioncf is Urad Nic.holson and resides in tJ-.c City of Rent on.
and County C'f King lie: hAs an inlc:n:st in the: S'I,cccuful future: of his
City, li"'et upon propct1y that is adV1:rscly affected by the City
actiot.t. and has done: so It iUllimcs relcvant to this petition.. His
address is 2300 N E. 2~ Strc:cl, Renton.. Washington 98056.
The PFR lists sevcn .... flirmalh·e cauSC!o of aetion: none of which nu,l(c: reference to
•
an ;ssuc: arising under SEPA ~ Pf1l ~ S.I-5 7. Tl.c PFR .lso lists 13 issues for review
with urny one non-specific reference: 10 tlte -Soal, and objecth"CS" ofSEPA. Pf1l at lJ-Ji_
'None l>fthe proposed iswtl for rc:vie;\y raised a question conct'fning compliallce. .... ith SEPA
HOEING'S OPPOSITION TO REVIIlW OF
SEPA ISSUES BASED ON PETITIONER'S
LACK OF STANDING - 2
j()}O(l)<GI')'SID-~ Q6.1t
. -
•
••
•
,
•
..
I'I:UlSS Con: UJ'
110t Third A~mJt. Suitt"BOO
SQilk, Wa\hi.n(t1Xl 91101-3099
1m} 9J-3!#
\1' • •
)
•
•
• ,
,
,
•
•
,
1
l • ,
o
1 • • ,0
" 11
U ,.
" 16
" .. ,.
lO
" U
" " " ,.
17
11 ,.
JO
1I
n
Jl
" " .16
" 11
19 .. ., ., .,
•• " .. .,
,
•• ,
•
,
Jo~. Inc PFR. oo'.Ci that Mr Nic.tw}I.soft had ,~pealed the City of RenlOn', (the ~City")
envitonnu:n121 imp"ct Stllc:mcm fEIS") and the appeal ...... s ptnaing before the City"
Ueanng Examiccr PFR 11 1 Mr Nicholson fC'Sttved lbe riSht to amend his PFR 10 adJ
i.aucliJtisinx undcr SEPt\. PFR, ItS
On FtbrwA.,. 11, 2004 , Mr. M.;holson filed. RC$Catement of Issues in resporuc to the
BOMd's Heat;n, Notke ttquiung I more definite statement of the issucs for review .
Nthooeb Mr. Nlcbolton', ilppul before tt.e City Ifcui"H F..xamincr was not yet tesoh'cd,
the tkstatcmtnt o(fs:sucs included seven.1 questions con~jn8 I;omplilnce with SF.PA,
wbich were OIctminglcd with qut:stionl contcming c.ompliJrtce with the Growth
Man;gement Act (",G~tA·) and other laws.
On FcbTlW}' 21. 2004. the BoArd hcld a Preheating ConfcrcnC\:. At the Prehearing
Conftl~ the City expf,.med lhat Mr. Nictwlson's EIS appeal before the Cil), llearing
u:mUnc W3, still pending. n..t the decision otlbe Hearing E:umincr would be the City's
final dcdsion r.". purposes. of rC\'icw by the Goard .. \>rehoring OrdCf at 2~3 . The City
Ihr-.hd' expbincd lhat the IfeMing £.uJl'uncr's final decision on the adequacy oflhe: EIS
c:oukI t-c expected by the end of M;!!ch 2004. ld. Wllh the t:)llcurrence of the parties, the
Bo.ard pfovided Mr. Nichobon with Lv, oplXlrtuniry hJ amend his PFR by April1, 2004 1<1
inc:ludeSEPA iJSUC's aftcrexh3usciloS his .pput before the City 1L
Ou ~brch IS, 2004. Boeing and the City filed motions 10 dismiss. DodnS requested
that lhe ~9Ud di':s,.. ISS al:lof Mr. Nicholson's iS$Uu arising u::der SEPA \oI:ithout prejudice
because the issues werc !1ot ripe ror review t-eforc the Haring t;l(ominer's fmal decision on
,he ac!"1u:ocy of the EIS
Or; Much 22,. 2()(H, the City ofRcnt~n', Ht':lIins Eu miner issued a decision
dtnying Me Nicholson's .ppcal afme City'S EIS arod affirming tne adequ:...."'Y oflhe EfS .
ROEING'S OPPOSITION TO IIEVlEW OF
Sef A ISSUES IJ.\SF.D Or< PETfTlONER'S
LACK OF ST ANDINO -}
"f09~I'~OUI
• ,-
rtnkL'liJ Con: UJ'
12t1l Thud AVd)UC, Suitt 4800
Sunk, Wa~lnllOfi 9!IOI.J(1}9
12(6) .58]-1888
-. --,
•
" -.
-
I ,
I
1
l • ) • 7
Z • 10
" 11
. Il • " I)
I.
17
"
" 10
11
12
13
14
')
" 17 ,.
19
JO
]I
II
3l
" " ,.
31
" ,.
40
" .,
" " .)
4'
"
U-' •
,
--.
.. • , •
, "
,. ., • ..", ,,'
, ,
•
t i): 7J1tC5
• ,
. -,
On Marc.h 29. 2004. Mr .Nichol50fl Jiltd his br~rjn opposition (0 thi: m~. ltJ
dismiss filed by lhe City and llocing Ili~ brief included a (lfopos.aJ (0 a&i three r:ew ~'SUC$
concc:minS the: adequa~y of the City's ElS
On April 7, 2004. the BOiIrd', cludhne (or Mr NidlOlson'sawtaon 10 amend tbe PFR
to add SEPA i)Suts paued without any further ~ion or proposal by Me Nicholson. Mr.
Nicholson's PFR ana proposed usues arc now final for pulpOStS .,flhe dispo!:tion ofSEPA
claims .
•
ilL Al<GUM£NT
Techr.ically. all of the SEI'A-relaled issues staled in tbe BoMd's flrc:bearing Order
were framed before the issues 'Nl:CC ripe (or rC\'iew and $hould therefore b-.: dismis.s.td s.tt
RCW 43.21C 075(4) Further •• l1 of the additiorul SErA iuues proposed by Mr. N"l(:bobon
in IC5pon!e 10 motions 10 dismiss ""''at r,oC set fooh in a proper motion to .~nd the: PF'R
that argued ""'ith particularity lhe grounds (or lea\'C to amend the PFR. ~ WAC 241-02·
230(1). For this T~:u.on alOf!::" the additional issues should not be considered Mo • .:.
fundamentally, howC\v. the Do ... d docs not have juris!5iclion to review any of the SCPA
issues raised by Mr Nicholson, old Of new, because Mr. Nicholson has UOl nt.tllblisbtd
stMding under SErA.
A.. To Establish SIJhdin~. Mr. Nichobon Must Dc AD Aggrif\'ed Pcno:1
Wit~in the Mc:min& ofSEPA.
SEPA pto\-ides lhat • "person aggriC'\'Cd" may challenge a jurisdiction's SEPA
d~crminalions. RCW 43 1:1C.075(4) To bring such a challenge, the "penon aggm\'Cd.
must have S!1nding. IUpimier v. City o(E\,ctC1.1. ~~ Wn ApI' 380,362. 824 P.2d 124
(1992). Stand!t'.g is eVlllulted under a ty,'Q-opart test that hu been adopted by this noard :
BOEING'S OPPOSITION TO REVIEW OF
SEPA ISSUIiS BASED ON I'ETITIONER'S
LACK OF STANDING·-4
!lIlOOl~11)I$l.DC.."tOO a..1
•
"
•
,
-
'fUjQS1 Con:: LU
1~1 Third AYftNC'. Suite.800
St'1t1.l1~ WtihiDitor:l 9S101 ·)(N9
p()6) :5$l.$US
.~
. ,
I
,
--:-
• I
•
• •
I
1
)
I , • 1 • • I.
" 11
II ..
" " 11
" I~
hi
).
n
D
1,0
U
16
'Z7 ,. ,.
1O
JI
12
JI ..
" ,.
11
JI
rr o ," ~
'I ..
" •• <7
I
r\(5l, Inc pllintitrl suppQo$cdJ)' e:nda.ng.acd inLeresl must be arg\1lbly
with," th.e ~ of ltlu:rtus protocud b)' SEPA Second. the plaintiff
mu" antge ~ Injury lR f...:l. ~ it., the ptlit'lliffw.Jat vr~
fo\Iffi\:~1 c:YldCIIIi.atj facts to show Ih,'t the c.naItcr.s,ed SE_PA
dd-a-rNnatlon WI'} t:tuse hun or her s.pctlfic and pcrccptiliht harr.l.
the ~ntiff 'Aoht) aJl~St:. a Ihrc:alcflCd injury rath.er than an cxisling
injury mus.( VIIO $how tbit the I"jwy will be 'immediate, conadc. and
5p«1rlC.~ I. co)ajcaW'al «If hypo!.lk>riuI injury will nut conro:r Slanding
m:<1n.)"": iH>lIW;!i·I~lllJ. 200J G~fHU LEXJS I!, • .. ··I6(C~SGMlIn Mty I.,
lOCI)) (CUlio.:1. Omlued).. U~ lhe Board's rq;uw)ons., sunding must ~ c:S1abliihcc:
through \he PFlt.. ~blch should if'Crudc al$.ItCtftent "sp«ift1nll the.1)?C and the t!asis of the
: pe"JIione(, standing' !d. J::. • 16 (qUOl!na WAC 242..02.210(1X:d» Sundi~g to rAise issues
under SEPA rntI$S be ~=Ii:ihcd independent of plfticipanl stAlUiing 10 rai$( issuCJ und~
the G~'th Managancm Ad (-'G~tA·). ht A pditioncr can make l.he necu.wy showing
litrough (J) a Nl'ulive tA&1elTlltlll In the PfR. (2) • dcclll.oon or affida-.--lt '!tached to lhi:
PfR. or (3) ittrofpm:uion by rcfercrw:.e o(::wibils lil; l!Om.d MulU BuiJ.dm A;UA..x.
Ci~COXlUY. 2002 GMHD LEXIS 43, '9 (CPSGMIIIl 0<1. 21. 2(02),
D. !\tr • .Nicholson flar Not rl.-.blWatd An fntc-rtsf Within the Zone of
lattNift Protnttd by SKPI\.
A p.etitioner anAC-t ntabli:.n In interest prolcded by SElJA if the tJFR is silent
rqarding SEPA sunding. lknlkY.11 -t6, Miser D\lildm It • 9 (-rbc PfR n.arnti\'C:
clearly SikgM G.\1:\ participation If.tndi"'i • but is silent rqa.·dir.g SEP A standing '")
~lr . Skhobon'1 PfR contaim no narrative addressing SI.nding ..cnder SEPA nor is it
suypofto.l ~y .lIff'wb"iu or ahibits describing M, NK.hollOn', standing unc'...., SEPA Sr:;
1l0EISGS O~I'OStTtryN TO REVIEW OF
SEP,\ lSSIJES RAS,l'1) ON PET1110i\'ER'S
LACk OF 'ST ANDING ~ s
~ .,.".'SU~ OWl
, "
, .
,
,
Pt~IIUI;L~!'I CCIK UJ'
1101 'tl>ltd A"m~. Sullo! ~~
Snafl". W...r.1n&lun 9"8IDI-)()99
(2061 S!J.8tBl
, ,
•
,
"
,
"
• ,
.. . '. , , . ,
•
•
,
.' " . , , "
.' , ... -,. • 'M' '
• o •
I PFR 112.1.2 I) I "This deficiency alone ilo grounds ror the Doard to dismiss PClition.:=ts
2 , SEPA claim," MASlcr.Duildwat· 9.
• > • 7 • • I.
11
12
" " 1>
1.
n
" " W
21
22
lJ
2' 2. ,.
21 ,.
2'
:10
11
12
3l ,..
l7
3'
17 ,.
J9 •• 41
'2
41 «
" 4. .,
At most, Mr . Nicho!\.On claims lhat, as I resident orthe City ofR.enton. "(hIe hlS"m
inltrer..t in the succe$sful future of his City" I'FK 1) I. This is not Jon interest proteacd by
SEPA. 5«. C B. WAC 197·11--444 (listing the elements of the Ctl\·ironmcnt comidctc4
Mr Nicholson's i:ltc:rcst in the success oflhe City where he relides is GOmpv1ble to
,he interest of petitioners who licked SEPA Atanding in Snobomhb CouIl1Y Propcoy Ri&h1S
AWl v , SnPhomjsb CmmlY, 76 Wn. App 44, :52, 886 P.2d 807 (1994) There:, a petitioner
claimed standing ba~ on his interest as.l "resident property o ..... ner and taxpayer," lUs
interest in ·protection ofindjvidual property ri&hIS." his interest in the: "cost of trarupontl.tio..,
racilities,-and his interest as a \'lInjeirant in the proceedings on c.ounly.~ide planning
policies , J.t 'The coon found lha! tlY'...se vmc economic intcrc:ns outside the zone of
intCJC$U protw!:d 'Oy SEPA. td.. Like\loiIC, Mr h,~lOl50n's only demonstr.ble interest in
the City's .telon is ill tronc')mir interest in the success or his City.
I At the. cnci of the PFR. Mr. Nicholson h~ exhibits Includlng;a. 61 p;I8C bnd th.Jl Mr.
Nlchobon mal with the Cil)I, Ile:aritIr E.ununtt. rFR at 3X, rx.. 3, The n:fm:nced boo docs bOt
dcscnbc a cog,niZ;).ble imerest in the rn\ Ironment th3t HI c~mc:d by Mr. Nicholson Of .:t ca .... de
injury to such &." interest ~t i, caused \ly the C::y. katter, the brief describes Mr . Nicholson's
c«IlIOmic interCSl in pR"jCl'\"ing Oln industn.:1 met I1'Qnurxturins c:conomlC base in ~ttltan and
assOOala! fisal,'W1 w policies. PFR Ex. 3, pp. J, 6-7. 16,22·23, 36. 405. $6. Mr. NKholson
aOcgc:s a h}"pothdKal economie and ftSCal mett-dO\\TI lIS a spccubtin Lhrc:at ta his economic Interest.
~ pp 22.23. The PFR rcrcrenec:s Mr. Nicholsoo', comnlCN tenet to the at)'. but it dco-'...s nol atuch
the later lll:an exhibit 5!.1: PFR'f 2.3, p. JX . Simlbr to the 61 1'-'18e brief. the comment 1c:tlet docs
not dcseribc I cogninblc Interest in the en\ironmaH th3t is daimcd by Mr. NlCholsonOUld shown 10
be lhrctcned with inlmcdiatc injury by the Cit~"1 xtions, R.3thcr. t!<tc comment Icner spcatl:atcs th.u.
an economic 3nd fisc:al melee willl:fallc if Uocing somcd.ly ee:ucr to l'I\.1nuracture :airpl.sncs in
Rentoli. flc\;scd Index 10 RespondeR( Cit)' ofRc:nton'l Re(oro. No.9.
DOF-ING'S OPPOSITION TO REVIEW OF
SEPA ISSUES DASED ON PETITIONER'S
LACK OF STANDING - 6
fO)OO\.lI1 n lil~ 1)6.41
r't:JU"M COrt U.J'
llOilbird AYCtIUC". Sui!c.SOO
Snflk. Wub\n&IOG 91101 ·)1)99
(206) S&J.88U
; ~~----.,..---.---~....,.."
,
• ..
.
, , • • •
'.
f , ,
J
kla;' J.. ....
, •
•
•
,
•
• ,
•
lCo
1
,
,
. '. ;;,,,'nl
Iy ")
'. . ' .
• • • • . , • • . .. ' .
'. "
Mr. Skh_" (fas ~ot [slllblWMd filljury ht Fact Caund Dy City
r\(I;'m:s.
•
,
,
,
'J To eflAblish miury in f~'. a pctitlOr'I('f mus:t not onI)' alleg.e injury. bW ·presc-nt
•
• ,
1 ,.,. suilic.:reft( ~CTlti'lJ'J' faa,stQ ibow lhlt tbe chsllc.ngc:d SlWA dc1ennin5lion will C.IUse him
I t Q( tv spcctfic ~I pcn:t'publc: hanft." u.~ru~ I.t • 1 S Ir ~'lr t'l:ic.holson \Ifill rely on a.
to ~brClt~ il'ljury rather Ihin 1D cc.is1I118 injury. be IOU$t atso show that the injury will be
" 11 "irn:mediAlc. ronc.retc. W sp«1(K:." r~her than t.OlIjcdunl or hypothetical. b1.
II I' In. !\is PFR. ~tt Nicholson only aUtgn that he "li\'U upon propc:ny 1~1 i.s adversely
LI tti dTcc:ud by the eny id.ion .. " but he doH not cxp;.1n fi."w ,he City'!: actions ad"."cuely .1tT«t
17 Ii hilt prupaly no. docs he pres.ent any evidence to support Ihis allcggj:'Jn, To establish injUry
!O in (11(:1., ~h Nj'(;)w.tson must pr~"1.t facts lhowing 11131 hi, property has b~n injured by City "
11 U ICtion SnQhgmjsh Cj3WlX. i6 \Vn App &1 SJ-H. 1tC liso ~LTViSh VaUa
" 2. ~gihbo(bood ftewvanon CO.llni9.n..Y.-C.cn1tAI~Q!:g~1b. M&ID1 , Untins.s
1I 16 ~ f11 We. A?$', 98. IOl. 982 P.ld 668 (1m) r,\ b.1.ld usemon urinjury ",ithoul
Z7 ,. ,..
JO
" n
1.I
~
" lI>
:II
su.ppot1ing e\identiary raas j',ir.sufficitnt l() etlabli~h ~ing,.·). tt.1r NicliOlson has failed
to ~de It.y ~c.of Injurythf,t j" sufficient fO( stsndmg under SEPA..
("'en .f'Mr ~i.;:f'~lson .. -uc to !l!tc:mpll0 provide e..-idence of injury in {;lct
"cntJtUi\3 from Lll:C Citfs actions. If ","'OUk! be hypolhcticll and conjectural. When a
pdili.."tftC:f ~"Ulk;1gcsa non.projcci action ~ SEPA. it is very difficult to silOW an
un~!'-t'ct .:.r» spcciHc injury rather than .. hypothetical 5CCnano tf.GH~ at ·17·18, 22·lS, " ,. ~ : l '::rptU11y. tbe petitioner muSl aWllil an lCtual project propo.lal bcfurc it is jX>~sible 10
" .-2 -!f4)Onsimc ,~.mdinlJ under SEP,\. ld.. As in U~. Mf Nic.holson is challenging a non· ... .u 9rotf!d :Ktion utM:rthm a llpecific. project proposal with actual or imminent cfTccu on some
~' i lf\tttn; of Mr N".c;hoiK:n
"
BOEING'S {ll'NlSITION TO REVIEW Of
S~~,\ ISSUES 3ASED ON PETITIONER'S
~ACX. OF S'i ANt'JISCl-• 7
.&*,.£(1. "ilM"".'1
ru':11'o'j Cnn: IU
120t Thin:! AVCI\ue , Su!te 4800
5c'aItle. Wam.inswn 9110!·}099
(206) ,SIJ·UIIS
•
c. •
;.
. . .
:I ~
'.
I
1
3 • ,
6
7 • • I.
" 12
Il
" " 16
" " " '" 1I
"-
2J 1.
" 16
" 21 ,.
30
31
31
II
34
3>
36
J1
38
19 .. ..
" " .. ..
'6
"
. ' ,
, .
• ,
. '
,
, ..
" .
.. ,
" .
. ________ ~· .. , .... n.'.l[ ... B~~' .. ~ .... .J~
o
Mr. Nicholson', l.1ck of staooing is comparable: to that or the petitioners in
[)uw;uni$h Vallo:: who also l:lCkc:d ~landjn8 to aSSt'I. SEPA claims ~ajnSl a non-project
action. In nu",,=zmj$b Valley. petitioners claimed thaI comprc~nsive plan and zoning
ame-ndmenls by King County viollU:d SEliA 97 \\In App at 99. The: amendmenu ru.oned
residential property aJ potential industrial property. lIL TIle pdilioncr claimed SEPft.
standing based on .. 11(800 tdvcrsc effetts on her residential propmy only three: blocks from
the rezoned propen)' lit. at 10 J Because or that proltimil),. the petitioner alleged ltu:,
induS1fiall.oning would decrease the ~'aluc: or pC1ilioner's residence: and cause tnffi.; and
pollution in conflict wilh pctit~ner's residc:nt 'a' use or Ihe arc~ ld.. The coun .ffinned the:
Board's finding (!OAt the allcged injuries were lOO 'pccul.lh·c and concJusocy to ncablish
stAnding under SEPA 11l The court explained -Once a specific induwiaJ use i.s actually
prop')scd for the property, il mly be possible for a. ncatby property ov.-ner to allege more
concrete, immediate, or specific injuries The prestot allegations. however. atc iosufficient."
1\1r. Nicholson's potential standing is \o\o"taktt than that oflhe petitioner in DuY,1mi1b
Vtll~ .. Not only docs he challenge a non.project action. but he docs not: even III~e a
ractual connection betwttn the Citr's non-project adion and the allegalion I~I his prop..--rty
will be adversely alTCC1t'd. He only makes a bald assertion that his propcny will be
adverselyarreacd. And, unlike the petitioners in Duv.1mjsh VallO'. who resided onl)' three
blocks from the ruoncd area. Mr. Niclwlson's r«identia' property in the City of~on is
remote from the EIS site .Iuea that is the subject afros challenge. ~ Second DccluatK)o of
Tia O. Hdm. Ex. A Mr. Nicholson resides on hishlands nnrly two miles to the north and
east from the Urban eeRIer North area addressed by the City's I3:JS. ht 'f s. E~ A. It j"
doubtful \4'hether Mr. Nicholson's interest in his residential property would provide $EPA
DOE lNG'S OPPOSITION TO REVIEW OF
SEPA ISSUES OASED ON PETITIONER'S
LACK OF 5T ANDING ·8
lo)OO}-4I U~""1
• , "
•• , .
ruuu..,"S COtE 1.U'
lUll ThlnJ A\""nI1k. SUU 4800
~ault. W»lIi.o,ton 98101 .3(1')9
(106) 'U·sm
,
• •
•
•
, ,
• •
•
•
•
•
• • ,
0 ''"h .,
•
I
1
1
~?P4ing fw.& sp«-ifi'; pu)jC<1 whhll\ ll\( £.IS sito ilia, much len the nonRptoj«.t attiont lMl
UL'!.lM IU.bjta of~ff St(;hoh;oQ~' t!socru t.h;I.Um e , , • 7 • • IQ
1I
11
11
" U
t6
11
II
I'
",
" " U
'" 15
'" " 11
" 1O
1I
l!
D
" )j
16
11
II
~ ..
'1 .,
" " " ..
n
IV. COSCU:SIOS
lJtc;:auJ,c ~lr 'S'Khobon hu not 1I'od un not establish SEPt' lund-ins to c ..... nenge the
tw,"t :KlU.~ wion. tbe no.ard sin'lpf., has no juriadiclJon to hear his cllums arising
unckr SfP,\ NlofMr Nkholsonts :.1.airn.s and issues &ruing uod~ S£PA mu\t be
4iunlued.
RESp£CTFl;U. Y SUIlMITTEO this 13th day of Aptll. ZOO4 .
P£RKI~S COlE UJ'
Dy l JOf)i
GaI~n G Schuter. WSBA #lS t S8
Tia Brotherton 110m. WSDA II) 1802
Att4'11'neys for The Boeing CcmplUlY
BOclNGS OPPOSITION TO REVIEW Of
SEPA lSSn,S DASED ON PETITIOl'ER'S
LACIt OF STANOING .9
PtalCffll COle U.I'
IlOt nunS Awnut. Suhe"8OO
SailJe, W.tNr\C\Oft 91101 .)(199
(206151).1181 fP'i*'A' ,,-,,,~!)lrC'
, , ,
•
~ ..
,
I
1
1 • ,
•
• 7 , • • I.
II
11
II
14
Il
" 17
" I.
10
" " 1l
14
" 16
11
" 19
10
11
11
II
14
" 16
11
1I
" ..
" 41
41 ..
" ,.
"
,
., , . . '
, ..
•
.. ,
. .
,
,
;
o
CEIlTIFICAT£ 0'-SI;IlVICE
On April 1 l, 2004, I clused to be ICf'Vcd upon coumd (If fecord. at the addreu wid
below, via the method of$ervice inc!icltt'd, II true.nd correa copy oflhe following
documcnll: BOEING'S OPPOSITION TO REVIEW OF SEPA ISSUES BASED ON
PETITIONER'S U.CK OF STANDING, SECOND DECLARATION OFTIA B. HElM
Mr. Brad NicholsG..,
2)00 NE 2ilt! Street
Renton. WA 980S6
Mr . Larry Warren
City Atlomey
P,O. BolC 626
Renlon. WI\ 98051
-
--
-x --
Via. hand dt-livcry
Via U.S Mail, hI C1a.ss, Postage Prtpaid
Vi, (h'crnight Delivery
Vi. facsimile
Via Ema il
Via hand delivery
Vi. U.S, Mail, 1st Cia". Postage Prepaid
Vii O\'cmight Delivery
Vi. F4csimilc
Vi. Email
t certify under pcna!ty of perjury under the laws ofthe State ofWuhington and the
United Stales that the foregoing is true and coned
DATED It SeAttle. Wasrungl0n.1his 13'"
t.i1:1 G:So~;:W':'Sn=-A"'#::-2"'5"'I"'S8----
Attorneys for the Boeing Company
OOEING'S OPPOSITION TO REVIEW OF
SEPA ISSUES BASED ON PETITION'"R S
LACK OF STANDING -10
1tI)OI'I~1 n'Sl»t09Oll~,
Ptrkias Coif: UP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800
Scanle, \VA 98101·31)99
Tdephone~ 2CJ6..3S9·S442
Fax' 2()6..)S9-9+C2
E-mail -~huler@pel);inscoie.cont
PDtt."lX'i Coo: UI'
1201 Third A'-mue. Sulle.c!OO
Scafll~. WMiun&1OQ 91101 ·)099
(206) SS)·I&U
• ,
•
•
, •
• •
•
, ,
I • I • 1 • • ,.
II
11
" " " '0
11
" ,. ,.
JI
" !l ,.
" ,.
" '" ,. ..
!I
" J '
" " ,.
11 ,.
URAD !'ICHOLSON.
Y.
CITY OF RENTON.
And
, -
o
CENTRALPI:GETSOUND
GROWTH M,\NAGr"'lEN"r nOARD
STATE OF W ASIUNGTON
Pditi~t.
Re5ponocnt.
NO. 1J.I.1-0004
SECOND DECLARATION OF '£1" B.
HElM
TIlE BOErnG CO~IP,\,"Y,
IUspondenl.llllCfVenot
I. T;" D. Hcim. declare as follow!:
' .
• .ao l. t make this d~daralion based on my own personal knowledge and. if c:Jlled .. ., 10 'es'ify. would testify as 5<t fOl1h below .
'J .U 2. I am legal counsel for the rcspondc:nt·intcrvenor. The Boeing Company .
" ..
"
BOEING COMPREHENSI\'l! PI."-'"
AMENDMF>"'TS 200), NtCIIOt_~ON
Al'Pi!AL' I IIIJ!JO'" T)"IIBtO'IIII .~
. "
.'
\
.. ..
p,r\;ln, (ok' UJ'
1201 Third A'"tfIIIC, Smlt "500
Sank. WMnglOn Q!lI01·)II?')
ptlOOe: (2Q6I "'1-111100
FA". (201'1) )~'}·9000
• •••
.'
•
,
I
7
) , , • 7 • 9
I.
II
17
Il
" " 16
17
" " ,.
71
" 7J ,.
" 7.
27 ,.
" ).
)I
)I
!l
" l> ,.
17
" J? ,.
" " U
" " •• "
,.,...
x.:;" • • •
3. On January 23. 2004.l3rad Nicholson filed a Pelilion for Review inil(;uing
this appeal. In Ilis Petition for Review. Brad Nichotson listed his address as
2300 NE 28'" Slrecl, RenloJl, Washinglon 98056 .
4. 1 am auaching a map. assembled from the 2002 Metropolitan Pusct Sound
Thomas Guide pragc 626. which shows the location of Brad Nicholson's
property in Idalion to the property that \\'3S subject oCthe City of Renton,
Doeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment Environmenlallmpact
Slalemenl issued on Oclobcr 21, 2003 ("EIS Sile~).
5. Mr. Nicholson"s propen)' is approximately 1.89 miles "as the crow flies"
from the nearest point of the ElS Site and more than two miles :1\1I,'3y by
road .
I declare under penalty of perjury under the 13\\'s orlhe St;:lte of
\Vashinglon that Ihe roregoing is true and correct. This declaration was
executed in Scnttle, Washington on April 9, 2004 .
::L~k='----Tia B. Helm
Pc: ..... iItJ eoic: 1.11
•
• • •
BOEING COMPREHENSIVE PI.AN
AMENDMENTS 200)· NICIIOLSO:-;
APPEAL· 2
l(llOt.I~I'I'! SI~l(1I;VJ
1201 11nrd A\'t'IIue. StlIIC.(ttOQ
sunJc., w,"Nnl!1on ~IOI.)O'~
rool\C': (]{l6) ]~9·1WOO
Fa\. UOM J5'J.9000
. .
_ ------....
•
,
.
"
"
,;,..;..---_. ~ .. "" .. ;,;. ............... . ."'''''"' •••••• &~,._''''''' ••• ,.·_.,t ......... _. __ ... , ~_
"
•
"
.I
I -
I
I I
j
,
•
t l.: ,
Nlc.hol .. on Resldc:nee
2300 NE 24" Sl
';-r""'r olJ ". 'dtu r k .
EIS Site Area
.-..
,
..
,
.'
• •
...... , --
•• ,
, . ..
,
,..,
•
•
,
, ,
• • J
• •
..
\ •
• ,
••
,
..
5-
,
,
"
,
,
. '
•
"
Source:
The Thomas Guide,
Metropolitan Puget
Sound. 2002
p.626
.. • ,
" • , ,
, .J ,
,
"
,
"
..
..
,~
,
iCHAELJ. BLUMEN
President
f.XPt:RTISt:
• Land UK 1~lill("mc:nl
• E.wlronm .... nlJll ComplWk'e and "nlllfljl
• Technical Coruultanl Coordin.Hon
• PTujcct l'cnnilling and Feasibility """'lo"lis
• rroject MalugclMlil
[DUCATION
• M,U,P. -U.ilon I'lanning. IJni\'CDil), of Wtihifll,1oo
• IlA. &!vironmtnl.111.nninJ,.lIni\,trSity ",fCalifornia. Santa Crul.
r.xrERJt:NCJ:
• T~'rnly.thrc'C)'tan c~rcrirocc: in fIN~ect ffUnlgmtcnl. stra!cgi' planning M:TVKa. laud
'"C allillnneili. t:fwimnmenlAl complilltK'C and "",milling ~ fot SOIllC or the
Iargnt and most cornpln public and rriva1c projects in the rt'gion .. including majOf
do'Ao'nlown towns, doIiratiort tl':WIU, m"~lc' pllllncd communities., i'tlOpfling ccr.tU1.,
ruidcnlial ckvcklswncnts. urhan Iniud·u.'C proja:1S. business J*1.s, mining C'1"iilions..
$pOns Il/'CnIS. il1fl'llslruclurc J1rojt'cts •• nd c:i,'!c and in5lihttiONI rmj«ts,
• rrq,amlion of O\'Cf 100 al\Oironmc:ntlll impect ~lAkmc:n'!I (ms's) u~ SIWA .ntI NEPA
for pn~ccts throughout the region including; Port ilf Seflnlc North ~)' MaJler Plan;
noeing Renton Comrrc:hcn"i\'c rlan Amendment; Snoqualmie Rid!c PlJnned
COOImunity {f'h;ucs t and l }; l.akq'lOlnlc Mixed ·Usc RCIk\'Clopncnc Southpurt
Dn-dnpment Planned ACl iou; I'nn Qucndall I't.nncci A~ion; Quadrant l..aJ...c Union
Center; Cascadill I'!anned Cummunity: Uclla'UC' SqUAI'C EllfDnsiorr, l.al.ecr.ontIMnnll'CK:
M~Cf Plan Ihelopmc:nl; ''en Ludlow Mtita' Plan; Uni\'efSity of Washinglon
TechnoLogy Cmltt' and llealth Scknceti f:.ApAl1sioo ; and Notlh Sc.u~ CUTlmunity
Colk-;e Mlijot InJldulioo Mastn Plan.
• CoordiMiion of ~c IcaI'M of lcochniul consuhanlJ in support or Sf:PA and Nm'A
documentation. land usc aJllW'twals and pmniuing. Rn"r.. and coord ination oflechnal
studies in the U'C'a$ of gcotechn;c.1 trlgitlttfinlJ. dninagclhydrology. W3:a qualif) •
• 'nlancb and wild lt rc.. ESA tuues. ttan~portalion. noiKI.ir q_lity and visual ."'<"J1nleilt
ror a wide nriet)' or proj«ts,
• Pttpamion of opanckd SErA I~vironmenllli OIc:c1.listJ i:I support ofONS and MONS
deci,ions rOf rc:sickntill commercill. hotel. mb.ed·uw:. ~ and industrial projects,
• feasibility analysis and Ww:t U"I: entitlement u~istllocc to priVallt and public clients (Ill"
annc:xatKtnJ. 1'C.1DnCS. comprchcTlsh'C plan ammdfllCflls, shoreli~ prrmits. nuikf \IX
pcnnit'-~ of EngilK'CR 41M permits and ather knl. statc and fcd«al permit
approvals. Prepo.ralion of Altc:malin~J Anal~ to meet Corps of f:ngin«tJ' ~uidchnd
in IUppOO of 4().t indi\'idual rmnits ror retail. rnidcnlial and hotd projects.
• ~tpKlnJ before lq;isl.'i\'C bodies in "'f'POC1 (If pmnil apprnnls alld c.\pa1 witness
Icstimnnyon SErA compliAI'Il."C mille::;.
.~tn:,rJ I'TrJ}'td Expnil'n«;
• l~tillc:mcntlSl :Pi\ compliance 5Cf\'icc::l 10 Oocin(' Realty CtllpG."aiion for k"\'ttI1
JW'OSlCf1iet in the PUI-'d ,Sound area. Sc:n'k"l.~ inclOOcd ~l1Ifegjc planning. apfIlicalioll
81umen CongJlting Croup, Inc.
, ' -'.-,,"; "-
•
@ .. \~' MICHAEL). BLUM EN
Pre'sldent
, ... ~,.)C~ ~ 'CIt.~A.!~ lbcilltloU.'Wioro to oouin oomptdle~iV1: rlu.
-lIz~r.O. r::~ ~t n).l\o.kf pidt .N'lh,vt' ("" ... ariotb sifu. Scn.:-l d
l'ri1'tipt~'¥t~ M.AI#f QfI u II" r\lf" CI~hcMivc I1an A~kJmntt and ruono
\'e l'fClttcAl$ lI'I ;fie C;-, o(lt.cntOR 't. ( ..... 11_(' ".~"'t.~t of lin InchIslrial pt\-.pc:tty to
,,"J~~'
• ~Vi'~ M~on the!. ·1. ;'tXl.fK,l'C ('-.,;eN" Pl .... -.cd Communi!)' in ~ Picn;c
i:".~ufy lC~ I~ I .1: ,)(ltrv 2.()Oi)..ecI\! Snoqu.dm~ M.1dj!C Planned CommuniI)' for
~c{.~taa.
• Pf;ncipUr~'Ct M .... ~II'!In the SooL~' ... Wry,tinhl mi~ClHSCI devc'lopncnlS un
lAke W~~ ... in Am:!"" tnd KCRnk)l'f, rnptdi\-c:ly,
.. i"rMcipaliProjoet M.naJCf 00 thc .JQO,oon "l~rlM Usc SAml'l\Dtish CctIlu mail
pwtoct OC# t~uata in KitlV (,'lllWt. ~ &0 .'rtiS Mqcr. I-Iumo Ilrpol .nd Knlp)'
~mtMI~
• Pt~ ~ (('It. pI'\"osoJ Imm.i~1on ..:. I NIdI.nIi7~ Scrvke lictemioCl f...:ility
ill T IlCOIM. Nt C au «dclfNLi ~ K.'t'I Cotpt.ntioo. M~mcnt role inc:l~
CdGI'd.Uion of [,,,il eo:&iM'tfINtJ, ~hrlbl inw:.aiptlorl. mvimnmenldlhlJatdouJ
I'IUIotrrial ~ and ''llftsportaAton study m suppcw1 ('If Sf'..IA and pi,,¥. pennir.
~ in lhe Coordi",liott of lhe dc,\ign."bo.ild le-n in the devct.opmcm uf. buiWing
PCD\!; -Wlit:llt~ ~,"' alld irIpIt I" tlu: NEPA EIS prq..-ed by the INS and li.i!Klfl
.... Uteit)' orT~'I1tS ""If 011 pc:nninjn~ aM SEf.'A clToru.
PRIOR EXrF.IUJ'.NCr.
• I hEldVW cinman AM«ille!t. rrinc:iJII:1 (I ~.10(1)
• The Ftii., Comp!Iny. Sc1uo, Vice ... :sidcnt and Principal rQf Consulting
ScnM-es (l9J16.1~)
• UkSCorpnnlion. "";'''8IUlm ~ l.and Or:\·dopuclil ScrvKes.. (1982.1916)
• TrUdAlI!IOC:tatn. ~{IQJO.lq12)
"kOf"ESSIOl"fAL Acnvm£s
• N.rioNtl A~ or IndutiCriai • On-ICe Pn"lpn'tic:$. Mcnlne -Northwe:sl Rcal
f .. l1lal1e:a.!t
• IJet!n\C fIownto-1l As:Mciatioa
• ~ U"JOtil or F.IIgiftetrins Com~ies, WashinlPnn
/lltJmrn COMulffitg Croup. Inc .
•
-,
o
TI'iJRfpo .... tlon En"n .. ~n, NonhWtst, llC Mlch.el J. Read, P.E.
TITLE
Principal Engll)!!Cf
EDUCATION
B.tchelor 01 SciI!JlCC'. Ch'il EngiJ"''('rill&-
Unh't'rsity of Washintlon
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Memb.,.or ~ Jnstituh.' of -rr.:msportollion
Enginecu (n E)
R~·gist:,r(."(j Pro(\.'Ssional fl.ll:ifM.'('f (Ch'U).
Stolle of Washinston (Cl~rtil!:GI.le 33lJ5).
Sto'lte 0; Ol(lgon (CcttilicOltt.o (N6:!644N::.
PRoms
Michael Read. P.E.. Is tt principii' l'ng)rwcr
ilnd founder of Transportation En£i~cri"&
Northwl.'rtl. He scn'('S as rrJtKip;lI.in-chi,'g('
(or all of TJ!NW dC5'ign el(orts. His din,'fSC
experience indudi..'s ("Orridor Sludh:s.
lraruporbtion imract analyses (or
SEPA/NEPA environmcnl.sl as,scsmM.'Tltli
an..! impact at.llemcnt .. on i.~h·jJu.aJ rrr;..oct'i
~nd progrounmatic olS5eS!lITlt.'nl$.lralfie
opcraliolU ;J,J\,1lysis. iopreal.ishl"ct modd
devl.lopment liM fiMnci.d arwlY5is.
transportation .1tC'mativ('S 4IMlysi5. transit
and nonmotorizt'd pLlnning. He has
ac:cumubtCIJ O\'cr J5 yea" o( cx~ril'T'lCC in
the transportation engU\~ring proft"Ssion; 13
yean. as a pri\'01te ronsullal,t. and 2 y~ars in
the publk sector. Hl' h.15 5t,'l'Vl'\.I a.~ rroj«t
cngil'\lXr (or a varicty of mrridor and nc\':
f"04dwiI}' .tudit" thruuf;hout t~ Northwl"St
Ir.cluding Vancouvl'r. SeaTac, Bcllincholm.
Spokane, and Southcast ALt. .. 5.a, Mr. Rt'Jd
hlU also mo,d" cxtL'f\Siv~ usc of both rNnual
nwthod. and computct sofh\'arc 10 prl'pi\.,"'C
and translate tT.wel d('maoo m<"I.leIIOI\,(".'~ts
into travclspct.'d.';, delays nnd lOS ""JUt'S lor
congestion im,lacl IlnLl air quality or.Alysis.
PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Tra nsportulon ImJUct Stud Ies
(SEPAINEPA )
Mr. Rc"d has analyz....'CI lr.mspot~tion
impacts (or publJc i1nd prh.'.lle St'ctor
dC\'L'loprt)(:nls with a 'k'iJe rolngc of U5<.'!0,
includi'lg major mixed'lIsc dt .... elopmmt.
T;u:u h,l\'(, includL'\l project m.t,..",sement,
acridt'n! analysis, deLlik-d tramc impMf and
operaHon.1I arulysis. idl'ntificaLi t>n and
development ot miti&ation measures. '..,x,rt
wrilinC of Il"Chnk~1 studies and
envlronmenlo11 SI.'dions. and providing
testimony before h('arin~ t'~rniner5 on
spcdfK' pruJX)S.1is and a varit.1y of
ltansporl.lllon Issues. H(' h.-u completed over
300 di(fcrcnt trans-portatJon IUlJlact scuJit. ...
during his can.,,",," l'n a 'k'jde rolnge of
rroposcd USt'S. w.mples include:
, /k;(lIIg Rr,dllr/ O"'lrr~'"t'nsil''' 1'1411
AIII('Tlflmc,,'
;, Co"lt:ta BlIsb,~S5 PIlrl.:/PUD
;.. Birr" PI""t Rr$O" Cvlllmunrtk-s
(4 St"prI~1i' [IS I'm.nsn r1h'll1trprJHillg
I1i'Il"Y J.JO(Jncrrs)
, StlIIS/, t.odS" U j 'fTmJ1t11
;. C'R.Katlt' UlSi,1O b RNorl
, S'lltquntnllt: RMsr II
,. PdClfo Cttrtlwy ltdt'mlltit.."a! T,.,,,,II!R/
;. Snotl'llJ/",k HI1l,
}.-f ort LI1I.~II.tl ~nY EA
,. CoY.1h' RiIIgr Slwtins RRIISt'
;. p,.krwlI'g TnI!lsl'ortlllllm '''IJUC1 SI'u/YDnll
Mitiplum ~rl
;.. IfiglJlillt' Commu,/ity UOI',~"ilaI £t~ItS~tI
;. lromis TNill'UD
;.. Nortlt SpotJ,~ fn't.'fl'l1Y
,. '·90 A,ltkd Mr.)j SluIly
•
• , " ,
T .. nslt>Orttnt<d O ... lopmtntlMI .. d
U ... Projects
~lr, ReIK.l N5 cooJu<:b.'\J a numlYr of trip
8'!J"Ier .. tion .:mJ Wn.'tI r;"fking r~"n:h ,wit.-.. of tt.JRiit.o()tienk-...i J.~·l!lupm..""t
thtQUghtJut ttw northw~l\!m Unitt"-St"I,..,.
tw Ms ~ rcsoumlb~ for" numbtr of -. ~ .. vd dlmwn.J l'3tiJNtwn r"*-"Cb uwolvillK
fj),\." rou~ l],.Insj~ c"'poIt1/vll"P.-..o1
o)t'tin~ lr.lNf..<trt.UWh u~rNlkl
trIoI'n.lgement program .. shared p;atkinP .... nJ
hlglt c.ap.otr lnnsit sySCl.'t11.'$ 4n..1 thodr in1:;r-
f\>wtion,.\hip.. with ~ n.-,;iJentiolL
cummm:iAl _,i'\d I\>tad U5d. Rt.'Ct''U' ""amples
indudL":
;.-Kmg C~I1I:y T iJD Progrolf" fOJwbJ~,
ShordiltC, Ulfjr~'llt!l DI~Jrjct, kftl ;;H.l
8utY.If)
;. errs/1A1ft Ciric Nl,SIIJ'V,/A-JI • ..., /JIIJ frilll),i
Q"tu Drf'C'Wp".,.lft PJIlII
, T<Jt."lJlUoJ p.;'Iri(' StatIC" PI"'I~ 2 -Prt'-Dfl'K"
,. Purl Qunul.111 Afil"td U~ Otlotl11pllNII'
;. ST OlY.rbt~ Trans.tt Ct'ntr.rjPilrl·mul·!tJ,Jt
Portlnl Stucflts
, 1\7nsl'(JIV htlri.ttt' Platt." Purling fc"asiMlty
StllJy, A proposed l.o~ suit multistQry
pr"g~ in.1 mu[ti-pu~ romrk)(
IOClited on 8.t.ir.bridgt'.
;. .'ti;rrJt AtTRUt'" P.rbng Study. POlrking
evilhution of this neighborhood busin~'~
dlstrict in T;JCOO\,l,.
;. l-\\\"U Pariing Garugr r'nJdn1.ty SIllIly
Tnnsporudon: Fbnnlnl
lnvclv~ in comprehm"ive tt.,n,por~bon
pl.lnning llf'l.Xl..-'SSeS in Wa. .. fd.ngton. Or~gor..
.mJ Aw4 p,o;.xts have jnduded~
., ''''kdft,,-J flXuw PllbUe Itll'Nltrlt'1I1 Plein
~ l<il!iiR1' Ccmnty Trnrt~I'(),tJJtilm 1'(,;:,
, , "
Mldu-l;. R9<t P.E.
". ~1I1r"II~II'\"j~1 Tmll>l,,"ltJ litm ('Lm
(SATI')
, SATP I'\IMi'liltum NUn/A.'r 1 (!j'J(Jl)
:. SATP U/"IR" (ZOIl-II
". !j,t1A AAlHS I'\cffls Study
,.,.,
,. SnJltk Ntiglll'Or/lOOoll'llllf{ ill CnI'1'l'tUtl"f.
RJllKf'ln·lt. ,lfll' ~tlo r.,';:
;.. '\b~I"'gto" Stolt! rr:rriti t,m'8 R;mgt'
.sVSrt'ntf Pta"
Tr~nsil' PI.lnnlnl'
Mr. ~...J.~, rro\'idt,\t t«~ J1.ic..l1 and
rwnning as.'5bt.lnc~ on II number of tra.."\Sit
dc\'dopment pl.tns thlil Ugh(lut Washington
StJlc. R~pomibUitil'S han! includoo:
tl"Chnk.tlliolison and projl.'(1 nWndgcl1l('nt
IJCtivilit'S. conJucting comm unity workshoJ"S
.::md fOnltn5, detailed ca5h nnw moJdjn~; and
!i.n;lncl.ll f9rtQ"iting. da!\'doping IICI'VIO!
~nh.ulo."t.';T\l"nls Dnl.! alll'Tn.ltiYl.'S. route
olllgnlT\\."'nt ;I\lcmative5 and s....I'\'jC1.~. anl.1 cost
t"SUn"llion of lMnVke anl.1 capit.1I nl't.'ds,
N0fVT10torued PIl.nninl
Mr. U",old'$ tl'ansporlation l,"giN.'~rU1g .md
nll1\·mot(1tiud planning expertise hilS
indu~l....t i1 number of pro;ec.ts Il'lateJ to
norunoh .. oriza.l systems. iricluJing trail
pbn ... .,ing aoJ pNl..'Strian 300 bi.cydl! fAcilit)'
studies in urban. ,uhurban..mJ rural
erwil'UftmcntJ. corridor 5tudil'S, facility ~s
l'It'olr Inte.rmodoll (.\Cilitit'5 arut in the contl'xt
of aujot' mMb>r planl'\l"J communitit...,. His
projt."C"l!. ha l't.! incl",.!~ non· motoriz.t.,t
pLanning a!l P3.rt of CMA. R,'sc:uch of
pt.-'I.Il.'Slrian use forecA.!lting. ",-'I.IC5tri,," dl.'Sign
""51 practkl'!l. n'!lid("f'lti.11 traHic calming Md
p..oJlostJian relationships. roodway Cf'O!sing
1f'<;';J.tmt'n~. rNlwl.ml bicp.:I'-'l t'nh..'lJl(.'t'mcnt
planning in lJoYo'ntown .1re.u. and conflict
«-'SOlution k-tW(!(!n vehicular and
nonmotoriLl'l.l mcxk'S.
•
• I
-• G -k, U
SlOven W. Klngoley, p.e.
Associate/Civil Engineer -KPFF Consulting Engineers
[ducltklu
OSCE lSonhtUlCm UroWfllly 1991
RcstI"n~kJQ
Civil EnaltlC« In Wa.sl'unpon.l'I~2i91
Emplo,'mcDt
K .. rr-CUlUUllmll:.n£ill"CB. Mauk. WuJungtOll. 19?1·PrNC:1I1
W'dl Pacinc:.lkllc\'W. W.lllll)lj:1Oll, 1991·19'J}
~cA C~Iir." Cambnd,e. M.u~'SCra. 1959-1991
lIokb Enlinmint. C'on.:ord. S~ lIafTl"huC'. 1957·11)$\1
Resume
Mt. iC.ingslcy"t; c:x~ Inc:TUlks O\TJ' 15 )'(':&nI uf pbnnins and (~IP'I ronl~ dc-o'dO{lroC'nl:me!
rnnipoltation projeca. Includmg nur :roUi indust:ul mtC'\dopmcnt projWJ for .. ~ in C)..Ct$,~ of 100
acn:s. ltc: ".J! had n:spoMiblhy for the dC~I," of "Ioem dr.aln.:agc lind utility $)'$lCflU" silc ~m~
JlO;\'tmrnlJi. roadllo'a)'1.lInd f'lJilroad tr:lcbi!t'. ~1r. KfnJ,,'t.ky ·s project C".lpcr.t'T't.:C hd~;
Soultawftllbrbor EJpa.uloll, ron or Sonic:. WA
Projrct cniinccr f(lf planning "nd dc'isn of this 7S<llr;R pori (xiI.,)' eltpansion f'l"o)'«t incll.ldw.g an
inlcnnodal Joading (31:1111)' for conllllnm:r.rd ca1iO. Pbnnin, a!'ld o,chcm:ltic &:til:!' Included &''lmnintqg
and n<a!u;aunK ahemll': facility dC'Sigru (or the-cllnamn >':td.. mtmnodJl raIl yard.. l'Al) nn. s.tup ba':hl.
drtdlling. Or'I--Sil.: W\d olT-~il': infr.lstr.K'ture. C(){ltamln3lt'il aqwtic capping 2nd Inlmicbl hahlta.:
t'nt .... ,I;eIlIl:OI. Storm drainage inft2ll~ dn:lj,'rIl11d~ n.tcn~I\·C ta1SI: (If nlJlmi;: cxYI!.\'tyano:C'
')'$km Rnd out(all cornporaa115 land ,:olwcnioo of An C'Ailhng cargo handiing tun.."'Ie1 for USC' at-I.
IlOnn"''J;te( ck1mtion Un!.:. Aoo rcspMIlblc fot the ple' And qUC'Uing ikslgn. as .~1I1l$ pc:rfonning.
throuGh-PUI Anll),sil. AlIC"I'n3li\'e dnlgn:s and ~ ~im;atd: ""ere uSC'd In so:.ppon II p:anlkl ElS pnxest.
The projctlalso included dNib'n of 1 .... 00 linear fCCI of flCVI' container .... ·11:.Ilffor \'c:ucl bcnhing tln tht
W"'I Wal~way oflhc Du .... ,.mish Rj\"tT.
h5llqulh l'lltna )1a,trr I)Mllna.:c I'IU.ISSlquah. WA
Provided .torm .... ·lllcr modeling of. SOO-acrc sile blscd on dab COUI.'l.:led m"C'f two }n.n.. Oc:sl~ L"!d
implemc:ntcd dab collettion progt'3m and mooilored SIlt' in .... >:arcance v.;th l\jn; Count)' cr1tcr.2 for I
eompletion ,,(. Muter Ihin.lge Plan.
Pltr T. Pon of Long Ot'llch. CA
l'T~jecl manager for planning AfIll design oflhis )7S4rn:. SAOO mllho:t nwinc IcmUMI M the ~tc of the
fonner Long lkach N:Io\'31 eompkr.. Tht project iucludoJ cotItair'lC't l'.rt!. ptc r.cihtits. In~ rail
)'lIrd. Ind S.OOO feet o( c~retC .... ·h:trf. De\'elopt'd II pt-."cd program of I &.sep:I~k COOtDCts fl)C' ~!~
and conslnJ\:lion o(the rl(ilil}·I~t.llov.ed dcmoli:«n. sndU1l: and ,italC1'k site lmpro\Wl(flU to
pnxC'ed "'lulc pl.Min); a.nJ design of the l(n4nt-rel~l<d impro\Cnlons "'as ~ompli~"ocd. Kq .. f.alit)'
components i~l00cd: hu:anJoo~ TNlerillis )b.lem::nl \1~ demolmon of O\'CT 130 buddin,1; on-tc:nnm:ll
inlmno<bl)'l11d for lhrtt doubk-5t11c:lo: lnIins; errl1tum or -5().foot dqllh benllS •• r~h ehannd w
turno"'g basin by dredging 1Wa.5 mIllion cubIt' };vds "fTNltri~l: 20 acres of orr-.itt ",lull~ .. ~tCT
o
Re!;ume
Stwon W. KllllIoloy. P .E.
AUOCiatelCMI Englnea' -KPFF Con",,"il>g Engineers
ba..""'tat ""II,,>iUW: 20 atTt~ i>f matu\C \;u-,J flU: draHU11tC aM ,,:tilly ')"il .. nn; pjj\lnv. curbing and :ttriplna,;
Ie:n..-mp u.J ~shu,,~ p.u)o.llif k'Jl1; "quy.nd ,\dminlllta!,OO dUlldmg (j.ICn.~; 50,000 '<I~ rOOl
MJlt!lI~ a:td R.tp.a.Ir HUlldm,..
Tt'nRlo&1 II DoNc •• BtlilcL. ~ o(Sc:anle, W"
l'1'oj«-t tT'.anltu and il"'1\tr' j fcprc.liCflb.U\ t (tIr dol' l:on~\I'\II.1lon oi,hc: nlllflf\C' tcrmin.tl f3cilltj(:. in th14
~p'~Jild pl'nj«l. M OOo\1Xf', rl1'lfes<nQtI\'r. )V'FF rto\·tdbJ tkS11e"I ofthe' ~jl facilitks incluJin, the-
;nt~l-,"*,inl ) .. -d. tan'lnal U't,,-al :mJ dc"pMtUTC lrack~. and lut·<malni ".ll1:h.in; anJ s;~lin,
~ "pptollutuli:ly Sl' MIl" or trKUt.'fI "u dcSlp-.(d to can(unn "nh lhe Slan&lnb of 9urlin)t1M
~ S.n~ FeaM UnM)n P~liic R~Llro;W:s:. KPFf aJ$O ptO\'ic.kd prdlminary dcsiv.n. desi.,-n crilcna.
:..nd pc:rl~c fl:I1J.UI"CIKUlS for ;OOlrllCIOC' In the' C\1f\"'NCUOO ohhc: utlhtt.C'5. canh_orks, JI.mn~
('a\U.lr.:. ... )"UI,l. (nd ~m\IC: u;:~ (If .'han ~ ~1J'U(tutC1.
~O"' .... u t C.af"k«r •• ,n-.H ..... Y<ar d. St:IIIII!. WA
i"fl"!CI."1 E..~cr R:!'p'!f'.slbJe 1« pl.llrtr.lnll trW d.:-.. ijpl oflni", (J~I"IY mdUlilng lo;,whng..'\U\loading tntCi.lI. I'q)l~tnt'rll o( L'moo helfie tr.ad.,. ~mG and p-.n·cmo.'nts. 1Iiortn <.'oilU~c C:IlrW~anct' al\tl .Jc1c:Tllioo
')'!>lrnt. .;se~ll)f L..u'lmg trac.k \11frailruc:W'c k1"lng Ihe ~lt_·.nJ definition or rt'plllCcm.:fll
ttquif'C'lt1eI'll.<' ~lJllliiMI ofliL::ure ('\?3n)K'ln1ro, 1nK'~ circul .. uon IU·Clls.. :md c:ul1lainc:r SllH'lIge arclI~.
ttlt.r A. fo',t Qr T...onll ~h. c.o\.
PJOjN:1 C11lnt'C fClr dc,ign of SAtc! (XlIWe •• parkiniol iU..;$.. ... ld acC'C'U rout.i""Ol)' iU~i:Uc:d with thi~
cunt:ll:tlC'I'tcnninal, (btc (X'llmcs m::luded ~Iin bn\!,;e. ch«k booth,.l!di\~·ry gale. qucl:ing o.fclI.s.l.I'ld
10 mtr).I!.'lit l .... e~
Wlbbiftl.tlll. e.UrciTd'lIItu l Pm orT:u::oJrQ.. \VA l'tOJ~' M:am&i=f for \.~ &s:Jn of .Ile tmpro\,c:nents (0{ the con~·('f!i.tOft orlh,s lImber prOOUl:ts tTWlne
w:munal \0 COfttJIMT);a:d.rc-a, 1t) ~e pn'IJ«t co:.l. ftuJC lin:! reltlobilUlI.ll(\fI of cxistU'lIJ $11.:
U"J~wn:: ~h U pI\emaltJI, aann ,Jr"ITIlI&;C and ullhllcs \lollS empw)cd anal)'ZIrl and incorpor:lI.:d
in the 1.ksIcn.
.s.rt) ... t'C'~t IIMpit.J Camp .... SeJnle. W"
l".o;tCl M~ (or ~"wlh of ~ dra.1Ult;e: (01'1\ C)'I.nO: .I)·llt~ 63.000 cclm: (oot ~tum'I"'2ICT ~ tank. _":Itt'!' and K'o"e{ syslcmS. sate V.adinJl. and ~';ni-street 1J1".;xm't'n'lcrus 10 II S· A,·Cf\u.·
SE. "n.lIY~\~'lr'J Ikslgn or i$(Wm1f»ltT C'.oII\'(')"tnCc ar..d .lctcntH)(1 InCludo.l coouo.lkd rdebe to
,"~.apxil)' Cuy ~.r s.:-,nk florm dr:URaiC t.y~tm. and 'M\'cyancC ror IWO ~jW2~ orr-Sik ams
adjKCftT to tM I",,"Plbl c.atltpUtL
$nnl~ rr"t'p.ntory SctUtoj. Saule. WA ~et1 ~prt"; th'l' \tl,. tni;\t ",hQuI1r.e mcJudif'lg ~n1tAry SC'4'U. W3la. Slormw;lIt'r dcttnllon. gradin~
,,00 drau'll".. anJ. ~ 1mpr9\'tflXnl-,.
~fJt1~ TJult"ItInt 5<-'oot Ohtrkt WKh Sc hool II!, ,-"'C)'. WA
P'tojC(1 C'f.'U)('ft' r« the rltN~ of 2 120f)'SI1)dcnl hii:h ~hoot OeSlvn included ~ni~ sewer pomp
!OU:t1oo and (Oft'C $1:1.. "''Itt'!' .Ji~IJ'ibu111)11 ;fysacm. Mtt'..ID'.'Wiil'lp.. ~Ionn Jramll~e.M aeers, rood .
• .. . . -,
Resume
SI.von W. Kingsley. P.E.
Associate/Civil Engineer -KPFF Consuiling Engineers
SCtvtDslICKpl,al CUDI.:. Edmonds. WA
Project miiO«'t (Of civil tkli};n of !V.dlna:. p;lrkinJ; are.as and "tormn:cr dctmtWD system..
r .. ll Polnl. Redmond. WA
l"rujm C'n,EIn«( (or si~ plan appro\lll dlxum.:nu through (I,'UI iksip1 and preparation uf cuntrxt
doi:UnlcnLJ (or this new 3·aae rctail dc\.-d"JHflCnt. Sunccs inch~td dcsJgn ofthc S~~ pump
6Ulton and $lOI'mVo".ller tn:.lmOll ("ihli('$., ofi'-illc _~t« main. fror:t2iC s:ttt1 ll':l!:'Io.c:mc:r.:s, Sltc
utihllC$. Iklnn drlIiJYgc. ~dms. and lanpcnry ~ion and iCdunrn13tJon control.
Slt'p1f'l.llt ~lall. Concot'(i, t"l1
Projt\.l tnitinca (M c1"il cklign of stormW:UO' dctmuon pof'\d5. ""dm;. pulcini ~ actcio' rOrads.
.... Ier dl.tribution sY$tcm. and Siorm dnir.;l£l=.
\\',Jl~')' 84"r..J,lt'Ddoll ~'I'r Rt'plut'mtnl. Wcllcsky. MA
Pmject t:rI~nc":tT f(lr lhe ckslp' and C01UlJ'UClion rrwul:cment or" pmjC'C1 ... ·hkh indudcd plac~1 of
D\"ff 7 miles of 6O·inch ~nit;s..~ 5C"'cr pipe and scnnl .,j)hoo cros.~ing, tlew Ch:.Irlo RJn~r.
CIt)' of NC'ft'lon W.'tf Supply. N'C'\I,'lon. MA.
l'rOject cnsinm ror analysis and modelmg of I~ ("IIY WIiItT tiiunbution sy~tcm (or usc in ~~!opnlU1l
of. "ys\tm IT'.aster pl ... n.
SouTh ""ulloa Support An· .. Scll-Tac InlaNhtln.:!.1 Airport. WA
Projttt mj;inCC1' for p'annin~ and liChcm:iIIt dnign Oflhls airpl3."1C' ma inltni1!1Cc ~ in;:iudm; ~In£.
drainaGe and .irporl ~\~mcnll. Allcrnuln-r dC"Slpti and eml ~Imald. "'crt' usc:d ~o 5Upj)Of1 E1S
pN(c:t.f.
r"llemonl Golf COllru Or.tnagr ~foddiltl!. \It. VcrT",". WA
Prujttt cngina:r for dcsit;n of ~ocm drg;in#gc and ~ion contr~1 fC':lIW'CS for this 36 hek golf COUT5('
includinJ; ntuncrous opm CMIUJ(:Jj and detention POOch. and CtlOslJUCtion SlOOINi"Stcr a.ntrol bcs1
~grnv:nl ~ia::s including scdur.cnt:attOfl ponds anoJllo" diSpcn~l ~tJuCt\t:U.
•
, . ,
A.C. Kindig & Co.
"t.\W,-"",)..tf !.1·\4 ~,""' ... ~I' I ~
tZlO1 Orl ..... ~~ 1ti ...... !io.>Iw :1:10
1'd:w .... WA ..
1':8).).1:4",
f .. tll))"~
ANDREW C. K[NDlG, Ph.D.
PrioelpoJ BlnI",ist
lM!CATt(X"'i
1'~lJ..,_I<~
(..-W\.."..uqt1fW'£#~,II.'.
,w:. "''''...",..,
£~-..:.
l"~'I"(";J/jfnl'-iu ......... """"
v..","'O'fl(Cuh~" ...
",On.s,~IOI<.u.
A.~iOC)AonONS
..... icmW..,.~
A'~~iaI~
lJW.fh-.-n /M.' .... IcWllll
CI)IIf~ FIJC.u,. (NiIIW'UI
Itfo-WJ«~)
,tCKj~dCo.
]!J(Jl~"'" {Prirrr'lpaIJ
.bftrl n I £,til ~
k. 19'11·1Od1 (7WJtwoI
XctSCJL Cd DbUrr.. .U .... 4.'W)
&totC~t~t'
~ptW, \Itt 1911r../W'1
(,~lttlf, dJ7ky .~" I99J·
199:)
I SV~tMARY
Dr. Kindia: hill ~fCsMonal ~xpati:;e in en"¥itorunc;nta.1 &:d.!t IUJaI)'liCS. \\atcr
qual.ity, r~ulacory llb,"C.DCy ntgoti31lon. environmental imP"tt an.dyleS And
praJidion., mitiplion w c.nhanccmwt pbMinS. lOx.i::Q!oiY. cn\'ironmental
rnanitoring .)"tern design. b4.1Slatislics. sin&Jc: and mutciple specks bioaUIIYs.
:and ph)lopbnktun calkl!:.)'. lie has pwtkipalCd in projects in~hing
e;dcmhc-U$elolSm(nt5 (If W'lUcr qualit)" s:tonnw:t1er biutrcatrnent. Nalional
I~Qlfwa.nl Oisc~ Elimination System :application "udin. Fc«ral Encray
Rqubtoty Cummissl>n Iktmini--NalioNlI f.nvironmcnual Polit'y Nt and
Wad-ington St.»e Environmt-ntal"oltcy Act compllancc, walC1' nghtlllransfcn.
ltnlJ rwwal re.iOtlnX' diun;agc a..~ge:W1lI:nt$. His experitncc: h3s given him
~icu1M opmisc in devrlop~ natural 1'\"S<>\Ir'U maMgcmml stmt'gaes.
REPR£SEXTATIV& rROfF.'SSIONAL EXPERIENCE
CITY OF AUOURN WATf.RSIJPPLY
Ibb ...... Wa.diactAIl
Ot. KiftJiB _u thl:-_~tt quality I«bnic_1 le3d. :and in conjunction wiLb
COo;m&)polilan C,omuhing EnW;ir.:cen.. c:valu..ucd bAcklVOund cuooitions.
irnpftCU. :and mitig.uzion b a propo5.11 to ~ production from the City's
~"'-akr wells.
8t:AvtR I.A".; r.\'TATF.'S"
kill, C .. .ot}t. Wab.htctoa
E~'a1uatcd WaJ~ quality ~nc tlPd retommt:ndcd mitig:uion. both of
\IO~ b1~ Sal 10 a MitigAted Determination o( Non-SigrtirlWlCC: (MONS)
~.,. by KinK Cowrty tor Ibis Urban Growth Am> pruj<ct in the
PlIttmtOn Crtdc drainage basin. but adjacent 10 Ik:a\'t"f 1 okc L..c3d ""mer
qu&Ji:ty wlIncs5 during prclimim.ry plat and W:tshinglon Sltde Environmrntru
Policy AC1 appeal hcarin&s lOr the project. f)cnu Lake F.statn II ori~l'I 10 a
xric.s of Wicebncb Jc:uding Iv Canyon Creek.. Boa murce protection measures
¥rrt"e dn-c1oped: tn CUo.KdiMIion wiTh King Counl), AS a series ofwnditioM of
approVlll "" lhe project under t~ MONS. Bog monitoring is ongoin:J.
I
. ,".
" .,
, •
•
•
PUULlCATIONS
Klndl .... C. Apri/21.1IXJJ.
1M JlIXfllpOJ lliu" uf
[)nyIOJHfN'IfI. ~'Ik\'f'JlJpmm'.
and /lab/tat, Luw .wmbtan
{IIU",",;,""" CUIIJ«rrrr:
J (1"'/.IuI iJnd Drw/optrrt'''''
.'katll". WA
XbtJig. ..f.e }/owmN' I.
1001. TMDI .... : Whut ',nftI'
und .. ·hat:. nul. l.uw .v",1ncJn
1lf'""aliannJ n""~:
AdmnaJ H'uur (!wJiJy
fOM/Ring. .~/,. WA.
Kindig. A.C. Ckt(*r 19,
2001. lkuksofhahllot
hlol"", and h..""""""""
I./M &MIn". I"t,rrwlifllru/
~. J/ubllill Luurs In
IIw raclflC NonJrw.o.st .• 'l.'lJfll"
WA .
TUllb. F. 8.. A. C Khwlls:.
J. P. -., _JG. L
S'ttrut1:man. 1991. F,fffi1J of
"JftrHHJtJI .fllCU'..l.lkM" and
gra::ing Off "'PI'" toxldty in
oquutic mictTlCn.fm1 YC'rh.
11IImtat. Ynrin. Umnol.
U :11OJ-11 J.I.
S'Wart:mun. G. L. f: B. T 1lUh.
J. J.kudtw, C Ilfi01f/(uttd A. C.
KlntlJK-1990. Alotkli~ t,""
rf/«J of tllPJI blolrtau 'III
rmJlbpt'CIn aqut_k
mkronum "'IK1IU(I In
CtIf'Pt' tMidty. Allldk fur.
17:9J-I/&
...
A.C. Kindig & Co.
r J .~.1Ii<"'.w".,' ." (.('0; .... r. 1":1.(-.
12l(7I 1Idlt¥_"""-.;J ~StII:. :10,
....u..-.WA WOO'} 1U5,."hJSfI
klf4:2)'~
CASCADIA EMPLOYMF_'T·U"-~t:o PLANNED COJIIMUNm'
riertt CClUDty. WuhtnltoD
Dr. Kindig m:maacd the: work (or this 4.719·acre site. including on-si'lc:
geoloGY, geohydrology, h)'drologic, lisbc:rio, aM \Io'llcr quality inv01iptaons
to JUppOrt an EnvironrncntallnlpDCt SWkmtnt (8S) fOr Il pb.nned colJV1lwUty
50uth of 1Jotn.-y Lake .nd CUI of Orting. l11c site i. bound by Sleep Slopel
dropping to South Pruirie Crttk aDd the Carbon River on l.bttc s~ Andy
Kindig tn. oonlribulcd conceptual planning and C\,luation of stonn v.'iltC'f
quality treulJnent facilitil'S ttnd c:nects of polcntioJ phased on-site: sewage
infiltl1llion ort-ions on ground \Io'iltcr quality for t!"..: project. wi1h JW1icular
altc:nti.>ti to CMyonrllUs Crttk. which is completely suPflOrtcd by recharge
from II shallow aquifer under the site. One: asp:c.1 of Or. Kjndig 's nOllu:atioD
iududcd pr~l"lnion ora gOJfcoUT5C m::mngemtnt plan r~r the EIS. Cum:ntJy.
Dr. Kindig i.s the client's project manager for natura) 5C'.K:ncc aspects of the
projc=ct ns $fICCific pial Dl"f"ltc;!tions and buikling and grading pcnnn.
applications arc dc\·dopcd.
CI:NTtJRY PACIFIC. ~·nU:AM BUtTERS IN KIRKLAND
Klrkb.Dd. Wuhln~toD
Rdained by private property owncn in lhe Cicy of Kitlland 10 assess ripari:tn
habitat functions of short segments of open strcam.'i otherwise i.sobtcd by
~1ctl5ivc culvcrti:ng 10 com'q' "Oml"o'wcr within the City of Kirt.Lsnd..
Prt"parcd rtcld·bascd and li1cntturr-l1rascd a.uessments to define: for the City's
Pbnning Commwion cmd City CoW1l:il an IlpproprialC and mtSOrnbk buffer
width for these mnMnt strcun 5Cdions. The recommended bufTl:1 width "1l$
uhimutely adopted. \Ioith II ooncum:nt requin:mcnt lhlI it be enhanced in
conjww:tioD with redc\-elopmma orany popcrt)'.
CITY OF RENTON CRITICAL ARF.A.~ ORDINANCE LITT.RATUJU;
RE"IEW AND RI:COMMENDATIONS
R~.loD. Wuhln~oD
Or. Kindig wa.o: a.'\ked by the City of Remon to crate a \\l)r\.shop on ~reli:ne
bun~~ conccnlr.lting on explaining the various I"t'gioncl. county_ state. and
fcd-:raJ t'C.SpOnllCs 10 IhI: listing of chinook salmon Md bull troUi under tb:
E£ndangm=d Sp..'Cics Act, functionAl attn"butcs of buffers. the basis for many
propo5ed "'no touch 7»ra." Ilnd II te\-ic\\' of the 5Uf"pm1ins literature (or
sho['(line buffer functions and their rc:lationships to c:ritaJ. f15h lnbilal
ttqllitemcntS. Dr. ~indjg ill CUlTC1ltl)' pn:firu;ng • heit available sdencc
literature fl.--viev.' MIl rttOrnnv:nd:ttions (I)r regubtions of streams. "''dbM"
and bkohorc to he U5C.'d fl)r the city's re\'iscd aitk:l1lU"C3S flroin.1nte.
,
".
•
, ,
If.-. J(. .... 0. ".-... ... c. KIhdt,I.",U: B. T .....
/9&\ .9-fFU ~ II:mMltlit
td'f/tn-,,1UIf af f# ..Jli~~
~w.~j.
.I" r"'iUlu"xird IIJPrM
~ ....... ~
Mt."dtlilftl"J:'~n
1,It'JikJiIfg -IJ;/411.
j ... Mdt, G. .t. A. C. x_x
Wfli/S L .'do. IWI ! A
IJ.mdtk ...",.h~
r't'fIfl/ltlllotr Pf\'IIf1(.'u/}" CI ~
... kIp« 1ftIJrltr,t OfItjiJllJ
___ C....",. z,.., .....,._/Jrrt .....
$tJ.;Jn/~ W A.
Tolib. F. It. A. C. KPtJig. L. L. c __ IJ. ,.,
.... ...,. 19.", Rl:u/u ttj ... --, .. , .... "''''-
~ lM/ttoI'JC
... knl(CW" ~ /:'kfv","
A.'iTM .\).."...",.... fill Aq..-k-T"'..,.,""'_ A.ueu ...... JO-Il u.w 19K].
C~Dll T_ F. ...... C. K'""","""
L L t "'MqIlM':1t /9ll6..
blmluboltJlOi, ~ '!f"
JA1ItJanIJ:AJuqUiJlic-
NUIA ....... S~jorllM
/l1t}, ASl'M .f)..,IW/fmt fHf
AIt'tfUIk rD_'*okv attJ
11aZDni,u".; a 1 OIt, .J.6 Moy
1986,. .'kw~ U.
'.
A.C. Kindig & Co.
f,t.\I",'"'t.I.!t "'11\1 u"'r~',,-Il )j,~~
I ~I ~Jt;.Jml1"" .. ....t. !oooI .. no
........ "'"' 'IIi!.lC$ (U'II. '114.n.
la·I~''''''1I)&5
EAST LAKE SAAIMA.\IISI/ Rt:T AILCF.Nn:R
KUla C.uat)'. W • .tbiagto.
il<spQnsible Wt ""'~.alt1' qu;alily P\o'lnIl4tC'fflCrU fur 0 eommm:iGl d\-\'C!klrmc:nt un
the lite or., prior ~\<d pit in tb: lAke ~1JUM",ish draln!l.Wf "!lID .00 IUIUN
lIMC)..1Ikln area Mf the ("ity or Issaquah. PRlv;J...-d input tu .f1ttt'r quaUIY
fnan,,&Cmeot whfc.h included: CV.uUOUloil of ground waler innutncn in
coP$CtuCtilln with hll'O ~1IJc:r di~rM;.L~ dnlwin~.&om ttv: aquifer be~lh the cit Yo
Q"plaiot.-d and f"('.-,.:hcd an lIl.,rru.mcnt with luaqullh And county MatT un watn
qualis)' nl:INiancm~ coonJin.:JtetJ incorpo~ion or best ~nt rr-:tm
"" cernenI kiln ~ u a .!Oil lKIdi1h't! intu N~~)1l:1l Pullutant Dt.ctwge
Elimination S)5ia1' (l'IIVn~S) pc:rmill tor the: projcct and COUI'lI)' awm\>'BI; and
pruvikd OVln~ In construdion monitoring under the Dcrwtm:nt or Naturu.l
R~rco rcdunajiun oro todivWu.d conunm:w Nl'OES ruuU!.A.
r ..... ;r VILLAGE
lstal{ ..... WnJabt&ton
I As a subcunsuha.nt 10 MOJllgorncry WiSler Group. rh. Kindig prepared a "'''Bter
quaUcy IlnalYllis ror the: maslC:1 planned Ctlnununicy aru\>'C Tibbits Creek in the
l.'IlOaquah Crttk aOO Lake S4mmami. .. h drainllltt' t'tasln in JUpport or lhe Muer
~'e Pbn. r'.iotim:llro und~ .. ",'C'k'opoJ phosphorus loadings to take
, . . '"
Samnlillnish 3.nd fonx.u1 mitigaced Io3I.tina" after dcvc:lopmcru . Worked ¥titb
City ststr 10 ta'!Ornmc:nd c:onS:ruclion-ph;tse mllMgc~1 ur !lCdimtnt and
related pbo~rus. and ItC'\lClopcd And impLemented a mmitnring Slnucgy 10
provide 1Id1qlf;"'c ma~tnc:'nt input Ihrouah cnmtruclion.
LAKEFOINTE MIXED USE t,tOJECT
Kia, Coa.ry, W.hhiIlClGD
Responsible ror ¥t;Uc:t' quality ..... ctlnnds and shon:linn lll\aJysis. planning.
pouUtling. ;ar.! cnfunccmcrus as pv1 of 11 proposed wl:ll1n dC\>1:lop" ... lIt in
Kctum~ at Ihr north end or t...ak.c W3ShingloQ. LUcpoinle ","'Quid be one or
tb:! fd rrnJd dcvclopmeut:f utIl.Ic:r the North Shore Community Plan
de\cloped in respousc to lhr GroVl1h Managrmcnt Act . The project would b: a
bJih dcnsicy residcntial reuil. commc:rcial. IU1d c:nttrtainmcnl land tue
rcpJadna industrial use on land bountJed by I...U.c WashinGton and the
Sammamish Riv(!'.. The project would abo include sjgniflCMI riparian and
takCJhon: Iwbibl enl"utn«tnt.."f1tJ.
1
,
•
•
Tuub. F. 8.. A, C KinJigunJ
L. l.. CUttqWlI. /9X6.
'"/ilftJltUl'Yr~,JI,Jtt If
iIfl"wboru/ary Iml", of (I
~I:d IJIfJlUlic
"'kroaMM. /,,:.IoIm CaJnu.
.N .• AI. COIfUItlitfiry T uzir:iry
TruUtz, ASTMSTP910.
AS,.At PhlJo.k'pIJa. PA.
1_ At C .... C /Cindij:
UItd f : 8. Tmtb. /9M.
h~idMw.~anJ
I('Y.m ulgur 10 J'"ptnlll}'Ci" in
wdalgul UIfd pailTJ C1Iitwr.
AqwrlJc TOL 6:/-11.
MOUI'<TAIN~TAR RESORT
Kitth.iUI COilaty, W.dtJ.~o.
A.C. Kindig & Co.
Dfi'Ko.., .... ~I.1 ~ (r. •• ~ .. 11J,('j
J'ZSln .fIoor._ftr_wad1 ..... s.;.,.no
..... -.w~tIOO5 "",.....,.
... \"'1"""'"
Or. Kindig h:li evaluated existing aurfac:c and groundwtfcr qualicy coodn" ••
dc~~lopcd impact an..alya;cs. and provided mdiption pbnnio& Jar. 7,4()()..crc
wrested.ite plAMed as a resort in eaMcm Washington. The w is bi:JocIcd by
the CSC F.lum Rh-cr. just abo"o'e its convCfJCQCC \!lith the Ymrm Itiva'. One
asped of the projcC1 is • proposal to c:ons:trud up 10 tvJO SOl! rouna. Or.
Kindig Jliitpwc:d • £Olf c:ounc: £I'CW-m plwe maMBtnkDl plan (or lboJC
courses in consultation wah the rrojcc:1 dcsip CSlKjrJttU. plannc:n. m:I ,olf
counc manaaen. CW icntJy. Dr. Kindig is assi$ing 1be clicU as technical
atimtifle: kad coordin:ttot monitoring ~ 10 "'ala rights trIII:l'ifas g:rvu:d
by the Dcp:u1men1 oU:.oology.
CLE F.J..UM URBAN CROwnl ARF.A
C1t £I ... , WuldalfoD
Dr. Kindig cVllI~ed ioit'-.I plans for • G0l[ COUlX in tb: Cd)' oCC1c mum'.
urlxu1 gro~th a&rea atdjaccnt to the MounlDinSw Ih=sor.. A recommc:odaIion to
lite lhc l:r,"Olf COW'K to alo'oid iJfound waler i:alpoc1s 10 xns-';~'t adjacm ..... 't':llJ.
!>eing used by the Yakim& Tohe f;s!l Ibtcbcry -. inccrpotat.ed into the
UrtDn Gro ..... th Area al1cmui\'cs examined in • 01!J.S. Dr. KiDdi, pro ... jdcd
YlOIlct q~lily an:alySls and rtIpOndcd 10 IqU:llK: 1"C:JOurt.e qllC'Jlions during
Pft1l&1&1ion orthe fT;JS fur the project.
REDMOND RIDGE Dl.'VELOPMEI'<T
KiD. Conty, WashJD~Oft
Prqxan:d • technical analysis of Slortt1W:lt~ quaJity fMM£;I"lUUX fOr. 1.Q46...
""" pupo5<'CI Urban Pbnn<d o.~ cons;,u"g ofl.300 d""lling units.
II aucs of n:uil and 122 acres of business park.. Am1yscs of ~ "AWC!".
ground ..... -ala". Gnd cumulath'e rqjonaJ iutp .. ts to off-5itc Wckace lake WttC
used in both Envirorwcntal Impad St.Iarrnl and Masin Drtip IV P1an
submiclla1s.
REDMOND RIDGE EAST DEVELOPMENT
KJD~CoaDty. Wublaccoa
Dr. Kindig is managins the w:uer quality btsclinc aDd. imiOCb CVllJIWioIl fOr
the cncitlcments phase or planning IOre:q)IIJI;S.,D of the Redmond Ridse UPD •
•
i,
"
A.C. Kindig & Co.
f .fI,\'II!.('\t.Mt,h. f .\1..( C1~'l(JI.l ".c.
Il5UI.lIriloro'_~ tt...I. Slliw llll
SAfEWAV AUBURN DlSTRIBITfION CE/in:R
A.bu. .... Wultiacto.
..u.w-.WA ...e
~) ..:Ja4)5"
t .... (m)u,...,
Dt. KinJia p«pared a waJer q~li1y rq')Ort ev.l~tin& demolition of. portion
(JJ(. f.\oeina f'lbtication pb.nt and n:dcvelormcnt Il.'I • wl&l"ehou5c distribution
ctnt ... ., W ~y Inc.. as por1 or a SEPA Checklig aubmittaL Dr. Kindia is
tun-end), rCifkinsibk fOr $lOnnwat", discharge pamits end \4olltcr~uaJit)'
thruua,h CXlnsuuction.
S[GALKTl.>KWILA PROPERTY
T.larila. W."k1_ctoa
Dr. KinrJiJ is pro~idin8 aquatic. t1:'tOUrCe ""'v~ during preliminary
in~iplion' of best ISSC for '" gremc:r than SOO-acn= poreel of property
adjacent to tbe Grtm Rivcr.lOUI.h of Tukwila.
S."'IOQIJAUIIE RIDGE MASTI:R PIA'" PROJECr
Sooq •• bDfrr. Wulllaat0D
Dr, K~ja is responsible: rOt ~lSCllnc stormwalCf'. fr'..herics. IUd surfao: wlIter
q\QIity moMoring.. predic1kln of de\ICIopcd wrJ.cr qmllJty condition. and
mitiS_ion planning at the 2.()()O.acre Sooqualmic Ridge site. Monitoring
studies through eoMiruttion and posl-de\-dopl'1lCnt stagtS of each of the J()..
year proJect dcwJopmcnt phIases are tailored to spec.ifJC land use propos31s in
each of tbe dnlqe basins. 4J well as 10 spec:iftc: ;lonn runoff treatment
facilities. ~naiblc tor analysis of Snoqualmie: River water quality ia
n:spome (0 projected Wafcwater discharge from the CiJy or Snoqualmie using
• <>Iilntcd and "",lied QUAL-1E _or q"""Y model and analyzod
~otiliwasCf' runoffracililic:s and di.qchargc impacts for the: propoxd golrcowx.
accc:H parkway. ~idcntLa~ and mixed we dcvclopment. I>cw:lopcd. tolf
COW'Se m:Untc:twlCC pbn (or the propo~ PGA-toutnalllttll t,:nur.lC. and
c.ontinue~ to v.ori. on ,,'Irious aspects of outund resource DlAI'I.1icmc:nt and
annual monilur\na: IS the: site is being dc\'Clopcd.
SNOQIJALMIE RIDGE"
s.eq .. .baic. Wulalqtaa
ReIpomible fur baseline stormwafcr. Md Jurruce .... 'DlCT quality monitoring.
pmlidlan of Gcveloped ...... la quality condition. low impact development
plonnir .... aN mitigalion planning for a new dneloptllCl1l project proposed fer
tIRe propenics adjaccnr to the Snoqualmie Ridge project. The project i3 now
in 1he-milkment. ptwe.
• •
,
A.C. Kindig & Co.
t ... \~I.t:: ',"1,.l\J ,( 0' .. ~11 ALTII'.c
Il50I edIft' ... Jr...s.nc~.~~:no
IIIrtift· ..... ~ WI. 'JtOOJ
t~)~
.... 1'ZI4U-O'i
TROSSACIIS. BEI.vf;Df:Rt: PARK, AND DRIGIITON'S LANDING
Kina: Couary. WbhiJJ~Q.
Dr. Kindig was retained as on c~pc:rt WiU1C1S and consu.uz. OD \o'lara qualiI:y
and was iCSJlOruibk tOr the orpniza:ion oftbe written 8f!PliamI rClpAbIC W aU
issuc:s raised during the WIlMington SUdc Envirorunmal Polky Ad hcaa it~
fOr Ibis f'tOjoc:t. Provided analysis of \o\ollfer qu:alit, (or the proposed project and
n'ltluatcd the effect on wetlands.. 1'''HeniOn Creek. and Canyon Cnxk. fle.no
dc\'tlopc:d plAns for. thc:tK-xperimml:aJ wet pond and gr:us-co''Ctd utacI fiber
for one stornr.-.'lI1cr CIlIdunent to Dea,'Cf Lake. and hDs since rmnitoml lint
(.aciliey. v.'hkh hns citmonslr41rd exccllenl outflow W3tc:fQU:l!ily.
WE.!>T KlTSAP JOINT P ..... NNING AREA
Kks.p Couatr. Wasbin~oa
Responsible fur cwJUlting cxistins Q'&cc and ground Wlda qua!ily and fi)r
ruomrnendcd stomrwatcr management 5U"Zltq;ics (or a mixed waclbu:sincS5
rwk un within the pou:nlial urt:.n gt'OVt1h cxparuion at~ for tJ:c City of
Bremerton. The work is being done for the property owoc:r. Pun Dla.ktly Tt«
rmns. w!dc:r an advisory capacity 10 • committee uf city and COUOC)' agcQC~
.nnd the SuqlJamW! Tribe:. The propmy dnlins ,i,a ground \\'2IQ' to Oicl.enon
Crttk. • \1 .. Juabk r~t"'iks resource, and 10 Kit.sap L:W: which ,,",5
considerable rt'CfelllioOlll U'iC' by the city and county residents.
•
,
1\ •• II
~."".-.J,J. • roJ"t
tin ,,91; ton
.. ..,..'"
~ ,.
jI OOO'OOl "
<-T..~
~
· ...... ~~.PIN
SYf"t
rtOOO'OL;'t "
If OOC'0t~',
)l000'DR
I'
t .1tft.IIIU_..,
"'''''tQ'~
-
1001.""
3 a'" I 'JIM., '.,.e .•
--.
ouejId ........ _...,
• •
I ,
) • ,
• 7 • • III
11
II
Il ..
" 16
17
" " ,.
" " " " " ,.
" " ,.
'" 31
" J] ,.
J>
)6
)7
]I
" ~I .. . , .. .. ..
•• "
OFFICE m TIlE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF RENTON
IN RE THE BOEING COMPREIIE~SIVE
PLAN AMEND~IENTS ~OOJ -
NICHOl.SON APJ'EAL
NO . LUA 02-141. ECf. CPA. R. EIS
IIEARING ORiEl' FOR
n IE IJOElNG CO~tp,\NY
I. I ~TnoD ucrl oN
In this appeal. flC-lilionc1 Orad Nicholson uks Ihe Iicarin8 Examiner (0 find rllull
with an environmental impact statement ("E1S-} (the Draft t:nvironrncnllllimpact Statcmcnl
or "DEIs". d:ucd Jul)' H. 2003 and the Final Environl1lcmallll1pact Stalc:ment. or "FEIS",
.
dilled. Oc..1~r 21. 20(3) prepared by the Cil)' ofRcnlon (-Cily-) The EIS was prep;lrcd in
rC$ponsc: 10 al'fOlXlsal by The Doeing Company ("'nocill~f) thatlhc: City adopt a IT1QfC
flexible planning and 7.oning framework that wouW allow a brOAder nI"ge ofredevdopmmt
possibilities for industrial land in the hean orthe City The EIS informed the City's decision
on non-project actions including amendments 10 the r.ity's comprehensi\'c plan and l.o;\ing
ordinanus and a related dC\-clopntcnt agn.-cmcnt \\.;Ih noeing
~ flS SOltislics and e;.:cea!i all oflbe purposes and requirements for an EIS under
the State Erwironmenlal "olic)' ,\ct rSEPA") RCWeh 4).2IC. The ElS discloSd the
purpose and need for dw: action from the pt'fspa'li\'1: of both the City and the proronenl,
Boeing. The EIS analyus and CO~ll'S a brood fange ofpoccntiaillaion altcmarh'es for
future redC\'Clopmcnl 1h41 ma)' occur In the nonhcm ponioR orlhc Cjt)~S Urban Center. 1be
EIS provide)' :he publie with detailed MIlIY'sis of patClltial effect, including technical rc:pons
c:llhc b4scline condition IlOO potential effeas for soils. groundwater. SlOnnv.Oltcr collection
and discharge volumes. water qua Iii),. fisheries. transponalion. noise. and sewer and watef
HEARING BRIEF FOR
TIlE nOEING CO~1PANY -I
IO.I!IO~I"" ~rJ).l/lJ«) :'11 ORIGINAL
ht1J.1 Cok UJ'
1201 Thud A\CIUI:. ~ .UWO
Scauk:. W3.\htnpcm ~IOI-]m
Phone (2061 ]~9-1({lQC)
FIl.\; (206} W)·'.IOO(I
•
I
1
J • ,
• 1 • • ,.
" " " " ., ,.
n
It , . ..
" II
" ,.
" '" 11
111 ,.
'" JI
U
JJ
" " J6 .,
1I
)9
'" ..
" . , .. ., .. .,
:SI.~'\'k.~ Ourina U'.euC\'elopttn.:nl ot'lhc: (IS.lhe p!.lbli¢ Wilt pnwidt.-d with In opponunlll «J
I~'icw 100 co,nmC-tU and the CllY<XJIlS.idcrcd and responded to tho~ comments, FEIS. Ch.
-4 The EIS provides the Cuy with a strong foundation (Of III iofonned decision on the
rompr~ih It pi:." 1nd .ioning amelldmcnu adopted on Noycnlbcr 2.~. 200) n~use the
I::.LIi more than ada:;u.a:lely con~ders the potenr:I.J ~Wlilicant adverse Impacts of the: City's
non-phlJeO at:~l. inc-luJing cnvirol\m""~al impiScts of panjelllar concan 10 Mr, Nicholsolt,
t".e Hearing Examiner ihould deny the appeal and lind the EIS fully compliant with SEPA
n. BACKCltOUNU
fn feettU years, noong hA~ c.velUlly reviewed.,nd fine-tuned ils commercial
airplane rm:nurllctwing prt)CcsseJ to make efficient usc of corporat:: resources inc.ludinH land
and f.K"iljliu.. Beowse orth:.t elTo", Hoeing ~~ consolidated its Renton ITl3nufacturing
~li ... ities.IeI\·in8 Ctrlain propct11 and ("citities (Ihe "Underufilil.cd land") no longer
essent;al to the blJSineu of making airplanes These propCl'ties Itt'Id fitcilities occupy I large
:tr(".l in the City's Urban Cenler
Q\-er the past Je\',"~1 )wt, Doring has worktd with the City to explore I full ronge
(ifrcd:c\'clopnlC'nl ahctmti"'~1 for the Underulilil..-:d Land thaI ","'OI.Ild serve the interests of
the public and nOcinil Oocing 's imCfe'Ju include und USt plllnnir:g for the UoderuliliLed
land thAi Ckates rakvc-Jopmen( Oe.'{ibilil), but docs not crtate connict with ongoing
airplane manuf'cturing opcnt.ions To thaI end. Boeing propo!oed ammdments 10 the City's
comptcMnsive plan and zoning otdinances tholt protect the: exiSlin~ industrial land use of
airplane manufacturing ""hile allowing for morc Ilcxiblc rcdc\~lopmcnl of,he nonhem
poroon orlbe City's Urtuin Cmter .
The City responded to Boeing', propos'll by cumining its own policies and
infereRs, a otOlld ranSt: or IIl1ernluiws flU land use in the ate •. and the potential
HEARING BRIEF FOR
TIlE OOEING COMPANY· 2
jft_'''I~·!lrA.kittn:J
hrtJo. Cnk W'
120 I third Annuc. Suite 4800
Sc:;anlc. Washin~on 91101-)CW')
Pbon:: (l~) 1,5UOOO
Fax : (2(6) 359-9000
•
I cm;ronmcnlal impacts ofcmnges In the planning and zoning for dlC area . The City ,
) concluded that «ruin pl.nnins and wning amendments .ffeaing Boeing propenyaDd other
• , adjACent prOJ1d1ic:s ""ere in tbe inlerest of the Cit),.nd should be adopted 1llC City.tlso
• 1 entered into a long-tC1m development agreement with Boeing 10 guide: rcde\-dopmen!
• 9 consis:lcnt wilh the planning and zoning amcnJmcnts In Ihis appal. the pdilloncr ,.
II challtnSC5lhe adequacy ofthc ElS that analyzes the im~s of these nonprojea actions
" II III. STANDARD Of Rt;VIEW
" 15 SElJA requ ires I~I if an agency provides for arpc=ab of erwtronmernal ,.
17 detnminations. such procedure ",shall pro\·jdt that procedural determinations rmde b)' the
" 19 responsible official shall be entitled 10 substantial weight." RCW 41.21C 07S(1 )(d); I£""UJ ,.
21 Rcnlon Municipal Code ("RMC') 4·8-IIOI!(7,KD) ("lllhc Ilcarin~ Examiner shall gi\'C
" 1J Jubstantial weight to any discrctionary dcc:ision ofille City" .ppra-.ing an ElS).
" 25 The adequacy of an EIS is considered under 'he "rule ofrealOf'l". ~'hich Rates lMI an
26
27 adequate as pro\·ides RJnic:iem information resatding Cf1\·jronmental impacts (0 allow
" 29 officials 10 nuke rca.so.'lCd choices among alternativC5 K1~1ti1ll CWtli)' CjtjZCDS ASt.inS
3D
31 _ned W'Sle Y. Klick itat eQUOI)'. 122 Wn 2d 619. 6)). 860 P.1d 390 (1993). Solid Wlstt
" J) AltcrOlljye I!ropooents (SWAP) ,. OklOOi!ln CounU. b6 Wn ,\pp. 439.442. 832. P.ld SO) ,.
J' (1992), A proposal's en\'ironmcntaJ effects should be rcasunably disclosed. dtscus.sed and
J6
J7 substvl1iated , Klickilll 122 Wn.2d at 644: Ioaodol PmjllSila Ass 'n ,\-', Jc[toon C-puoU'. 32
" 39 Wn.App 473, 48), 648 P.2d 448 (1982) An EIS i, not required to be a "compendium of
'" "I cvery conceivable cnea" of. proposal, but it shocld provide enough inrormatioo rtgJrding
" "1 probable effects to SCf\-e as useful tool ror decision maJ.crs, IQl!!d91. 32 \Vn .App. at 481 ,
" '" Under SEP A. nonprojcct :actions arc delined u "4Ctions y.'~jch arc diOtmtl or •• "7 broader lhan a si ~.8Ie sile·spt..:ilic project, such IU plAns. policies or programs." WAC 197·
HEARING BRIEF FOR
TIlE BOEING COMPAl'Y • 3
10-'011).0 I M'" 1WWQ)60 ,: ~ It
.. --
r('ddlll Coil Ul'
nOI Thinl ",cue., Suilc 4100
Sank. Wu~ 9l101·~
~ (lO6) J5941XlO
Fa:,: i1061 l~~
• •
• ,
1 • , • ,
• • I. ,.
II
Il
" " ,.
17
'" " '" JI
12
lJ
" " ,.
" 2. ,.
)0
Jl
11
Jl
.14
" ,.
)T
JI
JY .. ..
" " ..
" .. . ,
11-n... S£P A n'gulltto.IS sp«ificIU), list atnctWmcttl (If (omprchensivc land use plans or
zonin.g Ofdir..tJ)(es n C'(a.\tptc:s of UDtt;Jtojctl "tiMs WAC 197-11-7o.:(l)(b)(ii). The EIS
on IPpai pcf1ains to!l nonPl'Oj(,(11ICtion. SEI'A (qJ.Ulilit)RS provide lhi\llhc City should be
a.froo1ed ~t:t' 1k(m:J1(c in pr~Alif1" .1l'M.mprojC\.1 EIS bct.alnC there is usually less
dtl..u!cd infonmuton lv,illlhio lboullhc cnvtronmC'llfaJ impactt of a nonprojC'C1 action. See
WAC I'n-f 1'''''':(1). The EiS mu)C dSKtm impKls and Jhml4tive$ using the Icvel of
ddol$l ,Jp~e fur the: scopeo flhc nonptoj~ proposal. WAC 197-11-442(2), Under the
, ndc: of r~uon.. tho. adequacy of the EIS ~ould be re\iew~ with ddl.'tcncc in liSm ~the fl(:(
17 Wn. App. S7). S80.
IMPZd 1119(1977)
IV. ARGl'MEST
Based on a ptt'ht.a,iog :4latus ~'unrc:rencc tnd ordc:r in this mJUl(r. the issues on appeal
art: limited to !.he adeljuaq"lJfdlc EIS in Addle.uiny significant adverse impacts rdated to
ttaffic and IDllsponlilion i.,rrasttUC1urc Illd 10 the collcction and diKtutrge of Slormwaler, I
A. The £IS OiscSoHd anti Ditc'&lued Jmpllfu RelAted 'v Trame and
Tnnspon.ltluA I"CruCrucfUrt.
I.. TnJric and Tnta,pnrtadon.
Thf' EIS ~cly considered lignific.nt impaclS to traffic, transpona!ion
infrurruaure. pcd~rianl, 100 etnCf};ency response lime S¢. atJl((1l1y. DEIS §~ ;,10,
J 12 and Append;', E; F£JS, pp J 2-)" 'The EIS IIci(nowlcd)l,es thallJ,e proposed
I Otdcrlbnuaf}' 19. -:004),
JIEARlNG IIRlEF FOR
ll1E80EING CO~IPANY. 4
ro.u.oI_'fIlD«'l'''60 U:,
P'rrtoJ", C(lk I.U
1201 Th"d A\'enu¢. Sultr 01100
Sc:auk. W.ulUngion 9SIt)l.lrm
Pbonc:: (106) j$1J,.g()OO
En: (ltlt'!, ,\'9-rooo
•
1 ,
3 • j • 1 • • I.
I!
II
" " " I.
" 1&
" 2'
11
12
2J
" " 2.
21
" ,.
30
1I
J2
33
" " J6
" ,. ,.
•• " J2
" ..
" ..
"
con',pfthcnsiv( plAn and 1.coin!! .mcndrll':nlllhcfUsclvn do no! generate .ripl. buc the
redt'o'c!opntcnl allowed by .he amendlt'cnls would CfL"ah! tnffic tn1p.elS auoe~led with
(utUI! redevelopment projects when they octUl. TIK' pruj ec1ions studied in the: CIS arc
da.:gnc:d w be used as a ~cnenl framcwOl'I. 10 understand the range or impacts that could
result (rom the Alternatives DEIS p. l .IO J~ This js In ilppropriatc .pprOJch (or I
nonproj«t act~n Nonprojcct roions"need only anal)7.e environmental impaal al' highly
generalized level of detail." KIi,kilal. J 22 Wn .ld at 642
hi this EIS. howeYt'f. lhe: City cxtcnsi\'cly lnaJ)'ud the probable imp2cu of future
rcdt:\'cloplncnt acth'ities on Iranspotlation. both on· anj illT'sile 1he scope orille
Iransportllion Ina lysis examines level of service for 52 major inlcrsec1ions in the City and
also considers impacts 10 1"lusmc S and the regional tntnsporlation network OEiS
pp. 3,10 8·!>. The erretts ofille proposal on Ihe trlUl5porcmion n(1work are evaluated ror
bud inc co~plfjsons with ZOIS and 2030 Using Ihis comprehensive approach. the EJS
concludes :
With or without redc.\elopmens in Ihe sile area, inl("'fSCClKm and regional rr~'1Y
impro~'ements will be nceded by 20 IS to accommodate baseline 8I"\l",111 in the &rQ
Under all alternati\'cs, redevelopment or the site area ..... auld generate additLonaI
traffic volumes on local and regio",,1 roadway I)'stems thai would trigger the need
for miligali on ... [ho .... C".cr. wJith implementation ormiligalion measur~ identified
lin the ElS] no significant unavoidable .d\TnC impaas to tflvel demand needs
would occur under Alternatives 1.2 and 3. Under Allcmalive 4, red~'elopmcm
Icvtls assumed in the notthwtst ponion of the sile area ... would likely not be Able 10
be aceommoda:rd with conventional al·grade road syslems inttr.llilO the sile area.
This could be mitigated eNough implementing !ov.-er land usc dcnsilics in this ar~ .
Ii p.I-H, The EJS discloses that baseline: traffic conditions will require imprDVmlents in
the tnmsponation system.nd specific redc\e.lopmcnt impws may be mitigated
HEARING BRIEF FOR
TIlE BOEING CO~tPANY -5
10 lOQJolIl " ... LIBIdJ60.l': I
-
•
PuilJu Cok W'
1~Il1unl A\~. SWlc~lOJ
Sc:Iuk. \\'ashirl#OQ 91101·)099
Phon.:: (2f)ti.359 8000
Flu:: (206) 3'9·9000
, ,
t
1
.I • > • 7 • • I.
" " IJ
" " I.
17
II ..
1O
" n
" n ,.
" 21 ,.,
]I}
" )l
})
" " J6
II
JI
19
"" " n
u ..
" ..
"
1. Ptdt""rLuu.
Although ill-. [IS tddre:~ a l'Ionp(ojL'C114.1ion. without spL-cilic development
impacu lO pcksu;lIns.lhc EIS. ruJbidcn pcdnnian inlh);truclurc "nd cffc:ccs, E~isting.nd
PI'ojttled llQO.fOOtoriled lransportalion facililics ItUck is trll.il systems are addressed in
Section 11hlfthe OEIS.:.nd at J 10 111hrou~ 1 10 14 oflh~ DEIS. In additiun, the EIS
tonliders lbe City's objective or protCC1ing r'e.,id~nual ,'Iot:is.~borhoo(b rrom ad\'ose traffic
imp.ldi. 1st. p. } 10 10 The EIS cnncludd th3t nutigalion and tnll.sponalion network
improvc:ments .... i11 be used to 4;Ontinuc prOltction ror ItIidcHtiaJ nc:ighborhoo(b and 10 draw
Lhrouw,h tr~k off of resi"cn:w ~redJ hl p 3 10 36.
J. Emt", .. rtey RtJpon't ""mt •
Tht: impiloos of,cJevelopmcnt on emergency response: lime (potic~.lire nnd medic)
aro diSQJued in Section 3 lJ: uflhe DE IS Again, Ihe EIS notes Ihillllhc amendments do not
IMmsclves caUJe impact', rAtfle:, lhe), crUle the-coapilcity fClr future n:de\'elopment that
woul~ result in increa.sek in tesidents and emplo)'ee~ and lhctefore, increa§Cd demand for
public JC'n'ices l!l p, 1 12, 8 Noncthcku. the [IS ,lftemptl 10 ~jmalc impacts of
~enlial fU1l:U'C reda-clopmcnt on a pn.~~ level basi!, by usingesti0l31W call \'0IUnI6
bated en thetypel ofusel .Iiowed by the amendments. The EIS concludes thai 'A-ith the
rcdc\'f:Jopmcnl ASsumed for Allcmatwcs 1 t.:. 2. anticipated Mincrtascs in overall calls for
sc:MCf: to tbe Rcmton Fire Dc:pllt'lJnCm and KinS COUnlY Medic One from redevelopment of
the site area. ",'OUld be ",ithin an adequate rnp<>nsc capacitv of thest agencies" l4. p.
1.129. No signilicant impac:ts 10 response timt: of law tn(orccl11Cn! arc expected for
AllaNlh''11!:5 I k 2.ld.. p, 3.12.10.
More signi!.ant increases in calls for service are prob3ble ~n the cw:nt oflhe full site
build-OOl tCenArios considered under AlterNti~'cs J &. 4. The EIS acknowledges Ihat "the
HEAl!JNG BRIEF FOR
TIrE BOEING COMPANY· 6
1O_ ... ..J.4I" ~n:J
,
•
put.dn.CnWu.r
120111aird A\mue. Suite ·4100
~nk. W_ih/n#M 9'1101·)0')',1
Phooc: (206) H9-1OOO
Fall: (206) ]59·90011
• •
, ,
.' • ,
6 ,
• • ,.
II
11
Il ..
" 16
" .. ,. ,.
11
" " " " " " " ,. ,.
1I
12
" J'
J>
J6
J7
JI ,.
•• ..
" " .. .. ..
"
projea-:d increases in calls.1 build-OUl of Alternativ~ ] &. 4 could require np.a.nd4:d
penoMc! 11:\'1:ls and fire "nd Crner};C:~ response tquipmcra It,) cn~e consistent response
Icvd:;. to tnc sile area and overall St:r\'ice arCl." Id.. p ) 12 II The E1S noces th;f
AhCfl).llli\'es 3 &. 4 aswme incremenr.1 development over it lS."w period. Looa·ttnn
capilal facilities needs ofVallty Medical Cemer and Renton Fire: Dqwtmc:m ~ilJ need lobe
addrcued as dC'\'clopmcnt occurs liL p ) 12 II TIle ElS stales 111:11 additlocal ~rof
officen would be needed to maintAin the exhting levd of 5CIVi~ ratio, but corx:1udn dw
lhe Renton Police Depanment has adequate response opacity l.d.. P 3_12 12.
D. The: EIS Disdosrd and Uiscuntd Impaci. 1td,Itd to Contclion and
LJisch.,.gt or Slorm""'ler •
The: ElS incorpol1llCS an t"X1(!flsi\'c Jlnal),&is ofimpacl.S 10 slorm'-"Illtr collection
systems and discharge effects on water quality nod fish hahilal ~ DEIS n 3 2.
3.3, and Appendices D. C. and D, TIle C.p~dfY and diKharge effocl$ oftne storm~'Iter
wllection sY5tem wc:re analyzed using '''''''O~. (I, w.c: (lftJ~ oi)ting s)~~m ,nd cap.dl)·
and (2) U5e; ora reconfigured system l'la! incrementally ,cditt'cu diJCh.argesfrom tht Ccdu
River Ilnd Johns Creel to u.le WilShington JJl p 3.2.14. The environmental dTCCl$ or
SlOfln\o\.'1ter ~'olumc and qU3lity WCfe lhcn considerro under QCb ClUoC and for eadl
rede\'t:lopm~nt alternative. ld.. PP 1 2 14-17. Under all cases and e:henwives. the ElS
concludes:
Future rroC\'Clopment oflhc $ile area wo...cld resuh in the con~ruc.tion
or MW 5!ormW3ler management and willer quality tn:atment facilities
tNit would meet current oJ"plicablc stlnd..trds Compliance "'ith sucb
st~d!l would tolIJI in an impTo~'tm(nt in water quali!)' and
localized dminagc canditions. "Iath'c to the existing c:cndition. "''''rlh
implementation of mitigation me&sures, no significant una~'Oid~Jc
fld\'CfsC impacts would be opectro .
HEARING BRIEF FOR
Pt::riiJ.., CW LU' ,
1201 nurd A\","*. Sane 01Il00
Sc&t1k. wAbatpao 91101·)1,»9
P'hI'lPI::: (XI6) )SWOO)
fa.~: (206),,9-9000
THE BOEING COMPANY. 7
IO~I66'SUI)~)4I) 1':1
••• --,'
I
2
I • ,
• 1 • • 10
" " " " " If,
" .. .. 2.
21
21
21
" " 26
" 1I
" 10
I I
" 31
" J5
" J1
II
I.
'" " " " " " <f,
"
ld. p. 1·9 The ElS dcmonstnucs th.,1 rdt\'clopment will imprc.\1: $torl1lwater maMg.emCni
and water quality under any redc,,'ClopmCnlICCnariu
SIOfmwllter quanlil)'1Uld 'lualilY erreds im: ddCfmincd primarily by the amount of
impervious ~rr,ce and the use ortha! iUrf:&«: in the stonnwalt:r collection area. The Boeing
Renton Plant is currently 99 percent impt.'fVioos ~rri1CC lsi.. p 324. In Ihis unique
situ:uion. even full build-out under ',he proposed rcac\"clopmCni Altctmlh"C 4, 1M: mo~
denstly dC\'cloped altc:math-.:. would rnult in a rcduC1ion in the loti) impCf\;ous surface:
area. reduced peak sm"m~'atcr nOWl, .nd impro ... ed waler quality. ld.. pp 3.2 17,3,2.23.24
The EIS also addresses the cn"ee1S ofplanmng and zoning amendments on fish and
wildlife habitlu. S~ id.. § 3.3. Baled on its conclusion thllt redevelopment would impro"e
the water quality of slomlwater runolT, the ms found "{nJa 5ignificant ad"asc impacts 10
fish or wildlire reSOtlrces would be e~pcc:ted tu occur from the Proposed Action or
redevelopment under any of the alu:rmti\'ts, as Ill.IIlyztd .. Id.. P I-II. The ms further
explains that under 1111 orttle altanltivcs considered. no redC"\'c!opment would occur along
or ncar t.ake Washington, the Cedar Itin:1 (lr lohn's Crttk Unlit ancr ~OIS , DEIS p, 3,3,6
Aller 20 I S, any c:onstrudion thai oc;:c:urs near those water bodin must be consistent with the
CilY's shoreline and critical arca regulations., ",hids will be updaled in acCOfd1llCe ",;Ih lIall:
law. OEIS p. 3,3,1. Firnally, ror an)' rooe"c!opment in the area. conslruClion will likely be
s~bject to temporary erosion and sedimentation conlrol me;,surcs moo other best
m4naScment permitting requinll1ents to minimize and P1C\'cnt ad,'crse effa:ts to ne4rby
watercourses. lslpp 3,2.18-19,3,226.
C. SEP,\ Dots Not n~uirr Consldrnlion orSocio-Economlc Imp.tls.
SEPA does noc require that "socio--economic" impacts be analyzed in an EIS. WAC
197-11-448(2). Only t',mrtm""'"wl impAcls musl be considered , l.4.. nle "environment" is
IIEARING BRIEFFOR
. TIlE BOEING COMPA..'iY. 8
I0J«l.\.OIO(. ~1)IHII}60 2HI
P~rkICl_'C. u,
1201 Third A\uue. SuItt:.&500
SeJnlc. WashinliOll 98101·)099
Phone: (2'06) )59-1000
F~,: (1061)S9~
,
1 ,
• ,
• ,
• , I.
II
" U
I~
I.' ,.
n .. ,.
'" " " II ..
" >Ii
n
" ,.,
'" It
.l>
lJ ,.
)j ,.
11
"
dcflnro a:s dW6< dm'lC"l1hi ip."C.1'kally !isted In WAC 197· t I~.w WAC 197.11·740 -The
purpo$C: of n:griail~ the ddlt\lllon .,t environment. &l\d b(t'I(;c nlilooillory EIS GO'"Cf'iI,¥~,
duough 1M li~af dements 0(' IRe t.h-Imnmc.nl, ~I 10 limil rornpulso(), Inclusion or 50~
,;tUed $...~-«on.mlic iln~cn." Rll:lIAR!l L. Slill1.r. TIUi W"SHINOTON Srln"
£.""YU«~.d::n:rAL Pr'lJC'V N.,''I' § 14 0 11'l) ('4 cd. lOO:!)
Mettlods of IilWlony. pn,)J)\lr.aJ, CCOOOrtlll;' tompetition. pmitls and penonal in::()Ill(
JJId wlF'" and ~ policy l,gtYSI.lUC listed in tlte SEliA (~IJI~lions &tllpecific: example,
orthe I)pcs. ofinfQfru:ldoft :twl are DOl n:qlJu-=d 10 ~ d,scuued in In E1S. WAC 197.1 J.
44KO) J In.: toeu" polilicaJ1 I.nd econwnu;! litelorl thou declliOll msken may weigh in
dtci.uol1 m.oIIlar.g :u~ n()t demt:ltj or 1M pn),iiCltI crtvironment Ih:u arc. 'r\4iJyud in an EIS
WAC 191~i 1"'''''5(1) .~ EIS on appeAl hat IIpproprincly o,lIIJ,idered lhe clemcnu oflhe
phy,u:.alaJli.i builf cnvironme:nllhil ~hould be congdCfcd In an EIS
V. CONCLVS IO)/
ll«:tllse the CIIY .lIt prepared lind relied on an E1S Ihllt fully gl15fic:s the purpo'K1
and leq~mt:nt.$ cf SEPA.. Uoc:ing respoo:lfully rcqu(S!~ II~I Ims appell! be denied and the
EIS 2iTmnoJ Roang also rcque~llhli tf)e Ilc.ring Examiner clarify Ih:1I any appeal oflhe
Hearing Examioer's d~i5ion in thil nUller ~1OuId be made to the Ctfl(Hti Pugd Sound
GrO\o\1b Managttnem Ileafl"Jj;l &ttd (·\PSG~ 11111")
On )atlJuy 21. :00.'. the PelirlOrK'r. Utad NICholson. filed a petition for fC'\'iew with
19 dicC?SGl\mB c:hallc:ngin}l the CilYs lKfions Itw rdy on the FJS clu.llenged here.
'" " A«ordins 10 the CPSGMIIO. the pe(uloo includes claims lhal the Cit)' f.tiled to comply
_._----
1 Althoogb If 'IQJ noll't'qUJmillS:a nulla orbw. It.: [IS un&:r rt\.w:\\ ~ :sddfC1,..
proft(tcd cmp~11lC1I.1 dumg.cs <1HOCUtai with mk.\ (')opmc:nt, :s DElS § 3 1
HEARING BRlEF FOR
TIlE BOEI~G CO\lrANV· ,)
"t:hl-flt"-~ u:t
,.
'tn.hill C ok U.I'
11(11 TIum AI'Cnuc. SUite: ''Il00
Sc:!uk. W~ 91101·.\I.l'I9
Phone (206) ]'9-8000
FIn: 12O(i) J59-l)()()(I
I
I
3 • ,
• • , • ,
I.
" 11
Il ..
" " " " " 20
" II
13 ,.
" " l!
II ,.
'" 11
1I
II ,.
3'
'" 17
" '" .. ., .. .,
«
" ... .,
..... Ith Sl~A O\."(:I.IIlltion ()rT~ 8 Ikim. Exh I. Uceausc o(thc cuc::umsa~ and the
requirelJlCnt' ofWashinMlon law. Uocingjoint in the City, reqUCSI thal the ltearing
Examiner', decision provide: notice that any appal of tbat dcci5ion be joined with Jl.b.
Nicholson', appeal pmding bcrOfC the O'SGMJ-Ill )
This request iJ, con.!oiS(cnl \ltilh ~1C 4.8.IIOE(8)(;,,:). which prO\'idts lh1t an appeal
of Ike flclTing E.xAmjnd~' decision on r~'i<=w of an CIS j, not made lot!lot Ren10n City
Council where Slate law requires rtview by II .superior court 01' ull .. .,. body. Bttc. llJ1e taw
requireJ rn;c:w by the CPSG~fllJJ Under SEPA. an)' fc\i ew orille adcqUJCy of&n EJS
mull hi: joioo! with (Co'jew cflhe undalying act jon. RCW 43 .21C.075( I), (2)(,,). (6)(c),
S1&!.c Yo G(IY~llD1):. 122 Wn..2d 244. 2-'9, 857 P.2d 10)9 (1993) Because Mr,
Nicholson', challenge to the Cily's adion is now pending before the: CPSGMHD and the:
City does not require dht.ustion o(any (Url~ appt:als before the City. ~ adequaey of the
EIS b ripe (or rr:~·j(W before lhe CPSGMilB rollowing the Ilwing Examiner's decision on
thi, appeal . The CI'SGMIIO has jurisdiction 10 hear any .ppeal orthe .dequacy o(lhc ElS.
ReW 36.70A.280(1)(.)
DATE[)' Februory 10. 20Q.1 .
PERKINS COIF..!{f
/J I ~~
Dy i il " ,'\.-Oa 7n Schuler. WSOA J;251S8
Til DrothCf10n Hom. WS8A Ii) 1 S02
AlIomc),s (or The Boeing Company -.
, Lcnct (rom Lmy \\':U'Ttft. An~', CIt)· o( Rrn!on. to Fred I\.aufnwt. I k3nna E~ .
bnu:uy 30, 2004.
HEARING DRIEF FOR
TIlE BOEING COMPANY· 10
fOJOO J.O 1660 "rotCu.o :,: I
hrlUuC4IItu.r
12'01 Third A\tcUJC. Scllt o&1!OO
Scank. w~ 98IDI·)Q99
Pbaat: (200) 35').1000
F .. ,: (100))59-9000
I
• ,
I
1
J • ,
• 7 • • I.
II
11
Il ..
" " " 18
" ,.
II
" 1.1
" " " 11
" ,.
JO
II
!l
))
H
" J6
)7
I' I?
• '" " .,
U
" " •• "
• .'
•
•
, ,
>.
• > ..
~
• ••
o
CI:RTlfICATE Of St:J\VICt
On .1i~ 10 . :004, I cAused to tie scrvt<! upon count.el or record. at the
• addrc:s.s 1111ed below, via 1he method of scl"lc~ indicAted • .I true and correct copy of the
rollowinu documents )ICARING IlRJEF FOR 1'1112 BOEING CO~1IJA~'Y and
OECLAIIMION OF T1A D IIEIM
Mr Orad NK:holson -Vi. ItaP'! delivery
2100 NE :!~ Slf"'~! A.. Via U S M.ui. ,-Class. PoStAge: Prcpilid
Retllon. W A 98056 -\'Ia Ovcrl'llglu Dchvery
.A... Viti E·mail
Mr l4ny Wlurefl -Via hand delivery
Clly Attorney .A... Via U S Mllil. ,01 Class. Poslage Prepa id
I' 0 fiox 626 -Via O~c:rnighll)elivC'ry
Renton, \VA 98.0n .A... Via E-mail
I certiry under penalty of perjury under the IlIws orlhl! Slate of Washing10n and the
United SIllIes Ihalthe foregoing is truc and corred
DJ\TED at SC3ulc, WA5hinglon. this fDil day of ~_. 2004
.11/ QQ}.
HEARING ORIEF FOR
TIlE UOElNG COMPANY. II
fOJOOJ..CIIW. SIID«'.koIl :':1
'. "
•
Galen <h..Sc:huler, WSDA# :;!S IS8
Attorneys for the Boeing Company
Pt,.kJn, Coie UP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800
Seattle. \VA 98101·3099
Telephone 206-3S9·8~42
Fax 206-H9-9442
E·mail pchulcr@'pc.kir&oicrom
, . •
,
PtrklUClHt UJ'
1201 TImd All:nue, Suile "KIlO
Sdnle. WlUtunpon ')tIIQI·)099
Phone. (It.I6) )59-8(100
Fa'll; {l06,)~9·9000
" j
•
1
Z
3
•
S
6
1
a
9
10
II
11
11
I"
I'
RETURN COpy
IN PROl'£f.DIN(JS IlEFORE TIlE CITY OF REmON
IIF.AJUNO EXAMINER
IN RE TIll! IlOElNO
COMP1!EIIENSIVE PI.AN
AMENDMENTS :!OIl) -NICllOlSON
APJ'fW.
NO. L1JA 02·141, ECf, CPA, II. ElS
DRJEf OF RENTON REGARDINO
AOEQlJACY OF E1S
FACTI!
1lUs Ifiil'UJ c'bt.UitflJe.lhe Idcq,,*y or lin Environmental 1"1*1 Statcroc:nl (ElS
16 ." FEIS) ~'''''''' tho """""",, ... ,0 .rccrtoin "",,,,,,.,. owned by tho Boeina
1 T c:.......,. (Bomr)...J otb<n.
II • ln200'2. 8oeu., UWcuullhe Ciay o(lWJton (Renton) orits plans to co~lidafe
19 .
iIs JUmoa planE op;.."';"ns ro the wca WC5t ofLopn I\W"fJIIC. itt an effort COfM'I)nJy
10
b.:n\U .. tbet "Move-lo-tr""l...akc"'. ~l.ake inh:ndtd, among other thi.np. 10
21
n rw:1c:ue tnJIilizr:d land as surplus '->rc\iCIi.ual sale end re:d.:vclopmrnt. On Doc · i,1ber 16.
21 2007:. 8ocio& subrnUcd II) applM:aiion to Rerd:oo for amendmeat to the COlnpiebcnsivc
2' Pion desi ....... ""1'fi<abIc .. lbc _ plant .ile. _ .lo<Icd 10 des ...... '"'I<'
2'· area w."::r. DCW ConipChensiYe Plan desigNtion n c:ombine the Comprehensive Plan
26 ar?Plkaaion with amcndmetu propo:ted by Renlon 10 the .wnina text. mnina map and
:n _10 __ ..-IJ'PIicabk to tho _ plant •• e, and other "",,,,,,.,..
JWVOf~ It£OARDfNG
Alll<lIlACYO .. " ..... ,
•
• •
1
2
o
Renton. through ies n::sponsible public offw::ial under SEPA. dcc:idcd to conduct
environmental rnkw. in the (ann oran EIS of (a) pllent~l.km\llli\'CS for
3
_ rcck-.'do~ 0(,11 or a portion ofthc: Rt:mon pliuJl site and otbu property and (b)
5 ",lAted public: infrastructure. A draft E1S (DElS) was i •• oed on July 9. 2003. The f ... 1
6 ElS (FEIS) wu i"'Jcd on Octobct 21. 2003.
7 Brad Nicholson timely filed an appc:aJ to the adcqUllC)' of thai f:JS . Upon motion
8 by Renton. the Eumincr. by order dilled January 19. 2004. Um~ed the ;,sues on appeaL
9
10
Although the proposed action i •• non-projoct action,thc ElS tumined four
11 alternatives which r.:nco~ II broad pocmaial range of dcvtlopment up to i.ncluding the
12 most inlemc dcvtlopment that could be anticipated for the propc:r1),. Dcspnc thaileYeI of
13 ..wysis,. environmental review will be performed on each project proposed on the
1111 Boeing property and other wven:d properties.
15
16
17
18
I.
IIRGIIMENT
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The odequaey oran £IS is. question afIa ...... 'jJo,.,.ft v. KIISClp Count)' 93 Wn..2d
19 843.613P.2d1l48(1980).
20
21
22
23
2'
25
26
21
28
EIS adequacy refers to the lelSlu sunkkncy of the eG\ironmcntal
data amtaincd in the impDCl statc:mc:nt. .t Scttk. ~ Wmh1ngrOll Sialt
F.nvIro"""nwI Policy Act: A URui tutd follcy AnaI)./s § l4(oXil (4" ed.
1993). The odcq"""Y oron EIS is ,,,,cd WIder ,he "rule of ...... -. S£/I'C
v. Com"",,* II Orchtudr. 49 Wash. i\Jlp. 6ll9. 614-15. 744 P.2d 1101
(1987); a.·MY Y. M.unJI,w T",o". 87 Wash. 2d 338.344-45.552 P.2d
1114 (1976). In order for on EIS '0 be: odcq .. ,. under lIu. ",Ie. the ElS must
pucnt dcxisiorunllkcn with • ""reasonably thorough dDcussion of tbe
signir~ a..'q)C'C1S of the probable tn\iror.mental conscquenc:n" of the
agency', dtc:ision. CMMY. 11'7 Wash. 2d at 344--45 (qooting Trout
UnllmU.d Y. MMo", 509 fold 1276. 1283 (9" C~. 1974». The ru1c: of
l't:lSOil is "in larie port • broad, fkxible cost-cfTcxtivtness standard"'. in
which the aOOqU3C)' of an F.IS is best determined "OD • use-by-aLSe hctsi,
BRJEF OF RENTON REOARDfNO
ADEQUACY OF r.IS p,ae· 2
..... ____ ., . --r __ _ .............. ~--, _ .... , ...... ""'_ ........ N
". , '.' ,
•
•
I
2
l
""idcd by 011 or the polq U>d flCtuol"""idcntions ..... oabIy .. 1aIcd "'
SSW • ...,. ~ircdivco". R. Settle f 14(aXil. lit 156, Ill.
In appJ)~ the nolle u( rcaon. d~ eoW't t. to ai\.'C wbitantirlJ weight to the
-_ .... ions I;IOIlc by the ""I"'llJibic puhli< olfl<iaL RCW 43 .2IC.09O, WAC 197·"·
5 1I8O(3)(b~ 1tenIo. Municipal Code 4.'. I IOE7 ...
6
7
8 III W .. App. 34,57·ll, 52 P.24 522 0002~ In tNt ....... the cowt wu oons/4cring
9 v.'habet or DOt &Q cxistin& EIS nceded to be suppbncntcd Of. SlAted anothct way.
10 'Abctbct or not the eJOstm, ElS WlU adcqw.le. That is tbe exact question before the
II Examiner. Thonon C=k ddmniD<d .... , the q_ion of edcquacy of the EIS wu
12 ~ to the "'dearly err'ODroUS" st.aOO:&rd of review.
1) ..
15
16
17
IS
"An .aion is c.te.rly erroneous when. althnugh there is IC'Vida1u to
support it, the tC'Yicwina body. on the: entire evidence. is kft witb the
dcfuUrt and fum conviction that 6 mistake has been committed. Anc/ttla
•. DoIy, n Wn. 2d lll, ll9 (1969)."
1. REOUIRED SCOPE OF TIlE ElS
In onb' it. an EIS fO be adequate. it must discloK., di9c:w.s and substantiate the
19 CD~I cff«ts ofthc rroposal C4i1tc(1f1 d oJ •. Snohomislr CDWIt)' d al. 96
20 WlI.2d 2el. 209. ~)4 P.2d '53 (1981). I. eM"'>' •. Cit)l of Moun/IQU 1"'0«, 87
21 W ... ld In,lll P.2d 114 (1976), the <OUI1 .... '" tNt SEPA doe> no. rcq .... that every
22 remote: lind speculaLive-~ of an lCtion be inc:luded. The coW1 held d\llt an
23 BS lor an urt.n arterial pojm was bOt required to Iddress (he cnvicoll1UClltA1 impacts of
2_
an otHpin or ofl'..qain condominium dcvtlopmentaJ proposal on I pam:1 of I4nd
2S
~. plopmec1 arterial The court ddenniDal that the condominium p:ojcct ""'as too 26
21 "'1diJOtc'" and was not ca_pOy related to (he project being rel,;cwed.
28
BRIU Of R£NTOH R.E.CIARDfNG
ADEQUACY Of ElS PI ... )
•
1
2
1
~
S
6
T
8
9
10
11
~, 12
13
H
15
16
11
18
19
20
21
22
23
2_
25
26
21
28
•
lk."tIWIC this EIS reviews I noD-project action Involving changes to the:
Cohtnhcosln: PlM. adoption of new 1Dnine caICGOrCs. adoption of devclopmcnl
IItmlud,. and raJ)ning of certain property. 1hc: thanges are aU on p;aper and none are on
ihe KfUund. causing environmt'ntaJ impacts. This does noc "eWIt: 11K.. City from doinG aD
!;IS. but ... bolanIially <Ullails abe .ld"" and ckpth of lhe n.quiml rJs. In Ibis portjcular
intt4nCC,lhc City went well beyond what is required by the law.
A non-projcc:l EfS is dixuS!Cd in WAC 197-11-4012.
(I) The lead agency shall h:avc more flexibility in prtpcuing EJS's on non-
projc:d. proposals. b:c.ause there is norm:tJly less cktajlcd infortrwion
available on their environmcnlal impacts and on any IUbscqUCDl project
proposals. The ms""y be: combined wilh 0Iha-planning docu"""",
(2) The &cad agency shall discuss imJ'IActs and .1Icmativcs in the level of
detail appropriate to the ICOpe of the non-project p:aposaJ and to the
level of planning for the proposal Alternatives should be emphasized.
In particular. agencies are cncounogcd to describe: the proposal in terms
of ahemalivc:meansofacc:omplishing.ll&ted objcdj\"e (sec WAC
197-11-000(3» .. Ahemal;"" includiog lhe proposed .. ion shoold be:
analyzed at • roughly co~ ; level of ddai1. aufT'lCm to cwluatc
their tofl1XU'l1iVC' nJU ita (this docs not rcquitr dC'yoting Ihe same
numbcrorpagcs in an £IS co eachaltcm.1li\'e).
(3) If the non-project proposal colJcems a spc:c:i6c ,cograpfUc:: aru.. aile
specifIC amlyses an: not required. but may be u.:luded fOr .areas of
specirlC concern. The: ElS should identify su~ Ktioos t.bzlt
'NOuld be undertaken by other Dacncies as a mull of the non·project
proposal, such as tnwporta1ion and utility systems.
(4) The E1S's discussion of alternatives for a comprehensive plan.
community PlAn. or other azuwide zoning or for shoreline or land. use
plans shall be limited to • eaxu1 dbcussion of the impKu ofakemate
proposals for politics contained in such plans.. for land use or $horelinc
designation!.. and for impkment.ation measures. The bd egcocy is not
required under SIiPA 10 examine aU concei\'ab$e policies., designations.
or ir:tpkmc:nlalion rneasurn but shou1d co .. -er a nnac of such 1Opics.
The EJS conlent may be limlled to a discussion of .hc:mt1i't'CS '¥IlUch
hIlve been formally propoxd or which ~ \Itotulc not formally
"oPO"-'Cl. fCA10nably related to the proposed .:lion. {Statutory
Authorily: RCW 4l_2IC.1 10. 84-Ol-020 (Order DE 83-39), § 197-11-
0142. filed 2110184 . dTC<li"" 4/41114 .)
·BRlEFOFRENTON kEOARDfNQ
APEQlJ.ACY OF EIS ......
. ,
-_ ...... _ ......... -------.. -.......-_ ..................... _--
I
l
idl:.nli~~ .$UbseqUCbl actions thai wouJd be UlIdt11aken ... n:sub or lhe non-.proj«t
1
, propospl, ~ as I ccocra[ dllcussion of impnnClnc:lIlJ to the t:uspMallnn and ulilit,.
5 J}"cm<. Thotls <1<XIly .. bot Iw bc<. don< in ,m. EIS.
6 O(OOutX. thl. does not mean that Lhen: will not he: further CUVUOfUllCnlAI fl'vkw.
T WAC 197·11-4U d.iIcus.sc:s EIS coDteNS when there wu. rrior ntm-pruj«1 HIS.
8
9
I~
\I
12
I)
It
15
16-
11
IS
(I) 1be provisions lOr p_ ,.VM:w (WAC 197·11-060('» tonoI .... or .. "'Ina
cnviroazneraal docwncnts. Part Six. appty 10 ElS'. on non-projttt JW:"IIalS.
(2) A ..... projod pro_I mo1 be appro"'" boxd 00 .. [IS .. ""' .. 1"1 it. brood
impet:ts. When' projcd b then proposed that iI oorui»cnf witlJ I~ -rprt)vN
noo-proje« .:fica. the EIS on suds • project sholll foau on the Intpl'Cla Md
allcmafivet inckld1na mitigation mct.'MU spetific to the IUt.oqUCn& project oM
not analyr.cd in the non-projcct £IS. The ICOpe shell be' limited flCCordioa,ty,
P1ucedwes lOr use of existing documents shall be wed 1l.'I appropriate. lM.'C Pare
Six.
(3) When p ..... ina • "",jed FJS ... '" ,he proccding ",b.cc1ion, ,he Icod .aency
wn review the non-projcct FlS to ensure \hat the analysis is \'Ilid wben applied
•• 'be curmtI proJlO'&l. knowledge. tonoI 'echnoiogy. Ir it is oa' valM!. tho
anaI)"!d shall be ..... Iyoo<l in tho project F.lS. [Stalut<Hy Authority: RCW
4J.2IC.IIO. l4-0s.o:!O (OnSet DE IJ·J9~ S 197·11-443. filed 2110114 •• rr«tive "'.liM.,
L..ctr propoxd ckvclopmeDls (project .:lions) will have: to comply with this
19 WAC JCCtioa and. if it is consistent wich the aptlf'Ovcd noD-project action. the sumequcnt
20 Cl!V'ironmtruI,eview would lOcus on tmpActs and alternatives mt pcc~11 analyzed \.1
2' the .... projec. EIS.
22 Pbe'MXI re\'iew is spceirally IUlhori:zl:d when going from. no~P:1 EIS to a
23 projod £IS. WAC 197.11-443(1) and WAC 197·II.()6()(SX'X~.
3. APPEll ... TE COURT DEOSIONS ON 1llE AOEQUACY OF AN EIS
Since 19341wel.." WtWiinaton Appeltaae dc:cisiom have addre$SC:d rus adequmcy.
21 Only -and ar;uabIy lOur •• rtho", dec;';" .. ha~ lOur.! the EIS ino&qua' •. One or
28
BlUff OF RENTON Rf"OAkllINll
AOEQt.IACY OF £IS Ptae·,
. ' . •
, .
• o
1
lhose d"d,lons, Kkwll CD"""",1on Group .. Otuk CDUIII)', 13 WI\. App. 133,920 P.2d
2
1207 (1996), was. chalk""" by the project prop<>l~" .fthe city councU'. decision !hal
3
4 the illS was inadequate. The ",uri fouod IlIoI the illS did not addn3s the """,if", i_
5 of truck trcJTlC on • nearby bicycle !rail and did not discuss the fc.uibilily of buildin&
6 direct aoc:etJ ramps to the project. The court, lhercfort, upheld tbe CounlY·s decision to
7 r«jUire. supplcmcnlol illS.
8 In the case .fW'j,"hovstr >. Pie,., CDUIII)'. 124 Wn.2d 26. 873 P.2d 491 (1994).
9 the court held an EIS inadequate. In Wtytrlltna(r. the EJS wu found InlWSc:qUlle for
10
failing to include analysis of any aJtc:mativc sites (or a popoxd solid waste iandfilL
1 1
12 In llarrl, Y. Kltsop C._Ny. 93 Wn.2d 143. 161. 613 P.2d 1148 (1910). an EIS
13 WB! found to be inadcquale bccaux the Counly did nol .uD'denliy diKuss aItcmeliYC
14 ahoppina cerJer sites and the ad'<'CIiC affccu on the city', dov..uown business district.
15 Interestingly. the COU)1 held lhIt. COnl.Ch\'OrInCOUSly (W'q)aI'Cd cit), ES 'AV adequate on
16 the question or impoct of. proposed shopping center on the ILeanenon ca'JlJal business
17
district. 'Jbe court fOund lbe tify"s EIS odcqUite when ic con"jntd liuJc more than A
18
1 9 SlIIemc:nt that the shopping c:eDlet could produce a d«:de of ceooomie ""pttion similar
20 10 tIlII1 ..... cd by the buiklina .rthe Taco"", MIJ~ bulllIoI B.a",n.n bod. _cd
21 pbnnina and renewal effort thai could eretUe the conditions that would imploYC' the
22 downtown business climate IItd tMl the future of the c:entrIIl business district is highly
23 dependant on what stores decide 10 mmin in lhe: cc:nual bJSlnesS district. The court hdd
24
25
26
27
28
that the city'. £IS was somewhat dcfK:ienl. but still adoqUlllC uodc:t the rule of n:aJOl1.
To the extern Borrk •• 1980 cue. could be held 10 requirto • JOCio-«onomic
DRlEFOF RENTON REOAJU)CNQ
ADEQUACY or-EIS Pqe. 6
.,
-........ -._ ..... y. ------.-_ .... _. --_._----
1 OMlysil. 'Ioc ",Ie was <bonpI in 191-1, .. "ben WAC 197·11-441(3). WAC 197·II~SO
...t WAC; 19~11·726wc, ... Iop'ed.
3
" 5 ltIIUIes .... ,.* it &h:J mt ha\'e a unifOrm meaning. WAC 197·11448(2)
6 Tho itw1h.,.. is SA,Y.E y, &110<11,19 w .. 2d 162,16S, S76 P.2d 401 (I971~
1 Tho< .... did no. clIPr~i117 _ £IS adcquaoy, The cas<: addr..oed _illl\. "1'0'
a ..una. IIftd \hit appearance or rune. doctrine. HoWC\a', sublcquem (t'lC'S., includinJ ,
OMlkort Y. ~ Cowto'. supra. t..-ve characteM:d the decision IS huvin& hcll11he
10
C'y', £15 imdcq..... bee,"" !be ElS tiUled '" oddn:ss !be ..... jurisdiclJonal
11
12 ClO~ofl P'OPl* Ihorpina cencu.
13 The<elb .... all 10 ... of the ..... 1hII havolocld on EIS 10 Ioc irwk<r.lo1e .... projoel
1_ E1S'slnd not DOn-project EIS's 5Ulth as is the ax III issue, and each E1S foWld 10 be
15 In .... , .... was IbUllil inad<quoIe boa" .. of!be fiUlure of the do<umenllO dis<uJs a
16 required c1c:mcnt.
E-...:a _ pasing mcntioa of. required eiemcilt has been held adeqwdc. lkrrlt v. IT
15
19 KfuQp CD""'l', ___ Similotly in OPAL Y. Adams CD"",>" 121 Wn.2d 869,91) P.2d
20 7'13 (1995). the eoun uphold the odcquoty of an EIS tor regional .. 1id WlUte I4ndfil~
21 aktIou&h lbe"E1S djd [mE dixuss ahc:rr.li,." sites a..s did nol pI"OVDe detailed analysis of
22 a,round watC't iuipdJ ber""C they ~ going lO be JUb,equm RqUircd rqulatory
23 OWl ..... InC/POW •. C/ly ofA-... 126 W.2d3S6.194 P,2d 1300 (I99S), the .. ,",
2' "fII>o1d!be odcquoty of an EIS again" dtllJeaset IhII ~ fiUled 10 in<lude......ab1e 01T·
25 siI • ...t 0IHiIe aIIcma1Wes ...t insulTi<ienlly aaa\yud ... IT", imporu. The <Owt noled
26
21 !hoi the« _ • dis<uooion oC Irafl'I< irnpa<Is ...t !hal an already bod 1rafI'", .0 ... 10.
28
,
, •
1 (1m:1 orlCn'ice f) would be mode WOrIC by tho tnoclt. The <ourl ..... nod lh:tl the IJIS
2
had disclosed. diJcu.sxd and substanciated the: environmenlaJ impacu and to wu
3
_ .dequalc under the rule: (If rcuon.
5 The eooclwion is thai the eowu have been lenient in dccidins the question of
6 ..:eq""", or In EIS and rurther Ita", bc:cn very pnclical in applying the ·coll
1 effectiveness" diKuS5Cd in Dorrlt ,supra at poee 2.
8 In the cue before the Hcarina Examiner, lhc.n is DO areI b:ing (:haJk~ lha1
9 bas not been e!Cltnsivc:1y doo,""" The: transpOrtalJm Kd.ion of tb: ElS is tbir1y..six
10
peaes kU'l8 and the Ic:c:.hnk:al appendix is lOO)'-IWO pages with Approximately lwenly-five 1 1
12 pages of attKhrntnts. Thc:sc two lCCtions diKuss such thinas as exislina condaions. trip
13 ,mention of rtidcw:lopmenl and infra5ltUctun: improvements ncccssaty to support
'" redevelopment. 1bc surface wtUer discUJ.1ion is included in the water IaOlI'CCS lOClion
15 of the ElS. VttUc.b is twettl)'-SCml pages IoDl suppomd by • technic:al apfK!ndix that is
16 twtnry«Vetl po.gcs lana with (our attadled "ligures and • walet qualUy technka.ll't'pOrt
11
that is fony-nlne ~ long. Thc:Ie sections, again, discuss such things as existing
18
conditions. the impacts ofredc\-elopmcnl and infn.structure illl:pio-.cmc:uu ncc-i',.'Y to 19
20 support redevelopment . The EIS has a 5Cdion on fish and wildlife habitat thD1 is ten
21 pages 10"8 and supported by a technical appendix lh:tl is t_y'seveo 1"&<> Ion&-These
22 loelloC! discnncd the ~ bodies of water, the species of ftsh in these ~ the
23 inUastruc:tW"e neccs»itated by each rede\'Clopmcnt altcma!i\'e and the iilliHovements to
Under any and all of the reported U5e dcc:isions conccming the adequacy of an
27 ruS. Renton', non-project EIS pcuxs with flying ~Jors. Thc:rc is abmJutc1y no c:ase
28
BRIEF OF RENTON REOAJU)[NO
ADEQUACY Of' EIS flac·.
• •
--_..-..,..-. . -~------_. -....... ~-............ _-
1
2
o
authority thai 11)(: c.xtensive analYlis prcpIU'C'd and · praenccd by the ElS does not
4. AREAS NOT REQUIRED TO ue ANALYZED
5 So the: record as complete. c.trUin issues ~ n.iscd in •• ixlYo()Re pa.g.e brief filed
6 by the appellant and 001 .fL! o'Cd on tbe City .\l1omey'. otr.c:t. Ora) objection wu made
1 to thoic itSHe. at • ~ coo(ucnu hekt JantW')' Il, 2004. The City argued and
a Oncine con..'"UITCd that the law IUpports eliminating cc:rtai.n iSlIues rai!cd by appellant.
9
10
11
The City orally cited relc\'IJ1t WAC sections which are docun.:oted~. WAC
191·11 ...... 8(2) sUled that ""The term socio..economic:" is flOC uxd in the statute or rules
12 b:cltdt the term ckmn'( ha-.,: • uni(onn rn=niMg and has caU!Cd a arcut deal of
13 WtCCilalnty. WA.C 197.11-448(1) Plea in relevant put ~IeJ o(WOrmation thai arc
111 not I'\'lquired to be d~sxd in an ElS en: "economic condition ... and lOCiBl policy
15
16
11
IS
_)'Sis (""h as r .... l.nd ""I,..,. polk ...... ). Similarly WAC 197-II-<110 SI .... tI" .. &
_ b""or" aMI)'S;' (WAC 197-11-726) is nol rcquicocl by SEPA"_
The Examiner bas .Itoady ruled by Order doled JIUIUalY 19. 200411a1 "10 called . -JOcio cc:ooomie issues, politic.l b.sua or proposed salutat)' ch.1nges to rtgUlatioM cannot 19
20 be nlitcd"". It would be appmprilue ror the Examiner to c:~ the legal b&sis for his order
CONCI,USIQN
This non-prujcc.! I~!i 1Ot'.1U ... ..tMIaalJy heyond IIny kgal requirements for an EIS.
Ie ruU)' dix:101CS. diJcUlIeJ anC-tubst .. mUstns (flvironmenlaJ impoc:tS. ChooSC3 four
altemmiYe scenarios inc.ludina malllmwn build oUI and analytt$lhe environmental 26
21
28
impact'I.IO that any PlO1IOW encornpa..ued within the four ahmwives will hove been
BRJEF OF RENTON REOARDtNO
ADEQUACY OF £IS Pa .. • 9 _.:.JnO __ .............. __ ... ........... _ .. _.
__ ..... to_ ........... _ .....
• •
I
2
l _
5
6
7
8
9
10
" 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2_
25
26
27
28
fuUyaool)'1.cd. AddilionoJ envirollltlC1UJ n:v!cw will be dooe lOr any projc<t popoood In
tlx: _ aoolynd in this E1S. Under tlx: rule: of,,,,,,,, .. this EIS is odcquate.
DATEDthis q"'d.yof ~ " '1 ,21XK .
R<."ectfully JUbmi<'rd,
WARREN, BARBER" FONTES, p.s.
Attorney tor Cit)' or Rtnton
TIO.39;46
BRJf2 Of RENTON ROOARl)INO
ADEQUACY OF as ,...10
&TnWlM'" ,,' I.AW ----......... "----_ ......... _ ... _. ----..... _ .. -
-
• • •
I
2
1 CJI.RTtflCATt: or SERVICE
, On f<bnwy 9. 200., I .. "sedco be _ "l"'n"' ..... lor .... td. at theaddn: ..
5 ISUl£cd hdow~ ria ml'thodortel'Yicc in&Jicl'cd.. true and correct copy or.he Dr~(or
6 R_ qardiua Jldcquacy .rElS.
1
a Mr. Ilnd Nicholoim
l300 NIl 2&4 sum
9 1I<0I0 .. WA 9I()$O
10
11 Mr. 00Im ScIIWor
, .. ,ei ... Co;' Lt)'
X V •• Q1&iI(p·.~irtteqiccom)
II Via U.s. MIi~ I' C1us, P_ Paid
I~ UOI Thlrd A ....... S""O 4100
SeulIo. WA 911101.)009 1]
14
.be Unj:cd SU<cs tIIoI the m.:~ ia.rue and c:omct.
16
17 DATED .. RmIoo. w ............ this 9" day .rFebntaly. 2004 .
13
19
2~
2'
22
23.
2'
2S
26
l7
as
If •
........ _"-'T . ___ _ -----' --_ ....... _-
•
• •
1
2
3
•
5
6
1
5
9
10
1 1
12
13
" 15
IN PROCEEDINGS liEf ORE TI m CITY or RENTON
IIEARlNG EXAMINER
IN R!; TilE nOIllNG
COMPREIIENSIVE PI.AN
AMENDM ENTS 200) -NICIIOI.SON
APIJI:AI.
NO.I.UA 02-141. ECF. CPA. It. ElS
DRIEF OF RENTON REGAJU)ING
AIJ EQUACY OF EIS
},ACTS
This appeal chllUc:nges the adequacy of an Enviror1l"llc:ntallmpact SlilcUiCi~ (mS
16 or fElS) concerning the rede\'ebpment of certain popc:t1.acs owned b)' the Boeina;
17 Company (llo<inG) and o'hen.
In 2001. Boeing informed the Cit), ofRenlO" (RC'1l1on) of its pbns to conso1idate
19 its Renton pbnt opc:ralions 10 the ara \o\-nt ofl.opn Avenue, in an effon commonl)'
20 knoV.1I as the "Move-to-thc--Lakc-. Mon ··to-the-Lakc intended. among other lhinp. to
21
22 rt\ease unuIilia"Ci land u surplus (Of C\'CnlUil s.a~ a.nd redcvdopmer.L 00 Dccctnbcr 16.
23 2002. Doring submitted an opplKut.ion 10 R(11lon (or arrcndmc:nt to the Comprt:hensn.~
2' .. &an designation appl;uble to the Renton plant site. JUnlon ckc1cd \0 designo.tc:. larger
25 area under a new Comprehensive Pian designation and combine the COlllinChenJi"c: Plan
26 appiicalion y .. ith amcndmc=nlJ propo!JCd by Rcntorl \0 the: mninG lext.l.Oning ma.p and
27
25
dc .. -ebpmcnl stantbrds applicabk 10 the Renton pwn sne. and other properties.
nRJEF OF RENTON REOAJU){NG
ADEQUACY OF EIS Part · t
-.
ORIGINAL
. , .
,
l
1
•
Ren!on. dww&h Q"'l)O'Diblo: """"" ofF;"" WId" SEPA. d<:c;dcd 10 coaduc.
mv~~. in th¢ 'ImIOfWlEISof(l)pottntialllkc:nativca ~
• ~bpmcnl 01,0 or .. portiooQltlhe Remon pwnc sue::wI ",her property and (b) .
5 n:lIh.~ puhijc inftoaslnL,urc.. A draft £IS (I)ElS) W4JI ~~ on July 9. 2003, T'he final
6 as (FFJS) was iuuod 00 ~ 21. 2003.
1 Bead Nichohon limely Illcd to ~I to the adequacy O(Iha! flS. UPQn IhJtion
• by Rc:ntcn.tbc EumiDct. by unkf~td Jtwwy 19. 2004.limikd the is~ on AppelL
9
10
akm.ai~ \4"hkh cneompass a ~ pok"nl'=al rADze of ~Iopmcnl up 10 including the
11
12 rmu dCtQIC dcwlopmcns tfw Q.lUld be anlicipetN fot the pt'Cpa'ty. Despilc that I!:\'el of
.] analysis, c:nvitonuW::iI.al ~icw win be ptrlOrtrEd on QCh l'fOjccr ~ on the
'" Bocin;,pt0PCiIY al'd other CllvtmJ propmid.
,5
16
,1
'S
I.
ABr;!IMENI
STANDARD OP REVn;W
The: adeqww:y dan 1:1S is .. q~ion of law. BatT;, v. Kllsap Count)' 93 Wn.2d
" 143.61) P.2d 114. (1980~
20
2,
22
23
2_
25
26
21
2S
EIS ~y rden to the kiP'1 suffldcncy of the enviroMltnt31
dina co~ in the imr;K"1 stntclliCe4. R. SdIJt-. TM H'a.fhi"gwn S,dle
EmirolSll"UdaJ PoIJ,y Act: A Isga/llnd roliq .4lftJ!pu § 14{IXi) (4· oj.
1993), The~)' oran EIS is tested un<kr the "'rult: oft'CllllOn". SE'.APC
v._ C ... _l 1/ (1N:1tonb. 49 Wash. API" 60'1. 614-15. 744 P.2d , 101
(1987); i..iw.ttq" AIoWIIIGke rm"uct,11 WL~h. 2d 338. 3044 45, .s.s2 P.2d
114 (1976). !o onkr run. EIS 10 be odcquate WIder this rult. the El> "'""
PlC5C.. dcrilionrtlO'lkcrs with a ""tcuonabfy thoroueh di:Jcussion of the
Jia"iran! ~s of lhI: probab$e ctlvin:J.arnl:nlal comcqucnces" or the
aamq's dctistoTL CAnwy. 11 Wuh. 2d at 34445 (qooting TMUI
UnliMfuJ P. Men .... 509 F.2d 1276. 1283 (9" Cir. 1974». The rule of
ttison is '"in 1atvc pert • broad, o.:xibk C'01t~trectiycneg darwt.vd", in
wtUcb the Uquat)' or an EIS is be. determined "on III ~-by-ca5e besi,
BRIEF OIF R.EH'TOfoi R£GARDfNO
ADEOttACY oFEL'i. pȴ-1 _ .... ""'_ .... , ... -~--...... -. ... --_ .. --'-I ..................... _
1
2
3
lUidc:d t1' .U of the' policy a&nd fadUit c:o~ I'U!iOfliIbay ftlated w
SErA',.., .. d .... i ... •. R. s.ulc II~.X;), II 156, ISS.
In applyma l.~ ruk u( rcasun., the coW1 k 10 ii.-c subslal1lia! lIt1:isfll to lbt
~ dct,"""",,ions made by.he '''f'OIl''ihk public offoci<!. RCW O.2ICJl9O. WAC 197·11-
5 680(jXh)' Remon Municipal Code 4-8·IIOE7.L
6
1
A rcccnl casc W disI:wis the: Nk oftcason iJ '11tINtun Crul/.LgpJ Fimd ... MDllk.
8 113 WI\. App. )4, 57·58. 52 P.2d 5ll (2002). In that "",",.he 00101 ..... """'icIcris!a
9 whdJrr or not ITt existing ,;IS necdo-d to be JUPPL:Uk!llLcd or, p-ed aMCber way.
10 \\b:thcr or not the n.istlna; as YIo1L"l Ddequor.tc. lh1t is the CXIC1 qucstioi:l befOre-the
11 Eu.mi.nct. Thorton Cn:dc dd.mnined thai the qur:slion or adcqa:.cy of lbe: flS WB:I
12 subject to tilt "deatly ttmnc:ous" ItAndard <if revsew,
13
n
'15
16
11
18
"An aI.'1ion fa clcarly CliOOCOUS ""ten, alaoough there is r:vidcnce t.o
support it. dv: n:viewing body, on the cntn nidcnce. is Jeft with Ik
definite ahd Jjrm conYicticn that a mistake ha!. been commiucd.. Anchew
,', Duly, 77 Wo, 2d 255, 259 (1969).'
REQUIRED scorE OF n IE EIS
19 c:miroRrnl:ftlalcrTcc;tso(thc:pmposd CtJlhcurt .. .JuI .. , Sr.nhomJdICmmiytlDl. 96
,
20 Wn.2d 201. 209, 6)4 P.ld III (1981), In CM"'Y ". Clfy of M_Wk TcmIC{. 17
21 Wn.2d 338. '52 P.2d 1&4 (1976), the court )1Ia1ed tbM SEPA docs not require IhIt C'\tt}"
22 mnotc and spcaIlath-c comeque:ntcS of an ac:zion he mcludcd. The: ooun heid that an
23
2~
25
26
21
28
ElS for an urban arterial project \lollS not required (0 ~ lhe emironmentaJ impiIcts of
An on-8t:.Jin or ofT'llgain rondominium dcvdopmcnral proposal on a pa::ccl or land
abut(ma • rroJ1O'Cd arterial. 1'he court detmntoed th3t the condominium pr"Ojc:d ".., too
... emote" a.rd 'oVa5 not t"8sut1l1y rcl:a1cd 10 the prop:l being tc\iewcd.
BRie" Of RI:."NTON RWARDING
ADf.QUACYOF EIS Pap.)
• •
---.,.. .. -.-... ----_ .. _---..... --.._---